Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"(mynorthwest.com)
mynorthwest.com
Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170
16 comments
I just have to say that "Individual Muslims are free to disagree, but not to kill me." is one of the best sentences I've read in some time.
Reminds me of a British group I heard about on NPR a few months ago, I think the name was "British Muslims for Secular Democracy" who hold up protest signs that say "To those who choose to insult The Prophet... Let's agree to disagree."
Reminds me of a British group I heard about on NPR a few months ago, I think the name was "British Muslims for Secular Democracy" who hold up protest signs that say "To those who choose to insult The Prophet... Let's agree to disagree."
For an interesting history of the back-and-forth of Christian iconography in the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm
I studied this in a college - very fascinating all the fighting and back and forth over simple images. Leave it to Wikipedia to offer up something I never read about: 'According to Arnold Toynbee, it is the prestige of Islamic military successes in the 7-8th centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians into evaluating and adopting the Islamic precept of the destruction of idolatric images.'
I studied this in a college - very fascinating all the fighting and back and forth over simple images. Leave it to Wikipedia to offer up something I never read about: 'According to Arnold Toynbee, it is the prestige of Islamic military successes in the 7-8th centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians into evaluating and adopting the Islamic precept of the destruction of idolatric images.'
There are two parts to this issue, the most minor of which being that depictions of mohammed are forbidden. Indeed depictions of any prophet are frowned apon by the majority of muslims. Disney's 'The Prince of Egypt' was banned in many predominantly muslim countries for example. The reasoning behind this is that the worshiping of stone idols was the religion of the day in Mecca before Mohammed started evangelizing. It was the desire for Islam to be far removed from these practices. Yet for any rules that are in place for muslims, non-muslims are not required to adhere to them, hence no-one at Disney was threatened or murdered.
There is some cross-over of course, where a non-muslim cannot for example walk around half-dressed in a muslim country but making depictions of mohammed in a Western publication is certainly not one of them. I cringe when I hear people say something like 'Mohammed's image might be sacred to muslims, but not us'. Muslims are, you could argue, some what responsible though as mohammed has been elevated to something far above a human being in some of their minds, ironic when his one message was that God alone is worthy of worship.
The real issue and what is being continuously glossed over when this brouhaha boils over is that some muslims take deadly issue with mohammed or Islam being mocked. There are a few accounts of poets in mohammed's lifetime who slandered either him or Islam and were subsequently murdered. Most muslims doubt these accounts are factual, believing perhaps they were made up to suit someone's agenda after mohammed died. after all Mohammed was constantly berated by a multitude of detractors while he was alive and he didn't call for their deaths, but rather peace treaties.
Some muslims though - the dangerous ones - see them as valid and regard them as instructions as to how to conduct themselves when a similar situation arises. If you managed to watch the video clip revolutionmuslim created, you will hear that the audio which plays over the montage is of an imam discussing some of these stories. So this is why the Danish cartoonists are being threatened, not because they made an image of mohammed but because they slandered him. This is why Theo Van Gogh was murdered and this is why the South Park creators are being threatened. Behind the mask of these veiled threats of course lies a sub-section of muslims who wish to rouse their brethren to engage in a full-on assault of the west. The vast majority of muslims will ignore them but those already holding a vendetta might give them ear.
There is some cross-over of course, where a non-muslim cannot for example walk around half-dressed in a muslim country but making depictions of mohammed in a Western publication is certainly not one of them. I cringe when I hear people say something like 'Mohammed's image might be sacred to muslims, but not us'. Muslims are, you could argue, some what responsible though as mohammed has been elevated to something far above a human being in some of their minds, ironic when his one message was that God alone is worthy of worship.
The real issue and what is being continuously glossed over when this brouhaha boils over is that some muslims take deadly issue with mohammed or Islam being mocked. There are a few accounts of poets in mohammed's lifetime who slandered either him or Islam and were subsequently murdered. Most muslims doubt these accounts are factual, believing perhaps they were made up to suit someone's agenda after mohammed died. after all Mohammed was constantly berated by a multitude of detractors while he was alive and he didn't call for their deaths, but rather peace treaties.
Some muslims though - the dangerous ones - see them as valid and regard them as instructions as to how to conduct themselves when a similar situation arises. If you managed to watch the video clip revolutionmuslim created, you will hear that the audio which plays over the montage is of an imam discussing some of these stories. So this is why the Danish cartoonists are being threatened, not because they made an image of mohammed but because they slandered him. This is why Theo Van Gogh was murdered and this is why the South Park creators are being threatened. Behind the mask of these veiled threats of course lies a sub-section of muslims who wish to rouse their brethren to engage in a full-on assault of the west. The vast majority of muslims will ignore them but those already holding a vendetta might give them ear.
Right on! This is one of the best responses I've read. As you point out, there is no such thing as "the Islam" on matters such as these, there are various traditions. A similar debate is raging in Europe over the wearing of head scarves, again a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam.
One quick clarification though: AFAIK, Mohammed is always depicted with a veil in Islamic iconography.
One quick clarification though: AFAIK, Mohammed is always depicted with a veil in Islamic iconography.
I'll accept that there is no such thing as "the Islam" and that in practice it's a very diverse religion.
But some traditions aren't simply "a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
The Hijab (head scarves) is an Islamic requirement. The different sects will disagree on its implementation, style, enforcement, and other details...but the vast majority of Muslims will agree that it's not simply "again a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
Depictions of holy figures is another example. Yes, there is Persian, Turkish, Indian, and other art depicting the prophet, the angels, god, etc. Yes, some Shia Muslims will have no problem depicting the prophet respectfully. Yes, some Sunni Muslims are more liberal than others. But in reality, when you look at the whole Islamic population, those groups are the ones that historically have represented a small sect in Islam. The vast majority of Muslims stand against such depictions; it's important to note that the vast majority of them will also simply boycott or ignore said depictions, rather than go through more violent channels.
Just my two cents.
But some traditions aren't simply "a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
The Hijab (head scarves) is an Islamic requirement. The different sects will disagree on its implementation, style, enforcement, and other details...but the vast majority of Muslims will agree that it's not simply "again a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
Depictions of holy figures is another example. Yes, there is Persian, Turkish, Indian, and other art depicting the prophet, the angels, god, etc. Yes, some Shia Muslims will have no problem depicting the prophet respectfully. Yes, some Sunni Muslims are more liberal than others. But in reality, when you look at the whole Islamic population, those groups are the ones that historically have represented a small sect in Islam. The vast majority of Muslims stand against such depictions; it's important to note that the vast majority of them will also simply boycott or ignore said depictions, rather than go through more violent channels.
