This is okay but cartoons are not?

[a_majoor]

That being said, there are plenty of unflattering representations of Jesus made, but not generally by Muslims as they revere him as a prophet. All the "insulting" representations of Jesus I've seen have been made by Westerners.

The reason we can see "unflattering" portraits of Jesus (or Budda or other religious figures) in the Western media is that few (if any) Christians or Buddists threaten death or bodily violence against the "artists" involved. Google something called "Piss Christ" if you want to see where I am coming from; the "artist" received tax dollars for his charming portrait, not a public beheading broadcast on Al Jazeera and the Internet....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Oh gee, I must have missed the film about the "artist" :-[ being beheaded............ :

Listening to CBC on the way home tonight....about 200 Muslims killed by Christian gangs in Nigeria today......nooooo, that couldn't happen, could it?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Christianity has all that pesky "turn the other cheek" forgiveness stuff.  That's why the first world countries are invariably suckers and put up with all kinds of crap.  I like the old testament "eye for an eye" parts.  That's why no one screws with Israel.  You know you will get pay back in spades.  Over here, we consume feces and say "yum, more please".  We are suckers.  Even worse, when someone gets sick of the flavor of digested corn and peanuts and speaks out, the special interest groups (generally the ones who are spooning out the feces) scream and wail about social injustice and racism and intolerance and other such crap.  Even worse still, the other countries/religious factions KNOW us to be suckers, and play us like the fish that we are. 

Its time to become remorseless. :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Trinity]

Sure Christianity says forgive....


No one is saying FORGET!

It doesn't mean we have to roll over and play dead everytime
someone asks us to.  Take advantage of me one time, and I'll
forgive you.. but I'll NEVER trust you again.

Thats one point that is often misconstrued.

 

[Glorified Ape]

The reason we can see "unflattering" portraits of Jesus (or Budda or other religious figures) in the Western media is that few (if any) Christians or Buddists threaten death or bodily violence against the "artists" involved. Google something called "Piss Christ" if you want to see where I am coming from; the "artist" received tax dollars for his charming portrait, not a public beheading broadcast on Al Jazeera and the Internet....

Indeed, I was just about to post that in response to Michael Dorosh's post. My sister went to see it while she was off travelling. If we were as religious a society as many Muslim countries, I wouldn't be surprised if we had the same reaction. During our own fundamentalist periods, we've done far far worse. That's not to excuse anyone, but everything needs its context.

Oh gee, I must have missed the film about the "artist"  being beheaded............

Listening to CBC on the way home tonight....about 200 Muslims killed by Christian gangs in Nigeria today......nooooo, that couldn't happen, could it?

Good point - people also might be interested in googling "Lebanese Phalangist Militia".

 

[ZipperHead]

Piper, if you want to believe that the "Rebel Flag", also known as the "Confederate Battle Flag" has nothing to do with racism, that is your prerogative, I suppose. Here is a link for those that share that opinion: http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/confederate_flag.htm. Here is a link for those that don't share your opinion: http://www.caar.net/confederateflagisracist.html. No doubt the truth is somewhere in between.

BTW, saying that a Jewish friend wears a Lynyrd Skynrd shirt with a rebel flag on it is not really proof that it isn't a racist symbol. If your friend were black, perhaps. If a black friend of yours wears a shirt with a swastika on it, does that make neither racist? Unless you are pointing out that because somebody is in a group that has been targetted by racists, they can do as they please (wearing symbols of racism or hatred towards another group).

Anyway, believe what you want, and try to explain it however you want to. Fly the flag proudly if you wish. Just don't expect to make a lot of friends from any of the groups that may take offense. Nor people who are sympathetic to their plight.

Al

 

[Scott]

It's a symbol of independance and individuality for alot of people. It has, however, been interpreted as 'racist' by misinformed people.

Are you serious? You're saying that it has been misinterpreted? Misinformed? ROFL!!

Snap on the TV, pick up a book, anytime you see an article or show about these racist groups they are using that flag as a symbol of hate and oppression. Still misinterpreted? Still misinformed? Come on.

I don't doubt that it is a symbol of individuality and independence for some. But it is a symbol of hatred for others. Do some reading.

 

[Scott]

Scott, calm yourself down. A symbol is a symbol, I can interpret many things many ways. For example, to me, the gay pride flag celebrates sodomy (something I dislike). But to others, it is a symbol of their chosen lifestyle. Is the star and crescent a symbol of murder and hatred because it is used by radical muslim groups while 'normal' muslims use it as a symbol of their faith? Same goes for nordic symbols that have been adopted by white power groups, are they racist because some choose to interpret them as such?

I am perfectly calm, never was I not. I never said that I disagreed with anyone who likes the flag whatsoever. I was merely drawing attention to your statement that people who think it is a racist symbol are misinformed - sorry, I feel that your comment came from being misinformed.

I'm well read, thanks. And I know that some interpret the rebel flag as being purely racist. I don't, and I couldn't care less if they disagreed with me. I'm free to own whatever flag I wish. I'm not a neo-nazi or a member of the KKK. 

