Draw Muhammad day

[Quagmire]

I don´t even know what "little black sambo" is.

Is he a person of which the mere drawing of in any situation that be is regarded as insulting?

Yup.

did he actually existed?

Nope.

who is this black sambo?

The Story of Little Black Sambo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penumbra]

Hell, I'm sure the restaurant owner could come up with all kinds of "good reasons" that all kinds of people would agree with.

Wiki says it was a response to the censorship of a South Park episode.

That South Park episode also included a part where the Buddha did cocaine, and other characters said something along the lines of, "Geez Buddha, stop doing coke!" as he's snorting lines of it. In an episode, there was the potential for them to show Muhammad, and a part where the Buddha visibly did hard drugs, and out of the two, the Muhammad part was the more controversial one.

And they included that part to point out the imbalance of how, ironically, that wouldn't be controversial, media-worthy, or result in any death threats, violence, or protests. It's the milder Muhammad part that would.

As far as I see it, people smell weakness, and go after it. There's little reason to have a "make fun of Siddhartha Gautama" day, because it would not be a kicking of the hornet's nest in the same way as a "draw Muhammad day" would. There'd be little reaction, concern, protests, anger, hatred, death threats, signs of "death to <insert whatever>".

I don't see international freedom of speech going away, or comedians agreeing to make fun of certain things but not others, so it looks to me that the more rational long term approach is for people to not go to the streets in protest over a cartoon or media depiction.

 

[beenie]

freedom of knowledge should not be allowed in an islamic country? Make it optional, let interested people learn about evolution and interest-rate based finance theories ...

what do you mean by an islamic nation? a nation fully committed to save islam by taking away basic rights of people like freedom of religion and knowledge?

I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way, I'm saying it IS that way. I don't like it any more than you do, and I've said so repeatedly.

not just KSA, the situation is same in other major islamic nations - pakistan, iran, and malaysia. In these nations muslims are not allowed to deny existence of allah or insult the prophet, why all these happen only in islamic nations? just coincidental?

I don't agree with it wherever it is.

Geez, can anyone read my posts or am I speaking in gibberish?

 

[Quagmire]

That South Park episode also included a part where the Buddha did cocaine, and other characters said something along the lines of, "Geez Buddha, stop doing coke!" as he's snorting lines of it. In an episode, there was the potential for them to show Muhammad, and a part where the Buddha visibly did hard drugs, and out of the two, the Muhammad part was the more controversial one.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "there was a potential for them to show Mohammad". actually, I have no idea what that means so the whole explanation is pretty much meaningless for me.

And they included that part to point out the imbalance of how, ironically, that wouldn't be controversial, media-worthy, or result in any death threats, violence, or protests. It's the milder Muhammad part that would.

Still not understanding your explanation. Do you have a link?

As far as I see it, people smell weakness, and go after it. There's little reason to have a "make fun of Siddhartha Gautama" day, because it would not be a kicking of the hornet's nest in the same way as a "draw Muhammad day" would. There'd be little reaction, concern, protests, anger, hatred, death threats, signs of "death to <insert whatever>".

So you're saying the fact that it would upset people is a good justification for staging something like this?

I don't see international freedom of speech going away,

I don't see anybody calling for that in here.

or comedians agreeing to make fun of certain things but not others,

I don't see anyone calling for that in here either.

so it looks to me that the more rational long term approach is for people to not go to the streets in protest over a cartoon or media depiction.

That isn't what this thread is about. It isn't about the protests and demonstrations stirred up by the depictions of Mohammad. It's about Draw Mohammad Day, ie., it's about whether or not it's fair to willfully offend all the followers of a specific group for the actions of a few.

 

[nameless]

I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way, I'm saying it IS that way. I don't like it any more than you do, and I've said so repeatedly.

you were responding to one of robo's post link here, robo said he would like to see freedom of knowledge and religion spring up in SA, and you replied saying this : "Why should they have to allow all of this in an 'Islamic country'? Don't like their rules? Don't live there"

your statement seemed to me that you are fine with banning churches, temples, teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories, if it is an 'islamic country'. Also you said one should leave the nation if dont like these hypocritic rules, what a solution to recommend :clap

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "there was a potential for them to show Mohammad". actually, I have no idea what that means so the whole explanation is pretty much meaningless for me.

Still not understanding your explanation. Do you have a link?

