Hatrack River Forum: Celebrating Draw Muhammad Day

This is topic Celebrating Draw Muhammad Day in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=057105

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Less KoM just means that the rest of us atheists need to step up our game.

Bing.

And so.

quote:
Before the calendar page turns to Thursday, it's worth meditating on the whys and wherefores of the contest, which was inspired by a jihadist death threat against the creators of South Park and was originally suggested by Seattle artist Molly Norris. Soon after asking everyone to draw the Prophet in solidarity with the arguably millions of people repressed by threats of theologically justified violence, Norris herself went into ideological hiding, suggesting instead that everyone draw another target of South Park satire: former Vice President Al Gore.

...

Who can blame her? People have been killed for representing Mohammed in ways that displeased Islamic terrorists. People have been punched and kicked and forced into hiding. No wonder, then, that Norris, like Galileo in front of a Catholic tribunal, apologized to "everyone of the Muslim faith who has or will be offended" by her drawing (visible at the right). This conditionally unconditional language is the language of the forced penitent, of the prisoner in a totalitarian world, of the sad sack on the Catherine Wheel who will say anything, will confess anything to get off the rack. We all understand exactly why such language is being used: The threat of violence.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/18/get-ready-for-everyone-draw-mo

And so:

code:

 .    =?7??7II?I??+?++=??I7$$77+?+,..,,. .. ..  .. . .  . . . ..  .. ....    .
   .    ?I?I????77I?III????II+?III?+???+=??=?=+????+?+++?+I+++==+++=+?++=+$.   .
   .    =??III+?+III77I??7??+????+???+=I++?===+++==?=+++?+??+??+II7I?III??I.   .
       .++I?????++?+??I+I??+?+I???++++?++??+=+~+====~=~++~===+=+=+??+=???I?.   .
   .   .=+=++++II?+I++I+I$II+?I7++?+===?+?=+II?=+=:+=+=+=~+~+=+++=++=+?++++.   .
   .   .      ...=~+?++II?+?I+I?+====+$I+?III+?+~===~.~:?+?=+??~+=+=~~+==:+.   .
   .   .           ......++I+II==?IIIIII7+7IZ77+I+:++=+?+??=+=+++=+=+=++=+=.   .
   .                    .==?+?I=I??7????7??7?II7I=?+:??+????++=?++++++++~:~    .
   .   . .~+.   .+?..+? +=+I+I+7?7II+?I?=?7?I7III7+?????+?+???++=+=??==~=+,.   .
   .      .,.~,,+?I=?77?++=+I?7I7?I?7III+7I?IO??77Z$????I???+?+?+++======= .   .
   .      .?+:,~=II+?77=++???III+II$ZI7?IIII?=I7$I7=?++?I++?++==  ..  ~.=~     .
   .       +7,?++II?7???I+7$7I7$7Z77O?7I7???I8+?I7Z$?+???=I+++.           . .. .
   .   . ~.++I+$I7$I$I??$77$7?$7IZ77$77I++Z?+OZ??7ZI+??7+++?+                . .
   .   .  .?I77?I+7$?7=I?IOZ$Z7Z7III?I?I+?++?I?I$7777$7OI+.                    .
   .   .  .+I????I7?I$??I?7$7$7777II+I7I7?++I$7??7Z8??Z$7?. ..   .        .    .
   .   :  =+=++?+7??III???I+78$II??II?I?7I+ZZ$?7?7Z7+=$I8DD8$7 ...        .    .
   .   + .~+=++I?I?=+I?$?ZI+7777OI7$7$?+??77Z$$7$$$?D$?8DDDDD8DDI    .    .    .
   .   ?  +??++?I?=+=?+II?+IIIIII$O$$IIII77$OO$$$?IZ$+7ZDOODDD8NDIZ...,I$,.    .
   .   ?   ??I??I?7????$$I+ZII7Z7$+7$Z???$Z7?$77I7+$7...:ODDD8ZDDDDDOZ8DD8.    .
   .   +  .????I+?I77I??77Z7?7$77$+7?7II=ZI77Z77+IZ87I77I7I77$8ZZZ8+ZDDO88..   .
   .   :  .II?+=?IIIII77I?I7$7$7?7+I7I???+I7?=?7$7$$O77I+?I+?I$IZIZDODDD8D     .
   .   . .:???++$I?+?II7II777+??7III+$I$I+7=Z?7I$7DDI$I?++??I++?7I777D88D8..   .
   .     .I??I=+=Z?=7I7?7+7$~II7?$??$$?I7Z7$?7+7I7O8Z$?++==?~+?I++??I7+Z7$.  . .
   .    .+?+???+77+=?+?$77+7I$7ZI7II7?ZOI77Z$??++?OOZ+?++?++=?++?+=??+=II7. .. .
   .   .~I~?+~?7+=+?7777II+?+I7+7$7?II7O888$Z7?I$$77++?=++++?=???++I+?++?? ... .
   .   ~==+~:~?I777$IIIII?+??++?$$$Z$$77$+I77I77?$+++=++I?+???+?+++++++=+=.... .
   .   ~=~==+=?++7I$I?+++=+????++~.77I?II+I$I7$$=?=?+=++=?+?=+==+?=+=+~==?.... .
   .   =+?+$++???I7?I=+=++=+?+++++..~=+~:,+==+I=?=?+=+=++++++?+++??=++??+=.  . .
   .   ,~I??I?IIIZ?~=:~?=+=?=?=~+=~?==:?~~~=~+++?==+I=+=~?=+:I??+?~=+?I+:?.  . .
   .   .,:+I?7+?O?=::~.,=~,,=+~~:.:++~~7$78ZZ7$7III?+++==+~?+=+?++++++~=~+     .
   .     .    ....  .   ..  ... .. .   ..  .....       .    .  .  .. ....,.    .

Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park are changing the world one episode at a time. And that will be the greatest joke of all.

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :

I'm conflicted on the Muhammad picture controversy in general. Maybe someone can answer this for me, because I'm not really sure myself: are all Muslims offended at the sight of Muhammad images? I know it's only a small extremist faction that is responding to violence, but are the grand majority of Muslims offended but simply restrain themselves from a greater response? Or are the only people who even take issue with this a tiny fringe group themselves?

I'm not necessarily sure the answer will make a big difference, but I'm curious. Anyway, the free speech arguments being made are curious ones. Do I think anyone has a right to draw a picture of Muhammad? Sure, I guess. Do I think that that right protects them from ALL harm? Probably not. You can taunt someone with racial slurs and expect to get your ass kicked, or insert insult to insert group that takes offense to that insult, etc. If a large number of people say that this thing really insults them, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? I guess this is where my question as to the size of the offended group comes into play.

Also, I think Parker and Stone fall flat as often as they're dead-on. I don't really blame Comedy Central for censoring them. The people who censored it aren't worried about lawsuits (well, maybe) or boycotts, they're worried about a bomb being mailed to the Comedy Central office that kills some poor office worker who had nothing to do with it. I actually think, much as they might have had the best intentions, it was pretty careless to intentionally provoke a group known to have hostile intent and means, especially when Stone and Parker weren't confining the response to themselves.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
... are all Muslims offended at the sight of Muhammad images?

No, in fact some of the original images in the Denmark case were fabricated by Imams to provoke violence.

There is a whole category of depictions of Muhammad by Muslims specifically here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_depictions_of_Muhammad

quote:
If a large number of people say that this thing really insults them, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? I guess this is where my question as to the size of the offended group comes into play.

Create so many targets for retribution so that it confuses them. Much like a school of fish will move in numbers and formation to confuse predators, actually reducing the number of casualties. Christians used to do retribution for things like sacrilege (some still do). But largely, they're better now, and not because people just avoided the issue.

It makes sense to attempt to desensitize Muslims in the same way.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Not really, it just adds to the feeling that it is US against THEM, and encourage them to lash out even more.

Good job.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Not really, it just adds to the feeling that it is US against THEM, and encourage them to lash out even more.

Good job.

Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Not really, it just adds to the feeling that it is US against THEM, and encourage them to lash out even more.

Good job.
Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels.

