BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Sunday, February 12, 2012

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement



February 7, 2006

I’ll Trade You 12 Danish Mohammeds For An Austrian Bush

Bush-Queen-Chirac-Humping

(not that you would, but click image for larger view)

What if a European country, through the actions of its own media, realized it could be accused of having solicited and published blasphemous images ridiculing a symbolic figure of world-wide importance?  Would it dig in its heels and defend those images in the name of press freedom?  Or, as in Austria’s case, would it simply turn tail? (Pardon the pun.)

I had intended to write up this image about six weeks ago, but then — to be honest — I got cold feet.  With the firestorm surrounding the Danish cartoons, however, this image (and the politics surrounding it) might take on some new and interesting overtones.

I’m not saying the Austrian situation is that similar to the Danish one, but parallels might be drawn.  In some of the analysis of the Jyllands-Posten matter, commentators have attempted to frame analogies asking whether the London Times or WAPO would have published cartoons ridiculing Jesus.  What if the closer Western parallel to what the Muslims are experiencing, however, might involve cartoons of Jesus having sex?  Or, Western leaders having group sex?  (God Save The Queen!)

Last year, looking toward taking its turn in the rotating presidency of the EU, the Austrian government funded an art project to honor the confederation.  The project, called “euroPART,” included the commissioning of posters by 75 artists representing all 25 member countries.  Using an arts organization called 25peaces (described as a National Endowment-like entity), the Austrians provided 1 million euros ($1.2 million) in funding to produce artwork “reflect(ing) on the different social, historical and political developments in Europe.”  The plan — implemented in late December — was to install the posters on scrolling billboards around Vienna and Salzburg.

Bush-Sex-Billboard

The problem that arose, however, is that three of the 148 different posters involved sexual content, the most controversial being the one above.  In that piece, by Spanish artist Carlos Aires, three figures — wearing masks depicting George Bush, Jacques Chirac, and Queen Elizabeth — are shown on a rooftop in a menaje a troix.

If I understand what followed, a well-known Austrian tabloid called Kronen-Zeitung (a consistent critic of publicly-installed modernist art) lashed out at the “porno posters” and demanded their removal.  Then, the left-wing Social Democrats got involved, taking issue with a poster by Serbian artist,Tanja Ostojic, this one showing a woman with her legs spread wearing panties emblazoned with the EU symbol.  (Viewable here.)

The controversy is still percolating.  According to the latest, Conservative Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel — while insisting he has no power over the artists — appealed for the offending entries to be withdrawn, and both artists reportedly complied.

Regarding media treatment, you might want to check out this link to an on-line BBC news article and video report.  Notice how and by what methods the network avoids revealing too much of these images.  And stateside, American media has virtually ignored the story almost altogether.  This was one of the few domestic links  I could find.  (…Notice, no pix.)

I was particularly interested in the way international news reports consistently refer to these images as “pornographic.”  Going by European standards, it’s hard to see that as so.  (Especially when, as Artforum points out, the complaining tabloid. Kronen-Zeitung, regularly features a topless “girl of the day.”)  The other routine complaint about these images is that they are sexist.  If Mr. Ostojic’s image could be understood that way, is seems more of a political move to paint Mr. Aires’ image (above) with the same brush.

Maybe, just maybe, Western media and Western eyes have a bit of the same trouble fixing on this image that Muslims have, big time, relating to a cartoon Mohammed with a bomb on his head.  I don’t see sexual exploitation here (unless these two female actors were somehow coerced to participate).  I do see an image that could symbolize the kind of visceral and communal excitation that comes with super-elevated political power.  (So touché with the rooftop.)

What’s particularly unnerving to me, however, are those unabashedly unselfconscious grins flashed our way.  It suggests that far too often, too easily and too provocatively, our leaders can screw with (or screw up) almost anything they want, and just keep on at it.

  • http://profile.typekey.com/error27/ error27

    Heh heh. The Bag nailed this one. Westerners are not totally cosmopolitan themselves and politicians _can_ have some influence on what happens in the press.

  • anon

    One should note that the eu-panties picture is a send up of L’Origine du monde by Gustave Courbet:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%E2%80%99Origine_du_monde

  • ummabdulla

    Apparently it’s not unusual in Europe to see pretty “risque” advertisements, but I think it’s not appropriate to put stuff like this out in public so that anyone – including children – has to see them.

