General Question

kevbo's avatar

Are you for or against "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" on May 20 as proposed by Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris?

Asked by kevbo (24294 points ) April 24th, 2010 from iPhone

The aforementioned cartoonist has proposed this Spartacus-style event presumably to blunt threats to individual artists and perhaps orchestrate a nose thumbing toward fundamentalist Muslims. Is this a good idea?

Link

Facebook event page

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

94 Answers

Pretty_Lilly's avatar

I’m for it but few people including him might get creamed !

rebbel's avatar

I don’t know what he looked like.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

Yes and we should blast Deicide songs on Easter/Christmas/any Christian holiday
I’m always up for some blasphemy
You’re cool, Judaism

arpinum's avatar

I’ll be drawing MOOhammad. Don’t want to offend those Muslims. Plus, everyone loves cows.

Trillian's avatar

The deliberate disrespect towards another persons religious icon? Absolutely not. To what purpose? I believe that such an activity reveals an absence of something vital to the character. The actual religion of Islam does not, perhaps, make sense to a westerner, but it has not earned our contempt and derision because of a lunatic fringe. Every religion has those, and I believe that it is not well done to mock the religious beliefs of another.

filmfann's avatar

I am in. I’m thinking dog-shit turban. Might try and fit a pig into the motif.

Pretty_Lilly's avatar

They should draw pictures of him eating a pork sandwich !!
@Trillian
Got a song 4’ya

arpinum's avatar

@Trillian its a solidarity and speech issue for me. For Matt and Trey not to be able to express themselves is a real shame. The spirit of the protest is to stand up to the lunatics and demonstrate that we are not afraid of them, that their threats will not affect us. It is to take the power away from the lunatics.
BTW, while every religion has lunatics, these lunatics need some real shaming right now. Also, why haven’t I heard muslims come out and support south park?

jaytkay's avatar

I am in. I’m thinking dog-shit turban. Might try and fit a pig into the motif.
They should draw pictures of him eating a pork sandwich !!

Maybe Jesus butt-raping an altar boy while you’re at it.
Shouldn’t be a problem, only primitive Muslims get offended by things like that, right?

ragingloli's avatar

Oh yeah totally. I mean, there is not enough terrorism in the world yet.

filmfann's avatar

@jaytkay To be sure I understand you, are you saying Catholic Priests that molest children are the equivilent of Muslim Terrorists?

Trillian's avatar

@arpinum it is not only the lunatics that you will be thumbing your nose at. It is the entire Islam religion. I will not engage in a debate about this. You are more than welcome to your opinion. I won’t try to talk you out of it. I hold to my opinion that it is a thing not well done. I would no more mock Islam than I would Baptist or Pentecostal snake handlers. My disagreement with the tenets are irrelevant. I am not willing to say that the way I think is superior to the way another person thinks.

Arp's avatar

Why can’t we all just get along!?

Facade's avatar

What the fuck is wrong with you people.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

Uh yeah, reaching out to infuriate extremists is an excellent and mature idea. I can see epiphanies and enlightenment coming to them now, so warm.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Sounds pretty antagonistic and unhelpful.
Sorry to rain on everyone’s hate parade.

Hey, maybe May 21st can be “lets marginalize the holocaust” day.
Won’t that be a hoot?

Jeruba's avatar

I agree with @Trillian.

The cartoonist’s proposed device reminded me at once of the story of Ali Baba and the forty thieves. The robbers chalk an X on the door of the house whose master stole some of their treasure, but the clever slave Morgiana chalks Xes on the other doors in the neighborhood so that when the thieves come back they can’t find the right house and carry out their attack.

I think the intent is to create so many targets that no one target must bear the brunt of reprisals. As far as that goes, it might be a good idea—like the apocryphal story of the Danes wearing star-of-David armbands during the German occupation. Unfortunately there is a different principle at work here, because instead of simply identifying many prospective victims of the same outrage and thus multiplying and diffusing the target, this proposal actually delivers taunts and insults, not just to the perpetrators of the threats but to all Islamic believers. In other words, it returns aggression for aggression. Instead of simply repelling or deflecting a blow, it administers a blow.

There is no virtue in assaulting the sensibilities of all practitioners of a faith just because some practitioners are barbarians. This is no better than the acts they are trying to protest.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

It wouldn’t be the first time someone was disrespectful of another’s religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Keysha's avatar

If it was just against Muslim extremists, it would be one thing. But this touches on more than just them. I find not only that I would not do it, but that many of the replies here are, in fact, disgusting. And, while I am certain I will get at least one ‘can’t take a joke’ type of response, all I have to say is, how would you feel if there was a call to mock something or someone you held in very high esteem? Why not draw pictures like that of your children? After all, they are undoubtedly annoying someone.