Just my two cents.
Hijab may be be a requirement, but hijab doesn't necessarily = head scarves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab
Like I said:
The different sects will disagree on its implementation, style, enforcement, and other details...but the vast majority of Muslims will agree that it's not simply "again a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
The different sects will disagree on its implementation, style, enforcement, and other details...but the vast majority of Muslims will agree that it's not simply "again a traditional approach from a small sect in Islam"
AFAIK, Mohammed is always depicted with a veil in Islamic iconography.
That is factually inaccurate -- that is certainly one historically mainstream option, but it is not true in all times and all places.
See generally the Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
That is factually inaccurate -- that is certainly one historically mainstream option, but it is not true in all times and all places.
See generally the Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
Unfortunately, "militant" Islam is what the world sees.
Wow. Thanks for this comment. I know this is what up-voting is for, but I felt like this needed an extra shoutout.
You know what: I am a Muslim and I find this...AWESOME! I don't know if you agree with me but I find this akin to printing the decss code on t-shirts (and as poems and songs). If individuals are targeted by powers that be unfairly over an action the best way to counterattack is to perform the action en masse.
Now, I think this sort of approach can have two consequences: Either the increased exposure can nudge the Muslim thinkers gradually into seeing this as a non-issue. Or, more people will become marginalized. The Muslim world has reacted in the second way in the past couple of hundred years, let's see if these innovative approaches can change the tendency.
Now, I think this sort of approach can have two consequences: Either the increased exposure can nudge the Muslim thinkers gradually into seeing this as a non-issue. Or, more people will become marginalized. The Muslim world has reacted in the second way in the past couple of hundred years, let's see if these innovative approaches can change the tendency.
The Muslim in me is offended by these drawings. At the same time, I respect your right to draw something I find offensive.
All cultures have their soft spots. You have every legal right to hit those soft spots. And in most cases, nothing will happen - just like you have a right to offend people, people have a right to be offended(without being violent, of course). Yet, when you play with emotions of millions of people, simple numbers dictate that a few will go apeshit. And when they do, they should be punished.
I don't see us having a EVERYBODY USE THE N-WORD DAY. How come? Largely because it will get your ass kicked.
Now, you can argue that n-word is different than these cartoons because it is based on more solid and recent events. Fair enough - but I thought this whole debate was about free speech? Specifically, that free speech should not get you killed or your ass kicked no matter what. Yet in each society, you will find speech that will get your ass kicked.
All cultures have their soft spots. You have every legal right to hit those soft spots. And in most cases, nothing will happen - just like you have a right to offend people, people have a right to be offended(without being violent, of course). Yet, when you play with emotions of millions of people, simple numbers dictate that a few will go apeshit. And when they do, they should be punished.
I don't see us having a EVERYBODY USE THE N-WORD DAY. How come? Largely because it will get your ass kicked.
Now, you can argue that n-word is different than these cartoons because it is based on more solid and recent events. Fair enough - but I thought this whole debate was about free speech? Specifically, that free speech should not get you killed or your ass kicked no matter what. Yet in each society, you will find speech that will get your ass kicked.
I think you raise a pretty decent point, but if some comedian who makes use of "the n-word" were to suddenly start getting death threats, or actual attempts on their life, from some militant group that felt offended by the word's use, then I probably would support an "everybody use the n-word day", purely as a stance against acting out of fear.
But most people avoid that word not out of fear that they'll be murdered, but because they legitimately don't want to cause offense. But if some fringe group started trying to enforce our little social prohibition on the n-word by force and fear, I would expect that lots of people would start to push back -- and anyone who happened to be offended would just have to live with it.
A very similar thing happened with flag-burning. I've seen a lot more flag-burnings (in the U.S., of the U.S. flag) done in protest of laws against flag-burning than I've ever seen them as standalone political statements. The people doing these burnings probably never would have done them except that they're offended by the heavyhanded prohibition.
With the possible exception of the very first one, the people drawing pictures of Muhammad generally aren't doing it to make fun of Islam, they're doing it to take a strong stance against (and mock) those who would use fear to push their morality.
The underlying idea, I think, is to make it very clear to militant groups that they can't get their way via force and fear. The more they try to intimidate, the louder and more offensive the opposition is going to get.
But most people avoid that word not out of fear that they'll be murdered, but because they legitimately don't want to cause offense. But if some fringe group started trying to enforce our little social prohibition on the n-word by force and fear, I would expect that lots of people would start to push back -- and anyone who happened to be offended would just have to live with it.
A very similar thing happened with flag-burning. I've seen a lot more flag-burnings (in the U.S., of the U.S. flag) done in protest of laws against flag-burning than I've ever seen them as standalone political statements. The people doing these burnings probably never would have done them except that they're offended by the heavyhanded prohibition.
With the possible exception of the very first one, the people drawing pictures of Muhammad generally aren't doing it to make fun of Islam, they're doing it to take a strong stance against (and mock) those who would use fear to push their morality.
The underlying idea, I think, is to make it very clear to militant groups that they can't get their way via force and fear. The more they try to intimidate, the louder and more offensive the opposition is going to get.
I probably would support an "everybody use the n-word day", purely as a stance against acting out of fear.
That's cool, we just have a simple disagreement there. I wouldn't want to offend millions in the process of getting back at a fringe group.
Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. I don't think you would start a LETS USE N-WORD DAY if you knew the guy getting the threats was purposely using the n-word to provoke a reaction. Would you?
That's cool, we just have a simple disagreement there. I wouldn't want to offend millions in the process of getting back at a fringe group.
Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. I don't think you would start a LETS USE N-WORD DAY if you knew the guy getting the threats was purposely using the n-word to provoke a reaction. Would you?
> Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act.
If you're referring to the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon which was published in the Danish newspaper, then that probably isn't true. I'll quote the newspaper editor who ran the cartoons:
"One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet."
I recommend reading the full NYT editorial from which I drew that quote, called "Why I Published Those Cartoons", which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...
