May 20th is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!!!

[ehra]

As far as I know, the pictures being drawn for this aren't meant to go public. The original picture supposedly wasn't even meant to go public.

It is and was meant to be a form of protest.

[bosk1]

I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public.  "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."

[ehra]

I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public.  "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."

No, it's "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet to show you that I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because you threaten me and others with violence. For the non extremists out there, I'm sorry. Hopefully you won't go out of your way looking for something you know will offend you."

Defending everyone's freedom of speech, even if it's for something you consider rude or offensive and wouldn't normally do, is far more important to me than protecting the sensibilities of any one group. Letting this go sets a dangerous president for the future.

[Super Dude]

I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public.  "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you!  I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."

No, it's "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet to show you that I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because you threaten me and others with violence. For the non extremists out there, I'm sorry. Hopefully you won't go out of your way looking for something you know will offend you."

Defending everyone's freedom of speech, even if it's for something you consider rude or offensive and wouldn't normally do, is far more important to me than protecting the sensibilities of any one group. Letting this go sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

This.  I think you may be missing the point, Bosk.  The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.  It's the same as with, say, a Neo-Nazi or a white supremacist rally, or maybe propaganda from either.  I may disagree with what they say and hell, I might even ask for their heads on a pike, but the fact remains that in this country they have a right to express their views, even though they offend someone.

[ack44]

 This is a totally legitimate way to respond to ridiculous, violent extremist threats and I totally support it, but probably won't go through the hassle of actually drawing Mohamed.

[Super Dude]

Ah, there, perfect example.  Ack is very, very critical of Israel, to a point that's infuriating to me.  But do I ask Bosk or any of the mods to ban him or to censor discussion that's critical of Israel?  Not at all.  I may try to convince him that he's wrong, but he does have a right to his own opinion.

[bosk1]

The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.  

The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous.  You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion.  Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.

[ehra]

The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.  

The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous.  You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion.  Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.

How do you show a group that you won't be kept quiet through intimidation without doing whatever it is they're telling you not to do?

[Super Dude]

The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.  

The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous.  You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion.  Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.

I would agree with your argument, but I believe this premise is false.  I don't believe that it has anything to do with performing actions that your beliefs require you to do; it's about having the freedom to express your opinions or views.  And you're right, my rights are not infringed upon by their religion (unless of course we consider the indirect actions taken by fundamentalists across the globe, and my obvious special case revolving around Israel); my rights are infringed upon when you say I must forgo them for someone else's benefit.


...Wait.  Actually, fuck it.  It makes sense in my head, but for some reason today I'm not able to articulate my arguments well enough.  Ehra if you're getting the gist of what I'm trying to say here, please try to elaborate.

[bosk1]

I hear what you are saying, but nothing you or ehra have said so far persuades me to think any differently than:

A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad.  Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?

I don't get it.  This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.

So while there are a good many things I agree with you on, I still happen to think this is a jerk move and that your endorsing of it and/or approval of it is a jerk move on your part.  I guess we'll just have to find our common ground on other issues then. 

[Super Dude]

I'm not saying that one should produce pictures of Mohammed for the sake of offending Muslims, or for its own sake.  What I'm saying is that if the situation calls for it (be it serious or satirical), one ought to be able to do so without his or her freedom of expression being infringed upon.  Just because I don't like people drawing swastikas or images of stereotypical Jews doesn't mean I would infringe upon their right to do so, even if I think they're wrong.

[ehra]

I'm still not seeing how your typical Muslim has to "suffer" any sort of blasphemy just because they happen to know someone somewhere is drawing a picture of Muhammad. Assuming the reason posted on this forum for why they're against it is right (can't remember who posted it, but basically it was because any worldly/physical image of him would taint their view of something/someone that is beyond the physical), then it should not matter in any way unless they actually see it. In which case this doesn't affect them at all, and it's merely a form of protest against the extremists.

Why is a "basic tenet of Islam" more important to defend than everyone's freedom of speech? You say that no one's "beliefs require" this of them, yet the reason this is being done is because their belief in freedom of speech does require it.

edit: But this is just going in circles now. Not much point in going on.