We obviously have no shortage of idiots, either. Than you for volunteering to be cannon fodder, a truck will be by shortly to pick you and your family up.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Not really, it just adds to the feeling that it is US against THEM, and encourage them to lash out even more.

By that logic, satirists should be coming up against blasphemy laws and threats of jail more than ever, instead AFAIK only Ireland and Poland fit in those two categories respectively.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Not really, it just adds to the feeling that it is US against THEM, and encourage them to lash out even more.

Good job.
Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels.

They also have your country by the balls, *cough oil cough*

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
We obviously have no shortage of idiots, either. Than you for volunteering to be cannon fodder, a truck will be by shortly to pick you and your family up.

I think you mean "camel fodder".

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
They also have your country by the balls, *cough oil cough*

Give it a few more years. Alternative energy technology will get better, and Americans will finally realize that the best way to deal with Muslim extremists is to go alternative stop buying oil. Americans are ignorant, not stupid, and ignorance is fixable.

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :

Actually, by that logic, it would encourage them to do more extreme things like ban Facebook altogether... which is exactly what has happened as a result of this in Pakistan.

Intentionally offending the Islamic faith mainly just gives Muslims a reason to believe the government needs to enforce religious standards of decency.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Not really. The majority of oil producing countries would have to cooperate in not selling oil to the US to even impact the price we pay much at all (since oil is so fungible), and an increase in the price of oil would be a pain, but a manageable one (provided the government doesn't do something stupid like price caps or rationing).

Whereas a significant drop in oil revenue can, in such countries, lead to the downfalls of governments.

That the oil producing nations somehow control the US economy is one of those bizarre, long-standing myths that certain sorts of people like to tell themselves.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:

That the oil producing nations somehow control the US economy is one of those bizarre, long-standing myths that certain sorts of people like to tell themselves.

You are correct. It is a myth. However, the whole problem would go away in about a week if the world just stopped buying Middle Eastern oil.

If the choice is to kill the infidels or beg for dinner, most Muslims are going to beg for dinner.

I knew this almost 9 years ago, as soon as 9/11 happened...I'm amazed that it has taken the rest of the country this long, and longer, to figure that out.

Or maybe it hasn't, and that's why we elected Obama.

I really hope he opens up in his 2nd term and makes alternative energy happen.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels.

yes, because nuking them would at all help our circumstantial position.

you're so charmingly silly when you get righteous.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels.
yes, because nuking them would at all help our circumstantial position.

you're so charmingly silly when you get righteous.

I wasn't actually suggesting the use of nukes. What I mean is, the more it becomes an all-out war, on all fronts...the more it becomes true the people with the best weapons are the winners. History shows that. The Muslims are safe as long as the Europeans tolerate them. If that ever stops, then Muslims are up a creek, I think.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
... Intentionally offending the Islamic faith mainly just gives Muslims a reason to believe the government needs to enforce religious standards of decency.

I have no doubt that that will happen too.

However, separation of church and state isn't only about protecting the state from religion, it is also about protecting religions from actually being in control of government.

Fundamentally, separation of church and state is a good thing and if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, I'm OK with that.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
... However, the whole problem would go away in about a week if the world just stopped buying Middle Eastern oil.

No, even if you could arrange this unlikely situation, it wouldn't affect this particular problem.

It doesn't take a lot of income to send terrorists abroad (and thats assuming they don't switch to the local variety). The guy attacking the Denmark cartoonist had an axe. There's no way you can realistically impoverish Muslims to the extent that they cannot afford an axe.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
... However, the whole problem would go away in about a week if the world just stopped buying Middle Eastern oil.
No, even if you could arrange this unlikely situation, it wouldn't affect this particular problem.

It doesn't take a lot of income to send terrorists abroad (and thats assuming they don't switch to the local variety). The guy attacking the Denmark cartoonist had an axe. There's no way you can realistically impoverish Muslims to the extent that they cannot afford an axe.

If you can't eat, you don't have time or energy to axe people. And yes, you CAN impoverish Muslims to that extent. Without oil, the countries that produce the most terrorists are all but penniless.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

Do they not have bank accounts that hold money for more than your one week timetable?
Do they not send home remittances?
Do they not own stakes in your banks bought when they were in trouble and that could be sold to raise money?

