Draw Muhammad day

[Penumbra]

This in my view is the first actual decent point in defense of the idea, or the principle of participating in such a day.

Thing is though, the reason something was censored in the show, which does this generally as a form of art (contain offensive things) was not Muslim's fault. It was the decision of the people responsible for the show, as a result of some threats by a few individuals. They've already shown Muhammad before. So its not a question of Muslims getting special treatment, but rather as you pointed out, the idea of giving in to such threats that is the real problem, and the thing that is worth criticizing.

Thats not to say that Muslims don't have special 'needs' in this regard, and that as a result Muhammad might be generally depicted much less, if at all. But to say that the real problem is the idea of threats of violence actually working in forcing or pressuring the show to reconsider.

As such, while offending people generally, or doing something that others don't like isn't necessarily bad, responding with something that does step over that special 'need' of Muslims, while knowing that it would also include such an amount of hateful messages (although that is not the goal) by bigots who inescapably take advantage of the day to have some fun, might not be a good idea. Unlike the show which does this generally as a form of general expression, not an emotion filled response to some individuals or some incidents.

Put differently, as i've said in other posts, considering the amount of unnecessary damage done, other methods would've have been the wiser choice. Knowingly choosing to do this despite knowing that you'll hurt a lot of Muslims needlessly, while also knowing that they had nothing to do with the incident you want to object to, is ill-advised in my view.

Comedy Central did face substantial criticism.

I wouldn't specifically say the censorship was the result of some threats by a few individuals. That event didn't occur in a vacuum. Between the earlier episode that allowed Muhammad, and the later episodes where he was censored, in addition to those specific threats against Comedy Central and South Park, there were several major instances such as Theo van Gogh being assassinated by a Muslim for producing a documentary criticizing the treatment of women in Islam, and the controversy regarding Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, which resulted in a wave of protests in multiple Muslim-majority countries, reported deaths, and violence at Danish embassies in more than one country.

So with regards to anything related to Muhammad (but not Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, secular concepts, etc), Comedy Central has to make a rather philosophical decision. Do they arbitrarily censor content that is equally offensive, or even less offensive, than other content that they show, simply because it could have an unusually negative reaction? If they allow content that, indirectly, results in deaths somehow or some place, are they partially to blame? If they know that releasing the content has a chance of damaging them financially, are they responsible if they let it come out? Now, for a show that is often potentially offensive in any given episode, they may face these challenges from time to time, but apparently some subsets are more difficult to criticize than others.

Looks to me like Comedy Central was stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock was the concept of free speech and consistency/favoritism of censorship. The hard place was the subset of Muslims that would cause or attempt to cause violence in response to a cartoon show that they didn't like.

So Comedy Central folded, and faced criticism for it. But what of the mass protesters and embassy-attackers in multiple countries that apparently support violent behavior in response to non-violent cartoons? Is it worthwhile to say to them, that what they do will not work?

Especially over the last 20 years, the world has become increasingly interconnected in terms of information due to the internet. A media group in one country can be seen by people in other countries. Cultures and their values can clash.

In your post, you granted that Muslims have special needs. I'd propose a refinement that, a subset of Muslims apparently have special needs. Out of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world, even if 15 million of them protest or cause violence, that's 1%. If 1.5 million protest or cause violence, that's 0.1%. If 150,000 protest or cause violence, that's 0.01%. There certainly weren't 1.5 billion Muslims causing issues in response to cartoons. The issue, of course, is that even a rather small number of people (whether it's small meaning a few individuals, or small meaning thousands of people out of a much larger group), can cause damage.

It doesn't seem to me that media groups or individuals should be censored in an imbalanced manner due to a fairly small subset of a group. If Comedy Central doesn't face financial or life risk by heavily criticizing Jesus, heavily criticizing Buddhism, heavily criticizing atheists, heavily criticizing liberals, but does face financial or life risk by heavily or even moderately criticizing Islam, then this is a problem, and a question.

-What is it about Islam that this becomes a problem? Is it a coincidence, or due to the religion, or due to the surrounding cultures in numerous countries? (Instances such as the specific Comedy Central threat, which was from a caucasian American-born Muslim convert can shed some light on those questions, albeit with only small sample sizes.)
-Regardless of what the causes are, if identified, can they be addressed and minimized?
-In an increasingly interconnected world, should everyone tiptoe around Islam due to the subset of individuals that don't believe in the same freedoms of expression, or is it better to never cave into it, and desensitize the issue until it's not an issue anymore? Should Islam receive special treatment, or should it be treated in the same fashion as any other religion, any political idea, any cultural element?