And I never suggested anything of the sort. I don't care which flag you fly, the flag itself does not offend me but I would not choose to fly one, my reasons are my own, as are yours. Again, I was simply pointing out the error in your statement.

It has, however, been interpreted as 'racist' by misinformed people.

That statement is misinformed, and that is what I was pointing out.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's a symbol of independance and individuality for alot of people. It has, however, been interpreted as 'racist' by misinformed people.

It may have been at one time, but the meaning of a flag or symbol can change over time, and mean different things to different people at the same time. Not many would consider the swastika a good luck symbol any more.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Seen, misinformed was probably the wrong word.

I collect the flags, the only one I fly is the Canadian flag (well, and the Red Ensign when I'm in one of those moods), I just take issue when people get up in arms about the rebel flag being a racist symbol when in fact that is not the meaning behind it (unless you are a member of the KKK, etc). 

We have a southerner on another board I frequent, and he would agree with you.  I have a hard time getting past the fact that the South went to war to defend the institution of slavery.  I mean, they went on about states' rights and the debate is long and complicated, but its hard to see it as anything but that now 140 years after the fact.  As pointed out, the swastika is similarly tainted.

It's just the same as with the cartoons - if it is widely seen as offensive, doesn't common sense dictate that you shouldn't display it?

Incidentally, the flag on the General Lee was not a national flag but one used by the military.  It did make up a quadrant of later national flags, but the flag itself was simply a "battle flag" and not on its own an official national symbol of the Confederacy.  And to be perfectly arcane, the rectangular version of the flag as shown on the General was a naval jack; the battle flag used by Army units was square.

 

[GO!!!]

Someone with more TI can correct me, but was the "stars and bars" not the 2 Cdo. camp flag back in the day?

 

[a_majoor]

It's just the same as with the cartoons - if it is widely seen as offensive, doesn't common sense dictate that you shouldn't display it?

The argument isn't should you display it, but should other people use the threat of force to prevent you from displaying it? There is a very quantifiable difference between someone coming to my door and asking why I put up a Red Ensign and someone throwing a molotov cocktail at my house because I fly one. (BTW, I only fly the Red Ensign on July 1, and invite others to do the same).

[

Incidentally, the flag on the General Lee was not a national flag but one used by the military.  It did make up a quadrant of later national flags, but the flag itself was simply a "battle flag" and not on its own an official national symbol of the Confederacy.  And to be perfectly arcane, the rectangular version of the flag as shown on the General was a naval jack; the battle flag used by Army units was square.

So the Duke boys should really have been driving a speedboat?  ;D ;D ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The argument isn't should you display it, but should other people use the threat of force to prevent you from displaying it? There is a very quantifiable difference between someone coming to my door and asking why I put up a Red Ensign and someone throwing a molotov cocktail at my house because I fly one. (BTW, I only fly the Red Ensign on July 1, and invite others to do the same).

[
So the Duke boys should really have been driving a speedboat?  ;D ;D ;D

If a Japanese Canadian came up to you and said that they flew the red ensign over the concentration camp he was kept in out in BC and could you please take it down from a pole in your front yard, do you think he would have a valid "right" to be offended?  And to be upset when you proudly displayed it even after he politely asked you to take it down?  Just curious.

As for July 1st, it's Canada Day now - I could see flying the Red Ensign on June 6th or even April 9th if it was the pre-1921 version.  I was born under the red and white maple leaf flag; God willing I'll die under one too.  I'm all for respecting the past; idealizing it and sugarcoating it has always seemed absurd to me.

 

[GO!!!]

If a Japanese Canadian came up to you and said that they flew the red ensign over the concentration camp he was kept in out in BC and could you please take it down from a pole in your front yard, do you think he would have a valid "right" to be offended?  And to be upset when you proudly displayed it even after he politely asked you to take it down?

How about the Canadian survivors from the fall of Hong Kong? Do they have a "right" to be offended by a Japanese flag? I would submit that they have suffered more than any Japanese in Canada during the same time period.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

How about the Canadian survivors from the fall of Hong Kong? Do they have a "right" to be offended by a Japanese flag? I would submit that they have suffered more than any Japanese in Canada during the same time period.

We could go back and forth on this all night.  I'd like to hear Arthur's response to the question I posed above.

If it was a Japanese rising sun battle flag, I'd say your Hong Kong survivor would be at liberty to be uncomfortable around it, but you don't specify a situation; the "meatball" flag is still the national flag of Japan - the swastika flag, Reichkriegsflagge, Southern Cross and Red Ensign are no longer national symbols so the situation is different, no?

 

[GO!!!]

If it was a Japanese rising sun battle flag, I'd say your Hong Kong survivor would be at liberty to be uncomfortable around it, but you don't specify a situation; the "meatball" flag is still the national flag of Japan - the swastika flag, Reichkriegsflagge, Southern Cross and Red Ensign are no longer national symbols so the situation is different, no?