I've only seen a few episodes of South Park, but apparently it went something like this.
-They showed Muhammad in an episode, at one point.
-Years later, they were going to show him again, but it was banned/censored (not legally, but by the network I guess)
-They made episodes to make fun of the fact that, out of all the vastly insulting things they do, their Muhammad depiction got censored, which is imbalanced and shows favoritism based on how people respond to it.

Here's a link to the wikipedia description of South Park episode 200, which featured Muhammad. (As a note to readers, the wikipedia article includes a picture of Muhammad, which was depicted by South Park in an earlier episode before it was apparently banned. In episode 200, they don't actually show him, but rather make fun of the whole situation.)
200 (South Park) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the episode, he was a character, and there were questions about whether he'd be shown or not, and he was not. (He was hidden in bear costumes and so forth.)

In addition, Youtube has the short clips from an episode of the Buddha doing coke. I'll put them in spoiler tags because basically every South Park episode is as offensive as possible, these included.

Spoiler: South Park Clips- Youtube

[youtube]PMcVESkQeAI[/youtube]
South Park: Buddha Doing Coke - 200th Episode - YouTube

The next episode, he does it again:
[youtube]aXoprlMxgP0[/youtube]
South Park: Buddha Doing Coke Again - 201th Episode - YouTube

(You can repetitively show Buddha doing cocaine on tv with no repercussions, or claim that Jesus watches internet porn, but dare show Muhammad, and it gets censored.)

The purpose of episode 200 was to make fun of the fact that, apparently, only Muhammad is immune to comedy or insults. At one point, a character talks about how offensive it is to depict Muhammad, only to follow up with a scene of the Buddha doing coke, which intentionally undermines that whole point. (Both are potentially offensive, but only one results in any rage. The network has no qualms with repeatedly showing the Buddha doing cocaine, but show Muhammad? No way- too controversial!) Later in the episode, various characters fight over the desire to have Muhammad's ability to avoid ridicule, which no other character possesses.

So you're saying the fact that it would upset people is a good justification for staging something like this?

I'm saying that people want what they can't have. If people can show anything they want about Jesus, can show Buddha doing hard drugs numerous times, can make fun of Krishna, can make fun of any secular thing, and yet can't go anywhere near Muhammad, then it's not surprising that there's going to be interest in going after Muhammad.

Personally I don't see how anyone has enough energy to bother to draw something to insult other people (or how people have enough energy to go into the streets and scream about pictures that insult them). Maybe I'm just lazy. But it seems to me, the people that draw pictures, for whatever reason, are not particularly out of line, considering that any other religious figure (or any secular figure, or any secular idea) can be made fun of, except that one.

I don't see anybody calling for that in here.

I don't see anyone calling for that in here either.

I wasn't saying anybody was.

That isn't what this thread is about. It isn't about the protests and demonstrations stirred up by the depictions of Mohammad. It's about Draw Mohammad Day, ie., it's about whether or not it's fair to willfully offend all the followers of a specific group for the actions of a few.

People can't choose to offend anyone. They can only manipulate the odds that people will be offended. It's people that choose to be offended or not.

Why should it be completely non-controversial to depict the Buddha doing cocaine, but the most controversial thing ever to show a picture of Muhammad doing anything?

People are afraid of showing the second one, either from public backlash or from actual violence.

 

[beenie]

you were responding to one of robo's post link here, robo said he would like to see freedom of knowledge and religion spring up in SA, and you replied saying this : "Why should they have to allow all of this in an 'Islamic country'? Don't like their rules? Don't live there"

your statement seemed to me that you are fine with banning churches, temples, teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories, if it is an 'islamic country'. Also you said one should leave the nation if dont like these hypocritic rules, what a solution to recommend :clap

Either I misunderstood him or something; I'l take a look back and see.
My point is that people within KSA should stand up for themselves; it will be better received than if outsiders insist on trying to change them.

Does that make sense? What's with the clapping? I never said one should leave, I said don't move there if you don't like the rules...big difference. Again, until they change, I won't live there either.

Apparently, you forgot to read this portion of my post:

I personally think all people should be treated equally, regardless of religion.

'

Nice picking and choosing. :clap

 

[Quagmire]

I'm saying that people want what they can't have. If people can show anything they want about Jesus, can show Buddha doing hard drugs numerous times, can make fun of Krishna, can make fun of any secular thing, and yet can't go anywhere near Muhammad, then it's not surprising that there's going to be interest in going after Muhammad.