SuperMouse's avatar

My first reaction was “Yes! Do It!” but the more I think about it the more I am not so sure about that. The thing is, there are many, many Evangelicals who would greet drawings of Jesus Christ with just as much zealotry, hatred, and desire for blood. It just seems like it is a case of two wrongs not making a right.

Buttonstc's avatar

I think it would help all people to be more sympathetic to the followers of Islam if their voices were raised in a mighty wave of protest at the lunatic fringe hijacking their religion. And I don’t mean just a few here and there. I’m talking mass protest at these nitwits making allusions to someone who was MURDERED by other extremists in this “peaceful” religion.

The silence was deafening following the MURDER of Theo van Gogh ( which was alluded to by the nutbars in this latest).

His film wasn’t even a cartoon, nor even satirical in the slightest. It was a thoughtful exploration of how the religion treats women. And for that they felt justified in murdering him.

It’s difficult to be overly sympathetic to all the nameless and faceless adherents of this religion who didn’t seem to think it worth their time to decry this violence. And we are supposed to be all worried about offending their delicate sensibilities about some satirical drawings? Well, I’m having a difficult time mustering up the energy for that one.

I’m horrible at drawing, so it’s not as if I’ll be joining all the cartoonists, but I understand why they’re doing it.

When someone suggests murder against you, and your only response is a bunch of satirical drawings, I’d say that’s pretty mild indeed

I mean, it’s not like they’re calling for firebombing this extremist group’s headquarters or something. There are far worse forms of retaliation than humorous drawings.

And if the silent majority of Muslims think these drawings offensive, they can just turn their heads and look away——just as they did at the murder of Theo van Gogh.

I’m sure that I’m going against the grain of all the “Kum-By-Ya ” niceness and why can’t we all just get along sentiment. But these members of the extremist fringe are given way too much latitude and tolerance already. At least some is doing SOMETHING, for crying out loud. And it really is kind of interesting that the only weapon they’re using is their creativity.

Why is it that every other religious leader is fair game for satire but Mohammad gets a pass? Just because THEY say so and threaten to kill anyone who doesn’t obey them?

Why should we kowtow to that? Just to be proud of how PC we can be?

They are threatening MURDER and have previously done it in case it slipped your mind for a moment. I don’t get why Mohammad gets a pass but it’s ok to pick on Buddha, the Pope and Jesus Christ. I really don’t get it. I honestly don’t.

jaytkay's avatar

I think it would help all people to be more sympathetic to the followers of Islam if their voices were raised in a mighty wave of protest at the lunatic fringe hijacking their religion.

Like the hordes of fundamentalist Christians apologizing for Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph?

Oh, wait, there aren’t any, never mind.

And after September 11th, people in Tehran held candle light vigils in solidarity with the people of the US and New York. Ordinary people, out of the blue, stood up to express condolences.

Buttonstc's avatar

@jaytkay

You’re kidding, right? He was executed in case it slipped your mind.

And there was NO ONE representative of Christianity who agreed with his views or actions. He didn’t do this in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that he was affiliated with white power separitist groups was far more germane than the fact that they also find it convenient to call themselves Christians.

He wasn’t proclaimg “Allah Ackbar” (or Jesus is mighty) or anything of the sort as these wingnuts are won’t to do when they are “representing” Allah in their murders.

jaytkay's avatar

And there was NO ONE representative of Christianity who agreed with his views or actions.

Except the April 19th celebrations around the country last Monday.
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

Buttonstc's avatar

@jaytkay

What? I took a look at that website including the About section as well as the one for Who We Are. They are basically flacks for the NRA.

They are representing gun owners NOT Christianity.

How do you draw the conclusion that is a Christian website when Christianity isn’t even mentioned (or is EXTREMELY well hidden if it is).

I don’t notice any references to those who disagree with their views as “infidels” the way Muslim fringe extremists are wont to do.

On the front page, they’re calling for a peaceful demonstration march not making death threats against those who disagree with them.