  • mugatea

    Chirac seems out of place in this campaign. If it was just Bush with the Queen it would have been more shocking. Somehow Chirac’s presence makes it more humorous, diminishing the impact. I don’t think Bush could say, or do, anything to get Chirac into bed. Although I’m sure he lusts after his bald head.
    This is not something I would want to have to explain to my children while driving to school, grandma’s … but I think it’s pretty funny. It was in good taste not to use any electrical devices in the created scenes, and I don’t mean cell phones or ipods.
    I am lucky to live in a state that does not allow billboard advertising.
    Billboards are raunchy no matter what the content.

  • marysz

    The models look like ordinary people who took their clothes off. They’re not the professional models or pumped-up athletes whose images represent an unattainable bodily ideal for the rest of us frumpy souls. And the artist didn’t even Photoshop them afterwards–they were left “as is.” Maybe that’s what’s so startling about seeing these pictures; we’re not used to seeing unenhanced naked bodies in public. As a parent, I think it’s best just to laugh these pictures off. There are much more toxic images around than this mild political protest.

  • http://happening-here.blogspot.com/ janinsanfran

    Variation #2 seems far more interesting as art than version #1 — because more disturbing. On a continent where Tony Blair is routinely described as “Bush’s poodle,” variation #1 is almost trite. But the rulers frolicking in #2 is disturbing — that is, art.
    I’m gonna blogwhore a little bit here. Yesterday I went and photographed U.S. Muslims holding what I experienced as a ritual press conference denouncing both “the cartoons” and the violence of anti-cartoon protesters. The visuals of the press conference interested me more than the ostensible content. I’ve posted here if anyone is interested.
    BTW — several of the newspeople at the press conference had not actually seen the cartoons. I pointed them to this site to give them some context.

  • readytoblowagasket

    I think those masks make the image very friendly.

  • limapup

    how about a pix of Jesus having intercourse with the virgin Mary and adding the caption…”mother f—er”?

  • martin

    Holy grail bagman: to the phat-phone. Will you now provide the link to donny in Munich that I requested for comments (one of your own posts via a different site: as important now as then)please. Please

  • http://profile.typekey.com/aog/ Annoying Old Guy

    No, TheBAG completely missed it on this one. The entire issue has never been about Muslims being offended or outraged, it has been about death threats, riots, burning embassies, boycotts, blaming entire nations for a single newspaper’s action, etc. How much of that did you see in reaction to these pictures?
    One key point that has been made in the cartoon issue is, why do Muslims outside of Europe care what some Danish newspaper publishes? It is in fact completely consistent for this to not be covered in the USA, because what do Americans care what some EU art project publishes? Yet this very consistency is read as hypocrisy by TheBAG.
    Another anti-parallel is that this is about Austrians controlling what is printed in Austria by the Austrian government. Not about foreigners trying to control what is printed by private organizations. That distiniction is something very basic in the West and it’s hardy hypocritical to consider it in cases like this. It’s also very odd to say that the Chancellor of Austria has no standing to decide what to fund with Austrian tax dollars.

  • martin

    Yes. the entire issue is that Moslem’s care. people care how images are represented. Sensitive people care in abundance. A troll in 2006 is not entirely free; if u live in an environment that is prepared to talk, then the gravitas of your image is not exempt:
    Mr. Shaw, will u publish the original of this link and as you have done many, many times; link back to where it came from:

  • blue

    Martin: First, we do not know what the public response would have been in the West if the publicity of these images were not reduced by politicians. But even if we assume the response would have been non-violent, you cannot compare the violent response of Muslims to that simply because the two “civilizations” are currently under different amounts of pressure.
    Ordinary human beings turn violent only when confronted with violence themselves. In this case it does not have to be physical. The muslim world is constantly under western pressure through politics, media, and thanks to latest American foreign policy through actual guns and bombs as well. These people feel like their culture, their way of living, their natural resources, their regimes, even their basic right to life (30,000+ civilians dead in Iraq War, many more dead due to actions of regimes the West has supported for oil and resources). Therefore it is expected that even seemingly small insults spark violent responses.
    Before blaming the Muslims for violent reactions, maybe we should blame ourselves for creating and maintaining the pressures that lead to these, just so we can get a better deal at the gas pump.

  • martin

    I simply ask for the third time that the image of Donald Rumsfeld in Munich as part/parcel of NATO meeeting is reproduced. I am intrigued that concerns itself with the reproduction of image and yet will not include url for this very important yahoo image that Michael has used elsewhere within his comments. Comment Michael?
    I also recognize that one of the strongest aspects of the site is that it does not become thread. post and be dammned…seh lah. please.

