Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified
Debate Rounds (4)
London, Great Britain
My first point is the idea of Muslims feeling as if they deserve some kind of special treatment when it comes to satire. Turn on the television on any given day and it will be filled with shows that are poking fun at politicians, celebrities and religions. Is everyone who receives a little insult allowed to riot? How come Christians for example don't feel the need to riot on the streets over a cartoon Jesus? Yet Muslims will outrage over a cartoon Muhammad all the way from protesting to rioting. What I want to know is what gives them the right to cause such outrage over petty satire whereas other religions can just take it on the chin. Why should they deserve special treatment over everyone else? We are all made fun of at some stage and it's something we just have to accept. There is a right to free speech, which therefore includes satire, however there is no special right that allows Muslims not to get their feelings hurt, unlike the rest of us.
I look forward to your response.
If you draw a picture in a newspaper depicting the Muslim Prophet, you insult 1.2billion Muslims across the globe; what else do you suppose you gain? Your newspaper might get banned, you may lose readers and you really just miss out overall. The only thing you've 'succeeded' to do it to offend Islam.
If there were a sexist or homophobic cartoon in a newspaper, they would be sued, it would be taken down immediately and there would be a ton of 'inquiries'. Simply because it is a religion or a different type of culture does not make it okay.
You say we need to learn to accept that we will get offended. But I think, really, we need to learn to accept others, and to accept that making others take offence is not okay.
You say that Muslims take offence easily to images related to their religion because their prophet and God should not be made into icons, however the very same happens to other religions. It is not just Muslims that are isolated out and solely made fun of. It happens to all leading religions, celebrities, politics etc. How is a cartoon Muhammad more offensive than a cartoon Jesus? The answer is it isn't. Both religions have similar principles and faith so why should one feel the need to cause such strong outrage over the other. Why can't Muslims, like Christians or Jews just know themselves that satire is satire and just shrug it off. After all you would think that because their faith is strong, they wouldn't care what anyone else thought. I get offended by all sorts of things but I don't feel the need to riot on the streets over it. Such reckless behaviour puts other people's lives in harm's way and how can you say that such strong outrage over petty, insignificant jokes which we all receive can be justified, especially when people are at risk.
You say that in the Western world we ignore the feelings and culture of others so we will provoke Muslims with the intention of insulting their religion. Again you make it seem as if Muslims are solely picked upon. Such jokes are delivered towards hundreds of denominations of people from religions to politicians to celebrities to teenagers to old people etc. Satirical jokes will always exist in the world and every type of person will receive them. It's just that most groups are good sports about it. You say that you support the right to freedom of religion, as do I, however the right to freedom of religion means that anyone can manifest religion in teaching, practice, worship etc. Nowhere does it say that a religion has the right to cause strong outrage and rioting when they get their feelings hurt. I also support the right to free speech which principles allows such satire to exist.
"If you draw a picture in a newspaper depicting the Muslim Prophet, you insult 1.2billion Muslims across the globe; what else do you suppose you gain? Your newspaper might get banned, you may lose readers and you really just miss out overall. The only thing you've 'succeeded' to do is to offend Islam."
Interesting point as this would indeed undoubtedly happen. However the fact that this would happen is an absolute joke. The only reason that people would ban a newspaper over this is if they were scared. The head of the newspaper organization or whoever, most likely wouldn't find the image offensive at all or see a problem with it (supposing he wasn't Muslim). Yet he would ban it because his reputation would be on the line. When people go about banning a certain thing for offensive reasons it's most likely because they are running scared, rather than agreeing with the accusations. This shows a great dishonestly so in retrospect Muslims aren't really achieving anything either are they? Sure it won't be written in black or white anymore but if it hasn't changed people's minds then where's the success from all the rioting?
"If there were a sexist or homophobic cartoon in a newspaper, they would be sued, it would be taken down immediately and there would be a ton of 'inquiries'." On the contrary if there was a cartoon making fun of heterosexuals then nobody would bat an eye. It just shows that people favour the minority and condemn the majority. Likewise if Muslims attacked back through jokes on the Western world, nobody would riot on the streets over it. So where is the line drawn?
Also in your last statement you make it seem that Muslims are not accepted. I poke fun at my friends but does that mean that I don't accept them? It's not as if only people that aren't accepted are made fun of. Everyone makes fun of everyone in the modern culture and there's a fine line between petty jokes and bullying. Muslims are not a special rag doll to the Western world nor should they be a special immunity, unlike the rest of us.
"How is a cartoon Muhammad more offensive than a cartoon Jesus?" Because the Qur'an specifically tells people NOT to draw pictures of Muhammad or God. The Bible has less strict rules on this, even some Christian churches have Jesus in their stained glass windows. It's about the different rules of the two religions.
"Both religions have similar principles and faith" Okay. NO. UK: gay marriage coming 2014. Saudi Arabia: off with the gays' heads. UK: women run into the sea NAKED to raise awareness for breast cancer. SA: women under thick black cloak and cannot be treated by male doctors EVER.