I’m having a hard time following your logic on that one.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but comparing this to murder threats in the name of religion isn’t even tangentially close.

eponymoushipster's avatar

what’s funny is that the 10 Commandments clearly stated that no one was to make an image of God, since no one had seen Him. yet, “christians” make images not only of God, but Jesus, Mary and others. and no one complains. in fact, it’s viewed as odd that if you don’t use images in worship. Hell, some even venerate what they claim to be a murder weapon (the cross).

i think the whole thing on South Park was ridiculous, since they never even showed Mohammad, but implied he was in the bear suit. It’s one extreme to the other.

Buttonstc's avatar

@epo

I SO agree with your sentiments about how ridiculous the whole South Park thing is. But then you and I and a whole lot of other rational people aren’t the problem, are we?

The wingnuts raising the fuss are though, because they may well be willing to resort to murder as was previously done.

Which gets back to my question. Why is Mohammad the only one who gets a pass?

Just because THEY say so? I think not.

And that’s the primary reason for the whole “Draw Mohammad Day” effort. That’s why I like the idea. Not because I enjoy the cruelty of ridiculing a religious figure but because someone is standing up to the bullies on the playground, so to speak.

They are asserting a basic American right to free speech. And satire and humor is speech. All the other religious leaders are fair game, so yours is also.

I think there is an essential difference between wanton cruelty for it’s own sake and standing up for your rights not to be pushed around by using satire. A really really big difference.

Factotum's avatar

@jaytkay I’m afraid you are misinformed and likely under-educated. April 19th is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775. It was the first battle of the Revolution and more importantly was started in response to an attempt by the British to remove munitions that might be used by revolutionaries.

No one favored McVeigh’s actions. And as for him belonging to a militia, he didn’t. He applied and they rejected him.

eponymoushipster's avatar

how bad is it if you get rejected by a militia? “uh, sorry, joe bob – you’re bad reading is too bad…”

jaytkay's avatar

@Buttonstc

Facebook page praying for Obama’s death gains 950,000 ‘likes’

The page, created by an anonymous user, reads: “DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.” Close to 950,000 Facebook users have “liked” the page.

eponymoushipster's avatar

i think asking for anyone’s death is pretty ridiculous.

jaytkay's avatar

@Factotum i’m afraid you are misinformed and likely under-educated. April 19th is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775.

And it’s the anniversary of Tim Mcveigh’s tea party.

An informed and educated person would avoid that date. Unless they were celebrating his actions. He’s on your team, I don’t understand why you deny that. You should be more respectful of your people.

Buttonstc's avatar

@jaytkay

The Facebook page a murder threat? Really? Really?

Oh come on that was funny, dude. It’s called tongue in cheek humor.

Since you took all my favorite movie stars, take my “favorite” Pres. while you’re at it.

It’s known as a JOKE. But when it has to be explained, it does lose a bit in the process.

So are you seriously equating a quippy teen’s so-called-sincere prayer to the Muslim bunch who used the VERY REAL MURDER (not so-called) of Theo vanGogh to threaten the South Park guys.

You see them as equally threatening? Really? WOW is all I can say to that.

Don’t you think that if ANYONE perceived that Facebook page as anything but a joke, the Secret Service would have shut that page down in a heartbeat ? Come on.

Factotum's avatar

I just looked on the Wiki article for McVeigh. No mention of the word ‘tea’.

You are making a connection that doesn’t exist in order to discredit a wide swath of people who believe the Constitution is the authority from which other laws must flow.

It’s been fifteen years since he blew up innocent American citizens. People ‘on my team’ did celebrate McVeigh’s special day – the day he was put to death for his horrific crime.

AND, I sincerely doubt that you even knew that April 19th was the date of the bombing. It’s not exactly something you circle on your calendar. Hell, I lived in Oklahoma then and I didn’t remember that it was the date he killed so many people.

McVeigh had no friends before he committed mass murder and he hasn’t gotten any new ones since.

jaytkay's avatar

@Buttonstc

I have no sympathy for fundamentalists who want to kill over a cartoon. I would be happy to see them given an option of joining civilization or being dropped into a fiery volcano.

I am pointing out that the same kind of people are making life worse for us in the USA. Sadly, they have a major political party and lots of FOX radio and TV airtime to further their agenda.

arpinum's avatar

back on topic, i don’t think pictures of muhammad are very offensive to moderate muslims. Yes, they forbid depictions of anyone, but it is to prevent a distraction from god and to prevent the elevation of people. The prohibition also applies to jesus and moses or anyone. As long as the muslims don’t own these depictions or use them in celebration, i don’t see much of a problem. Only lunatics would say it is offensive.

arpinum's avatar

@jaytkay Tim McVeigh was a neo-nazi and got inspiration from The Turner Diaries. I don’t see the tea party nutters being part of that group. Feel free to call them nutters though.