All this does is explain why a lot of immature people are reacting to all this immaturely.

The idea that Draw Mohammad Day is an immature reaction is the whole point.

Personally I don't see how anyone has enough energy to bother to draw something to insult other people (or how people have enough energy to go into the streets and scream about pictures that insult them). Maybe I'm just lazy. But it seems to me, the people that draw pictures, for whatever reason, are not particularly out of line, considering that any other religious figure (or any secular figure, or any secular idea) can be made fun of, except that one.

I wasn't saying anybody was.

People can't choose to offend anyone.They can only manipulate the odds that people will be offended. It's people that choose to be offended or not.

Absolutely: I agree that if anyone anywhere is ever offended by anything the most practical solution for them would be to join a Buddhist Monastery and just stay there and meditate until they've completely overcome their ego. Either that or make sure to always carry a syringe loaded with horse tranquilizer (and think of what it would do for Tibet's economy)

If they aren't willing to do that, it's their own fault for being offended.

The reality is that human beings are offended by things, quite a lot of things, and whether or not that's actually a choice is debatable. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that it is a choice, that still doesn't let the person causing the offense off the hook:

If I walk up to some random stranger on the street and say "You look like an idiot", it may technically be their choice whether to be offended or not, but I'm still a jerk for doing it.

Why should it be completely non-controversial to depict the Buddha doing cocaine, but the most controversial thing ever to show a picture of Muhammad doing anything?

Because (and I'm sure you know this as well as I do) there's a prescription in Islam against depictions of Mohammad. It's considered blasphemous by many Muslims. There is no parallel prescription in Buddhism against depictions of the Buddha (hence the countless Buddhist depictions thereof).

It is, however, one of the central tenets of Buddhism not to react to insults.

By not reacting (even emotionally) to something like a cartoon showing the Buddha doing cocaine a Buddhist is just practicing his faith. It isn't any sort of challenge for or to him/her. I doubt most Buddhists would even find it offensive, probably just ignorant.

On the other hand, a depiction of Mohammad is definitely a challenge to Muslims.

People are afraid of showing the second one, either from public backlash or from actual violence.

And that's exactly what this Draw Mohammad Day is: a fear reaction (except in what I'm guessing are the majority of cases where it's just recreation for a lot of bored adolescents).

 

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

The race/religion comparison is incidental. The principle involved is the point.

One thing that gets me about this place is that unless an analogy agrees with the thing it's meant to represent in every respect, the analogy is labeled false.

Seriously, it's like saying "A rolling stone gathers no moss" and having the person respond with "But people aren't stones. Stones are silicon based, people are carbon based so your analogy fails".

The principle is the same.

Of put it this way: if you see something invalid about the comparison aside from the moot observation that religion and race aren't the same thing, feel free to point it out.

What we are really trying to establish with this debate is a common thread among all humans which is belief and the expression behind such ideas. Introducing races and class systems into this discussion seems to be complicating the issue.

The desired understanding that I am putting forth is to make others aware and agreeable to the fact that drawing a bomb and dropping it on a crowd of people does not have the same impact as someone who actually straps a bomb to their person and detonates it into a crowd.

The crowd who has had a picture of a bomb dropped onto them have a greater chance of getting over this ordeal than the people who were actually physically blown to pieces.

Originally Posted by Quagmire
Again: so would that make it OK to hold a "Draw Little Black Sambo Day"? After all, it's just a simple picture.

In 1994, cartoonist John Krikfalusi invited artists to draw Jimmy, The Idiot (Retarded) Boy. Artwork submissions were to be produced in upcoming issues of his comic. There were no violent riots or bombings from the mentally handicapped community and these would be the exact people that society would be expecting unstable behavior from.

I must (again) strongly remind readers that Islam is supposed to be the epitome of peace while art (by design) does have the potential and freedom to become satirical.


Are you trying to convince us that only civil, reasonably intelligent people (whether they be black or Muslim) are capable of violence done in retaliation of cartoons? Is that where your point is going?

 

[Gharib]

No, actually, it isn't. The Quran doesn't say anything about Aisha.

Guess it really was just an insult.

The Qur'an does mention an instance which involved Aisha but does not mention her by name directly and has has nothing to do with the ignorance he was spouting around.