The UK has been influence by Christianity and Saudi Arabia by Islam. The principles are not similar, they are entirely different.
"Such reckless behaviour puts other people's lives in harm's way" The only danger they pose it to themselves, they want to do that to themselves, by all means allow them.
I understand Muslims are not solely picked on, and I never said that. You really need to focus on what I am saying and not bring up the excuse: "you make it sound like..." No. I understand that other minorities are regularly picked on, including homosexuals, Jews and others. But Muslims, in the Western world, are picked on more than Christians, especially in newspapers. This is due to their radical beliefs, which I personally don't agree with either. Islam is not a friendly religion, I hate to say it. Islam is not nice, it isn't pretty; but our picking on them constantly really does justify their outrage.
We aren't just 'poking jokes' at them, we are really having a go at them. And yes, I do "make it seem" as though they aren't accepted because most of the time they really aren't accepted into our society.
Anyway onto your points.
I have little knowledge of the Qur'an however I'll take your word that the Qur'an tells people not to draw pictures of Muhammad and God but this does not justify anything. I don't think the Qur'an says that if people do in fact draw pictures of Muhammad or God then you have the right to riot over it. The strong outrage is all down to Muslims themselves. It is nothing to do with their religious teachings or scriptures. Therefore the Qur'an has nothing to do with how Muslims react to such pictures so it can not be a means of justification. The strong outrage is all man-made. Likewise with Christians, the Bible has nothing to do with how they react to satire yet they can remarkably take it well. Therefore religious scripts have nothing to do with religions reactions over satire.
Let me re-address my statement about similar principles and faith, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant similar principles of faith. For example, both Christians and Muslims believe in a God and a prophet, they both share the twin commandments of the importance of loving God and loving one's neighbor, sacred text etc.
In relation to the actual rioting itself, you say "The only danger they pose is to themselves, they want to do that to themselves, by all means allow them." I don't understand, are you saying that innocent bystanders, people in nearby buildings or even police trying to contain it are not in danger of being harmed?
"Muslims are picked on more than Christians". I'm sorry but I feel this is a weak attempt for justification. To say that it's okay because we pick on them more. This is childish babble. Do you think that a denomination of people who hate the west, don't respect woman, can't take a joke and cause deaths because of it, condone violence, have a death sentence for apostasy etc are not subjected to a petty satirical joke? They are practically asking for it. Mormons are made fun of despite their peaceful ways so why can't Muslims be made fun of despite their violent and immoral ways? I think the whole thing is childish, babyish conduct that people from the West are running scared from, not because they are afraid of hurting feelings but because they are afraid of retaliation and intimidation.
You are right Islam is not a nice, friendly or pretty religion and the fact that they have such strong outrage over babyish, silly, comedic jokes merely proves this. In light of my points I cannot see how such behaviour can be justified.
Thank you for your points and it was a pleasure debating, I wish you luck.
The Qur'an says you should take action against thing against the religion of Islam. This is why homosexuals are beheaded, adulterers beheaded and the others in Saudi Arabia and other strict islamic states. You say the strong outrage is due to muslims themselves. This isn't true, I have two little sisters (they're twins, by the way), when we were younger, we would obviously argue and bicker; if they constantly annoyed me (which wasn't hard for them to do), would it really be due to me that I got angry and annoyed? No. It was their fault too. You can't blame Muslims for reacting to offence.
You say 'Christians...can remarkably take it well.' This, too, is false. (Another life story YAY!) Growing up in the South East of England, one gets used to Conservatives and religious people, more so than further into London. I have come across a few Christians in my life, no matter how much I help it, I cannot stop getting into arguments with them.
One insulted my strong left wing social views (even though all my others views are right wing), particularly on abortion and gay marriage; I then said: 'I don't insult your beliefs even though you believe in an invisible hippie in the frickin sky!' ...she reacted VERY badly, and left with tears in her eyes (she was a b***h anyway). Another gave me a Christian lecture when I read out a fact saying: 'the first water came from ice in space'. Christians do not take offence or satire well, at all, they take it very badly.
You said: 'In relation to the actual rioting itself, you say "The only danger they pose is to themselves, they want to do that to themselves, by all means allow them." I don't understand, are you saying that innocent bystanders, people in nearby buildings or even police trying to contain it are not in danger of being harmed?'
Yes, my friend, I do believe this.
'Childish babble' This is the ad hominem fallacy. You insult me when I make an argument rather than the argument itself. If anything is childish babble it's the ad hominem fallacy.
I have no need to wish you luck! I have enjoyed debating and I have certainly been challenged by many of the arguments you have put forward. Thank you for an interesting, original motion to debate today!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: They Both have good enough Conduct, and good S&G. As for Argument, Con aimed to show that they were justified and hurting people because they were overly sensitive... Pro showed this point. Pro explained well how being a baby doesn't justify being a baby. All and all, what I found from this debate was that being a baby only justifies growing up. No one used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.