As I am sure you have noticed, I haven't posted anything for a while.
I haven't really had anything to say that would be of any interest,
not even to me.
Time for a holiday for this little duck. I am sure that I will
return at some point in the not too distant future, but for now,
assume a lack of quacks.
God bless you all, I shall see you soon.
I was disappointed to discover that more European newspapers had published the cartoons that have caused much offence to Islam.
I will repeat again that they have every right to do so if they wish; this doesn't change the fact that I think they are wrong to do so.
The original publication by the Danish paper can be accepted if only because they did not understand that such offence could or would be caused. Now that the issue is known, I can see no excuse for repeated publication.
I do not accept the argument that it is a defence of the free speech principal. Such a defence could easily have been made in a written article without the offencive material. I can not see the case is made any stronger by using the pictures.
After some thought I can see only two reasons why the other newspapers would publish the pictures. Either they assume some natural superiority of their own feelings and cannot accept that their actions do cause harm or they have malicious intent and wish to deliberately cause offence.
They have every right to do so though and the fact that I think they are wrong to do so doesn't change that.
For those who haven't followed this story in the news, a brief recap.
A Danish newspaper published some caricatures of Mohamed. Images of
all of the prophets, in particular of Mohamed, are considered
offensive and possibly blasphemous in Islam. A large number of
Muslims were offended by the images and responses ranged from a
formal protest by the Danish Muslim association to a boycott of
Danish products in middle-eastern countries.
I am glad that the paper has apologised for the offence that it has
caused, but equally glad that is hasn't apologised for publishing the
pictures in the first place.
I will defend absolute freedom of speech completely but I will repeat
until I am blue in the face that with freedom comes responsibility.
You should be able to publish such pictures if you wish but you have
to be prepared for the consequences of your actions and to take
responsibility for them
Many have argued that the response of those offended in this
particular case was not appropriate and that may be so but those
people are responsible for their actions and the newspaper is
responsible for its actions. I am glad that the paper recognised
this and apologised for offending people whether it intended to cause
offence or not.
In the wake of Holy Blood, Holy Grail I am now reading the
confessions of St. Augustine.
What a delight. Wonderful words and more truth and wisdom in a
single paragraph than in the whole of Holy Blood. Read them.
The two little wrens are in my tree again. So cute.
I have (very nearly, only a couple of pages left) finished The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael, Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry
Lincoln.
I did consider reading the Da Vinci Code after all of the fuss that
there has been about it but the opinions of several people that I
trust (my Mother, Front Row, The Guardian) tended to describe it as
interesting idea, low grade literature. So I decided to avoid the
alleged dodgy writing and read the book that Da Vinci Code was based
upon, namely Hold Blood.
My general conclusion: interesting idea, low grade writing and
history.
The premise of the book is well thought through and generally
internally consistent. So was the X-Files. I have little problem
accepting the concept of a shadowy organisation working through
several hundreds of years to achieve certain aims, I would be
surprised if there weren't many such. Unfortunately, evidence and
rigour are decidedly lacking through out. Referencing is variable,
sometimes very good and sometimes appalling. Some grand claims are
made on the basis of evidence and documents which are conveniently
unreferenced. Many suppositions are made, which is fine, this is
history after all, but then treated as fact upon which further
suppositions can be built, many times over. Again in itself this is
fine, but there is so little evidence and so many alternative
interpretations that it is very difficult to accept this as anything
other than vague theory, which may have a basis in truth or even be
mostly true but then again may just be a long fairy story.
There was one other thing that bugged me slightly. There was a bit
of a rant about synthesis of techniques in academic disciplines,
which I largely agree with, and it seemed that the booked showed a
genuine attempt to develop such aims. Except for the slight
omission, explicitly stated, of even the slightest use of theology,
which is something I feel has some bearing on the subject. And then
of course, the authors make several isolated and very strong claims
of a very theological nature with no attempt to support them and no
possibility of accepting that they may be wrong.
On a journalistic integrity scale of 'The Star' to 'The Guardian' I
give this a 'Sun'; worth a giggle, not worth taking too seriously.
Posts
