Draw Muhammad day

[Riverwolf]

hehe me too. I got three staff members panties tied in a knot.

Hardly. Trust me.

On the forums, we're members like you. We're only staff members when in the staff area.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here's the thing, all you folks would have had to do was to put up this article or one very much like it explaining 'freedom from religion' to show the differences, which is what I was waiting for. Of course, I'm on your side in the sense that the religious can spew all the hate speech they want and we need to fight for their right to do so, because the only thing that will counter hate speech is more speech. And, that's the bottom line.

"Freedom from religion has two relevant aspects: personal and political. On the personal level, a right to be free from religion means that a person has the freedom not to belong to any religion or religious organization.

When it comes to politics, the freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion."

What is Freedom From Religion? Freedom of Religion Requires Freedom From Religion

Never heard of this article, or anything like it.

There are multiple reasons why what you were saying doesn't work, and we were giving them, as well.

 

[Badran]

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.

Thanks for adding this insightful context, i think this helps a lot in discussing the issue properly without ignoring important aspects. These circumstances and factors undoubtedly affected Comedy Central's decision. I should clarify that i don't think they necessarily deserve criticism, i'm actually more inclined towards thinking that they made a wise/responsible choice given the circumstances. And i think that even people who disagree with them in their decision, should accept the fact that this was their decision and their responsibility, in a difficult situation and that whichever choice they made shouldn't be criticized too hard. I understand that people who disagree will need or want to voice these disagreements, and thats fine. But i don't think making this out to be them failing freedom of speech and so forth is very noble (not to say that someone actually did -- i don't know, but to say that i think in these kind of situations i would just accept that this was a hard decision, theirs to make, and that which aspect they felt was more important is their business).

What i was saying in my post however is that for those who do want to make a stand, the concern is the whole idea of fear or folding to violence and/or threats of it. This is the key factor which people are riled up about. So it seems to me, while of course the element of Muhammad, equal censorship and so forth are the context or factors based upon which the issue has happened, the actual core factor, and the idea which is to people most disturbing and worthy of making a stand, is the idea that those violent people might think that their method works. Works in getting them the ability to suppress free speech.

Now if one wishes to make a stand about this, he/she should be trying to send a message to those violent people; since they are the one's to be considered at fault or most at fault (if one considers the network to be at fault too). A message that opposes their methods, promotes free speech, and makes it clear that such responses to expression of others is unacceptable. How to go about that isn't easy, and like i clarified in an earlier post, i do understand why the idea of Draw Muhammad day would come to people's mind as the response. I don't mind that, i don't think its strange at all. I do think its the basic response, or the natural impulse to many, if not all. What i do think is ill-advised however, is going through with it. Due to what i shared with you in the last post. Which are reasons i believe should make anyone rethink participating in or promoting such a day.

In your post, you granted that Muslims have special needs. I'd propose a refinement that, a subset of Muslims apparently have special needs.

I agree, but will add one thought i have about what you shared in this part.

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.

The one thing i want to clarify is that we shouldn't go, in my view, just by the people who actually did do something about it or reacted violently. Meaning that a lot people mind it but don't do anything. Both of these groups, people in general, and specifically those who react violently, do mind. The difference is in how they respond or act based on their feelings.

For the larger portion of Muslims, drawing Muhammad is something they wouldn't do, and wouldn't be happy about it being done by someone else. Most of Muslim scholars say its prohibited, and in all (as far as i know) Muslim majority countries it wouldn't even be allowed. So, when i said special needs, i was referring to this. The idea of Muslims approaching their prophet differently than other groups.

Not all Muslims are like that, or would get bothered, like you said, or oppose it being allowed. But i'm just clarifying that it isn't just the ones who protest violently who get bothered, or have special needs in this regard.

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.

I agree.

-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?

I know you're giving those questions to clarify the issue, the parameters of whats going on, and what might be going into the minds of people who support and/or participated in Draw Muhammad day, not so that we actually necessarily address them.

But i want to say that the answer to some of these questions, and other ones, should in my view make people even more against or at least not supporting of the idea of such a day. Reason being that i think when we try to look at the big picture, why things are the way they are, and what factors could be at play here, and how should that influence the decisions to be made and what rout to take, it follows that such a day wouldn't help in most of these issues.

 

[Badran]

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.

I agree, but like i tried to emphasize in earlier posts, those are not by a long shot the only ones who are going to be affected by that message.

In other words, i do realize this is not an intended generalization, at least not by all those who participated, but it still is, and so i think they should've reconsidered.

In addition to the content of the message or the event, like i also said earlier. Given its containing of such hateful things, that is (inescapably).

-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?

I understand your sentiment, approach and reasoning. And i agree with them for the most part. However, two things:

1) People are not of course all the same. Some can handle more things than others.

2) Offense, or being offensive isn't just by physical violence or threats of it. There are many forms of being offensive.

When i watch The Simpsons making fun of god for example, i don't mind. In fact, i also find some of the things shown to be extremely funny. Because i don't consider it an attack on me, or an attack on god. Its criticism of an idea. And its not always even that, sometimes its just being silly. Then there is sometimes flat out attacks on people or ideas that i watch, some of those i don't mind and some i do, depending on many factors.

All that said, in the end, this is just me, what i mind and what i don't mind. People are different. Now, whether or not its justified, or is rational to take offense, i think is both debatable and depends on what we're talking about.

In the end, somethings will be judged to be offensive and some are not. Now, if someone wants to draw Muhammad, thats not necessarily offensive. If someone wants to depict him in his show, thats not necessarily offensive. It depends on the reasons.