Factotum's avatar

At various times in history it was permissible to make images of Mohamed in Muslim countries. And for that matter the complete veiling of women is quite new.

Whether or not it is permissible to make an image of Mo’ in, for example, Saudi Arabia, it is permissible in all Western countries where it is also ok to make an image – however offensive – of Jesus. It is worth noting that Christians who get up in arms (not literally by the way) over offensive depictions of their deity object either on the basis of it being rude or on the basis of it being funded in some way by taxpayer money. I have some sympathy with both positions but do not desire to change the way we do business in relation to mocking the sacred. Dead holy guys are not citizens and are not entitled to protection under the law.

It is a mistake to self-censor in the name of ‘tolerance’ when those you are being tolerant of will assume (most often correctly) that you are self-censoring out of fear.

Qingu's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy, comparing the mockery of Muhammad to “marginalizing the Holocaust” is completely unfair.

Like Moses, Paul, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard, and every other prophet and cult leader, there’s a lot to criticize about Muhammad. First and foremost the fact that he was a liar and a fraud. (“An angel talked to me in a cave and revealed this magic book that you all have to follow!” uh-huh.) He was belligerent, waging war on rival tribes. He has 12 wives and probably had sex with a 9 year old kid. He did make some improvements to 7th-century Arab tribal life; but he also institutionalized many of its barbarisms, including its misogyny and its tribal morality where “apostates” are supposed to be killed.

In short, criticizing and mocking Muhammad is entirely legitimate and fair, like any other historical figure or political leader. Even juvenile mockery is fair, as it serves to “take the piss out” of his overblown legacy.

In contrast, marginalizing the Holocaust is unfair, because it is moronic and not actually based on anything in reality.

The fact that X offends people, and Y offends people, doesn’t really mean that X and Y are comparable in any other respects.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

I’m of two diametrically opposed minds on this.

On the one hand, I totally agree—have always agreed—with the sentiment expressed so well by @Trillian above. Although I have no support for any religion, I don’t openly mock any, either. So I would never draw or say anything with the intention of mocking the tenets of any religion. I may argue strongly against religion, and I do mock people’s beliefs when they are arrant nonsense, but I try hard to avoid open mockery or belittlement.

However…

I believe even more strongly in the freedom we should each and all of us have (around the world; this isn’t a “Western” or “American” ideal only) to say what we think… even when that crosses a line into rudeness, crassness, boorishness and worse, as long as it is short of “fighting words” and threats against an individual.

So, for example, I would never burn a Christian cross on my neighbor’s lawn. He’s a black man, and even if I detested him (I don’t; he’s a lovely neighbor and I wish I had more like him) that would be perceived as an open threat from me against him. That would be a “fighting words” attack, and could result in a direct assault against me. I understand that.

However, if I were to turn a cross upside-down on my lawn, or mount a mockery of a Virgin Mary statue in an alcove (we call them “Bathtub Mary” sometimes), and dress her in a bikini or less, then that would be a rude and boorish insult to Catholics. I might expect a rock through my front window some night, but I wouldn’t be burned at the stake for blasphemy. As insulting as my behavior would be, I know without question that I’d be free from direct action by the Catholic Church.

And since I am not a Muslim, I don’t think that my actions against Islam, should I take any, should be perceived as blasphemy. Otherwise, just think of it: we’d all need to know the detailed taboos about each and every world religion and avoid them all in order to escape persecution from any member of any religion. I don’t know enough about Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Shinto, Zen or any of the various African religions whose names I don’t even know… much less Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

I don’t want to insult religions or religious practices, but I’m damned sure (pun intended) that I’m not going to study them all to avoid offending members of any of them.

Plus I’m the lousiest artist you can imagine. (This is why I try to be good with words and use so many of them, because my pictures aren’t even worth ten or twenty words on a good day.)

So I’m not going to draw any cartoons of Mohammed, because… you wouldn’t even be able to tell. (And I don’t have any particularly funny ideas about the topic just now, which is probably even more fundamental.)

But I enjoy cartoons; I have a good and broad sense of humor, and if there are funny (or witty, or philosophically interesting, etc.) cartoons that I find I will certainly enjoy them, as I did the ones the Danes published years ago to start this bouhaha.

You have the right, and for whatever it’s worth my defense against violent retaliation—but I hope that people won’t be jerks about this and just be insulting for the sake of being insulting.