If you're referring to the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon which was published in the Danish newspaper, then that probably isn't true. I'll quote the newspaper editor who ran the cartoons:
"One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet."
I recommend reading the full NYT editorial from which I drew that quote, called "Why I Published Those Cartoons", which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...
The analogy is a tough one to work with because the word "nigger" has a lot of historical baggage, and is connected to and used by a lot of groups with very violent histories.
So it's tough to say what I'd do if someone who was honestly racist, and was perpetuating a violence-laden dialogue of racism, started getting death threats. That might seem like par for the course.
But if they were a comedian who used it as part of a routine, in a venue that most people understand to be one of satire, then I might very well think that the cost of offending a lot of people in order to express solidarity with them, and rub it in the face of violent extremists, was worth it.
It depends a lot on the context and how much worse the person making the offensive statement is than the violent extremists. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, I think the original cartoonist may have definitely had some race issues, but you'd have to use a logarithmic scale of crazy in order to plot where he falls versus the people who decided it was worth killing over. So in that particular situation I'm solidly on the side of cartoonists, even if the first one was in poor taste. The response was so disproportionate to the original offense that I'm willing to set aside good taste temporarily in order to make it clear that using the threat of death to push your religious morality is totally not OK.
So it's tough to say what I'd do if someone who was honestly racist, and was perpetuating a violence-laden dialogue of racism, started getting death threats. That might seem like par for the course.
But if they were a comedian who used it as part of a routine, in a venue that most people understand to be one of satire, then I might very well think that the cost of offending a lot of people in order to express solidarity with them, and rub it in the face of violent extremists, was worth it.
It depends a lot on the context and how much worse the person making the offensive statement is than the violent extremists. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, I think the original cartoonist may have definitely had some race issues, but you'd have to use a logarithmic scale of crazy in order to plot where he falls versus the people who decided it was worth killing over. So in that particular situation I'm solidly on the side of cartoonists, even if the first one was in poor taste. The response was so disproportionate to the original offense that I'm willing to set aside good taste temporarily in order to make it clear that using the threat of death to push your religious morality is totally not OK.
Absolutely - I don't think any of this justifies a killing.
So you're saying that we shouldn't do things if people threaten us?
Do you really believe that?
A "EVERYBODY USE THE N-WORD DAY" is unlikely to happen -- precisely because no-one would actual kill someone for drawing a cartoon offensive to black people, even if it called them all niggers or something. You see, I did it there but I won't even get any death threats.
Contrast with someone drawing one cartoon and actually being killed, you know, his blood splashed across the ground.
Also, it's one thing some kids never learn at school -- if you can't take a bit of teasing, then you get picked on. If you get picked on, you either: get miserable, get used to being teased, or become the crazy kid, the one even the bullies won't touch, who kicks and bites, and even the teachers despise.
But they're not in school any more, and they need to grow up. Take offence if you want, but threats, violence and murder are a child's solution.
Do you really believe that?
A "EVERYBODY USE THE N-WORD DAY" is unlikely to happen -- precisely because no-one would actual kill someone for drawing a cartoon offensive to black people, even if it called them all niggers or something. You see, I did it there but I won't even get any death threats.
Contrast with someone drawing one cartoon and actually being killed, you know, his blood splashed across the ground.
Also, it's one thing some kids never learn at school -- if you can't take a bit of teasing, then you get picked on. If you get picked on, you either: get miserable, get used to being teased, or become the crazy kid, the one even the bullies won't touch, who kicks and bites, and even the teachers despise.
But they're not in school any more, and they need to grow up. Take offence if you want, but threats, violence and murder are a child's solution.
Contrast with someone drawing one cartoon and actually being killed, you know, his blood splashed across the ground.
One nutcase's actions should result in offending millions more who express their hurt in their own homes quietly. If a guy killed another for using the n-word, I would not be rooting for a LETS HAVE AN N-WORD DAY and offend millions others who have little to do with that one nutcase. Perhaps you and I are sensitive to different things.
So you're saying that we shouldn't do things if people threaten us?
If a few guys threaten you, do you offend millions others just so you can get back at the few idiots?
One nutcase's actions should result in offending millions more who express their hurt in their own homes quietly. If a guy killed another for using the n-word, I would not be rooting for a LETS HAVE AN N-WORD DAY and offend millions others who have little to do with that one nutcase. Perhaps you and I are sensitive to different things.
So you're saying that we shouldn't do things if people threaten us?
If a few guys threaten you, do you offend millions others just so you can get back at the few idiots?
That is a fair point. I am not brave or sure enough to post my rebuttal, so I accept your argument that, in the case of solitary nutcases, or a few idiots, it is not right to offend the majority.
Also, your ethnicity, country of origin, or skin color is not something you can control. The arbitrary set of beliefs you happened to be introduced to when you were born is.
um sorry, but that's not even in the same category of parody / satire.
The Qur'an doesn't explicitly forbid visual depictions of Muhammad.
The Qur'an doesn't explicitly forbid visual depictions of Muhammad.
See, I am not even debating on the basis of what the Qur'an forbids. I am all about emotions. Every culture has random shit that upsets them. And if you keep hitting the soft spot again and again, a few wackos from those societies will go crazy. There is no need to even goto the Qu'ran for this - just understand that every culture, every religion has soft spots which when hit hard enough, will make a few go crazy. To think that you can change these super, super minority via logic is lame.
To think this can change the view of a larger audience - there's nothing to change...super vast majority of Muslims are just offended when they find these stories and then go about their daily business. For me, it's like some dude cursing at my Mom. For 99.99% of the time, I will laugh it off. But do that enough times and to enough people and someone will be very ticked off.
To think this can change the view of a larger audience - there's nothing to change...super vast majority of Muslims are just offended when they find these stories and then go about their daily business. For me, it's like some dude cursing at my Mom. For 99.99% of the time, I will laugh it off. But do that enough times and to enough people and someone will be very ticked off.
Honestly, I think a majority of the time, people mock it because they don't understand it. I don't.
I believe what you say about being offended entirely, but I find it almost impossible to wrap my head around the idea. Getting mortally offended by just a picture of a historical figure -- is just wierd.
Now, I could understand some mean mockery being offensive. A better example than the N word people have been using would be drawing MLK eating watermelom in blackface. That's really offensive, and unnecessary. You have to go out of your way to do something like that.
