|
As-Salaam-Alaykum!
InshaAllah everyone is doing well.
Ok so our school newspaper also made a drawing of RasulAllah  , so I decided to write in (and Alhamdulillah a lot of other people on our side wrote in too). Here's what I said:
The editorial cartoon in Tuesday's Wildcat depicting the Prophet Muhammad was not quite as offensive and demeaning as the cartoons that caused worldwide protests, but it shows that many are still not getting the point. Islam forbids drawings and pictures of Muhammad and other major religious figures - even if they are positive illustrations. There are many other ways the Wildcat could have covered the controversy without making yet another image. While freedom of expression is important, so is using common sense to avoid actions of religious insensitivity. Just this past Friday, Washington showed its support toward Muslims on this issue. State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said, "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility."
The U.S. Constitution confines freedom of speech when it crosses the line, to "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterance inflicted injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Although unfortunate, this incident can be used as a learning opportunity.
Unlike the European media, most U.S. publications have decided not to republish the cartoon depictions of our prophet. CNN has announced, "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam" and I hope the Wildcat learns to do the same.
Miriam ----
physiology senior
The very next day, this guy wrote in:
Criticizing religion not unconstitutional
I was very distressed that Miriam ---- claimed in a
letter yesterday that criticizing Islam and the
prophet are unconstitutional. It's true that you
cannot say things for the purpose of inciting
violence, but if someone simply gets angry at your
opinions, she has no right to tell you to stop.
Imagine if criticizing any religious figure were
unconstitutional. If we're not allowed to criticize
and lampoon Mohammad, then we have to give the same
respect to L. Ron Hubbard. I'd like to point out that
no one is particularly upset at offensive depictions
of Christianity. I personally found the cartoon in the
Wildcat to be funny, and it made an interesting point.
Matt ----
history sophomore
I don't like him and his opinions, or the fact that he used my name. And I never said it was unconstitutional!! Uff. He should have at least been intimidated by me, being a sophomore and all. Oh yes and then this person wrote in, to lighten the mood I guess:
I would like to address the plight of a religious sect
whose beliefs are regularly trampled on by the general
public. We, followers of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
(FSMism), believe the world was created 5,000 years
ago by a giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.
One of the most important tenets of FSMism is the
wearing of pirate attire. The distinct lack of pirates
today greatly angers His Noodleness. In fact, it is
scientifically proven that there is a statistically
significant relationship between a decline in the
number of pirates worldwide and global warming.
As a Pastafarian, I am deeply offended by the refusal
of the general public to accept those of us who would
wear pirate attire in order to please His Noodleness.
We demand that all members of the public immediately
begin wearing eye patches, striped shirts and
three-cornered hats.
If this does not occur, we, the Pastafarians, may
follow in the footsteps of other slighted sects and
exact holy retribution (in the form of drive-by
saucings) upon those who have oppressed pirates in the
past. This shall be their punishment for bringing
global warming upon us! FSMism is by nature a peaceful
religion, but we can only tolerate so much!
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage, Ramen.
Logan ---
engineering senior |
