Opera called off due to fear of angering Muslims - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

feelgood · 09-27-2006, 06:44 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

Muslim anger fear halts opera

BERLIN, Germany (AP)
A leading opera house called off a production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" that features the severed head of the Prophet Mohammed, setting off a furious debate Tuesday over Islam, freedom of speech and the role of art.

The furor is the latest in Europe over religious sensitivities -- following cartoons of the prophet first published in a Danish newspaper and recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI decrying holy war.

Kirsten Harms, director of Berlin's Deutsche Oper, announced "with great regret" that she had decided to cancel the three year old production after state security officials warned it could provoke dangerous reactions in the current politically charged climate.

After its premiere in 2003, the production by Hans Neuenfels drew widespread criticism over a scene in which King Idomeneo presents the severed heads not only of the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon, but also of Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha.

The severed heads are an addition by director Neuenfels to the 225-year-old opera, which was last performed by the company in March 2004.

Harms defended her decision, which she described as "weighing artistic freedom and freedom of a theater ... against the question of security for people's lives."

But the move immediately provoked strong reactions across Germany.

Outraged politicians called the decision to pull the production "crazy" and "a fatal signal" of caving into extremism. Response from Germany's Islamic community was mixed, with some praising the decision and others calling on Muslims to accept the role of provocation in art.

The leader of Germany's Islamic Council welcomed the move, saying a depiction of Mohammed with a severed head "could certainly offend Muslims."

But in an interview with German radio, Ali Kizilkaya added: "I think it is horrible that one has to be afraid ... That is not the right way to open dialogue."

The leader of Germany's Turkish community said it was time Muslims accepted freedom of expression in art.

"This is about art, not about politics," Kenan Kolat told Bavarian Radio. "We should not make art dependent on religion -- then we are back in the Middle Ages."

Neuenfels has insisted his staging not be altered, saying the scene where the king presents the severed heads represents his protest against "any form of organized religion or its founders."

"I stand behind my production and will not change it," Neuenfels told the Berliner Morgenpost in its Tuesday edition.

The opera house's decision comes after the German-born pope infuriated Muslims by quoting the words of a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

Earlier this year, violent protests erupted across the Muslim world after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad. The caricatures were reprinted by dozens of newspapers and Web sites in Europe and elsewhere, often in the name of freedom of expression.

Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of Mohammed for fear it could lead to idolatry.

"We know the consequences of the conflict over the (Mohammed) caricatures," Deutsche Oper said in a statement. "We believe that needs to be taken very seriously and hope for your support."

Berlin security officials had warned Harms that staging the opera could "in its originally produced form .... pose an incalculable security risk to the public and employees."

But Germany's interior minister condemned the cancellation.

"That is crazy," said Wolfgang Schaeuble, the country's top security official, speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C. "This is unacceptable."

It is not only Muslims who have been offended by depictions of religion in art.

Last month Madonna sparked criticism from some Roman Catholics in Germany for a show that staged a mock crucifixion. Mel Gibson's 2004 movie, "The Passion of Christ" met with disapproval from some Catholics and some Jews. In 2004, a Birmingham, England, theater canceled its run of "Behzti" after a violent protest by members of the Sikh community.

Still, many in normally open and tolerant Berlin, which has become a home for cutting edge and often contentious artistic productions, cautioned against compromising on issues of freedom of speech and art.

"Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived on the offensive. Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them," said Mayor Klaus Wowereit.

Bernd Neumann, the federal government's top cultural official, said that "problems cannot be solved by keeping silent."

"When the concern over possible protests leads to self-censorship, then the democratic culture of free speech becomes endangered."

Well, that's it, the terrorist and extremist have won. We can't even express our freedom and idea that contains other religions, especially Islamic without the fear of sparking angers, riots, protests, attacks, suicide bombing, or whatever thing that they usually do to condemn anything that "Depictes Mohammed". Obviously this decision was based on the reaction that the Danish cartoon provolked along with the Pope's quote of some old emperor that has been dead for some 700 years.

I wonder at what point do our self-censor (or censorship through outcry by Muslims) go as far as they become unacceptable to our Western values (freedom of speech, etc)? Is it gonna go as far as censoring books? movies? radio? television?

Personally, I think the Islamic religion is far behind in its time, it still hasn't learn tolerance as other major religions of the world did few centuries ago.

aberkok · 09-27-2006, 07:18 AM

I'm afraid this is going to once again become one of those threads which degenerates into those who are able to avoid generalizing the attitudes of Muslims (who number in the millions, by the way), arguing with those who refuse to see past the actions of a few extremists. That "discussion" is already active in many other threads - don't understand what Osama Bin Laden and Malcom X have (had?) in common, anyway, just to give one example.

Instead, why not discuss freedom of speech in art/literature? If the censoring of Idomeneo is seen as such a bad thing, do you think The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion should be allowed in libraries? I think it should, because it's not the information that's important...it's how you understand it and its context.

Don't take that to mean that I think Muslims are incapable of understanding somethings' context.

Before anyone says anything in this thread, don't ignore the fact that nowhere in the article is any mention of Muslim belligerence towards the production.