But just a depiction of Mhd. in a lightly humorous or non-mocking context or a context that is ambiguous just doesn't seem like it would be a that much of gut punch -- taking that kind of offense just seems really thin-skinned to me and borne of silly religious dogma... (sorry).
I'm fully willing to admit that I "don't get it", however. :-)
I believe what you say about being offended entirely, but I find it almost impossible to wrap my head around the idea. Getting mortally offended by just a picture of a historical figure -- is just wierd.
Now, I could understand some mean mockery being offensive. A better example than the N word people have been using would be drawing MLK eating watermelom in blackface. That's really offensive, and unnecessary. You have to go out of your way to do something like that.
But just a depiction of Mhd. in a lightly humorous or non-mocking context or a context that is ambiguous just doesn't seem like it would be a that much of gut punch -- taking that kind of offense just seems really thin-skinned to me and borne of silly religious dogma... (sorry).
I'm fully willing to admit that I "don't get it", however. :-)
I'm not so sure about actively trying to offend a group of people so flagrantly. I wonder how Ms Norris would react to "Everyone draw a bitch getting slapped" Day or "Everyone illustrate a sexist joke" Day.
I'm not Muslim and am not offended by depictions of Mohammed. I have no problem with political commentary through mediums like cartoons, but this "Everybody Draw" day seems childish and rude. It offends some people, have some respect.
I'm not Muslim and am not offended by depictions of Mohammed. I have no problem with political commentary through mediums like cartoons, but this "Everybody Draw" day seems childish and rude. It offends some people, have some respect.
Well said OldHippie. It is about Respect.
There are several Muslim artists who would love to draw the prophet, but they know they can't and respect it.
What is so hard about respecting someone who says "Don't draw pictures of my leader"? There are millions of people you could draw.
I guess some people like a challenge. I like a challenge. But you can bet your salary I would not mess with some people who have proved to end lives if they don't find you funny.
There are several Muslim artists who would love to draw the prophet, but they know they can't and respect it.
What is so hard about respecting someone who says "Don't draw pictures of my leader"? There are millions of people you could draw.
I guess some people like a challenge. I like a challenge. But you can bet your salary I would not mess with some people who have proved to end lives if they don't find you funny.
You'll notice in the update to the article the cartoonist is already backing off; claiming she had no intention of this going viral is to make clear that she is not "the focus of any group", presumably out of fear.
It's possible the cartoonist is backing off, but it seems more likely that her art was misinterpreted as the organization of grassroots movement or something. She just clarified that it was just a cartoon. She didn't take it down or anything. I don't see that as fearful.
It is unfortunate that all muslims (including the non-radical ones) have to deal with disrespect toward their religion just because one radical group made a death threat.
To most muslims (the normal ones that this), we'd just say: "Hey, the most significant figure in our religion is so beautiful and amazing to us that we prefer not to have a physical depiction of him. We'd appreciate it if you respect this and respect our religion."
I wonder if this cartoonist would pull the same publicity stunt if the radicals didn't exist and instead was faced with my simple message and request that I have for my religion.
I wonder if South Park would try to still do a depiction if they were faced with my simple message and request instead of a death threat.
To most muslims (the normal ones that this), we'd just say: "Hey, the most significant figure in our religion is so beautiful and amazing to us that we prefer not to have a physical depiction of him. We'd appreciate it if you respect this and respect our religion."
I wonder if this cartoonist would pull the same publicity stunt if the radicals didn't exist and instead was faced with my simple message and request that I have for my religion.
I wonder if South Park would try to still do a depiction if they were faced with my simple message and request instead of a death threat.
I can't think of a religion that doesn't deal with disrespect from outsiders.
Catholics? The Pope and his crazy hats. LOLpedophiles. Bad conspiracy theories. Basically everything Dan Brown has ever written. Gay priest jokes.
Mormons? Magic underwear. The Angel MORONi. Multiple wives. The total hilarity and necessary suspension of belief required to buy that God buried a bunch of Additional Commandments in upstate New York.
Jews? Don't even get me started.
I can't think of any religion that doesn't "deal with disrespect." There are some that I'm not familiar enough with (Native American religions), but I'm 100% sure they've probably taken crap over it at times.
You can ask that people respect your religion, and probably most people will, but some people just aren't going to. Because religions are, pretty much by definition, arbitrary and weird to people not involved in the religion.
So then the question becomes, how do you want to respond to that disrespect? You can just ignore it, which is a pretty popular choice, or you can engage with the critics, which is pretty effective but probably tiring and obnoxious, or you can even invert it and be self-effacing and try to disarm them. Or you can flip the fuck out and start making death threats, maybe kill some people.
But if you do that latter path, it's probably not going to do anything about the amount of disrespect -- it's going to make it much, much worse. Either Muslims will, as a group, figure this out, or we'll just continue to see this sort of needling forever.
So, in response to your question, "I wonder if South Park would try to still do a depiction if they were faced with my simple message and request instead of a death threat," I think the answer is of course not. Because that would be boring. But as long as they continue to get death threats and other crazy, disproportionate responses, they're going to keep mocking. (Just like they're going to keep needling the Scientologists.)
Catholics? The Pope and his crazy hats. LOLpedophiles. Bad conspiracy theories. Basically everything Dan Brown has ever written. Gay priest jokes.
Mormons? Magic underwear. The Angel MORONi. Multiple wives. The total hilarity and necessary suspension of belief required to buy that God buried a bunch of Additional Commandments in upstate New York.
Jews? Don't even get me started.
I can't think of any religion that doesn't "deal with disrespect." There are some that I'm not familiar enough with (Native American religions), but I'm 100% sure they've probably taken crap over it at times.
You can ask that people respect your religion, and probably most people will, but some people just aren't going to. Because religions are, pretty much by definition, arbitrary and weird to people not involved in the religion.
So then the question becomes, how do you want to respond to that disrespect? You can just ignore it, which is a pretty popular choice, or you can engage with the critics, which is pretty effective but probably tiring and obnoxious, or you can even invert it and be self-effacing and try to disarm them. Or you can flip the fuck out and start making death threats, maybe kill some people.
But if you do that latter path, it's probably not going to do anything about the amount of disrespect -- it's going to make it much, much worse. Either Muslims will, as a group, figure this out, or we'll just continue to see this sort of needling forever.