[Nick]

Whether it should be offensive is irrelevant to the fact that it is offensive.  I agree that it shouldn't be.  But knowing that it is, I'm not going to go around doing it, at least not publicly because knowing it is offensive to people, it would be just rude.

Can you really use that argument though? Pretty much anything you do in your daily life is going to be offensive to someone.

If I woke up this morning and found a non-threatening spider crawling down my arm and I'd swat it, then I'd be offending Hindus. Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Basically what I'm saying is I should *not* have to live my life based completely around what others find offensive.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm not saying that one should produce pictures of Mohammed for the sake of offending Muslims, or for its own sake.  What I'm saying is that if the situation calls for it (be it serious or satirical), one ought to be able to do so without his or her freedom of expression being infringed upon.  Just because I don't like people drawing swastikas or images of stereotypical Jews doesn't mean I would infringe upon their right to do so, even if I think they're wrong.

It's not about rights.  It's about respect.

If we live in a society where there is a freedom of religion, then the religious practices of others should be respected, insofar as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights.  A tenet of Islam is not to depict the Prophet.  It offends them.  OK, fine, I won't depict the Prophet, no skin off my nose.  Do I understand it?  No.  But I don't have to understand it, or agree with it.  I also don't understand why Jews won't speak or even write the name of God, especially when there isn't even a Biblical command to do that.  That makes no sense to me whatsoever.  But I respect their wishes and don't do it (at least not where they will see or hear it).  This is exactly the same.

[bosk1]

If I woke up this morning and found a non-threatening spider crawling down my arm and I'd swat it, then I'd be offending Hindus. Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Basically what I'm saying is I should *not* have to live my life based completely around what others find offensive.

In the abstract, I agree with you.  But in this particular case, you are dealing with something that is considered very highly offensive (even though most other people realize that it is B.S.), and there is nothing whatsoever to be gained from "excercising one's right to free speech" other than a smug feeling of "I sure showed them."  To me, this is not merely an excercise of free speech; it is an abuse of free speech.  

EDIT:  and what hef said.

[ehra]

EDIT:  and what hef said.

If we live in a society where there is a freedom of religion, then the religious practices of others should be respected, insofar as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights

So we should respect a group's beliefs up until the point where they begin to infringe on other people's rights, in which case respect towards that particular group's beliefs goes out the window? Awesome glad we agree, cake anyone?

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I'm with ehra and Super Dude on this one.  Offending people for the sake of offending people (while fun) is not always right, but in this case freedom of expression is at stake.  Islamic extremists need to understand that they can't censor people with threats of violence.

[hefdaddy42]

People, freedom of expression is not at stake.  Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

[emindead]

This is one of the best discussions I've seen on this side for a while. Great posts on both parts of this argument. 

[ehra]

Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did

What, you mean NOT depicting Muhammad? Because we've yet to actually see him in any SP episode.

How can you say freedom of expression is not at stake when it's clear that certain topics are off limits?

edit:

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

How do you show a group that you won't be kept quiet through intimidation without doing whatever it is they're telling you not to do?

Seems like a good reason to me.

[ack44]

People, freedom of expression is not at stake.  Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.

 South Park trolls the fuck out of Christianity and Judaism and it should by all means do the exact same to Islam.

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

 Welcome to the internet. (Yes, this in an internet phenomenon)

[bosk1]

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

 Welcome to the internet. (Yes, this in an internet phenomenon)

No it isn't.  People were jerks long before the internet.  It's just that now we have a tool for jerks all over the world to find one another and unite.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

People, freedom of expression is not at stake.  Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?

What if I threatened to kill anyone that depicts Jesus in an unflattering light?  Would they be jerks for doing exactly that in protest, or would I be a jerk for my initial threat?

[bosk1]

And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?