This event was aimed primarily at the subset of people that are not okay with freedom of expression. Not the 1.5 billion or so Muslims in the world.

-If South Park makes fun of atheists or liberals, which they have, I'll either find it to be silly or funny, but never offensive. They're not violently threatening me. They're not necessarily even insulting me personally, or implying any insults. If South Park gets censored, and a wave of people make fun of some concept I consider important, to what degree should I be offended?
-Similarly, if I see "death to America" signs in foreign protests, then frankly, it doesn't affect my emotional state one bit. They're frustrated, they might not hate me if they met me in person, and even if they still do, that's ok I guess as long as I am not in acute danger from them. But the point is, I'm not going to internalize and be offended by every criticism, every offense, that could relate to me in some way. Draw Muhammad Day need not be any more offensive to anyone, than any other silly, nonsensical, satirical, offensive, little stunt. Various sorts of media and individuals can and do criticize or make fun of various ideas.

 

[blackout]

Isn't draw Muhammed day
simply a response
to the notion that no one is supposed to draw Muhammad?

Does anyone really expect the world to just go
"ahhh okay. No drawings of Muhammad then.
You hear that kids? No drawings of Muhammad!"

Or we take your crayons away!

 

[Riverwolf]

Isn't draw Muhammed day
simply a response
to the notion that no one is supposed to draw Muhammad?

Does anyone really expect the world to just go
"ahhh okay. No drawings of Muhammad then.
You hear that kids? No drawings of Muhammad!"

Or we take your crayons away!

I believe it's a basic fact of psychology: the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't do it. :yes:

 

[apophenia]

I believe it's a basic fact of psychology: the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't do it. :yes:

True.

And the fact that there is a religion which says "Even if you do not belong to this religion, you must follow our rules or face punishment" is intolerable.

That is something which must be resisted on principle.

I guess that is a challenge to some muslims (a minority I would hope), but unless that demand is dropped they lose any right to tolerance, which must be mutual IMO.

 

[blackout]

I believe it's a basic fact of psychology: the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't do it. :yes:

It may as well be a direct invitation.

Especially when it's something as.... inconsequential....as drawing a picture.

Where there are no actual, intrinsic or legal consequences though,
wing nuts will sometimes step in to create some kind of consequential deterent
in an attempt to get what they want.

It's kinda like "don't touch your brother" and "don't call your brother names" and
*"don't draw monster pictures of your brother" just results in an increase of the same,
until there is a big enough pushishment attatched,
or said brother gets big enough to sock you in the face and break your nose.
Or mom throws you out of the car and attempts to run you over in a delusional state of psychotic over reaction.

*And if you never had actually drawn a monster picture of your brother,
the mere suggestion of it by mom
inspires a first time rendering of a monster picture of your brother.
She's the one who gave you the idea in the first place.

 

[Riverwolf]

True.

And the fact that there is a religion which says "Even if you do not belong to this religion, you must follow our rules or face punishment" is intolerable.

That is something which must be resisted on principle.

I guess that is a challenge to some muslims (a minority I would hope), but unless that demand is dropped they lose any right to tolerance, which must be mutual IMO.

I agree that there needs to be resistance, but only against those people who would try to enforce these rules, and they actually don't make up a majority of Muslims.

I see no reason to offend every single Muslim, including all those Muslims who would see their countries embrace democracy and the ones who live in America alongside non-Muslims, for the crimes of the few.

One thing is absolutely certain to me: those who would try to enforce this rule are not going to balk at such pettiness. This is how they're going to see it:

"These are a people with no respect for great things. Like animals they would defecate wherever there's room, with no regard for time and place. They are a blight upon the world and upon humanity, for they have no control over themselves, being guided entirely by instinct as if they really were monkeys."

Therefore, if anything, it's just going to reinforce anti-Western propaganda, thus turning more Muslims against us, thus creating even bigger problems.

On principle, and in regard for potential consequences, I cannot support that.

So, I support resisting such rules. I do not support this method.

 

[blackout]

True.

And the fact that there is a religion which says "Even if you do not belong to this religion, you must follow our rules or face punishment" is intolerable.

That is something which must be resisted on principle.

I guess that is a challenge to some muslims (a minority I would hope), but unless that demand is dropped they lose any right to tolerance, which must be mutual IMO.