  • http://www.avengingangels.org Kirby Gnilis

    Found this in my mailbox this morning, probably a mistake…
    http://www.avengingangels.org/JACK_and_GEORGE/Index.jpg

  • PTate in MN

    Thanks for the images. I find them offensive, but I’m not going to start rioting over them. They are too abstract, impotent. The initial emotional shock comes seeing from the three naked bodies in sexual position. But you have to consciously work to figure out rest: who is represented there? Is that a black guy? Is that a man or a woman? What does this mean?
    To find an analogy, we need to find something that produces a visceral, emotional response–hot, automatic, unconscious. What comes to my mind is the image of the burning bodies of the four contractors in Fallujah. How dare they!?!! The US launched an assault on Fallujah after that.
    We also need to talk about propaganda, that lurid art form designed to express anger and boost the morale of our homeland team. The audience for propaganda is our in-group. The whole point of propaganda is to create humiliating, rude, disgusting images of the Other, the out-group. We need to dehumanize them to conquer them.
    What is remarkable about this Danish propaganda is that the Muslims–”the enemy/out-group”–are objecting to the rude, disgusting way in they, or Mohammed, was depicted.
    The Muslim response–which seems so out of proportion to the offense–is about power. Our Western offense, imho, is not that the prophet was depicted in a degrading way in this one instance, but that the West views the Muslim world as Out-group and is willing to dehumanize them, violate their values and impose our culture. Even when we describe the Muslim response as an issue of free speech, we frame their outrage in terms of our values.

  • The BAG

    The original images can be seen as part of the overal 25peaces poster website linked to at the bottom of the post.

  • The BAG

    Martin,
    I have only had a minute here and there to check this site today. (The day job, you know.) Maybe I’m being dense but I’m not sure what Rumsfeld image you are referring to. I will try (not for a few hours, yet, unfortunately) to investigate your request. BTW, you can always email me. Thanks.

  • jt from BC

    PTate in MN, sharing most of your opinions but without the BAG identifying the characters I recognized GWB and Chirac most Canadians ( and Europeans) would have seen ER II as the woman.
    I find this pic an accurate reflection of reality and extremely hilarious rather than offensive.
    The artist shares you concern; the BAG’s link at Artforum,
    “I had this vision about decision-makers having an orgy while everything around them falls apart,” said Aires, who denies that the poster is pornographic. “The images of war and catastrophe that can be seen all over are much worse to look at. But that doesn’t seem to concern anyone.”
    A trivial point, ER II’s power is symbolic she simply rubber stamps Blair’s decisions. So for a menaje a tois we have to suspend reality a bit.( Maggie Thatcher would have been the ideal candidate had she been the contemporary PM !!!) Aires may have had difficulty working Blair in the scene, then again maybe he wanted to express real ‘power brokers’ + a ’symbolic one’, could this clever artist be suggesting the tendency to confuse symbols with reality as well as his stated purpose.

  • http://www.thenewpolitics.com Chiaroscuro

    From an American viewpoint, the politics of these images are somewhat obscure. We have a Spanish artist describing a power relationship between Chirac, Bush and Elizabeth. Most Americans would ask, “What relationship? We’re the ones with the power.”
    Not according to the artist. What is interesting is Bush as a woman–and the woman on the bottom, so to speak, of the action. I have no idea what the artist intends, beyond the usual salaciousness, of the two white women/one black man combo.
    Perhaps the artist thinks he’s all kinds of clever–about power, international relationships, sex, race, culture, and so forth, but it’s all rather shotgun, don’t you think?
    I don’t think these images are anywhere in the same category as the Mohammed cartoons. The specifically religious content, tied to the political, puts the cartoons in the realm of debate where reason is secondary to faith. These contemporary political images may amuse many Europeans and Americans, offend others on the basis of taste or political affiliation, but they are not blasphemous.

  • http://www.jaxxattaxx.com black dog barking

    While the physical barriers separating us have been nearly innovated out of existence by technologies, the cultural barriers remain solidly intact. The road side sign picture reminds me of a sign from rural Austria — Fucking, Austria. (scoll down) Reactions vary.
    Art, like Religion, grows out of belief but with more conscious choice and a lot less coercion. Probably why artistic differences are more educational and less violent than religious differences.
    The BBC visual coverage is sly, not likely to start a nasty argument. Their report acknowledges the controversy and at least nods at the potential artistic content of the offending works. ABC’s report is full of numbers: 400 billboards, 150 images (3 with “sexual overtones”), 25 nations, 1 million euros ($1.2 million). Excellent tinder for Tax Dollar Trolling, no coverage for other perspectives.