Of course it is.  But that doesn't make anyone else's mean spirited retaliation any less mean spirited.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

How then would one retaliate in a non mean spirited fashion?  Ask them nicely to not kill anyone that happens to offend them?  I don't want to live in a world where I can't express myself certain ways out of fear for my life.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

The thing I'm seeing here is that those in support of this are acting like the Muslims' offense to it has somehow inconvenienced them.  As if all along, they've WANTED to draw a picture of Mohammed and now that the extremists are up in arms about it, they're damn sure going to draw that picture now, just to prove a point ("my first amendment rights, waaaah").  I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single one of you that has ever entertained the idea of drawing a picture of Mohammed before now, but all of the sudden it's a great idea.  To me, that's as big an indicator of spiteful self-importance as anything I've seen.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

First of all, your avatar is amazing.  Second of all, I don't have a burning desire to draw Mohammed.  I just don't think it's right that someone else can threaten me with violence if I decide to do something that offends them.

[hefdaddy42]

People, freedom of expression is not at stake.  Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.

Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.

And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?

Of course it is.  In fact, it is evil.

What if I threatened to kill anyone that depicts Jesus in an unflattering light?  Would they be jerks for doing exactly that in protest, or would I be a jerk for my initial threat?

Depicting Jesus isn't a tenet of Christianity.  You would be evil, and the person so depicting him would still be a jerk.

Also, great point, Cozmo.

[ehra]

The thing I'm seeing here is that those in support of this are acting like the Muslims' offense to it has somehow inconvenienced them. As if all along, they've WANTED to draw a picture of Mohammed[ and now that the extremists are up in arms about it, they're damn sure going to draw that picture now, just to prove a point ("my first amendment rights, waaaah").  I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single one of you that has ever entertained the idea of drawing a picture of Mohammed before now, but all of the sudden it's a great idea.  To me, that's as big an indicator of spiteful self-importance as anything I've seen.

This is completely ignoring the fact that they are people who DO and HAVE wanted to and they are and have been "inconvenienced" by a specific group of Muslims' "offense." What I'm hearing is that, because this didn't affect me specifically, I have no place to want to defend someone else's rights that are in fact being taken away (through violence).

[hefdaddy42]

You shouldn't avoid depicting Mohammad because of a threat of violence.  You should avoid depicting Mohammad because of respect of religion.

Again, this isn't about a "right."  No one is disputing anyone's "rights."

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I think the whole bandwagon thing that this has come to is a little ridiculous, but that's my opinion.  I'm the kinda person who generally tries to mind their own business and let other people fight their own battles.  the first amendment, while it DOES grant the right to free speech, doesn't imply that it's okay to go around disrespecting whoever you like, simply because you can.  There is a gray area of personal responsibility and social civility that should go along with it, but is nowadays, fairly nonexistent.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

As ehra stated, I don't have any good reason to depict Mohammed, but I'm positive that there are instances where someone would have a reason to.  For example, what if someone wanted to do a documentary on Muslim history?  They shouldn't have to gingerly skirt around any depiction of the central figure of Muslim history just because if they do, they'll be killed by extremists, especially since the documentary would be aimed at a general audience and not specifically toward Muslims.

Many Christians were horribly offended by Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ.  That movie has elements in it that clearly offend fundamentalist Christian sensibilities, and yet the movie is considered a classic (It's one of my personal favorite movies, in fact).  In a world like the one these extremists would like to live in, that movie would never have been made, and we would be deprived of a work of art.

[ehra]

You shouldn't avoid depicting Mohammad because of a threat of violence.  You should avoid depicting Mohammad because of respect of religion.

Whether they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to if they actually can or can't. Since we're talking about South Park, they have been allowed to make fun of every group under the sun up until now. Why are Muslims allowed protection from being "offended" that no other group got? Does this mean we're not allowed to make fun of anyone else who might get offended?

Again, this isn't about a "right."  No one is disputing anyone's "rights."

You can keep saying that, but that is what this whole event is about.

Again, if we're supposedly allowed to protest against this group that's using violence to get their way then how is anyone to do so without showing that violence will in fact not get their way? Saying "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" doesn't exactly hold much weight if you continue to do exactly what they told you anyway.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

When the radical fuckers blow the whole east coast into the ocean over this, I don't want to hear anyone complaining.

[ehra]

When the radical fuckers blow the whole east coast into the ocean over this, I don't want to hear anyone complaining.

You wouldn't, we were blown into the ocean