If someone wants to have a draw Muhammad day (a day devoted to do something that bothers most Muslims -- but not necessarily offensive towards them since they're not actually the target), i wouldn't consider him or what he/she's doing to be offensive. However, also given that same point, that why he wants this, has nothing to do with most Muslims (since they're not the ones or the issue he wants to object to), his knowledge of what the day will - or at least eventually ended up to contain, and that he will hurt many Muslims, i would expect him/her to rethink their position.

Some unnecessary hurt feelings, a little bit more misunderstandings, a little bit more cultural clashes, and more distancing between people, in my opinion. All of which could've been avoided had another rout been taken. Now, on the other hand, i would criticize Muslims who for example view anybody participating in the day as a bigot, since that would be ignoring the context and the motives of the day.

-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.

Like i tried to say, personally i do agree with that mostly. And i don't think that most Muslims actually lost any sleep over it. What i'm saying is that this didn't help anything. That it wasn't a wise decision, given its motives, and what it actually does. I think most Muslims reactions were along the lines of that they were just annoyed to varying degrees, and then some concluded that this is just another sign or side effect of the problems between Muslims and the west, others concluded that this is another sign of the hate which the west supposedly has for Islam and so on (which also bothered them to varying degrees).

 

[predavlad]

All that said, in the end, this is just me, what i mind and what i don't mind. People are different. Now, whether or not its justified, or is rational to take offense, i think is both debatable and depends on what we're talking about.

In the end, somethings will be judged to be offensive and some are not. Now, if someone wants to draw Muhammad, thats not necessarily offensive. If someone wants to depict him in his show, thats not necessarily offensive. It depends on the reasons.

If someone wants to have a draw Muhammad day (a day devoted to do something that bothers most Muslims -- but not necessarily offensive towards them since they're not actually the target), i wouldn't consider him or what he/she's doing to be offensive. However, also given that same point, that why he wants this, has nothing to do with most Muslims (since they're not the ones or the issue he wants to object to), his knowledge of what the day will - or at least eventually ended up to contain, and that he will hurt many Muslims, i would expect him/her to rethink their position.

It's perfectly normal to be offended by certain things. But I don't think that censorship is a good response to being offended (this is what many Muslims are asking for).

You can be offensive without even wanting to, for example the first person who drew Muhammad without considering that it will offend so many people, or (this actually happened to me) telling a very religious person that I am an atheist (he was deeply offended and asked me to leave). And if it weren't for the extreme response from angry Muslims, draw Muhammad day would have never happened.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Hardly. Trust me.

On the forums, we're members like you. We're only staff members when in the staff area.

Still, I had all three of you staff members going pretty good there. It was interesting to take that side and see where it would lead.

For example, I've read plenty of posts from those who can't stand the religious knocking on their doors to sell their snake oil, yet I welcome those folks and have had many a wonderful debate.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Never heard of this article, or anything like it.

Then, you had no idea there actually was freedom from religion and how it was justified?

 

[tumbleweed41]

For example, I've read plenty of posts from those who can't stand the religious knocking on their doors to sell their snake oil, yet I welcome those folks and have had many a wonderful debate.

I may dislike proselytizers coming to my door, but that does not mean I support a law preventing them from doing so.

On the other hand, if I go to the DMV and the clerk hands me a Chick Tract along with my renewal, I will ensure that employee is removed from government employment.

 

[Badran]

It's perfectly normal to be offended by certain things. But I don't think that censorship is a good response to being offended

Me neither.

(this is what many Muslims are asking for).

Okay.

You can be offensive without even wanting to, for example the first person who drew Muhammad without considering that it will offend so many people, or (this actually happened to me) telling a very religious person that I am an atheist (he was deeply offended and asked me to leave).

I think we're going to argue word usage now. I would say people could take offense to your actions or words even if you weren't necessarily being offensive. IOW, obviously you weren't being offensive -- trying to cause him hurt feelings and so forth -- (at least in that usage of the word which is what i was having in mind) by saying that you're an atheist. The fact that his feelings did supposedly get hurt, made it possibly offensive to him. But taking offense to you sharing your belief system is in most possible contexts neither defend-able or worthy of any sympathy, in my view.

Just like taking offense to a single drawing of Muhammad by a non-Muslim in many contexts is not. And by defend-able i mean could be argued to be justified, and grounds to blame the other person based upon.

IOW, he had no reason at all to assume that you're trying to hurt him by saying that, at the very least in most of the possible contexts i could think of besides some very extreme ones that i'm not even sure would count as offensive.

And if it weren't for the extreme response from angry Muslims, draw Muhammad day would have never happened.

Yes, that is the case. What is the point you're trying to convey with that though?

 

[A Troubled Man]

I may dislike proselytizers coming to my door, but that does not mean I support a law preventing them from doing so.

Neither do I. However, if you dislike them coming to your door, you are free to invoke other laws towards them, such as trespassing. Release the hounds!

 

[Riverwolf]

Then, you had no idea there actually was freedom from religion and how it was justified?

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "freedom from religion", it was in the context you were providing.

 

[A Troubled Man]

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "freedom from religion", it was in the context you were providing.

You might want to bone up on it, then.

Freedom of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

You might want to bone up on it, then.

Freedom of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..."bone up on it?" Where is that slang used?

 

[A Troubled Man]

..."bone up on it?" Where is that slang used?

I think Wodehouse used it way back in the 1920's in one of his books. If I find the quote, I'll post it.

 

[beerisit]

Bone up on it is a common english idiom, as far as I know.

 

[Riverwolf]

Bone up on it is a common english idiom, as far as I know.

Never heard it before.

 

[dawny0826]

Freedom of speech is important. But, I don't really find this sort of thing funny, when people go out of their way to offend others. I personally, wouldn't enjoy drawing pictures of someone else's prophet, knowing that it has the potential to be hurtful to people that I respect.

I do find it ridiculous that people take their offense to the extreme. This sort of thing just adds fuel to fire.