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :

I am of the opinion that Muslim extremists do not hate America for what we have done to them, but for what we are.

We have treated many oil producing nations unfairly. Saudi Arabia being one of them. I'd say we more have them by the balls than the reverse.

That being said, I do not think that Muslim Extremists want to bring down America because of what we have done to them. They want to bring us down because of the way of life we have. Not out of jealousy, but out of belief that the American way of life is contrary to the teachings of their religion.

Rolling over and trying to play nice with them by making excuses for America does not help the problem. Unless you are going to change the American way of life to match those of the muslim world in accordance to the extremists, it is counter productive.

Now if they agree to leave us alone and we leave them alone, I'm fine with that. Historically however this isn't the case. Muslim extremism has affected the US for over two hundred years now. Blaming it on what we have done in the middle east in the past forty years may have escalated the problem, but it did not create it.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Do they not have bank accounts that hold money for more than your one week timetable?
Do they not send home remittances?
Do they not own stakes in your banks bought when they were in trouble and that could be sold to raise money?

As far as owning stakes in Citibank, stock would be sold at fire-sale prices if oil stopped being bought.

Specifically, I'm talking about a situation in which a new technology came out that was cheaper than oil, easier and safer to use, and immediately available in basically limitless amounts. In a situation like that, panic ensues, and all the stocks and Lamborghinis and other wealth that they own would be getting sold fast, at at nowhere near its real value. After that money runs out (which it would, pretty fast...feeding hundreds of millions of people isn't cheap), they're up a creek.

Simultaneously, as soon as this new tech comes out, every Muslim is going to see the writing on the wall and start focusing on simply surviving, including the ones in the EU and the US. Why? Because of remittances. They would be too busy sending money back home to spend time plotting and paying for terrorism in the US and EU.

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

code:
O
I+
/\

Check out that sweet Mohammed art.

Edit: He's auditioning for Krull 2

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

Actually the poor you impoverish your enemies the more angry they become, people with nothing to lose make the easiest matyrs and guerillas to train and recruit.

Afterall when the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan the standard of living and the development index went into freefall with the result that resistance stiffened in correlation to how far it fell.

Same thing with Saudi Arabia who have it as a matter of official policy should they be defeated as a state to return to a nomadic lifestyle in the desert to continue the struggle, the more you'ld crack down with your 1 million $ cruise missiles the more expendible people become with their 10$ molotov cocktails and home made bombs to strike back.

A dedicated resistance with global reach and support is an theoretical impossibility to defeat, the more you try to crush their spirits the tougher they become short of actual genocide and then whatever groups remain will never forget or forgive.

Right now because its extremists making an ass of themselves 90% of Muslems don't support terrorism though as a wild geuss maybe something like 30% are sympathetic/have reservations though alot of the disgruntledness is focused on Israel who many of who have rationalized is whose 'controlling' America to explain away American strength as an 'impossible' goal to defeat.

However should America and the West start actively suppressing Muslems then you'll probably find a rapid and sudden shift in ideology worldwide making enemies where they're weren't any before.

In a pinch there will always be those willing to sacrifice convenience for a cause and greater struggle.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
... As far as owning stakes in Citibank, stock would be sold at fire-sale prices if oil stopped being bought.

Fire-sale prices in the US during a time of extraordinary economic growth due to a new and revolutionary new energy source?

I don't buy it.

What we can buy is an axe at Walmart for $23.

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :

Blayne has a good point. Even though most of the muslims in the world do not support terrorism, those who do commit the acts hide behind the religion to justify the acts. People that don't know any better start to think that if they see someone that looks middle eastern on a plane, they must be dangerous.

Its like the people that think that Mormons all have multiple wives. A fringe group that practices polygamy says they are mormon, so people start to get the idea that "All mormons are polygamous."

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
People have been killed for representing Mohammed in ways that displeased Islamic terrorists.