So, in response to your question, "I wonder if South Park would try to still do a depiction if they were faced with my simple message and request instead of a death threat," I think the answer is of course not. Because that would be boring. But as long as they continue to get death threats and other crazy, disproportionate responses, they're going to keep mocking. (Just like they're going to keep needling the Scientologists.)
Here's the thing though; South Park wouldn't be doing a show with depictions of Mohammed if the original response to the Danish cartoons _hadn't_ been death threats/attacks/embassy burnings.
I respect your view point, but mine is equally valid; that it's unfortunate that one of my core held beliefs, freedom of expression without fear for one's life, is disrespected by radical Muslims and spineless network chiefs alike.
I respect your view point, but mine is equally valid; that it's unfortunate that one of my core held beliefs, freedom of expression without fear for one's life, is disrespected by radical Muslims and spineless network chiefs alike.
I agree, the radical groups are culprits for embracing violence in the name of a religion that is otherwise all about peace, and the spineless network chiefs are the culprits for taking advantage of this in exchange for higher ratings and chatter.
Net-net, the people that actually care about the religion lose.
Net-net, the people that actually care about the religion lose.
Well said. It is unfortunate that a radical element can cause ill-will toward the larger body of moderate people. If I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were faced with "we prefer not to have a physical depiction of him" I would absolutely respect that, and find people who cross that line to just be obnoxious and mean-spirited.
If the message is "If you draw the prophet you'll die, just as these other artists died" then it suddenly becomes meaningful social commentary about tolerance and speech in a free society and also becomes fodder for (cheap) humor like what they do on South Park. Seriously, people still watch South Park?
In any case, it's very, very wrong that there are people in this world who consider being obnoxious and mean-spirited a capital crime.
If the message is "If you draw the prophet you'll die, just as these other artists died" then it suddenly becomes meaningful social commentary about tolerance and speech in a free society and also becomes fodder for (cheap) humor like what they do on South Park. Seriously, people still watch South Park?
In any case, it's very, very wrong that there are people in this world who consider being obnoxious and mean-spirited a capital crime.
The title (both here and there) is somewhat inaccurate. The cartoonist didn't "launch a day", she made a cartoon of a poster from a fictional organization.
This difference matters. The intention was not to actively motivate people to draw something offensive, but to get people to laugh at a situation that is, from many perspectives, preposterous and therefore funny.
Or, in the style of The Onion: "Area humorist attempts to be funny. Some people don't laugh."
This difference matters. The intention was not to actively motivate people to draw something offensive, but to get people to laugh at a situation that is, from many perspectives, preposterous and therefore funny.
Or, in the style of The Onion: "Area humorist attempts to be funny. Some people don't laugh."
This is like holding an "everyone dress up as a Klan member day" because a municipality attempted to outlaw a KKK convention.
If you are in support of free-speech, you don't have to engage in speech you despise in order to back the principle that it should be protected.
If you are in support of free-speech, you don't have to engage in speech you despise in order to back the principle that it should be protected.
No. This is more like "everyone dress up a Klan member day because some fanatic threatened to kill a KKK member who made a black joke".
There is no municipality involved, there is no violation of free speech. It's not the government who is causing the censorship. It's a group that, one or another, is menacing your values. The only way to deal with these people is to not negotiate and show that scare tactics do not work.
There is no municipality involved, there is no violation of free speech. It's not the government who is causing the censorship. It's a group that, one or another, is menacing your values. The only way to deal with these people is to not negotiate and show that scare tactics do not work.
More like
"... because a municipality threatened death to anyone who attened the KKK convention."
Be careful with the analogies. Saint Godwin is watching... ;)
"... because a municipality threatened death to anyone who attened the KKK convention."
Be careful with the analogies. Saint Godwin is watching... ;)
But I doubt the people who would participate in this cartoon day "despise" the speech involved. To most (all?) of them, I'd guess that drawing Muhammad, as an act itself, is about a big a deal as drawing a table or a pretty tree. In other words, nothing like dressing up as KKK.
A number of problems with that analogy:
1. You can legitimately argue against the KKK as being a dangerous organization with a violent past. Although I'm glad that we have strong free-speech rights in this country that guarantee even their right to assemble, there's a world of difference between a KKK rally and some cartoons, even racist ones.
2. I'm not so sure that "everyone dress up as a Klan member day" would be so unreasonable, if some other group of crazies showed up and started killing people, crazies so crazy that they made the Klan seem sympathetic by comparison. It's hard to envision anyone that much crazier than the Klan, but that's because it's a bad analogy.
I wouldn't normally be in favor of racist cartoons, but if it's between racist cartoonists and nutbags who would actually kill someone over a cartoon, I'm with the cartoonists. Making race jokes is dumb but murdering people is orders of magnitude worse.
"Engag[ing] in speech you despise in order to back the principle that it should be protected" seems like a fairly decent strategy to me, insofar as it demonstrates the fruitlessness of trying to achieve censorship through terror and drives the murderers into more and more indefensible, outrageous positions. It's a dangerous tactic, but quite possibly an effective one. Mockery is a powerful isolating tool.
1. You can legitimately argue against the KKK as being a dangerous organization with a violent past. Although I'm glad that we have strong free-speech rights in this country that guarantee even their right to assemble, there's a world of difference between a KKK rally and some cartoons, even racist ones.
2. I'm not so sure that "everyone dress up as a Klan member day" would be so unreasonable, if some other group of crazies showed up and started killing people, crazies so crazy that they made the Klan seem sympathetic by comparison. It's hard to envision anyone that much crazier than the Klan, but that's because it's a bad analogy.
I wouldn't normally be in favor of racist cartoons, but if it's between racist cartoonists and nutbags who would actually kill someone over a cartoon, I'm with the cartoonists. Making race jokes is dumb but murdering people is orders of magnitude worse.
"Engag[ing] in speech you despise in order to back the principle that it should be protected" seems like a fairly decent strategy to me, insofar as it demonstrates the fruitlessness of trying to achieve censorship through terror and drives the murderers into more and more indefensible, outrageous positions. It's a dangerous tactic, but quite possibly an effective one. Mockery is a powerful isolating tool.
I'm not sure what your point is, from that link: "Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)."
I am pointing out a similar debate and suggesting that people form their own conclusions. I personally think that speech about other people's religious or cultural beliefs is an extremely complex issue and that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.