Buttonstc's avatar

@Factorum

Wow. That last sentence in your post is so true. Absolutely.

That is precisely how it will be viewed. Censoring out of fear.

The tolerance will neither be appreciated nor reciprocated.

Qingu's avatar

@CyanoticWasp, again, I think it’s unfair to compare “burning crosses” to “mocking Muhammad.”

Burning a cross is a crass act of intimidation. It is meant as a violent threat.

Mocking Muhammad is not an act of intimidation. It is an act of criticism.

Equivocating the two is giving credence to the reactionary and violent morons in the Islamic community. Criticism and mockery are not intolerance and intimidation, and they must be allowed in a free society.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@Qingu I wasn’t trying to compare the two actions as equivalents. I was saying exactly what you started to say: one is an intimidating threat, and the cartoon idea is… no, not “criticism”, that puts it on too lofty a plane… a direct insult when done with foreknowledge and intent that it is an insult.

Buttonstc's avatar

@Qingu

Thank you. At last someone answered my (sort of) rhetorical question.

Mohammad doesn’t get a pass :)

And, as crass as they are known to be at times, I think that was Parker and Stones’ point. They were just acting in their capacity as equal opportunity satirists, sparing no one.

Qingu's avatar

@CyanoticWasp, I really don’t think it counts as an “insult” when the person allegedly being insulted has been dead for more than 1,300 years.

When I say something like “Aristotle was wrong about physics, was a misogynist, and can go fuck himself,” I don’t really think of it as insulting Arisototle. But perhaps this is just a semantic argument.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@Qingu I don’t want to quibble with you about the semantics.

I also think that something is lost in translation: you and I have a certain understanding of the word “insult” and we take “insults” in a certain way, not as a mortal threat to ourselves or our beliefs. But if we had grown up in a different culture and with different teaching, we’d also perceive “insult” in different ways and from different channels from the way you and I see them.

If I cut someone off in traffic and he gives me the finger, I might do the same to him (even if I’m wrong and know it), and that exchange might be the only communication between the two of us. Do that in another culture (or with the wrong person in our own), and that “communication” may be received—and acted upon—with very different results.

And since so many Muslims identify in such a fundamental way with their religion (Christians and others do too, of course) then you aren’t only insulting “Mohammed”, but by extension their very selves.

We can say with certainty that “as a religion” Islam is approximately 700-odd years “newer” than Christianity. If we think back to what Christians were doing to non-believers and “blasphemers” 700 years ago in Europe and the Middle East (around the time the Inquisition started, I believe), then we can see rough parallels there.

I’m sure this will all be worked out better within the next 700 years or so. Unfortunately it’s going to be uncomfortable at times until then… and afterward, too, I’m sure.

Qingu's avatar

I agree with everything you say, but I also don’t think the fact that Christians 700 years ago were “just as bad” is an excuse for modern Muslims’ behavior, nor is it a reason to acquiesce to such people’s threats of violence.

Mocking Christ or the Pope in 1300’s Europe would be dangerous, but I wouldn’t call it wrong. And lord knows there were plenty of reasons to mock both.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

If it gets you killed, then it’s pretty much wrong, I think, at least on a personal level. Sort of like walking through any ghetto while drunk and yelling out ethnic slurs against the people who live there. You may have “freedom of speech” and all the “rights” in the world to do it… but it’s pretty stupid if you know it’s likely to provoke an attack.

And it’s impolite if you know that it’s perceived as an insult and you do it anyway.

Buttonstc's avatar

Gee, talk about blaming the victim.

So, under that theory, if Theo van Gogh had caved and shelved his film, he’d be alive today. It’s his own fault for doing that film, right?

I assume you do realize that ANY depiction of Mohammad, satirical or not, leaves one subject to the death penalty according to them, right.

So everybody who participates in Draw Mohammad Day should be wiped off the face of the earth because they should have known better ?

Factotum's avatar

@kevbo I believe you are drawing a false parallel between civilian casualties – which are awful but common to every war – and premeditated murder.

filmfann's avatar

@Qingu said “Mocking Muhammad is not an act of intimidation. It is an act of criticism.”

No, it is an act of defiance. You cannot bully me with fear. I will not allow myself to be terrorized.
In the end, Terrorism’s weapon is fear, and if we don’t allow them to make us act differently, we have stripped them of their weapons.

kevbo's avatar

I guess the difference is which party one is willing to point the finger at first. The Other’s or one’s own.

