Muhammad caricatures
Studijuodama Torūnėje turėjau kursą Contemporary Issues in Journalism. Turėjo labai gerą dėstytoją, kuris tikrai išmanė savo dalyką, žinojo, kaip bendrauti su auditorija, dėstė ne sausai, sudomindavo ir t.t. Kadangi buvome studentai iš įvairių Europos šalių, tai vieną iš paskaitų paskyrė religijų susidūrimo analizei. Žinoma, buvo prisimintas faktas apie Mahomedo karikatūrų išspausdinimą Danijos dienraštyje ir vėlesnis tų karikatūrų paplitimas po visą pasaulį bei kilęs vajus, kurio metu buvo padegtos Danijos ir Norvegijos ambasados, nukentėjo civiliai ir t.t. Šia tema buvo itin aštri diskusija klasėje, kurios metus man asmeniškai teko pakelti nemažą spaudimą ala už nesupratingumą 
ką gi, tebūnie 
bet kaip prancūzų filosofas, rašytojas Fransua Mari Arujė Volteras yra pasakęs: "Man bjauru tai, ką jūs sakote, bet esu pasiruošęs iki gyvenimo pabaigos ginti jūsų teisę tai sakyti!" ("I may disagree with what you say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it
).
Taigi trumpai išdėstytas raštu mano požiūris, kurį pateikiau dėstytojui per atsiskaitymą:
All the outgivings concerning religion must be represented in the accurate way because religion is the topic that affects people feelings and goes much more deeper then any negative logical facts about any realistic cases. The havoc that came after a Danish newspaper publicized 12 original cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in varying negative lights shows us how strong can be reaction when someone insults others believes.
It is not a question that authors of those caricatures and redactors of newspapers knew that drawing and printing the Prophet Muhammad portrait is an insult to all Islam followers. The question is did they have a right to do this? From one side, YES, because we have freedom of speech, we are living in the world where we can discuss our attitudes and we have a right to say loud that we do not like something, we are against some actions, events, facts etc. But from the other side, the answer to the same question is strict NO, because those caricatures not only insulted the Islam followers but as well strengthen the wrong stereotype that every Muslim is a radical Islamist, that the Prophet Muhammad only stimulates the battle against infidels But by following this stream of answers I could find lots of pros and cons for both sides. What is mine opinion? Those caricatures were publicized not in the Islamic country and the Danish or any other country newspaper had the right to do this! In Western world caricatures are one of the really good ways to present public opinion about politicians, actualities, inner or outer problems etc. Yes, it was obvious trigger for all Islamic world to react and to start shouting that no one respects us and all Western world is laughing from things that are really important for us. They had the right to be angry but the way they expressed that anger was not fair There are lots of means how to react to the offence, for example, diplomatic notes, peaceful protests, statements of resentment etc. Maybe it is stereotype again, but it really looks that every time Islam is hitched it is impossible to solve the problem in peaceful way. I will never justify such actions after publications of those caricatures as burned Danish and Norwegian embassies, violent hits, innocent people deaths etc. It is not the way how should be answered to any kind of affront! Such reaction for me is just incapacity to choose an appropriate countermeasures and to solve the problem in civilized manner!
This case with the Prophet Muhammad caricatures is just one drop in the sea of Western and Islam world confrontation. The main reason I can see in this face-off is the lack of respect from both sides! Muslims are grumbling about not enough regard to their religion, attitude to life and occidentals (westerners) can grouse on Muslim immigrants who are not only coming to their countries but as well trying to bring to the fore their way of living without even plunging into reverie that so they offend us, our feelings, our religion etc.
Atminties atgaivinimui
[ Publikuota: 2007-11-15 ] • [ Zhucka, amžius rašymo dieną: 21 m. ir 293 d. ]
[ Peržiūrėta: 101 ] • [ Rekomenduoti draugui! ]
[ Individualus adresas: Zhucka.net/http://Zhucka.net/irasas/muhammad_caricatures ]
ką gi, tebūnie bet kaip prancūzų filosofas, rašytojas Fransua Mari Arujė Volteras yra pasakęs: "Man bjauru tai, ką jūs sakote, bet esu pasiruošęs iki gyvenimo pabaigos ginti jūsų teisę tai sakyti!" ("I may disagree with what you say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it
).Taigi trumpai išdėstytas raštu mano požiūris, kurį pateikiau dėstytojui per atsiskaitymą:
All the outgivings concerning religion must be represented in the accurate way because religion is the topic that affects people feelings and goes much more deeper then any negative logical facts about any realistic cases. The havoc that came after a Danish newspaper publicized 12 original cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in varying negative lights shows us how strong can be reaction when someone insults others believes.
It is not a question that authors of those caricatures and redactors of newspapers knew that drawing and printing the Prophet Muhammad portrait is an insult to all Islam followers. The question is did they have a right to do this? From one side, YES, because we have freedom of speech, we are living in the world where we can discuss our attitudes and we have a right to say loud that we do not like something, we are against some actions, events, facts etc. But from the other side, the answer to the same question is strict NO, because those caricatures not only insulted the Islam followers but as well strengthen the wrong stereotype that every Muslim is a radical Islamist, that the Prophet Muhammad only stimulates the battle against infidels But by following this stream of answers I could find lots of pros and cons for both sides. What is mine opinion? Those caricatures were publicized not in the Islamic country and the Danish or any other country newspaper had the right to do this! In Western world caricatures are one of the really good ways to present public opinion about politicians, actualities, inner or outer problems etc. Yes, it was obvious trigger for all Islamic world to react and to start shouting that no one respects us and all Western world is laughing from things that are really important for us. They had the right to be angry but the way they expressed that anger was not fair There are lots of means how to react to the offence, for example, diplomatic notes, peaceful protests, statements of resentment etc. Maybe it is stereotype again, but it really looks that every time Islam is hitched it is impossible to solve the problem in peaceful way. I will never justify such actions after publications of those caricatures as burned Danish and Norwegian embassies, violent hits, innocent people deaths etc. It is not the way how should be answered to any kind of affront! Such reaction for me is just incapacity to choose an appropriate countermeasures and to solve the problem in civilized manner!
This case with the Prophet Muhammad caricatures is just one drop in the sea of Western and Islam world confrontation. The main reason I can see in this face-off is the lack of respect from both sides! Muslims are grumbling about not enough regard to their religion, attitude to life and occidentals (westerners) can grouse on Muslim immigrants who are not only coming to their countries but as well trying to bring to the fore their way of living without even plunging into reverie that so they offend us, our feelings, our religion etc.
Atminties atgaivinimui
[ Publikuota: 2007-11-15 ] • [ Zhucka, amžius rašymo dieną: 21 m. ir 293 d. ]
[ Peržiūrėta: 101 ] • [ Rekomenduoti draugui! ]
[ Individualus adresas: Zhucka.net/http://Zhucka.net/irasas/muhammad_caricatures ]
« Ankstesnis • Sekantis »
Komentarai
Kolkas niekas nekomentavo straipsnio. Būkite pirmas /-a!