I'm a Canadian and while I admit they are imperfect, I fully support our Hate Crime legislation that forbids many forms of speech that are permitted in the USA. At the same time, I understand why the USA takes a different road and I support that as well.
So to sum it up, my point is, "Isn't the debate about flag burning interesting in the context of the debate about cartoons?"
I'm a Canadian and while I admit they are imperfect, I fully support our Hate Crime legislation that forbids many forms of speech that are permitted in the USA. At the same time, I understand why the USA takes a different road and I support that as well.
So to sum it up, my point is, "Isn't the debate about flag burning interesting in the context of the debate about cartoons?"
What's the difference between "illegal speech" and "thought crime"?
If someone were to try something controversial and probably causing a lot of headaches, say building a simple webapp which is nothing more than a blank canvas exhorting the user to draw Mohammed, what's a good way to prepare? Are some webhosts less likely to capitulate on incendiary 1st amendment issues than others?
unrelated, but kind of related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Vers...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Doing things that are offensive to Muslims to make the point that we should have the right to do things they find offensive is... something I'm not sure about.
It's utterly ridiculous that people would riot over a cartoon, and the South Park debacle is upsetting (especially given that the show has always used kid gloves with Mohammed and Islam). I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt for the conduct of Revolution Islam. That said, making fun of Islam for the point of making fun of Islam just seems like something that (although it's not intended this way) would be interpreted by many as very mean-spirited.
Of course, there are legitimate and severe problems with "the Muslim world" with respect to human rights, and nothing should stand in the way of criticizing this, just as we aren't afraid to criticize the governments of China or the US for their human rights violations.
It's utterly ridiculous that people would riot over a cartoon, and the South Park debacle is upsetting (especially given that the show has always used kid gloves with Mohammed and Islam). I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt for the conduct of Revolution Islam. That said, making fun of Islam for the point of making fun of Islam just seems like something that (although it's not intended this way) would be interpreted by many as very mean-spirited.
Of course, there are legitimate and severe problems with "the Muslim world" with respect to human rights, and nothing should stand in the way of criticizing this, just as we aren't afraid to criticize the governments of China or the US for their human rights violations.
>Of course, there are legitimate and severe problems with "the Muslim world" with respect to human rights, and nothing should stand in the way of criticizing this, just as we aren't afraid to criticize the governments of China or the US for their human rights violations.
Doing a drawing sounds like something a human shouldn't be afraid, wouldn't you say ?
>I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt[...] >Doing things that are offensive to Muslims to make the point that we should have the right to do things they find offensives is... something I'm not sure about.
I think that would be a sign of fear, not contempt.
Doing a drawing sounds like something a human shouldn't be afraid, wouldn't you say ?
>I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt[...] >Doing things that are offensive to Muslims to make the point that we should have the right to do things they find offensives is... something I'm not sure about.
I think that would be a sign of fear, not contempt.
There is also the absurd death threat/possible murder-as-retribution aspect. I will gladly mock people who think killing is a viable response to an image, even if it is offensive.
Except this is offensive to even the Muslims who are perfectly reasonable.
As Philip Pullman so beautifully said (about Christianity, in his case) nobody has the right to never be offended.
Video here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/philip_pullman...
Video here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/philip_pullman...
Nobody's suggesting that Muslims have a right not to be offended. The point is just that deliberately offending a large group of people is usually a dick move.
Sure, it's a dick move, but it shouldn't be a crime, let alone a capital crime. Having dicks around is just a price you have to pay to have a free society.
To mangle a quote from Voltaire, "I may not like that dick move, but I'll fight to the death for your right to be a dick like that"
Update: I don't mean to paint everyone who doesn't like this as wanting to make it against the law. I personally don't like this, just as I don't like flag burning, but I do like and appreciate the fact that it can be done.
To mangle a quote from Voltaire, "I may not like that dick move, but I'll fight to the death for your right to be a dick like that"
Update: I don't mean to paint everyone who doesn't like this as wanting to make it against the law. I personally don't like this, just as I don't like flag burning, but I do like and appreciate the fact that it can be done.
Nobody's saying that it should be a crime, either. They're just saying that it's not a good idea to do it.
It's kind of silly that you can't argue against this without people assuming that you're in favor of criminalizing the cartoons. You can disapprove of something without wanting there to be a law against it.
It's kind of silly that you can't argue against this without people assuming that you're in favor of criminalizing the cartoons. You can disapprove of something without wanting there to be a law against it.
I agree. Obviously, people have the right to depict Mohammed however they wish. Whether they necessarily should is another matter. Offensiveness for its own sake is the province of the Manhattan "high art" world, but (being outside of that world) I don't buy into it as a good thing.
I thought South Park was harmless and funny in its 200th and 201st episodes, because the poignancy-to-offensiveness ratio was high (they were pretty inoffensive in their treatment of Islam).
What's odd and somewhat inconsistent here is that Islam doesn't forbid only the depiction of Mohammed, but of any of God's creations (defined as the animals including humans). This aversion to depiction isn't rare in human cultures; Renaissance-era Christians considered theatre morally impure and actors were refused Catholic burials at one time.
Yet, as far as I know, few Muslims are offended when non-Muslims create cartoons in general, even though strict Muslims aren't allowed to do so. Yet when Mohammed is involved, it's considered to be on a different level.
I thought South Park was harmless and funny in its 200th and 201st episodes, because the poignancy-to-offensiveness ratio was high (they were pretty inoffensive in their treatment of Islam).
What's odd and somewhat inconsistent here is that Islam doesn't forbid only the depiction of Mohammed, but of any of God's creations (defined as the animals including humans). This aversion to depiction isn't rare in human cultures; Renaissance-era Christians considered theatre morally impure and actors were refused Catholic burials at one time.
Yet, as far as I know, few Muslims are offended when non-Muslims create cartoons in general, even though strict Muslims aren't allowed to do so. Yet when Mohammed is involved, it's considered to be on a different level.
Interesting trivia from the good micro-history book "The Immortal Game" is that the classic stylized chess piece shapes that are still used today were adapted from more representative figures specifically to be less offensive to Muslim leaders who didn't approve of the realistic depictions.