I question the validity of this statement. Can anyone verifty it? I did a search but all I could find was a reference to 139 people killed in protests over the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Those people did not draw the cartoons, they were protesting the cartoons. They weren't killed by Terrorists they were shot by riot control police.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm conflicted on the Muhammad picture controversy in general. Maybe someone can answer this for me, because I'm not really sure myself: are all Muslims offended at the sight of Muhammad images? I know it's only a small extremist faction that is responding to violence, but are the grand majority of Muslims offended but simply restrain themselves from a greater response? Or are the only people who even take issue with this a tiny fringe group themselves?

I'm not necessarily sure the answer will make a big difference, but I'm curious. Anyway, the free speech arguments being made are curious ones. Do I think anyone has a right to draw a picture of Muhammad? Sure, I guess. Do I think that that right protects them from ALL harm? Probably not. You can taunt someone with racial slurs and expect to get your ass kicked, or insert insult to insert group that takes offense to that insult, etc. If a large number of people say that this thing really insults them, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? I guess this is where my question as to the size of the offended group comes into play.

Also, I think Parker and Stone fall flat as often as they're dead-on. I don't really blame Comedy Central for censoring them. The people who censored it aren't worried about lawsuits (well, maybe) or boycotts, they're worried about a bomb being mailed to the Comedy Central office that kills some poor office worker who had nothing to do with it. I actually think, much as they might have had the best intentions, it was pretty careless to intentionally provoke a group known to have hostile intent and means, especially when Stone and Parker weren't confining the response to themselves.

My feeling is that the proper response is ridicule and disregard for the taboo, but only because of the threats of violence. I will respect a peaceful request to avoid depicting Mohammed to a far greater extent than I will a threat. I think (collectively) flouting the latter teaches them that they'd be better off using peaceful persuasion, and (better yet) that they realistically have no choice but to live and let live.

I do agree that the corporate response is predictable and justifiable. I hope that individuals acting on their own - through the Internet and otherwise - are still sending the right message, though.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Let them. We know who will win. I do not value their lives. If they want a real war, they can have one. We've got nukes. They've got camels

The Pakistanis have nukes too.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
People have been killed for representing Mohammed in ways that displeased Islamic terrorists.
I question the validity of this statement. Can anyone verifty it?

quote:
In June 2008, a suicide car bombing outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad killed eight people. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was to avenge the cartoons.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jNYX1SpSBllLvpD1gbNzrDIFypJw

My statements about the axe refer to the attempted murder of one of the original cartoonists in Denmark.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
... and (better yet) that they realistically have no choice but to live and let live.

Bingo

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Thanks Mucus.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

I would also like to point out and concur that Muslems ie Pakistan have nuclear weapons, also predominantly Muslem nations such as the 'Stans being former Soviet Republics may also have unsecured nuclear facilities that while it is certain that at least 99% of nuclear weapons had been moved via bilateral treaty to Russia may have some remnant materials to allow dedicated terrorists to infiltrate and secure to make dirty bombs.

Notwithstanding rumors that several nuclear weapons had already been stolen during those times.

A terrorist has no state or flag to hide behind, a terrorist with a nuclear weapon is essentially a free nuclear strike on the US as there is no nation to retalliate against to act as a deterrant.

You could MAYBE nuke Mecca in retaliation but that has its own problems.

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :

quote:
Could you do it legally? Of course. Should you?

Said it better than I could.

--j_k

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

Drawing Mohammed is like flag burning. It is intentionally provocative to prove a point.

The point being proven is that drwaing a cartoon isn't actually hurting anyone, but sometimes the response is, and we need to focus on people who are being actually hurt (and killed) over people who are having their feelings hurt.

Freedom isn't really freedom if it only applies when you talk about things that extremists aren't willing to kill you over. Letting that pass just tells people that you can shut people up about whatever you don't want talked about by threatening violence.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:

quote:
Could you do it legally? Of course. Should you?
Said it better than I could.

--j_k

Excellent link JTK.

quote:
Muslim students’ reaction? Add boxing gloves and re-label the drawings “Muhammad Ali." As an atheist (or better yet, call me a Humanist: one who emphasizes doing good without God) who longs for fellow Humanists to gain respectability in this religious nation, I begrudgingly admit the Muslims’ approach in this incident is superior in humor and civility.

quote:
In Muslim culture, there is a longstanding tradition that to put something on the ground, where people step on it, is “the ultimate diss," indicating “I hate you, you disgust me,” as I was told by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America

To this add the fact that after 9/11 hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims and “those perceived to be Muslim” increased 1,700 percent in the United States, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. Large numbers of innocent Muslims in the U.S. have been harmed or intimidated simply because they share a religious tradition with extremists. Can we reasonably suggest they not be reminded of this upon seeing their prophet, the most revered and admired person in their cultural tradition, underfoot?