Sultana · 09-27-2006, 07:36 AM

I think that until the Muslim (Islamic?) moderate community takes it upon themselves to criticize, condemn, and contain the extremists, the global view of the Islamic community as a whole will be painted by these more active extremists.

It's awful that these decisions have to be made, and I deplore the circumstances that make it so that fear for the safety of people's very lives dictates the selection of an opera.

By the way, I think that the director's addition of the other god's (and prophet) severed heads is a good one, making an old opera more current and relateable (is that even a word?), and makes the intention of that scene clearer. Anyone who would be offended by the inclusion of the prophet's head should instead be offended if it WASN'T included, as if Islam was not important enough to be represented amongst the biggies of world religions.

Gees, the extremists so entirely miss the point!

warrrreagl · 09-27-2006, 07:44 AM

When I read the headline this morning on Drudge, I thought about it for a couple of seconds before I clicked on the article. What I EXPECTED to read was that it was indeed a Mozart opera that had been banned, but I expected it to have been Abduction from the Seraglio, instead of Idomeneo. I'm a bit shocked.

Abduction from the Seraglio was set in a Turkish harem, and at the time it was written, Turkey was at WAR with Austria. How ironic it is that the Emperor of Austria gave permission for Mozart to stage both of these operas KNOWING that the subject matter was touchy with his own people, yet modern idiots ban them because they MIGHT offend someone.

Bah!

Ustwo · 09-27-2006, 07:52 AM

Europe has been bending over to radical Islam for some time now, whats one more time going to hurt?

The_Jazz · 09-27-2006, 07:58 AM

A couple of notes:

Unless you're in Germany, "our" right to free speach hasn't been impacted at all. We (the American "we") can still do whatever we want, although I doubt many people are going to rush for opera tickets anytime soon.

Regardless of where this is taking place, how is self-censorship any sort of abridgement of free speach rights? I can say that everyone on this board is a moron (not that I believe it), but I don't because its rude to say. I don't particularly care for evangelical Christians trying to convert me, but I'm not rude about it. Sure, I could get in a shouting match about who's right and who's going to hell, but it's not worth the hassle. How is this any different? If an American theater pulled the plug on a production of a show that depicted Christ being buttfucked by a pair of Japanese samuris because it was too controversial and they didn't want to deal with the headaches associated with it, it wouldn't make many headlines.

Remember, this is a business decision. No one has told the theater not to put on this opera. They consulted with the authorities who confirmed no specific threat but said that they thought it was a bad idea. How is this anything other than a prudent business decision? If an insurance company doesn't want to write wind coverage for an office building in downtown Miami, it's the exact same thing as far as I'm concerned. One just happens to make a better headline.

Ustwo · 09-27-2006, 08:10 AM

When it is over fear of being killed, its a right to free speech that has been lost.

You may have the 'right' on paper but under penality violence.

Sultana · 09-27-2006, 08:41 AM

Sure, it's certainly a prudent business decision. But the fact that it's prudent to not offend a group because they very well may kill you is a sad event. Whether it's because of religious extremists, Nazis, the mob, or gangs.

Sure, a group could take a stand--and count the cost if they aren't backed to the nines with security.

But on the other hand, to bow to the threats, to allow anarchists (sp?) to dictate business decisions, cultural events etc...gives them the upper hand.

All the outrage displayed by The Names is all well and good, but it'd be much more effective if they said, "This is an outrage, and I am going to contribute to/ensure a high-security environment where art can continue unabated!"

Otherwise, I can't help but think that yes, this decision of the theater is likely saving lives.

The_Jazz · 09-27-2006, 11:50 AM

Germans don't a right to free speach. http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_226...basic-law.html

You'll notice that there's a specific clause to control speach by the "general law". And that Article 2 gives specific mention of "moral law". I'm by no means an expert on the German Constitution, and I never read it before today. Check out the "no censorship" clause, too. It seems to have held up in this case.

How is this any less stupid than people being all up in arms about Janet Jackson's nipple or advertisers pulling ads because Dennis Franz's butt was going to be on NYPD Blue? The Christian right didn't like either of those, and they tried to the latter and punish the former. There's a hint of violence here only because we all "know" that Muslims riot at the drop of a hat (at least according to the media).

Ustwo · 09-27-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

There's a hint of violence here only because we all "know" that Muslims riot at the drop of a hat (at least according to the media).

Someones has their head in the sand.

Bill O'Rights · 09-27-2006, 12:03 PM

Ok...let's not head in that direction...for the umptybillionth time.

Ustwo · 09-27-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ok...let's not head in that direction...for the umptybillionth time.

When the riots and threats stop Bill, before then you can keep beating that horse all you like.

The_Jazz · 09-27-2006, 01:00 PM

I certainly conceed that the worst perpetrators of terrorism (as I've defined it in previous threads) around the world are Muslims, although they by no means have cornered that market. However, there was no threat by anyone over the program and the theater sought out the advice of the government who advised (as anyone could) that it might provoke a reation similar to the Danish cartoons.

And please note that the Muslim moderates are already speaking out against the decisionto pull the plug on the production. Refer to the OP.

Lady Sage · 09-27-2006, 04:47 PM

Its sad that people have to live their lives in fear of retribution. Alas, it is a fact of life and unlikely to change any time soon.