Since there was never an official apology for the atrocities committed against Allied prisoners, and the "meatball" is a direct derivative of the rising sun flag - I would argue that it is no different at all. Better still, I'll ask at the Kipnes centre!

Agreed though, this will go in circles.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Since there was never an official apology for the atrocities committed against Allied prisoners, and the "meatball" is a direct derivative of the rising sun flag - I would argue that it is no different at all. Better still, I'll ask at the Kipnes centre!

Agreed though, this will go in circles.

Again, it comes down to circumstance.  If my grandpa is a HK vet and we're driving past the Japanese embassy, should he go running inside and demanding they take it down?  I'd say no.

If we were standing at the National Cenotaph on December 7th at a national ceremony commemorating HK prisoners and the start of the war in the Pacific, I'd say the appearance of the Japanese flag would be disrespectful; even if one tried to argue that Japan too suffered during the war, that would be no place for a public demonstration.  They'd be free to hold their own national ceremony, if they thought anyone would overlook the atrocities they commited in China and on US, British and Canadian prisoners of war almost as a matter of policy.

If my grandpa's neighbour was a proud Japanese immigrant who wanted to fly the Japanese flag over his home, tough call.  I'd say it was a matter of personal freedom - that free speech we keep talking about  - and grandpa might be out of luck.  I'd feel differently if it was a confederate flag or a swastika though I am hard pressed to say why.  I don't think the situations are equal on a gut level; I am sure many would disagree with that.

I think red and white flag differs in that Canada stands for different things.  Would a Somali ever feel offended by the sight of the maple leaf flag?  What if he was related to Shidane Arone?  I think the "tainting" of the swastika and confederate flags run a lot deeper, and that they are associated with acts of national policy - slavery, anti-Semitism.  I would argue we have nothing like that associated with the maple leaf.

(Edited a homonym)

 

[a_majoor]

If a Japanese Canadian came up to you and said that they flew the red ensign over the concentration camp he was kept in out in BC and could you please take it down from a pole in your front yard, do you think he would have a valid "right" to be offended?  And to be upset when you proudly displayed it even after he politely asked you to take it down?  Just curious.

In the sense that we would be having a discussion, and I would have the ability to explain the flag represents ALL the history of Canada (good and bad), I would hope that he would also see and respect my point of view as well. The trump card is I fly it on MY property, and if our hypothetical Japanese person wants to fly the Hi-no-maru on HIS property, there is really nothing I should do about that. If the hypothetical person wants to use force or threats to remove the flag, that is different. (you made the post about flying a Swastika after I wrote this, I certainly would want to talk to the person involved, and restrict my contacts thereafter, but no, I would not use force to remove his flag).

As for July 1st, it's Canada Day now - I could see flying the Red Ensign on June 6th or even April 9th if it was the pre-1921 version.  I was born under the red and white maple leaf flag; God willing I'll die under one too.  I'm all for respecting the past; idealizing it and sugarcoating it has always seemed absurd to me.

I wear the Maple Leaf on my uniform day in and out, but I also have a healthy respect for all the people who carved a Western nation out of a hostile wilderness. Idealizing and sugarcoating the past, like Trudeaopia? I don't think so, just reminding people there was a past, and if they are disconnected from it, they may find the consequences uncomfortable. How many people, after all, don't even have a sense of "Canada" or what being a"Canadian" is (except to fall back on formulatic decriptors like "not an American")?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Good points.

 

[ZipperHead]

I will relate a story that involves me, me wearing a t-shirt, and a very offended elderly gentleman: I was in my teens, and I decided I would be clever and wear a "Hitler European Tour 1939-1945". On the back it had the dates he invaded the different countries, and then "Cancelled" beside Russia and England (here is the link for the Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Chic). I would like to point out I am not, nor was I, a neo-Nazi. I just thought it was clever, and symbolized more of a salute to the Allied victory over facism. But I digress.

Anyway, an elderly man, with his wife, approached me and let loose with a huge blast. The gist was that he was quite upset that anybody would be so rude as to wear a shirt that glorifies Hitler, facism, oppresion, hatred. He asked if I was "one of those Nazi boys". He was quite upset, and it took his wife a lot to calm him down. At the time, I thought that he was a little "out of 'er", but I understand now that he was either a WWII vet, or knew of many people who fought against the Axis. And I now understand his anger. To trivialize the suffering and pain of a whole generation in an attempt to be trendy or clever isn't really "on". I still think the shirt was OK (in that it wasn't an effort to be antagonistic or confrontational towards people, but more of a parody of Hitler's lust for power), but I can definitely see it from the point of view of the gentleman, and anyone else who might be offended. Face it: many teenagers (and older people) enjoy shocking people, and don't understand (at the same level as more mature people) what the big deal is when people get justifiably upset over their actions.

Anyway, I think that there have to be some limits to what constitutes freedom of speech and expression. How is this defined, and who does the defining? 'Society' is the short answer, and 'law-makers' is the longer answer. What's the definitive answer? There isn't one, I think, and 'round and 'round it will go.

Al