@Factotum, I believe you are drawing a false parallel… both parties offer unilateral definitions of who is eligible to be killed. (Incidentally, both parties blame the victim, no?) In the question above, both parties offer unilateral definitions of what is acceptable satire.

And which is worse, by the way, killing your one intended target or killing what may be your target and 50 of their closest friends?

@Factotum, They are asserting a basic American right to free speech.—So were these people, not to mentioned Denver’s finest, but I guess whichever Muslims are left alive will understand better after we give them some good ol’ democracy. That is, after we “trade” it for their oil and opium.

@CyanoticWasp, … we’d all need to know the detailed taboos about each and every world religion and avoid them all in order to escape persecution from any member of any religion.—Not a direct argument against your point, but we already accept, for example, that the litmus test for workplace harassment is in the eye of the beholder. How is this any different?

@filmfann, “Terrorism’s weapon is fear.”—shock and awe, indeed. I am terrified of the enemy’s daisy cutters and Predators blowing up my cousin’s wedding from an imperceptible vantage point. Oddly, I’m even more fearful of putting valuables in my suitcases when I fly since the TSA has sticky fingers.

@Qingu, mockery is criticism only if it is informed. I can understand how someone as well read as yourself would assume informed mockery, but otherwise it is just coarse ridicule and contempt—hardly worthy of meaningful dialogue and no more (or less) effective than a bullet at changing minds or coming to a common understanding.

And in the case of South Park or “Draw Muhammad Day” is it really Muhammad the figure who is being mocked or is it more a mockery of the belief of Muslim Fundamentalists or a blanket mockery of Islam? I’m not seeing the parallel between this example and your Aristotle example.

I guess I mainly think the exercise is in poor taste, but more than that I would wish to know whether it is insulting to moderate Muslims.

DarkScribe's avatar

If you want to mock someone, mock Osama bin Laden in verse and cartoon, don’t offend the millions of non-violent followers of Islam. It is pointless, offensive, intolerant, and lowers those who do it to the level of an ignorant, deliberately provocative bully.

Nullo's avatar

It certainly appeals to the antagonist in me.

LostInParadise's avatar

Well said, @DarkScribe There is nothing wrong with Moslems forbidding images of Mohamed among themselves. The problem comes when they try to impose their view on everyone else. But how do you single out the small number who go after others from all the others?

CodePinko's avatar

Mohammed can **** my ****.

DarkScribe's avatar

@LostInParadise The problem comes when they try to impose their view on everyone else.

The non-violent, non-belligerent Islamic people do not try to influence other “People of the Book”, they mind their own business. It is the radicals, the fundamentalists, and if you respond to them – they win. They have swelled their numbers to include all of Islam in your POV. Most of Islam is friendly toward us – it is a small minority that we are concerned with.

CodePinko's avatar

@DarkScribe said: “The non-violent, non-belligerent Islamic people do not try to influence other “People of the Book”, they mind their own business”.

This my friends is the core of the problem. I will not have any respect for any form of Islam untill it becomes common for the members of their mainstream to become vocal against their radicals.

DarkScribe's avatar

@CodePinko I will not have any respect for any form of Islam untill it becomes common for the members of their mainstream to become vocal against their radicals.

They are as afraid of them as the west. Not likely to happen openly.

eponymoushipster's avatar

i’m just glad @Qingu is perfect.~

LostInParadise's avatar

@DarkScribe I am in complete agreement with you, as I tried to indicate

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

How’s this for freedom of expression?:

“Hamas has sent a sharp warning to Israel in the form of an animated film about an Israeli soldier it has held in Gaza for nearly four years.

The short film appeared Sunday on the website of Hamas’ armed wing. Hamas demands that Israel release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Sgt. Gilad Schalit.

The film shows the soldier’s father, Noam, walking empty Israeli streets, carrying a picture of his son. The father walks under billboards of Israeli politicians vowing to free his son. At the end, the father screams after receiving a coffin. Then he wakes up.

Text on the screen in Hebrew and Arabic reads: “There is still hope.”

Negotiations for his release have been stalled for months.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/25/international/i045901D27.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0m7qqq6iS

OMG Hilarious right? What… no?

Factotum's avatar

@kevbo With regard to assassinating one intended civilian target or accidentally killing fifty while attempting to kill one military target the answer is of course that it is worse to assassinate that one than the fifty when you are at war. Our military makes incredible efforts to not cause collateral damage, more than any other military in history. There are international rules for military engagement. Our enemies are aware of them and flout them with purpose.