Demands don't generally sit well with people either.
Neither do threats.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree that there needs to be resistance, but only against those people who would try to enforce these rules, and they actually don't make up a majority of Muslims.

I see no reason to offend every single Muslim, including all those Muslims who would see their countries embrace democracy and the ones who live in America alongside non-Muslims, for the crimes of the few.

But do you really think drawing Muhammed would offend every Muslim? The Muslims I speak to about the issue don't feel strongly either way, so that certainly not true. I understand your argument, but frankly I don't see why offence is a strong enough objection on it's own to make the drawing of Muhammed an empty statement. Freedom of speech extends to all things - including things that would offend.

One thing is absolutely certain to me: those who would try to enforce this rule are not going to balk at such pettiness. This is how they're going to see it:

"These are a people with no respect for great things. Like animals they would defecate wherever there's room, with no regard for time and place. They are a blight upon the world and upon humanity, for they have no control over themselves, being guided entirely by instinct as if they really were monkeys."

Then, quite simply, **** those people. They're ignorant bigots, and I see no need to censor myself or anyone else in deference to ignorant bigots. I'm sure there are people who would think similar things about Gay Pride or Black History Month. Why should we give their ignorance any more credibility by bowing to it and allowing it to dictate our actions?

Therefore, if anything, it's just going to reinforce anti-Western propaganda, thus turning more Muslims against us, thus creating even bigger problems.

The problem is that allowing their opinions of us to shape and influence our actions is even worse. This is about making a statement that the beleifs and actions of a few do not dictate or determine the limits of freedom of speech, and that violence and aggression does not change people's views.

On principle, and in regard for potential consequences, I cannot support that.

So, I support resisting such rules. I do not support this method.

Quite simply, damn the consequences. Freedom of speech is worth the risk.

 

[Riverwolf]

But do you really think drawing Muhammed would offend every Muslim? The Muslims I speak to about the issue don't feel strongly either way, so that certainly not true. I understand your argument, but frankly I don't see why offence is a strong enough objection on it's own to make the drawing of Muhammed an empty statement. Freedom of speech extends to all things - including things that would offend.

I agree, but offending for the sake of offending is, I maintain, childish. There has to be some other point to it, something better than just "You're not my dad! Don't tell me what to do!"

The problem is that allowing their opinions of us to shape and influence our actions is even worse. This is about making a statement that the beleifs and actions of a few do not dictate or determine the limits of freedom of speech, and that violence and aggression does not change people's views.

Recipients of messages are the ones who determine what the message said. Therefore, no, the message is lost on them. Wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to devise a more effective message?

I'm not saying their opinions should shape our actions; I'm saying we should keep consequences in mind in determining what our actions are.

Quite simply, damn the consequences. Freedom of speech is worth the risk.

Seriously, that's one of the scariest things I've ever read on these forums. Consequences should NEVER be damned; that's the sort of thinking that almost destroyed civilization during the Cold War.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree, but offending for the sake of offending is, I maintain, childish. There has to be some other point to it, something better than just "You're not my dad! Don't tell me what to do!"

I agree. The problem is drawing a line between "offence for the sake of offence" and "causing offence as the result of other intentions". I'll admit the line is vague at the best of times, and if the line is to be drawn by anyone it should be the people causing offence. So it's the responsibility of the people organizing or participating in Draw Muhammed Day to be as clear as they can about the message they want people to take away from their actions. We've see quite a few protests and movements recently fall down as a result of the group's lack of ability to put across a coherent message.

Recipients of messages are the ones who determine what the message said. Therefore, no, the message is lost on them. Wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to devise a more effective message?

I'm not saying their opinions should shape our actions; I'm saying we should keep consequences in mind in determining what our actions are.

I see what you're saying, but if it's the recipient who determines what the message says how can any message be successfully conveyed to them? You cannot rationalize with the irrational, and sometimes a statement is made better through action than words. Like going nuclear, so to speak. It's never the best option, but some people are so set in their beliefs that no amount of logic, words or reasoning carry any weight with them, and in such cases what is need is action. There are always going to be consequences, the question is whether or not the risk is worth it. And since I value freedom of speech above almost anything else, I always believe the risk is worth it.

Seriously, that's one of the scariest things I've ever read on these forums. Consequences should NEVER be damned; that's the sort of thinking that almost destroyed civilization during the Cold War.