  • floopmeister

    Killing people is illegal.
    Making pictures of killing is not.
    Having sex is not illegal.
    Making pictures of sex is.
    (With thanks to Norman Mailer).

  • Mad_nVT

    Since we have evidence here of George Bush being orgied, I am reminded that a local priest offered this view of Bush-world:
    Would somebody please give that man a blow-job so that we can impeach him.

  • Dan

    I have to agree with AnnoyingOldGuy on this one. I think these pictures are ugly, crude, and not suitable for the eyes of children. But I’m not rioting, burning the Austrian embassy down, boycotting all things Austrian, and demanding a formal apology from the Austrian government. Regardless of how offensive some work of “art” is, it is inescusable to do what the Muslim mobs, with encouragement from some of their governments I might add, have been doing.
    Furthermore, I am disturbed at the arguement put forward by PTate in MN, equating the Muhammed cartoons with the images of mutilated bodies from Fallujah. The images of the Prophet are _drawings_, a work of imagination. The images from Fallujah were photographs of what _actually happened_ to four human beings as they were tortured, killed, and mutilated. To try to equate the two is sheer lunacy.

  • readytoblowagasket

    Dan, I’m curious what’s so bad about this image to you. I see three people with no clothes on — big deal. Just because *you* know what the actors are simulating doesn’t mean children know. And I’m trying to imagine how that would be so traumatic anyway, even if they figured it out. It’s just a picture, after all.

  • PTate in MN

    Dan: “The images of the Prophet are _drawings_, a work of imagination. The images from Fallujah were photographs of what _actually happened”
    We in the West distinquish between fact and fiction, real event and imagination. This Western way of knowing leads us to horror when we believe something is “real”, but, buffered by our culture’s distinction between fact and fiction, we are often amused or entertained by the imaginary. Hence the popularity of horror films, action flicks and violent video games in Western culture. As long as it is imaginary, we don’t see a problem. It’s not horrible. It’s not real.
    Because we make this distinction, we have trouble coming up with any imaginary image that would be shocking enough to make us riot.
    The Muslims rioting over the cartoon Mohammed, however, are horrified in the same way that we were horrified by the “real” murders in Fallujah. They have a different boundary between “real” and “imaginary”: For them, the image of Mohammed is real and the offense is real.

  • Shaun

    I agree with the emphasis on the real/symbolic juxtaposition but for me perhaps the masks just dissalow my brain from interpreting it as ‘pornographic’ at all (its just clumsy looking); its almost as if the heads are dragging the bodies up to the level of the symbolic as much as the bodies are (obviously) dragging the heads back down into the mire…it cancels out the satirical effect (for me) and I’m left rather indifferent: just looks like the end of a haloween party…
    that said, I guess the images would have a powerfull effect on the peasantry, who afterall still believe their leaders are semi-devine…

  • Dan

    Readytoblowagasket: I suppose I’m not really offended by the pictures, and in fact I would agree with Shaun’s description as “clumsy looking”. That said, it’s three awkward looking nude people in a strange doggie-style configuration. Yeah, it’s just a picture, and sure some kid will see worse on Cinemax at night, but that doesn’t mean it needs to be on the billboard on their drive to school. I guess i just don’t see any real artistic message in the pictures, other than someone was trying to show was a “clusterfuck” might actually look like.
    In re: PTate in MN’s comment, there are two ways to go with this one. First, if we accept that this is sincere and spontaneous outrage on the part of many Muslims around the world and that they have a “different boundary between ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’”, then that says a lot about the state of the Muslim world. If they can’t even distinguish between real and imaginary, then how can they possibly claim to know that their religion is the only true religion and all should succumb to shariah? Really, how can you take seriously someone who can’t distinguish between a cartoon caricature and real mutilation of a human being?
    However, I still believe that much of this outrage, or at least the violence associated with it, is manufactured by governments who gain from thumbing their nose at the West. Since when to people freely demonstrate and act in mobs in places like Syria or Iran?
    Ultimately, I think the Muslim world is just making themselves look very bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. They look like childish people throwing a tantrum. There is no better way to turn off the non-Muslim supporters they have in Europe and liberal American than to riot over cartoons.