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :

I was musing the other day on the thought "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it's right to do it" (or, to put it another way, just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean doing it doesn't make you a jackass.) I was thinking at the time about some of the "open carry" people showing up at demonstrations and the like, but it seems to apply here as well.

I'm torn.

Clearly this offends people who I wouldn't remotely think deserving of offense. But it also offends people who would to the world a favor if their fury-driven blood pressure led to a massive stroke. And more to the point, I do think it's important to send the message that using violence to try to impose your beliefs on others is not only wrong, but counter-productive.

It might be better if this had kept to Facebook, rather than the open forum. If the very idea of an image of Mohammed is what offends, ten thousand JPEGs ought to make as much of a statement as a bunch of stickmen, without necessarily creating as much of a hostile atmosphere where people who would find such images offensive have to work and live. Or to put it another way, irritate the extremists without rubbing it in the faces of moderates.

It may be that only through building tolerance and the recognition of the inherent inappropriateness of trying to violently impose beliefs can we get to the point where this kind of stunt won't be considered necessary.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
In June 2008, a suicide car bombing outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad killed eight people. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was to avenge the cartoons.

I think its worth noting that the 8 people killed by terrorist in response to the Mohammed cartoons, had nothing to do with the drawings.

Its one thing to risk your own neck defending the right to free speech and protesting religious intollerance, its another thing to provoke terrorists who are more likely to kill innocent bystanders than attack you. I'm not sure what the best way is to stand up to those who wish to intimidate and silence through fear, but there are dozens of reasons why this isn't it.

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :

quote:
And more to the point, I do think it's important to send the message that using violence to try to impose your beliefs on others is not only wrong, but counter-productive.

See, while I agree with this, I think "Draw Muhammad Day" itself is counterproductive -- it comes across as an "anti-Muslim" statement more than an "anti-violence" statement.

--j_k

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

It is clearly anti-violence as it wouldn't exist if violence had not been threatened.

Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :

Here's my contribution. Anyone offended by it is an idiot, frankly.

To me, that is the spirit of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day; to make something that no one could rationally say is offensive, yet makes groups rally with signs that say I should be killed for it.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
It is clearly anti-violence as it wouldn't exist if violence had not been threatened.

If it were clearly anti-violence, no one would be asking the question. It's clearly a response to violence but iot seems more like taunting bullies than a statement taking a stand against violence.

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

If there were a group of people who worshipped chairs and they were mortally offended that we all sit in them, I sure as heck wouldn't stop sitting in my chair.

This is kind of how I feel about it.

Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :

Standing Babas?

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
If there were a group of people who worshipped chairs and they were mortally offended that we all sit in them, I sure as heck wouldn't stop sitting in my chair.

Depending on the circumstances, I might around them.

I don't think I'd go out of my way to sit in my chair in front of them.

(Of course, this is completely ignoring the threat of violence issue.)

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

The chair worshippers are bonkers, mph. I think that's my actual opinion. The liberal part of me feels guilty about that.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

You considering them to be "bonkers" doesn't really change the circumstances for me.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
Maybe you're ok with that, but I'm not.

Can we expect you to publish comical images of Muhammed on the Internet attached to your name soon, then?

This isn't just an abstract issue, after all.

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :

My friends and I drew about 40 pictures of Muhammed on the 20th. Just to be silly.

I made extremely sure that none of my muslim friends knew about it. I'm 100 percent they're allowed to be offended by people mocking their religion like this. It's not gonna stop me, cause I'm a teenager, and mocking things is what we do, but really I would never show or advertise a picture of Muhammed to a Muslim person.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
I would never show or advertise a picture of Muhammed to a Muslim person.

Not openly. You obviously are OK with doing it anonymously.