Willravel · 09-27-2006, 05:03 PM

I'd never release an opera that features the decapitation of Jesus Christ in the US, or Moses in Israel, or Shiva in India, or Buddha in China. It's fucking disrespectful, and it's massively stupid. Religons take themselves too seriously, and becuase of that any kind of free speech, be it constitutionally protected or not, is hindered.

On the flip side: If someone offends you, then you may take offence. If someone offends your diety, then it's up to your diety to stand up for him/her/itself. Shame on anyone who can't laugh at themselves. What a horrible existence it must be.

jorgelito · 09-27-2006, 07:38 PM

But this wasn't being released in Saudi Arabia, it was for Germany.

Muslims in the millions? I thought it was around a billion. It's a big demographic.

This kind of reminds me of the South Park episode from a while back about Mohammed on the Family Guy.

I find it detrimental that this type of "censorship" makes everyone look bad whether real or imagined. It becomes a lose-lose proposition. The self-imposed censoring makes the producers etc look like cowards and giving in to fear and terrorism, and it make muslims look bad too as if they all would object to this opera and automatically react violently. The article mentioned that an Islamic Association in Turkey acknowledged it was time to accept free expression in art and another mentioned that this was not a good way to start dialogue. It must be tough to be a moderate Muslim.

Someone mentioned that they wanted to discuss the issue of freedom of expression in art.

Well, I think that in this case, it was definitely ridiculous to cancel. art needs to be the preserve of crazy stuff, to push the limits and borders of our humanity. I also think there is a big difference between freedom of expresson in art and political provocation or encitement of violence. EX: If someone thought it would be cool to burn an effigy in front of a Mosque and call that art I would think that would be rather controversial. However, the major flaw with this is that it is rather subjective and open for debate. art for some is politics for others. Still, aside from safety reasons, is this type of censorship called for? I would assume that Germany is a civilized and stable country. Does it live in that much fear that putting on a Mozart opera would encite violence? I think that is truly sad.

hiredgun · 09-27-2006, 08:52 PM

*deep breath*

I am probably identified on TFP as 'liberal'. In the politics board, I very rarely find myself in agreement with the general worldview promoted by those conservatives that tend to be aligned with UsTwo. My ideas tend to paint me (more or less correctly) as a staunch critic of the concept of a 'clash of civilizations' and of the colonial experience and its consequences, a promoter of constraints on unilateral power, a cynic about the dicourse of the 'war on terror', and very often a defender of Muslims and Islam against unfounded charges of inherent barbarism, cruelty, and intolerance, charges that are unfair and historically false. I also happen to have been raised Muslim.

This is the one issue on which I cannot play defense for Muslims.

It is time, far past time, for some serious self-criticism and reflection on this topic. The particular incident (or non-incident) in the OP adds little to the debate, but our over-sensitivity to criticism and perceived insult is dangerously, even catastrophically problematic.

I understand that the hatred we see is usually on the margins; that even when it becomes mainstream, it is both a vent for other political frustrations and most especially the result of a warped worldview in which Muslims are quite literally under siege, mortally threatened as a people by the forces of American-Israeli Crusade.

But the damage that this type of reaction does, both in the way it crushes a society's spirit and in how it destroys what credibility Muslims might have on the world stage, is far too great to be ignored. Three thousand people are dying every month in Iraq. It's unfathomable. Why haven't Muslims taken the energies that were squandered attacking some rubbish cartoons and channeled them into really engaging the West, critically and intellectually? If it would be too much to expect Pakistanis and Jordanians to come down on the warring Iraqi militias with harsh criticism, if it's too much to expect them to see past the feeble notion of an Iraqi 'resistance', then is it really too much to expect them to fill the streets in vocal opposition to this war rather than protesting images on a piece of paper? Shouldn't they be infinitely more concerned with the inhumanities committed at Abu Ghraib than with a stage prop that represents the Prophet's head?

And above all else, should they not be furiously rattling the bars of their own broken and despotic governments, all of whom, without exception, without a decent goddamn one among them, despoil their citizenries, lock up their brothers and sisters (in conditions far worse than those found at US detainment areas) and perpetuate their own rule through maddeningly authoritarian practices, sham elections (if that), and brutal state police?

The Muslim world is in a period of crisis. There are a lot of very real, very important problems to contend with. There is an enormous amount of work to do for anyone who cares about the fate of Muslim peoples and the nations in which they reside. Some of the problems can be blamed on the outside world, and many cannot... but it's really not relevant. The point is that a few silly drawings, or a novel by Salman Rushdie, are non-issues. They shouldn't even be making it onto the agenda.

Maybe I need to start a non-profit that engages Muslims in internal dialogue on this matter.

Edit: One small thing to add. I don't tend to view things with a religious lens, but there is absolutely nothing in the Qur'an or the tradition of the Prophet that indicate that an insult can be an impetus for violence. On the contrary, the Prophet routinely took a great deal of abuse for his views, and accepted it quietly and submissively, particularly during the Mecca years before the original migration to Medina. These our aspects of our heritage that must be emphasized more than they are today.

Marvelous Marv · 09-27-2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd never release an opera that features the decapitation of Jesus Christ in the US, or Moses in Israel, or Shiva in India, or Buddha in China. It's fucking disrespectful, and it's massively stupid.