 

[Gharib]

That South Park episode also included a part where the Buddha did cocaine, and other characters said something along the lines of, "Geez Buddha, stop doing coke!" as he's snorting lines of it. In an episode, there was the potential for them to show Muhammad, and a part where the Buddha visibly did hard drugs, and out of the two, the Muhammad part was the more controversial one.

And they included that part to point out the imbalance of how, ironically, that wouldn't be controversial, media-worthy, or result in any death threats, violence, or protests. It's the milder Muhammad part that would.

As far as I see it, people smell weakness, and go after it. There's little reason to have a "make fun of Siddhartha Gautama" day, because it would not be a kicking of the hornet's nest in the same way as a "draw Muhammad day" would. There'd be little reaction, concern, protests, anger, hatred, death threats, signs of "death to <insert whatever>".

I don't see international freedom of speech going away, or comedians agreeing to make fun of certain things but not others, so it looks to me that the more rational long term approach is for people to not go to the streets in protest over a cartoon or media depiction.

You are making it a condition that just because people of other faiths do not get offended when their beliefs are attacked and mocked Muslims therefore have no right to be offended. What beautiful reasoning.

 

[Gharib]

But nobody's freedoms or rights are being violated by silly cartoons. If the Mohammad cartoons should be banned because you find them offensive, then the Koran should be banned because I find it offensive. It's only fair, right?

Stunning example I am speechless. You have absolutely nothing better to say other than just go in circles and hope to come across a blind bat.

Those cartoons serve only one purpose, to offend Muslims and show that it's not always as they say. I don't even understand what it was that we did? If people like you are so pathetic that they have nothing better to do with their lives and can't think of doing anything other than offending a group of people for no reason, then I feel sorry for you and those of the same thinking.

 

[Penumbra]

You are making it a condition that just because people of other faiths do not get offended when their beliefs are attacked and mocked Muslims therefore have no right to be offended. What beautiful reasoning.

I'm not talking about rights. People have the right to feel whatever emotion they want to.

That doesn't make it a rational thing to do.

 

[Gharib]

I'm not talking about rights. People have the right to feel whatever emotion they want to.

That doesn't make it a rational thing to do.

Your whole post was about how Buddha was made fun and nothing happened and then when it came to Muhammed people reacted and got offended. How is that not what I said?

So it's not rational for Muslims to be offended by something which when done to a group of people of another faith, they take no offence?

That's what you are based upon in terms of what is rational and what is not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your whole post was about how Buddha was made fun and nothing happened and then when it came to Muhammed people reacted and got offended. How is that not what I said?

So it's not rational for Muslims to be offended by something which when done to a group of people of another faith, they take no offence?

That's what you are based upon in terms of what is rational and what is not.

So you are against the idea of your religious beliefs being held in equal regards to others? Making fun of Buddha is fine, but Muhammed is not?

 

[Gharib]

So you are against the idea of your religious beliefs being held in equal regards to others? Making fun of Buddha is fine, but Muhammed is not?

That's not what I'm saying, do not distort the meaning of my statement. How dishonest can you be mate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's not what I'm saying, do not distort the meaning of my statement. How dishonest can you be mate?

I didn't distort anything, I'm simply asking you a question:

Do you think that all religions should be held in equal regard? Do you believe it "more" wrong to make fun of Muhammed than it is to make fun of Buddha?

 

[Gharib]

I didn't distort anything, I'm simply asking you a question:

Do you think that all religions should be held in equal regard? Do you believe it "more" wrong to make fun of Muhammed than it is to make fun of Buddha?

No you made an accusation, how could you forget your own post so quick. I guess that shows quite a bit of dishonesty doesn't it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No you made an accusation, how could you forget your own post so quick. I guess that shows quite a bit of dishonesty doesn't it.

No, I asked you two questions. Hence the question marks at the end of each question.

Now, will you stop evading those questions and answer them?

 

[Flankerl]

Oh wow Penumbra you made me remember the "Super Best Friends" in South Park. Oh wow they were so awesome. Especially Mohammad.

Its also fun to note that no one cared about it when Muhammad was depicted the first time. But all hell broke loose when they wanted to show him a second time.
Also why didnt the Muslims care about it when South Park depicts god as some kind of... really weird creature?
Or the constant depiction of Jesus?
Or Moses who takes great pleasure in macaroni pictures?