I hear you, but their's was not a conflict based on fundamental human rights and freedom of speech - this is. No matter what - when freedom of speech or equality are under threat or hindered in any way, we have to endeavor to fix that regardless of the consequences. If we don't fight it, we cripple ourselves and future generations. We hinder progress towards a truly free, secular and open human society.

Perhaps I'm being hyperbolic, but I honestly feel very strongly that this is an issue about freedom of speech. And, in case that wasn't evident, I care a damn sight more about freedom speech than I do about my personal well being.

 

[A Troubled Man]

You misunderstand. I'm offended by virtually every commercial on television, radio, etc. I'm offended by product placement ruining otherwise good movies. I'm offended by all the sexism in many advertisements.

If all the ads I'm offended by were pulled, there'd be virtually no more advertisements.

In other words, you're just offended by advertising in general. Did you not know that television, radio and other forms of media are not there for your entertainment but are indeed there for advertising. That is the point of television, radio, etc. That is how they make money. By purchasing television and radio programs yourself, you can alleviate the advertising.

Religion, on the other hand, simply offends a small number of people. That's not enough to censer it.

That's an Appeal to Popularity and doesn't take into account the fact that the vast majority of people are indoctrinated into their religions.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I disagree that such a thing should exist.

I think it can exist and should. It might take an extraordinary amount of educating people and time, but it can be accomplished.

 

[A Troubled Man]

A Troubled Man, where do you live that you can't express yourself about your dislike of religion?

It doesn't really matter where one lives to express their views on religions (other than an Islamic state where one will get arrested and convicted), it is all about the fact that religion infringes or removes the rights of others in their zeal to have the freedom to manifest their religions on the public stage.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Based on this post, it sounds like you want to take away the freedoms of others, not that your freedoms are lacking.

Again, people are free to believe in whatever nonsense they wish, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not out in public.

What's more important- that my neighbor has the freedom to paint his house green, or that I have the freedom to stop him from painting his house green because I don't like green houses? Does it infringe my rights more for him to paint his house green, or his rights more for me to stop him from painting his house green?

Your neighbor is keeping his love of green at home and not painting your house green or painting public buildings green.

Can a religious person claim that they don't have freedom because you have the freedom to not be religious?

As long as they keep it behind closed doors, they have that freedom.

 

[A Troubled Man]

You poor sensitive man :sad4:

Ah yes, they turn to ad homs for lack of anything to say.

My guess is that the mods will allow this.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I believe it's a basic fact of psychology: the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't do it. :yes:

Does that also work within religions between ones god and themselves?

 

[FearGod]

It doesn't really matter where one lives to express their views on religions (other than an Islamic state where one will get arrested and convicted), it is all about the fact that religion infringes or removes the rights of others in their zeal to have the freedom to manifest their religions on the public stage.

Could you inform us who have been arrested in islamic state because of his religion view,there are many branches
and schools which differ on their belief on Islam itself and living in the same state,no one have been arrested plus other religions do exist
long time ago in the islamic states such as christianity,Judaism..etc.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Again, people are free to believe in whatever nonsense they wish, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not out in public.



Your neighbor is keeping his love of green at home and not painting your house green or painting public buildings green.



As long as they keep it behind closed doors, they have that freedom.

Wrong.

At least in America, we not only have Freedom of Religion, we also have Freedom of Expression and Speech.

I would rather be annoyed by a street preacher than force religious expression behind closed doors.

Like the old saying says, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it.".

 

[A Troubled Man]

Wrong.

At least in America, we not only have Freedom of Religion, we also have Freedom of Expression and Speech.

I would rather be annoyed by a street preacher than force religious expression behind closed doors.

Like the old saying says, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it.".

Are you so sure it's wrong? Aren't there actually exceptions to Freedom of Expression and Speech, that it is not absolute in America? What about the Miller Test? What about speech that incites lawless action? What about commercialized speech in advertising?

Get back to me on that when you have a clearer picture.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Again, people are free to believe in whatever nonsense they wish, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not out in public.

Wrong.

At least in America, we not only have Freedom of Religion, we also have Freedom of Expression and Speech.

I would rather be annoyed by a street preacher than force religious expression behind closed doors.

Like the old saying says, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it.".

Are you so sure it's wrong?

Yes, I am sure that your statement "Again, people are free to believe in whatever nonsense they wish, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not out in public." is wrong.

You can bring up specific instances of certain types of speech and expression than, for the overall safety of the public, are restricted, but your general blanket statement is wrong.