Too bad for them? Being offended is not the end of the world. I'm offended every time some tea-party person claims that * is tantamount to nazi-ism, but I don't threaten death as a response, and I would probably mock anyone who did.
I don't see how that's possible. It's not reasonable to get offended because of a harmless cartoon; anyone who does is by definition unreasonable.
Suppose we're talking in person. In the middle of the conversation, I fart. Then I pick my nose and eat it. Finally I reach into my pants and scratch my crotch.
All of these things are harmless to you, but I would not be surprised if you were offended by some of them.
Disgust is cultural.
It's important to recognize that large numbers of people can as a result of their culture be disgusted by things we consider normal. It's unreasonable to say "you shouldn't be disgusted".
The best we can say is that the value of free speech outweighs the value of pandering to various groups' definitions of good taste.
All of these things are harmless to you, but I would not be surprised if you were offended by some of them.
Disgust is cultural.
It's important to recognize that large numbers of people can as a result of their culture be disgusted by things we consider normal. It's unreasonable to say "you shouldn't be disgusted".
The best we can say is that the value of free speech outweighs the value of pandering to various groups' definitions of good taste.
Disgust and offense are very different things. There are many things that I find disgusting, yet I am not offended by them since they don't affect me.
I can think of a lot of sexual practices that strike me as really disgusting. Eating shit, for instance. Yet the fact that people out there do it doesn't offend me; being forced (or tricked) into watching it would be, but the act itself is merely disgusting. It becomes offensive when it's forced. To be offended, particularly to the point of violent action, over something that doesn't affect you (or any other person, or even an animal) strikes me as unreasonable.
Of course, since you've opened up the rabbit hole of cultural constructs I'll admit that "reasonableness" is cultural as well -- but I think the Western, Enlightenment-inspired idea of "reason" and "reasonableness" is worth fighting for. If that makes me a cultural imperialist, so be it.
I can think of a lot of sexual practices that strike me as really disgusting. Eating shit, for instance. Yet the fact that people out there do it doesn't offend me; being forced (or tricked) into watching it would be, but the act itself is merely disgusting. It becomes offensive when it's forced. To be offended, particularly to the point of violent action, over something that doesn't affect you (or any other person, or even an animal) strikes me as unreasonable.
Of course, since you've opened up the rabbit hole of cultural constructs I'll admit that "reasonableness" is cultural as well -- but I think the Western, Enlightenment-inspired idea of "reason" and "reasonableness" is worth fighting for. If that makes me a cultural imperialist, so be it.
I am 100% sure that I would not threaten to kill you for any of those things.
No and neither would the vast majority of Muslims.
(bearing in mind that this was a discussion about why Muslims take offence at the cartoons and their response. I may have misread but the above poster seems to suggest that Muslims generally give death threats over this offence - which is untrue. The extremist is giving the threats not the Muslim :-))
(bearing in mind that this was a discussion about why Muslims take offence at the cartoons and their response. I may have misread but the above poster seems to suggest that Muslims generally give death threats over this offence - which is untrue. The extremist is giving the threats not the Muslim :-))
Which "people", exactly? "Muslims"?
It's not making fun of Islam just to make fun of Islam. Making fun of Islam is not the main purpose. That's just a means to an end. The purpose is to stand in solidarity with those who offended, and rebuke those who use violence and threats of violence to impose their views on others. The fact that Islam is being made fun of is incidental, coming about only because that was the action that incited the threat in the first place.
The main message that is trying to be conveyed is not "Islam is silly," but rather "We will not be cowed by death threats." I wish there were ways of communicating the latter without conflating it with the former so we didn't have to wade into that mire of offending innocent Muslims. Unfortuantely, the death threats being rejected in the latter are issued for making the former statement, so the two statements are inherently entangled. If there were a better and less contentious way of making the point, I would support it, but I haven't seen one and can't come up with one myself.
The one thing I don't like about the whole thing is that taking action is taking sides in a conflict, and that implicitly accepts the conflict as valid. I don't like dichotomous reasoning in general, and I disagree with the whole Islam vs Western Secularism conflict in specific because I think they're less incompatible than partisans of either side want to realize. In this particular incident though, I think I disagree with radical Islam more than I disagree with the conflict as a whole, so I'm tempted to take a side for once.
The main message that is trying to be conveyed is not "Islam is silly," but rather "We will not be cowed by death threats." I wish there were ways of communicating the latter without conflating it with the former so we didn't have to wade into that mire of offending innocent Muslims. Unfortuantely, the death threats being rejected in the latter are issued for making the former statement, so the two statements are inherently entangled. If there were a better and less contentious way of making the point, I would support it, but I haven't seen one and can't come up with one myself.
The one thing I don't like about the whole thing is that taking action is taking sides in a conflict, and that implicitly accepts the conflict as valid. I don't like dichotomous reasoning in general, and I disagree with the whole Islam vs Western Secularism conflict in specific because I think they're less incompatible than partisans of either side want to realize. In this particular incident though, I think I disagree with radical Islam more than I disagree with the conflict as a whole, so I'm tempted to take a side for once.
I think you're missing the point. The contempt and criticism is not aimed at the Muslim world (though I will admit, intentionally offending Muslims tastes bad to me too), but at Comedy Central and any other media outlet that caves to these threats. She's mocking Mohammed, but only doing so in order to mock the taboo against mocking Mohammed.
"(though I will admit, intentionally offending Muslims tastes bad to me too)"
Such delicate and tender social sensibilities we all suddenly have. As a Christian, people deliberately trying to offend me is merely part of the background noise of my life. Can't say I see it every day, but every week is probably fair.
Does "intentionally offending Christians" taste just as bad to you? I address this to everyone who would agree with that statement, not you personally, because I'm sure the answer is "yes" for some people. I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.
And if the answer is no, my followup question would be "What's the difference?" and "Are you sure that's a social incentive structure you want to set up?" Allowing people to cow you with threats like this goes beyond even religion; "give me my handouts or I'll commit violence" is a threat that has been used in the real world, after all, it's not even theoretical. It's better not to encourage that.
Such delicate and tender social sensibilities we all suddenly have. As a Christian, people deliberately trying to offend me is merely part of the background noise of my life. Can't say I see it every day, but every week is probably fair.
Does "intentionally offending Christians" taste just as bad to you? I address this to everyone who would agree with that statement, not you personally, because I'm sure the answer is "yes" for some people. I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.