At least now you seem to understand why some of us resented government funds going to NEA, and "works" like "Piss Christ."

I don't remember murder being committed over it, though.

analog · 09-28-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

How is this any less stupid than people being all up in arms about Janet Jackson's nipple or advertisers pulling ads because Dennis Franz's butt was going to be on NYPD Blue?

...because the worst fear we have of the Christian right is that they launch a campaign of annoyance to change sponsors' decisions, thus affecting the pocket of the show and getting them to bend to their whim... not calling out a jihad on Janet Jackson's nipple and Dennis Franz's ass.

The terrorists won a while ago- when we started all living in this constant state of fear. This opera thing is just a good, tangible example of exactly that fear.

aberkok · 09-28-2006, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Why haven't Muslims taken the energies that were squandered attacking some rubbish cartoons and channeled them into really engaging the West, critically and intellectually? If it would be too much to expect Pakistanis and Jordanians to come down on the warring Iraqi militias with harsh criticism, if it's too much to expect them to see past the feeble notion of an Iraqi 'resistance', then is it really too much to expect them to fill the streets in vocal opposition to this war rather than protesting images on a piece of paper? Shouldn't they be infinitely more concerned with the inhumanities committed at Abu Ghraib than with a stage prop that represents the Prophet's head?

And above all else, should they not be furiously rattling the bars of their own broken and despotic governments, all of whom, without exception, without a decent goddamn one among them, despoil their citizenries, lock up their brothers and sisters (in conditions far worse than those found at US detainment areas) and perpetuate their own rule through maddeningly authoritarian practices, sham elections (if that), and brutal state police?

Maybe I need to start a non-profit that engages Muslims in internal dialogue on this matter.

So who exactly should be re-directing these "energies?" Hiredgun, you're falling into the "us vs. them" trap. You speak as if there is some central committee who decide all Muslim actions. It's like saying the "West" is sitting idly by while the U.S. president conducts an illegal war. I'm a part of the "West," and so are you. So is Michael Jackson. Which one of us should be doing something about the injustices being committed by the "West?"

As far as "rattling the bars" of theor governments, I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not so simple as that. You would very likely be killed. I don't really know exactly how difficult it is to protest against those in power in, say Saudi Arabia, but I'm guessing it's not that easy (to put it lightly).

It's already been mentioned a couple of times that there was no coercion by Muslims to get the opera called off, so let's be clear on that point.

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

...because the worst fear we have of the Christian right is that they launch a campaign of annoyance to change sponsors' decisions, thus affecting the pocket of the show and getting them to bend to their whim... not calling out a jihad on Janet Jackson's nipple and Dennis Franz's ass.

The terrorists won a while ago- when we started all living in this constant state of fear. This opera thing is just a good, tangible example of exactly that fear.

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Muslim extremists in Germany? One (failed).

How many have been committed in the US by Muslim extremists? Two that succeeded with varying degrees of success and one reported to be stopped prior to execution. I'm not counting the ones with no organized target (Miami) or where charges were later dropped or reduced nor on international flights in transit (Richard Reid and the Chicago gang member who's name escapes me at the moment).

How many terrorist acts have been committed in the US by the Christian right? I come up with between 6 and 10, depending on where you lump some of them. Eric Rudolph killed 5 or 6 people in 4 separate bombings, 3 doctors who performed abortions in upstate NY were shot, Timothy McVeigh could be included as could the guy who shot up the church in TX a couple of years ago.

So which is the more credible threat? There's no clear answer. There are lots of people who want to do harm to Americans, and some of them are us.

feelgood · 09-28-2006, 05:20 AM

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Muslim extremists in the world? Countless without valid reasons

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Christian in the world? Even less but with more reasons

That's a key differences

aberkok · 09-28-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Muslim extremists in the world? Countless without valid reasons

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Christian in the world? Even less but with more reasons

That's a key differences

feelgood, the onus is really now on you to elaborate on that. Besides the obvious need for some kind of statistical information, your post is making me think that you feel the Christian terrorist acts were justified. Surely you can't mean that.

"NEW!! Christian Terrorism!! Same great taste, now with more REASONS!!"

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Muslim extremists in the world? Countless without valid reasons

How many terrorist acts have been committed by Christian in the world? Even less but with more reasons

That's a key differences

Please reread what you posted and note the blatant racism contained within. Just because you don't understand a reason doesn't make it any less valid to a person of sound mind committing an act. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem. I'd like to nominate your post for the "TFP Hall of Shame", should one ever be established.

If you'll expand your definition of "terrorism" to include invasion, economic domination and colonialism, I think you'll be disapointed by the tally of Christian acts.

Let's also start to count up all the attacks on immigrants of non-Christian faiths in the US and Europe, all of the Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis and Afganis killed by the US military in the past 20 years (remember the Iranian airliner we shot down for no reason?) and all of the tinpot dictators we've propped up for decades because they were "our" guys.

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If you'll expand your definition of "terrorism" to include invasion, economic domination and colonialism, I think you'll be disapointed by the tally of Christian acts.

Even if I pretend I don't know anything about the Islamic invasions of Israel, Africa, and Europe, this is still one of the most silly statements I've yet heard on the subject.

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Even if I pretend I don't know anything about the Islamic invasions of Israel, Africa, and Europe, this is still one of the most silly statements I've yet heard on the subject.

I take this to mean that you conceed that level of violence on both sides equals out over the long run, which is my point anyway. Thanks, Ustwo.

Seaver · 09-28-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

If you'll expand your definition of "terrorism" to include invasion, economic domination and colonialism, I think you'll be disapointed by the tally of Christian acts.

If you expand the definition of asinine you can include it to mean valid arguments.

popo · 09-28-2006, 06:32 AM

This reminds me of a poster on another site who claimed to be for the survival of Israel but anti-Zionist. He defined Zionism to be whatever the heck he feels like defining it as. Must be nice to have that luxury in life.

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 06:40 AM

I'm glad that everyone here lives in the kind of vacuum where acts by nations/states have no impact on decisions made by individuals. Of course there's absolutely no link between US foreign policy and terrorist responses to it. Of course there's no link between the US invasion of Iraq and the increase and spread of jihadists across the globe.

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm glad that everyone here lives in the kind of vacuum where acts by nations/states have no impact on decisions made by individuals. Of course there's absolutely no link between US foreign policy and terrorist responses to it. Of course there's no link between the US invasion of Iraq and the increase and spread of jihadists across the globe.

Gee we finally fight back and they increase their efforts, shocking.

That damn Iraq invasion caused the 1993 bombing I'm sure.

Oh and I'm sure it caused those embassy bombings.

And 9/11, yep, due to the Iraq invasion.

Yep, no planes blew up over Scottland prior to the Iraq invasion.

No sucicide bombers in Israel until that Iraq invasion.

No cruise ship hijackings nope.

No Israeli athleats murdered.

God damn Bush, if he just left well enough alone, none of this would have happened.

Of course if we just let them win there would be no more terrorist attacks anywhere! What a grand idea. Allah ackbar.

Sultana · 09-28-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

*snip* As far as "rattling the bars" of theor governments, I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not so simple as that. You would very likely be killed. I don't really know exactly how difficult it is to protest against those in power in, say Saudi Arabia, but I'm guessing it's not that easy (to put it lightly).
*snip*

I understand that it would never be easy. But it's either the locals (of any country) prevent and/or take care of their problems, or at some point someone else is going to feel constrained to do it *for* them (and of course it's not *for* the locals, but the outsiders' interests in the region).

The thing is many of the people agree with and support the local governments. One think I've been struck by in the Lebanon/Hezzbollah (sp, I know) problem is that many of the people (that I've seen/read interviewed, allowing for potential journalistic bias/motivation) felt that their lives were much better under Hezzbollah than under the local government. People feel the same way about Drug Lords of Mexico--they're the ones providing healthcare, road maintenance, and food supplies to the underprivileged. Which is why they (some, anyways) are considered local heros, Robin Hood if you will, and are protected and supported.

Governments have to provide for their people if they want the hearts of the people. And I think many governments with majority Muslim populations have failed their people miserably.

roachboy · 09-28-2006, 07:41 AM

the story seems to me a bit odd: i wonder if it is itself a piece of art, a bit of agitprop.
why not?

releasing such information to the press about the non-performance of an opera seems on the one hand a pretty good way of generating publicity--perhaps the backstory involves the cancellation of the production because it sucked (or as a result of paranoid "security concerns") which was then transformed into a press release that was understood as on the one hand a piece of art in itself (a commentary on paranoialand in general as well as an extension of it) and on another as a way to bring pressure to bear on the opera company to mount a production they had decided not to.

it certainly seems to be working.
above you get lots of harumph harumph about self-censorship as if that was transparently the question at hand.
that is not necessarily true.
conservatives can be cynical.
this release seems cynical to me.
it is not so obvious what is happening in this particular case.

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Gee we finally fight back and they increase their efforts, shocking.

Once again, you're deliberately muddying the waters. Clearly things that happened prior to the invasion weren't perpetrated by those incensed by the invasion. My comment was in referrence to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/wo...e1c&ei=5087%0A

It clearly states that the number and spread of jihadists have increased since the invasion. There's a clear link. It does not bode well for future considering all of the jihadists attacks listed in your post. Again, that's my point.

roachboy · 09-28-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Deutsche Oper?s production ends with Cretan king Idomeneo carrying the severed heads of Neptune, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed.

The scene, added to the script by director Hans Neuenfels, is meant to symbolise the king?s estrangement from religion after he reneges on a vow to the gods, and was roundly booed at its Berlin premiere in 2003.

this is interesting.
if you do a little research on neuenfels, the cynical reading of the press release above becomes more and more plausible.
i dont think folk are reacting to the whole story, only a particular version of it.
so it could well be that this thread has set off on a false path.

feelgood · 09-28-2006, 08:08 AM

Looks like my post was taken out of context. Let me put it in this way.

One of the cartoon protrayed Mohammand and Christ (don't need to remind you all where it came from..)and what happens? A Muslim riot ensues all over the world, attacking Danes, Embassys, etc etc while Christianity just went "Meh...its funny in some way..."