Your links are scattershot but I’ll address them anyway. The police appear to have acted wrongly in the first link, mostly wrongly in the second link and not at all wrongly in the third (that t-shirt is funny!). In all cases people have recourse to the courts. I am no fan of police misconduct or certain brands of civil disobedience (specifically blocking traffic on purpose which is illegal when there isn’t a protest and remains illegal when there is).

Qingu's avatar

None of the arguments against mocking Muhammad seem to take into account just how much of a douchebucket the man was.

Again, @Captain_Fantasy, I don’t see how Hamas terrorist threats are remotely comparable to mocking a dead religious figure apart from “well they are both offensive.”

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Not comparing the message but the delivery.
Clearly a provocative measure that just isn’t necessary and doesn’t help anything.

CodePinko's avatar

@DarkScribe Am I the only individual not afraid to speak the truth? Islam blows.

Factotum's avatar

@kevbo
‘And in the case of South Park or “Draw Muhammad Day” is it really Muhammad the figure who is being mocked or is it more a mockery of the belief of Muslim Fundamentalists or a blanket mockery of Islam?’

With regard to the South Park episode what is being mocked is our willingness to meet these ridiculous demands to ‘not show’ Mohamed.

DarkScribe's avatar

@CodePinko Am I the only individual not afraid to speak the truth? Islam blows.

So does your girlfriend if you are lucky – but I suspect that was not the way you meant it.

CodePinko's avatar

@Factotum , In the case of South Park:
It is reprehensible that Matt and Trey would receive such little flak for mocking Jesus then have so much trouble for mentioning Mohamed.
Double standards, the Liberal’s stock in trade.

DarkScribe's avatar

@CodePinko such little flak for mocking Jesus then have so much trouble for mentioning Mohamed.

C’mon, what do you expect? Most Christians are only Christian in the sense that they tick that box in any form of survey – they are not devout. Most Islamic people are devout. Imagine the Christian response a few hundred years back and you can see the same attitude as modern Islam. Islam is like Christianity in the middle ages – they are stuck in a time warp that Christianity has mostly escaped.

eponymoushipster's avatar

fun facts you can gather from this thread, if you’re just joining us:

1) You’re only “open minded” if you are open-minded to what the other person believes. Otherwise, you’re backwards and close-minded.

2) Being “conservative” means one set of standards, that change depending on the argument, day of the week and what was for lunch last tuesday. And one set of conservatives can’t possibly understand another set of conservatives.

“Wait – youre of a different religious/national perspective, but you adhere strictly to what you view to be the tenets of your belief! PREPOSTEROUS! wait, i do that…damn

3) most people on fluther are shitheads.

Trillian's avatar

There have been a couple people here who have stated that those of us who have no desire to mock the beliefs of another do so out of fear. As I said earlier, I do not advocate mocking the religious beliefs of anyone regardless of what I think of the tenets of the icon. Fear has no part in this for me.
I also want to clarify that while the “prophet” Mohammed did and said many things that are reprehensible, to mock him is to mock, by extension, the entire faith of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe at whom so many want to thumb their noses.
When I answered the first time and now, I speak to the OP and for clarification. The OP asked for our opinions. This is mine.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@kevbo I’m not sure what your question to me means. What kinds of “workplace harassment” are you talking about?

I think in that case, as a ‘victim’ self-identifies and states what ‘harassment’ he or she feels. Sometimes that by itself can resolve the issue by having the behavior stop or change. If not, then it gets adjudicated: does the company need to adopt a policy that ’[whatever it is]’ is now considered to be harassment and has to stop? Or is the clam of ‘victim’ overturned, and the action officially considered to not be harassment?

I wouldn’t know for certain. If people I work with were to tell me about something I do that annoys them, I would probably modify my behavior. It hasn’t happened yet, but there’s always a first time.

Keysha's avatar

I find it sad that so many people find a need to mock a person that has been dead for so long simply to piss off a group of people. Mohammad himself has done nothing to anyone on this forum. And things done in his name are no worse than the things done in the name of the Christian god.

Sometimes I wish I were not part of the ‘human’ race because so many are so very disgusting.

CodePinko's avatar

@eponymoushipster said “2) Being “conservative” means one set of standards, that change depending on the argument, day of the week and what was for lunch last tuesday”.
(doubles over at the sheer load of the irony).

eponymoushipster's avatar

@CodePinko please elaborate, if you can.

Factotum's avatar

Conservatives when taken as a whole will have different standards because conservatives don’t march lockstep despite that being the other accusation. Same with liberals.