And if the answer is no, my followup question would be "What's the difference?" and "Are you sure that's a social incentive structure you want to set up?" Allowing people to cow you with threats like this goes beyond even religion; "give me my handouts or I'll commit violence" is a threat that has been used in the real world, after all, it's not even theoretical. It's better not to encourage that.
Intentionally offending anyone tastes bad to me, but a free society deliberately makes room for bad taste.
Freedom of speech isn't for tasteful, inoffensive, popular speech as that doesn't need any protection. Freedom of speech is there for the unpopular, offensive, tasteless, vile, and controversial because sometimes what needs to be said may be interpreted or portrayed as any of those things.
Freedom of speech isn't for tasteful, inoffensive, popular speech as that doesn't need any protection. Freedom of speech is there for the unpopular, offensive, tasteless, vile, and controversial because sometimes what needs to be said may be interpreted or portrayed as any of those things.
Does "intentionally offending Christians" taste just as bad to you?
Yes.
I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.
Thanks for framing the question this way. I hadn't really considered it until you did.
Yes.
I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.
Thanks for framing the question this way. I hadn't really considered it until you did.
"Such delicate and tender social sensibilities we all suddenly have. As a Christian, people deliberately trying to offend me is merely part of the background noise of my life."
Seconded. South Park's portrayals of Jesus are extremely offensive. Does Comedy Central censor that? Nope. Do I make death threats? Nope. I just don't watch.
So Comedy Central's lesson for extremist "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim" groups is this: to silence those who offend you, make death threats. It works!
This cartoonist's campaign is an attempt to make the opposite statement: threats will not control us. And if IT works, we'll all be better off.
Seconded. South Park's portrayals of Jesus are extremely offensive. Does Comedy Central censor that? Nope. Do I make death threats? Nope. I just don't watch.
So Comedy Central's lesson for extremist "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim" groups is this: to silence those who offend you, make death threats. It works!
This cartoonist's campaign is an attempt to make the opposite statement: threats will not control us. And if IT works, we'll all be better off.
[deleted](1)
I accept that a picture of Mohammed such as :-) would offend people. I can accept someone refraining from such to avoiding offending people. However, the idea that people need to avoid drawing a smiley face or risk death is unacceptable to me.
PS: My smiley face was some other Mohammed and not anyone’s prophet.
PS: My smiley face was some other Mohammed and not anyone’s prophet.
:-) My smiley face is a depiction of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Whom I, as a non-Muslim, do not consider a true prophet. Whose writings I consider to be partly plagarized from Jewish scripture.
Disagree? Write your own comment.
Disagree? Write your own comment.
The problem is that the issue is Comedy Central censored this material, not necessairily that there were death threats. I don't think it's either smart or intelligent to deliberately provoke the people who are trying to promote fear through death threats - it just gives them more media coverage.
The South Park episode was clearly a fine piece of "offensive comedy" - not deliberately targeting Muslims (because of the context of the episode). However this is saying "hey you want to send us death threats, fine. Here's some more content designed to be offensive to you". It's a problem because then it begins to escalate (perhaps someone gets beaten up - so everyone prints T-Shirts with the cartoons, then a bomb goes off.... etc etc.)
Does this show us as not being scared? I think it actually shows fear - and crucially is the kind of reaction the extremists are looking for! It increases the media coverage; I'm sure there will be more threats appearing if this makes it "mainstream" and they will all be reported. And it is the response they want in a "war" where making us do offensive things wins them support in the Islamic world.
Not being scared would be to continue as usual, make our comedy as normal, including Muhammed when required - and ignore the death threats and extremism. Don't give them the platform. That seems the least fearful thing to do! :)
Not showing the scene was bad on the part of Comedy Central - and I feel it is censors like that whom we should be taking to task over this. Not the extremists - because if you do that they will delight in fighting back :)
Historically ostentatious shows of "no fear" never end well.
No, I can't support this. :(
EDIT: rereading there seems a slight emphasis on the idea of using all kinds of religious iconography. That's something I could get more behind - simply because it's no longer about the extremists, but about Comedy Central being censors. That is a good cause.
So long as this doesn't promote targetting religion or the idea of entering into a fight against extremists (rather than the censors) then perhaps it has merit.
The South Park episode was clearly a fine piece of "offensive comedy" - not deliberately targeting Muslims (because of the context of the episode). However this is saying "hey you want to send us death threats, fine. Here's some more content designed to be offensive to you". It's a problem because then it begins to escalate (perhaps someone gets beaten up - so everyone prints T-Shirts with the cartoons, then a bomb goes off.... etc etc.)
Does this show us as not being scared? I think it actually shows fear - and crucially is the kind of reaction the extremists are looking for! It increases the media coverage; I'm sure there will be more threats appearing if this makes it "mainstream" and they will all be reported. And it is the response they want in a "war" where making us do offensive things wins them support in the Islamic world.
Not being scared would be to continue as usual, make our comedy as normal, including Muhammed when required - and ignore the death threats and extremism. Don't give them the platform. That seems the least fearful thing to do! :)
Not showing the scene was bad on the part of Comedy Central - and I feel it is censors like that whom we should be taking to task over this. Not the extremists - because if you do that they will delight in fighting back :)
Historically ostentatious shows of "no fear" never end well.
No, I can't support this. :(
EDIT: rereading there seems a slight emphasis on the idea of using all kinds of religious iconography. That's something I could get more behind - simply because it's no longer about the extremists, but about Comedy Central being censors. That is a good cause.
So long as this doesn't promote targetting religion or the idea of entering into a fight against extremists (rather than the censors) then perhaps it has merit.
In your first paragraph you claim that this is about "the right to do things they find offensive". (I agree.) But then you change it to "making fun of Islam for the point of making fun of Islam." But I think this is a very different from your original characterization--and I don't think you are accurate here.
If you take into consideration that the British and the US have been involved in the middle east for decades, you'll see that being offensive will compound on quite a bit of resentment.
[deleted]
It is just a certain subset of Islam is recently arguing that a bunch of things which had historically been non-controversial are now crimes against Islam. Giving them the authority to define what Islam is simply because they'll kill you if you disagree too loudly is far more of an insult to the religion than a few drawings, from my Catholic perspective on the matter. (Individual Muslims are free to disagree, but not to kill me.)