  • PTate in Mn

    Dan,
    It DOES say a lot about the Muslim world, and it has me worried! I would rephrase your question from “If they can’t even distinguish between real and imaginary, then how can they possibly claim to know that their religion is the only true religion…?” to the more sobering “how can they possibly know that their religion is NOT the only religion?” Where is tolerance?
    Since I wrote yesterday I’ve been mulling this fact/fiction dichotomy. I wonder if it can be traced to the Enlightenment, to the West’s recognition of the distinction between the material and the spiritual. Descartes. Mind & body. Whatever. In the West we have been moving more and more to a material view of the world. And in these riots–smack!–we’re up against a very different world view.
    I agree with your observation that much of the outrage/violence is “manufactured by governments who gain from thumbing their nose at the West” but that isn’t a source of comfort for me. Those governments are still thumbing their nose at the West through inciting religious passion. I come away from cartoon-incited riots sobered by the scope of the conflict that has been unleashed.

  • Mad_nVT

    I agree with PTate_inMn that the reactions/ counter-reactions to the cartoons of the Prophet are sobering and that we should be worried. For one thing it all highlights what we already know but are reluctant to acknowledge– how different people have such different perspectives on Existence. And this is not just an East/West dichotomy. We can see it everywhere.
    The whole discussion of reality/imaginary or fact/fiction is a perfect example. Are cartoons of the Prophet just imaginary? Spitting on the Prophet in this way, is that imaginary? Is a statue of Jesus just imaginary, and what would happen if my friends and I went to all of the churches and spit on Jesus? Was Jesus just a man or was he the Son of God?
    Do Muslims live in a fictional world if they think that their religion is the one true religion? Doesn’t the Catholic Church view itself as the one true religion, even to the exclusion of other Christian faiths?
    How many Americans consider this to be a Christian nation? Should we have prayer in school, or the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse?
    How many people believe in Intelligent Design, how many schools no longer teach evolution in biology class? What does President Bush think is the truth about evolution? What is fact and fiction?
    How real to us were the deaths of the four Americans that were tortured and killed in Fallujah? We saw nothing more than the images. Meanwhile, millions of Iraqis live with real death and destruction every day of the year. They see it and smell it. Innocent people slaughtered, for what? Do we consider this as real, or do we discount it because it is not here, and they are not Americans. There are over 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Is that real?
    Religion is real. For billions of people it is more real than the material world.
    One person’s reality is different from the next person’s. Just go ask your spouse.
    PTate is right, the West has been tending away from religion and toward rationality for two centuries or more. That is not necessarily healthy, and we see the reaction to that in the actions of the Bush Administration, with their faith-based view of war, economics, the environment and so on.
    So it is indeed sobering, because the cartoon riots highlight the conflicts that lie under the surface in all societies and certainly between societies. We had better hope that such conflicts will be addressed more appropriately than they are currently.

  • readytoblowagasket

    Wait. Forgive me but I’m kind of astonished at the inability to see Western culture and religions more accurately in these threads about the Muslim protests. Commenters are confusing *societal* tolerance with *religious* tolerance. Most (probably all) religions have many, many restrictions — on speech, on behavior, on what to eat and wear, on who you’re allowed to have sex with and when (and who you aren’t allowed to have sex with ever), on who is and isn’t allowed to be a member of a particular faith and who’s allowed to be an interpreter of it. I can think of dozens of examples (like, how is the Christian precept of being “saved” tolerant of members of other faiths?). You are asking for something fundamentally impossible — you are expecting a particular faith to accept secular behavior (drawing profane cartoons) into its belief system (Get over it). It’s not going to happen. I notice no one’s expecting Christians and Jews to change their *religious* rules. For example, I don’t see anyone demanding that the Pope accept birth control or abortion as a part of Catholicism. So who’s being intolerant of whom? And who’s not acknowledging that all faiths have some degree of fiction built into them? “Faith” is believing in something intangible, in something that can’t be proved. So please stop trying to wedge a secular issue into a religious doctrine (unless, of course, you do it on an equal-opportunity basis). This way of thinking about the issue is hopelessly Western-centric, and ultimately hopelessly flawed.

  • PTate in MN

    readytoblowagasket: “Commenters are confusing *societal* tolerance with *religious* tolerance….This way of thinking about the issue is hopelessly Western-centric, and ultimately hopelessly flawed.”
    I think we can agreed that the inability to recognize the core assumptions of our own culture is Western-centric. I think we also agree that the Muslims are not going to accept secular behavior (drawing profane cartoons) into its belief system.
    Your comment seeks to remind us that Christianity also has a history of intolerance. This is true, though no one made the claim that Christianity is exempt from intolerance or that Islam is uniquely intolerant. If you remember the reaction among American fundamentalists to films such as “Life of Brian” or “Dogma” or their willingness to boycott Disney for gay-friendly policies, you know that some people in the US will also “riot” when their religious views are violated. East and West, the Enlightenment just passed right over some people.
    Nevertheless, your observation is consistent with a Western worldview that compartmentalizes religious belief. For a lot of Westerners, religious belief is fiction. The “real” world is fact-based, secular, value-neutral, material, knowable and unreligious.
    The mental exercise that intriques me is trying to comprehend a world view that has not been permeated by this dichotomy between secular behavior and religious belief.

  • readytoblowagasket

    PTate in MN: What I’m intrigued by (well, frustrated by, is more accurate) is how a Christian country can go bomb the shit out of other countries (um, is that what the “Prince of Peace” promoted?), while still believing in their own moral purity (God Bless America), and then become outraged when people of another faith not only reject but express hatred for the West and its hypocrisy. The best I can understand such *Western* compartmentalizing is through the bullshit conceit of “Just War.” But Just War Theory only works for the people who are doing the killing. It’s not “just” when you’re doing the dying. I’m just having a hard time reconciling the facts with the moral superiority, but it’s not for lack of trying.

  • PTate in MN

    readytoblowagasket: I agree 100% with your frustration.
    Islam wasn’t so crazy in the past. A couple of centuries ago, they were the enlightened, tolerant ones. I suspect that you and I would agree that the enlightened, tolerant Islam of old is not going to be restored through bombing the shit out of them, exploiting their resources, caricaturing their religion, violating their cultural values and braying about our moral and cultural superiority.

  • readytoblowagasket

    PTate in MN: Amen! : )

  • Cactus

    I seem to remember from my studies of Spanish civilization, way back when, that when Spain was under the rule of the Moors (Islam) there was tolerance and acceptance of the Jews. All of that changed when the Catholics took over and started the Inquisition. And I’m sure some of you also saw the British historian who had a series on Discovery TV about the interconnectedness of things. In one of them he made the point that during the dark ages, all the learning of the west was more-or-less safeguarded by the Muslims. And that doesn’t even include the many inventions they made while the west was busy with its own religious wars.

  • ummabdulla

    When Europe was in the “Dark Ages”, Islamic civilization was flourishing, with the first hospitals and universities, scholars of astronomy, medicine and various other fields in science and mathematics, etc. (See Muslimheritage.com or PBS’ “Islam: Empire of Faith”.)
    In Arabic, “al” means “the”, and the origins of words like algebra, algorithm, alcohol and many other are Arabic. During that time, Arabic was the “lingua franca”, and European scholars acquired much of their knowledge base by translating Arabic books. Unfortunately, many of these books have been lost. For example, when the Mongols invaded Baghdad in 1258, they destroyed the famous library there; it was said that the river Tigris was black with the ink of all the books that were thrown into it. (This at a time when most of Europe was in the “Dark Ages”.)
    In Andalusia (southern Spain and Portugal), though, the Muslims brought many advances, and the society was known for its philosophers, advanced irrigation techniques, architecture, etc.
    Islam is not a religion that demands that we reject science; in fact, the Quran refers to signs of nature time and time again and encourages us to investigate them, saying that it will only confirm our faith.
    In the West, we don’t usually learn about the Islamic heritage; we often learn that some European scientist discovered this or that, but in fact it is found in Arabic books from centuries before.
    To get back to the cartoons, I’ve noticed that it’s not the attitudes of Muslims against those of Christians or Jews; it’s the attitudes of Muslims clashing with the attitude that’s against religion altogether. I’ve seen a lot of statements of Jewish rabbis and Christian leaders of various sects (especially Orthodox Christians) where they condemn the publication of the cartoons.
    I don’t know who’s claiming that Muslims can’t distinguish between real and imaginary, as if we don’t know that a cartoon is a cartoon…

  • usama_bin_lad

    u done a terrible job now see wat will i do…. its not a joke take it seriously its be better for u and ur nation

  • readytoblowagasket

    usama_bin_lad: Learn to spell.

  • jt from BC

    RTBAG, spelling may pose a challenge but eliminating the “grammatical touch of GWB” might be insurmountable.
    usama_bin_lad
    http://dictionary.reference.com/

  • readytoblowagasket

    good to see you back at bnn, jt.