I think we're getting off topic now...

jorgelito · 09-28-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Please reread what you posted and note the blatant racism contained within. Just because you don't understand a reason doesn't make it any less valid to a person of sound mind committing an act. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem. I'd like to nominate your post for the "TFP Hall of Shame", should one ever be established.

If you'll expand your definition of "terrorism" to include invasion, economic domination and colonialism, I think you'll be disapointed by the tally of Christian acts.

Let's also start to count up all the attacks on immigrants of non-Christian faiths in the US and Europe, all of the Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis and Afganis killed by the US military in the past 20 years (remember the Iranian airliner we shot down for no reason?) and all of the tinpot dictators we've propped up for decades because they were "our" guys.

What racism? He's talking about religions here. Please remember people, that Muslims are NOT a race they are a religion. The Muslim demographic is highly diverse and complex and NOT race based, not any more than Christianity is.

Craven Morehead · 09-28-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultana

I think that until the Muslim (Islamic?) moderate community takes it upon themselves to criticize, condemn, and contain the extremists, the global view of the Islamic community as a whole will be painted by these more active extremists.

Thank you! Until this happens any attempt by the non-Islamic communities to regulate Islamic actions will fail. Containing the extremists is best down from within. There has been little denouncement of terrorist acts by leaders in the Muslim faith. That concerns me.

Ustwo · 09-28-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Once again, you're deliberately muddying the waters. Clearly things that happened prior to the invasion weren't perpetrated by those incensed by the invasion. My comment was in referrence to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/wo...e1c&ei=5087%0A

It clearly states that the number and spread of jihadists have increased since the invasion. There's a clear link. It does not bode well for future considering all of the jihadists attacks listed in your post. Again, that's my point.

We have put pressure on the radicals, it makes sense that they would increase their own recruitment efforts in response. My point was that not doing anything but using harsh words and the odd missle strike wasn't doing anything to protect us. I would much rather these guys flock to Iraq, into the waiting jaws of our military than be free to organize an attack on US soil again. So far so good.

Willravel · 09-28-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We have put pressure on the radicals, it makes sense that they would increase their own recruitment efforts in response. My point was that not doing anything but using harsh words and the odd missle strike wasn't doing anything to protect us. I would much rather these guys flock to Iraq, into the waiting jaws of our military than be free to organize an attack on US soil again. So far so good.

The "waiting jaws of our military" means that we lose a lot more soldiers. By putting pressure on the radicals we are creating more terrorism. Shouldn't our plan be to decrease terrorism? Why are there terrorists that hate the West in the first place? Think about it.

The_Jazz · 09-28-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

What racism? He's talking about religions here. Please remember people, that Muslims are NOT a race they are a religion. The Muslim demographic is highly diverse and complex and NOT race based, not any more than Christianity is.

Fine, then it's jingoism or demonstration of a clear bias against Muslim. Whatever "ism" you use to define it, it's the same idea behind anti-semitism, and that's usually lumped under the "racism" banner. Regardless, the post concludes that all Muslims act without "valid" reason.

09-27-2006, 07:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	I'm afraid this is going to once again become one of those threads which degenerates into those who are able to avoid generalizing the attitudes of Muslims (who number in the millions, by the way), arguing with those who refuse to see past the actions of a few extremists. That "discussion" is already active in many other threads - don't understand what Osama Bin Laden and Malcom X have (had?) in common, anyway, just to give one example. Instead, why not discuss freedom of speech in art/literature? If the censoring of Idomeneo is seen as such a bad thing, do you think The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion should be allowed in libraries? I think it should, because it's not the information that's important...it's how you understand it and its context. Don't take that to mean that I think Muslims are incapable of understanding somethings' context. Before anyone says anything in this thread, don't ignore the fact that nowhere in the article is any mention of Muslim belligerence towards the production. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries." Last edited by aberkok; 09-27-2006 at 07:22 AM..

09-27-2006, 07:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	I think that until the Muslim (Islamic?) moderate community takes it upon themselves to criticize, condemn, and contain the extremists, the global view of the Islamic community as a whole will be painted by these more active extremists. It's awful that these decisions have to be made, and I deplore the circumstances that make it so that fear for the safety of people's very lives dictates the selection of an opera. By the way, I think that the director's addition of the other god's (and prophet) severed heads is a good one, making an old opera more current and relateable (is that even a word?), and makes the intention of that scene clearer. Anyone who would be offended by the inclusion of the prophet's head should instead be offended if it WASN'T included, as if Islam was not important enough to be represented amongst the biggies of world religions. Gees, the extremists so entirely miss the point! __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

09-27-2006, 07:44 AM	#4 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	When I read the headline this morning on Drudge, I thought about it for a couple of seconds before I clicked on the article. What I EXPECTED to read was that it was indeed a Mozart opera that had been banned, but I expected it to have been Abduction from the Seraglio, instead of Idomeneo. I'm a bit shocked. Abduction from the Seraglio was set in a Turkish harem, and at the time it was written, Turkey was at WAR with Austria. How ironic it is that the Emperor of Austria gave permission for Mozart to stage both of these operas KNOWING that the subject matter was touchy with his own people, yet modern idiots ban them because they MIGHT offend someone. Bah! __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