Sometimes individual people will either change their minds on an issue, or simply sell out in order to either support their side or condemn the other side. More often though they are accused of having a double standard by people who insist that one idea is the same as another, for example ‘how can you be against abortion but be in favor of capital punishment.’ This is pure and tedious sophistry but it is quite representative of the ‘gotcha’ reporting by gross partisans in general.

JeffVader's avatar

If thats a real thing then I’m against it…... It is amusing though to see how much offense this has caused, especially considering all the things Jesus has done in South Park.

CodePinko's avatar

@eponymoushipster It cannot be conservatives that have more than one set of standards as true conservatives have only one, the US constitution.

mattbrowne's avatar

I support free speech. But I’m against hurting the feelings of people on purpose. So it’s not a good idea.

eponymoushipster's avatar

@CodePinko Well, Fox News certainly uses the 1st amendment to it’s benefit.
BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!

stallion44107's avatar

if you come in my yard without asking me,i WILL sic the wife on you. i could care less what religion you do or dont believe in.

hey i said it a million times…..religion is the cause of more deaths than any diease or natural disaster. popes,kings,emperors all…have used religion as a tool for their schemes and dreams of world rule. ZEUS ,ODIN,BUDDHA,MOHAMMED,RA,JESUS…GOD. in the name of (insert deity here) ,attack!!!

now i gotta say 10 hail marys and 20 our fathers for taking the lord GOD“S name in vain….sigh.

mattbrowne's avatar

It’s the careless attitudes, cynicism, disrespect and ridicule that causes harm and human disaster @stallion44107

Qingu's avatar

@mattbrowne, you’ve said repeatedly that religion has caused good things in human history (such as that bishop you always talk about in Germany.)

By your logic here, it wasn’t religion that caused the good things, it was altruism, respect, etc and other vaguely nice-sounding human qualities?

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

No, I don’t think it’s right to make fun of something that is considered serious, solemn, and sacrilegious by so many people. That would be immature and obnoxious, and very unnecessary. Why fan the flame of anger when there is already so much vileness and hate in the world?

mattbrowne's avatar

@Qingu – Good things and bad things have been done in the name of religion. Altruism and respect is neither the opposite of religion nor is it an exact match. In my post above I was referring to @stallion44107‘s use of ridicule in his comment.

Iclamae's avatar

A) I think the concept of the day is fantastic.

B) I do not think that all the people drawing rude images are fantastic. That’s just spreading hate and resentment and quite frankly is completely stupid. And when I say rude image, I mean “I’m thinking dog-shit turban. Might try and fit a pig into the motif.” And the upsetting thing is how many people are thinking that way about this day. That ruins the point.

C) Islam on the whole is not an evil religion. There are just people who twist it into this terrible thing. The point isn’t to denounce the religion. It’s to show the extremists (who kill people) that the US’s artists would not stand for censorship.

D) I will be participating in this day.

I spent a long time researching religions at an early age. I read all of their messages and their guidelines. Islam and Christianity stood out to me in particular for simple messages: love and be loved. I began to follow Christianity. I’m not sure why I chose it over Islam. After a traumatic series events, I realized that religion didn’t answer questions I needed answered. I have since turned to science and atheism.

HOWEVER, I understand the appeal of religion and I am sad to miss out on the benefits of being in a recognized religion. Religious people have a network of people to support them through hard times and hard questions. They have something to be a part of and something that gives them the answers they need.

I think all religions share the same message. And to be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if all the gods were the same one. And everyone’s been playing a giant game of Telephone this whole time.

My drawing of Mohammad will be a respectful representation of what I think he means to Muslims. And while it may be technically disrespectful to actually depict him at all, any deity who asks to be prayed to and asks to have offerings made to it, will probably accept a humble representation as an offering. It’s the only way I can show my respect to a deity I do not pray to but do acknowledge. Also, as an artist, I would make the argument that this is the best way for me personally to make any kind of offering.

Iclamae's avatar

i wasn’t aware of that until a day after writing that response up there, when I started looking more into all of this.

Kraigmo's avatar

I think it’s a good idea. The world shouldn’t cater to people who get violently offended. People who are easily offended over harmless things, deserve to be offended.

josie's avatar

Why not. Some artist once put a crucifix in a jar of urine and people thought it was avant guard art.

Kraigmo's avatar

0
/|\ <—call me “Moe”
/\

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Sure. But I don’t recommend standing too near Molly for awhile.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther