&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/prophet-mohammed-cartoonist-vilks/&via=1.1 8.27.235.19:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“To offend religion is possible in a democratic society”
Published: 24 May, 2010, 10:18
Edited: 27 May, 2010, 02:32
TAGS: Religion, Scandal, Europe
Why there should be an exception for just one religion, Islam, not to create cartoons about it when all the other major religions accept this, is the problem bothering Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks.
In 2007, Lars Vilks drew a cartoon with a head of Prophet Mohammed on a body of a dog. Now he is facing death threats from Muslim extremists for his controversial images and has had to live in a secret hideout ever since. He made a rare exception in allowing RT to visit.
Lars Vilks was accused of doing “only things against Muslims”, but he said that he is “open to all sorts of taboos.”
“You have to have a line where things are stupid,” believes Lars Vilks. “Almost every Muslim I was discussing it with was comparing these drawings with the Holocaust. ‘If you make an offence of the prophet – why don’t you make an offence to the Holocaust,’” remembers Vilks.
“We have to make this very clear, that in the West we make a difference from symbolic statements, from religion and the things going on in the real life. What you believe [in] is private, what actually happens in the world is reality,” outlines the cartoonist.
Lars Vilks denies the idea of “multi-culture” as an accidental idea, because it is not clear who should represent a multicultural state or society.
“Contemporary art is about the social issues and social critic, it is totally dominating, but it does not lead the art-world,” believes the artist.
Lars Vilks says he regrets nothing because “It is a part of my life and my experience. People are too afraid. The risk is not that high.”
24.05.2010, 09:40
1 comment
Conference for Russian-language media kicks off in IsraelPreserving the Russian culture and language abroad is the focus of an international conference for Russian-language media outlets, which is taking place in Israel. |
24.05.2010, 10:29
Moscow–Tbilisi flight connections renewedThe first direct passenger flight between Moscow and Tbilisi in more than a month is set to take off. |
In answer to armen08: there are those , and I am one of them, who are offended by the way that 'the prophet of a different religion' took the teachings of two other religions, Judaism and Christianity, turned them on their heads and then further twisted them to suit his own desire for absolute power. I am further offended by the way that he took another people's history, distorted it, and grafted his people into it, in order to be able to make some claim to a heritage that was not his. How can you defame someone who is himself guilty of defaming the traditions, teachings, and history of others? And the people who don't like Christmas are opposed to religion and displays of religion. What hypocrisy is there in them not caring if someone draws offensive cartoons of a wanna-be prophet? It would be hypocrisy if they DID care. To them Mohamed just represents more of the lies and ignorance that they already hate. If you don't like the secular principle of the west, don't live here.
armen08, Although I can only assume as to what you are referring, so feel free to correct me, I do not think that the general complaints against Christmas in the West (specifically the U.S. as that is what I am familiar with) has anything to do with being offended by individuals choosing to celebrate the holiday. In the United States we have what is referred to as the establishment clause in the Constitution which, as stated by its drafter (Thomas Jefferson) erects a "wall of separation" between the church and state. In the United States Christmas is a national holiday and some believe this to be a violation of the establishment clause. However, the Supreme Court of the U.S. found it not to be such a violation of the Constitution as, in their view, Christmas has become so secularized as to have lost its primarily religious connotation. As such I do not think it is accurate to suggest that people are offended by the celebration of Christmas, although you may be referring to some group of people I am not aware of. In reference to your second sentence, there may indeed be people who are bigoted against Islam and find nothing wrong with insulting that religion or its prophet. It is not, however, the view of the majority that there is nothing wrong with insulting another's religion needlessly. What they are responding to is the use of threats of violence or other coercion to stifle freedom of speech, which as I mentioned above to Bianca, is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Much of the conflict between Islam and "western culture" stems from the fact that most of us value freedom of speech over just about all else, whereas many (or at least some) Muslims not only take offense to that freedom of speech but react to it in such a way as to try to undermine other's rights to speak. You can be just as offended as you please, but you cannot force the silence of those who offend you.
One sentence from me, and religious (or is it political) hatred pours out the mouth of Mbach's who may not even know what Western cultural tradition is. I really disdain people who bring on the topic of religion instead of hitting the nail right on the head. As far as I am concerned, all revelation religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are based on fairy tales and I only have pity on those who think they possess the right religion. So, whether the head is up or down in a fairly tale has absolutely no relevance to our discussion. However, more important and crucial to all discussions is the concept of the freedom of speech, which certain people claim to exist in the West. As I look around the media, freedom of speech is nowhere to be seen. We are living in the age of controlled information manipulated by the powers to be. How can any single person claim to enjoy freedom of speech in such an oppressive environment?