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :

well I'm ok doing it, yes. but I would feel bad if someone saw my picture and was offended by it even if they didn't know it was me.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Huh?

What point is there in drawing those pictures if you don't want any Muslims to see it?

Also, you said that you and your friends drew about 40 of those pictures. What would you say the odds are that a Muslim saw one of them and was offended? Are you OK with that, or do you feel bad about it?

Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :

Then why do it in the first place?

The entire thing is supposed to be about 'protecting' our free speech rights. But I don't think that they were in any danger to begin with. South Park's creators are probably laughing their heads off at this entire fiasco. The media totally flipped just because some guy with a dial-up connection posted on his blog that South Park's creators should die.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
To me, that is the spirit of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day; to make something that no one could rationally say is offensive, yet makes groups rally with signs that say I should be killed for it.

See the thing is for every person out there who draws a harmless picture like yours there's going to be somebody that draws Muhammad strapped to a bomb. It's a terrible idea, and it's only adding fuel to the fire if you ask me. More than anything I'm worried about the extremist response to this, because this time a lot more people will feel like their actions are justified.

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

quote:
You considering them to be "bonkers" doesn't really change the circumstances for me.

Just so we're clear, there's eventually a line where you stop appeasing someone's bonkers beliefs, right?

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Like I said, it depends on the circumstances.

But I can't really imagine your judgment of them as "bonkers" to factor into my decision making.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Drawing Mohammed is like flag burning. It is intentionally provocative to prove a point.

The point being proven is that drwaing a cartoon isn't actually hurting anyone, but sometimes the response is, and we need to focus on people who are being actually hurt (and killed) over people who are having their feelings hurt.

Freedom isn't really freedom if it only applies when you talk about things that extremists aren't willing to kill you over. Letting that pass just tells people that you can shut people up about whatever you don't want talked about by threatening violence.

There is definitely some truth in that, but by the same token there is a standard of behavior that should be accepted. If you are TRYING to provoke someone you don't really have the right to be offended if they get upset.

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

What point is there in drawing those pictures if you don't want any Muslims to see it?

Also, you said that you and your friends drew about 40 of those pictures. What would you say the odds are that a Muslim saw one of them and was offended? Are you OK with that, or do you feel bad about it?

There wasn't really a point. We just though it was a ridiculous day. We weren't trying to make a statement on free speech or anything.

And since my friend Kyle has all of them I would say zero have seen them. He just got a new paper shredder we were going to test out today. [Wink]

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Ah. I thought that you drew them on sidewalks and the like.

Would it be fair to say that you drew them in order to participate in some some small way?

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

Kwea: I don't think people are offended if someone is upset, we're offended when someone says that people should not be allowed to upset someone else, and if they do it is acceptable to threaten and/or kill them.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Yeah, we are actually in agreement on a lot of this, MC. I am not saying that if they DO go ahead and blow something up the person who dies deserved to, or that the people who did so were right or justified in any way.

But I also believe that if you go walking in the worst neighborhood in a city alone, at night, and start arguing with drug dealers on the corner you will probably get shot, and you WILL bear some of the responsibility for it. You SHOULD be safe, and they SHOULDN'T be selling drugs, but that doesn't mean confronting them about it is smart, or a good way to avoid getting beat up or even killed.

Not to mention there area lot of good people out there would would also be offended, even though they would never even consider violence as a means of expressing that.

I don't think alienating the reasonable factions of a group to deliberately piss off the violent factions is a good path to peace. It won;t help us change the mistaken persepctive that they have, one that says it is us against them.

It SHOULD be all of US against the idiots who use violence, regardless of faith, race, or nationality.

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :

I thought the whole idea of the day was pretty stupid. When we follow suit, we’re not exercising our freedom of speech to deliberately inflame a great swath of people who hold something sacred. We’re abusing it. What was anybody trying to prove to anyone, and was it really worth it? Sure, here in the western world you can say what you want about just about anything. We forget that this is a hard-won privilege that should be used with respect and common sense, if nothing else.

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :

I find it interesting that those most against the Draw M day are Mormons. I have been around long enough to know this, although haven't posted here in a long time. Just find that interesting.