09-27-2006, 07:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Europe has been bending over to radical Islam for some time now, whats one more time going to hurt? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-27-2006, 07:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	A couple of notes: Unless you're in Germany, "our" right to free speach hasn't been impacted at all. We (the American "we") can still do whatever we want, although I doubt many people are going to rush for opera tickets anytime soon. Regardless of where this is taking place, how is self-censorship any sort of abridgement of free speach rights? I can say that everyone on this board is a moron (not that I believe it), but I don't because its rude to say. I don't particularly care for evangelical Christians trying to convert me, but I'm not rude about it. Sure, I could get in a shouting match about who's right and who's going to hell, but it's not worth the hassle. How is this any different? If an American theater pulled the plug on a production of a show that depicted Christ being buttfucked by a pair of Japanese samuris because it was too controversial and they didn't want to deal with the headaches associated with it, it wouldn't make many headlines. Remember, this is a business decision. No one has told the theater not to put on this opera. They consulted with the authorities who confirmed no specific threat but said that they thought it was a bad idea. How is this anything other than a prudent business decision? If an insurance company doesn't want to write wind coverage for an office building in downtown Miami, it's the exact same thing as far as I'm concerned. One just happens to make a better headline. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-27-2006, 08:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	When it is over fear of being killed, its a right to free speech that has been lost. You may have the 'right' on paper but under penality violence. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-27-2006, 08:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	Sure, it's certainly a prudent business decision. But the fact that it's prudent to not offend a group because they very well may kill you is a sad event. Whether it's because of religious extremists, Nazis, the mob, or gangs. Sure, a group could take a stand--and count the cost if they aren't backed to the nines with security. But on the other hand, to bow to the threats, to allow anarchists (sp?) to dictate business decisions, cultural events etc...gives them the upper hand. All the outrage displayed by The Names is all well and good, but it'd be much more effective if they said, "This is an outrage, and I am going to contribute to/ensure a high-security environment where art can continue unabated!" Otherwise, I can't help but think that yes, this decision of the theater is likely saving lives. __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

09-27-2006, 11:50 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Germans don't a right to free speach. http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_226...basic-law.html You'll notice that there's a specific clause to control speach by the "general law". And that Article 2 gives specific mention of "moral law". I'm by no means an expert on the German Constitution, and I never read it before today. Check out the "no censorship" clause, too. It seems to have held up in this case. How is this any less stupid than people being all up in arms about Janet Jackson's nipple or advertisers pulling ads because Dennis Franz's butt was going to be on NYPD Blue? The Christian right didn't like either of those, and they tried to the latter and punish the former. There's a hint of violence here only because we all "know" that Muslims riot at the drop of a hat (at least according to the media). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-27-2006, 12:03 PM	#11 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Ok...let's not head in that direction...for the umptybillionth time. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

09-27-2006, 01:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I certainly conceed that the worst perpetrators of terrorism (as I've defined it in previous threads) around the world are Muslims, although they by no means have cornered that market. However, there was no threat by anyone over the program and the theater sought out the advice of the government who advised (as anyone could) that it might provoke a reation similar to the Danish cartoons. And please note that the Muslim moderates are already speaking out against the decisionto pull the plug on the production. Refer to the OP. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-27-2006, 04:47 PM	#14 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	Its sad that people have to live their lives in fear of retribution. Alas, it is a fact of life and unlikely to change any time soon. __________________ If only closed minds came with closed mouths. Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open. It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

09-27-2006, 05:03 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'd never release an opera that features the decapitation of Jesus Christ in the US, or Moses in Israel, or Shiva in India, or Buddha in China. It's fucking disrespectful, and it's massively stupid. Religons take themselves too seriously, and becuase of that any kind of free speech, be it constitutionally protected or not, is hindered. On the flip side: If someone offends you, then you may take offence. If someone offends your diety, then it's up to your diety to stand up for him/her/itself. Shame on anyone who can't laugh at themselves. What a horrible existence it must be. Last edited by Willravel; 09-27-2006 at 05:07 PM..

09-27-2006, 07:38 PM	#16 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	But this wasn't being released in Saudi Arabia, it was for Germany. Muslims in the millions? I thought it was around a billion. It's a big demographic. This kind of reminds me of the South Park episode from a while back about Mohammed on the Family Guy. I find it detrimental that this type of "censorship" makes everyone look bad whether real or imagined. It becomes a lose-lose proposition. The self-imposed censoring makes the producers etc look like cowards and giving in to fear and terrorism, and it make muslims look bad too as if they all would object to this opera and automatically react violently. The article mentioned that an Islamic Association in Turkey acknowledged it was time to accept free expression in art and another mentioned that this was not a good way to start dialogue. It must be tough to be a moderate Muslim. Someone mentioned that they wanted to discuss the issue of freedom of expression in art. Well, I think that in this case, it was definitely ridiculous to cancel. art needs to be the preserve of crazy stuff, to push the limits and borders of our humanity. I also think there is a big difference between freedom of expresson in art and political provocation or encitement of violence. EX: If someone thought it would be cool to burn an effigy in front of a Mosque and call that art I would think that would be rather controversial. However, the major flaw with this is that it is rather subjective and open for debate. art for some is politics for others. Still, aside from safety reasons, is this type of censorship called for? I would assume that Germany is a civilized and stable country. Does it live in that much fear that putting on a Mozart opera would encite violence? I think that is truly sad. Last edited by jorgelito; 09-27-2006 at 07:39 PM.. Reason: grammar & syntax

09-27-2006, 08:52 PM	#17 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	deep breath I am probably identified on TFP as 'liberal'. In the politics board, I very rarely find myself in agreement with the general worldview promoted by those conservatives that tend to be aligned with UsTwo. My ideas tend to paint me (more or less correctly) as a staunch critic of the concept of a 'clash of civilizations' and of the colonial experience and its consequences, a promoter of constraints on unilateral power, a cynic about the dicourse of the 'war on terror', and very often a defender of Muslims and Islam against unfounded charges of inherent barbarism, cruelty, and intolerance, charges that are unfair and historically false. I also happen to have been raised Muslim. This is the one issue on which I cannot play defense for Muslims. It is time, far past time, for some serious self-criticism and reflection on this topic. The particular incident (or non-incident) in the OP adds little to the debate, but our over-sensitivity to criticism and perceived insult is dangerously, even catastrophically problematic. I understand that the hatred we see is usually on the margins; that even when it becomes mainstream, it is both a vent for other political frustrations and most especially the result of a warped worldview in which Muslims are quite literally under siege, mortally threatened as a people by the forces of American-Israeli Crusade. But the damage that this type of reaction does, both in the way it crushes a society's spirit and in how it destroys what credibility Muslims might have on the world stage, is far too great to be ignored. Three thousand people are dying every month in Iraq. It's unfathomable. Why haven't Muslims taken the energies that were squandered attacking some rubbish cartoons and channeled them into really engaging the West, critically and intellectually? If it would be too much to expect Pakistanis and Jordanians to come down on the warring Iraqi militias with harsh criticism, if it's too much to expect them to see past the feeble notion of an Iraqi 'resistance', then is it really too much to expect them to fill the streets in vocal opposition to this war rather than protesting images on a piece of paper? Shouldn't they be infinitely more concerned with the inhumanities committed at Abu Ghraib than with a stage prop that represents the Prophet's head? And above all else, should they not be furiously rattling the bars of their own broken and despotic governments, all of whom, without exception, without a decent goddamn one among them, despoil their citizenries, lock up their brothers and sisters (in conditions far worse than those found at US detainment areas) and perpetuate their own rule through maddeningly authoritarian practices, sham elections (if that), and brutal state police? The Muslim world is in a period of crisis. There are a lot of very real, very important problems to contend with. There is an enormous amount of work to do for anyone who cares about the fate of Muslim peoples and the nations in which they reside. Some of the problems can be blamed on the outside world, and many cannot... but it's really not relevant. The point is that a few silly drawings, or a novel by Salman Rushdie, are non-issues. They shouldn't even be making it onto the agenda. Maybe I need to start a non-profit that engages Muslims in internal dialogue on this matter. Edit: One small thing to add. I don't tend to view things with a religious lens, but there is absolutely nothing in the Qur'an or the tradition of the Prophet that indicate that an insult can be an impetus for violence. On the contrary, the Prophet routinely took a great deal of abuse for his views, and accepted it quietly and submissively, particularly during the Mecca years before the original migration to Medina. These our aspects of our heritage that must be emphasized more than they are today. Last edited by hiredgun; 09-27-2006 at 09:04 PM..

09-28-2006, 05:20 AM	#22 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	How many terrorist acts have been committed by Muslim extremists in the world? Countless without valid reasons How many terrorist acts have been committed by Christian in the world? Even less but with more reasons That's a key differences __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

09-28-2006, 06:32 AM	#28 (permalink)
popo Psycho	This reminds me of a poster on another site who claimed to be for the survival of Israel but anti-Zionist. He defined Zionism to be whatever the heck he feels like defining it as. Must be nice to have that luxury in life.

09-28-2006, 06:40 AM	#29 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm glad that everyone here lives in the kind of vacuum where acts by nations/states have no impact on decisions made by individuals. Of course there's absolutely no link between US foreign policy and terrorist responses to it. Of course there's no link between the US invasion of Iraq and the increase and spread of jihadists across the globe. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-28-2006, 07:41 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the story seems to me a bit odd: i wonder if it is itself a piece of art, a bit of agitprop. why not? releasing such information to the press about the non-performance of an opera seems on the one hand a pretty good way of generating publicity--perhaps the backstory involves the cancellation of the production because it sucked (or as a result of paranoid "security concerns") which was then transformed into a press release that was understood as on the one hand a piece of art in itself (a commentary on paranoialand in general as well as an extension of it) and on another as a way to bring pressure to bear on the opera company to mount a production they had decided not to. it certainly seems to be working. above you get lots of harumph harumph about self-censorship as if that was transparently the question at hand. that is not necessarily true. conservatives can be cynical. this release seems cynical to me. it is not so obvious what is happening in this particular case. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-28-2006, 08:08 AM	#35 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	Looks like my post was taken out of context. Let me put it in this way. One of the cartoon protrayed Mohammand and Christ (don't need to remind you all where it came from..)and what happens? A Muslim riot ensues all over the world, attacking Danes, Embassys, etc etc while Christianity just went "Meh...its funny in some way..." I think we're getting off topic now... __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war