Draw Muhammad day

[nameless]

Just another example of "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD".

IMHO, it is upto the doer to decide whether it is 'should' or 'can' for him.

 

[Quagmire]

IMHO, it is upto the doer to decide whether it is 'should' or 'can' for him.

Think you missed the point there.

 

[blackout]

It's primarily a culture clash between the reverent and the irreverent.

I have to be honest.
I prefer 'the irreverent'.

Do comedians HAVE TO be irreverent?
Well... ok, yes.
But do they HAVE TO be comedians?

 

[blackout]

I just drew a stick figure of Muhammad.
Clearly labeled it 'Muhammad'
just in case someone might have thought
it was a stick figure of someone else.

I feel much better now.

*suddenly feels like a game of hangman*

 

[Me Myself]

Its jut a day for trolling on a specific subject.

Nobody is really hurt, some sensitivites are stretched, but it is a good thing.

 

[blackout]

Its jut a day for trolling on a specific subject.

Nobody is really hurt, some sensitivites are stretched, but it is a good thing.

I think this is an excellent point.

It's good for us ALL to have our sensitivities stretched from time to time.

All too often we take our own things far too seriously.
We become overly defensive and humorless.

This actually is one of the reasons I love comedy, film, music .. art in general
that pushes ... or stretches people... beyond their own folly.

I just saw the film "Crash" the other day for the first time.
It was a wonderful montage of characters stepping out beyond their own predjudices,
as lives came together (in light of their own predjudices).

Not quite on topic maybe...
but relevant to the spirit of what some of us may be trying to get at.

Anyhow, things are only reverent or irreverent in our own minds.

It's not helpful to purposely go around with the intent of hurting others.
As well, it's unreasonable to go around getting all offended
when others don't treat YOUR 'revered' things... with reverence.

If we can all relax and refine our sensitivities a bit,
we will all benefit.

It's good if we can all laugh at ourSelves together.
In a good natured way. :rainbow1:
IMO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What a lovely example of juvenile sophistry ...

What an excellent display of patronizing arrogance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Drawing a picture of Muhammad just to exercise free speech -- and for no other purpose -- strikes me as just as meaningful (or meaningless) as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you draw a picture of Muhammad, or yell fire in a crowded theater, you had best have something greater in mind than the mere exercise of free speech. It is true that free speech is the foundation of other liberties. But it is also true that those liberties do not vitally depend on your ability to yell fire in a crowded theater or to draw a picture of Muhammad.

I think there's a fundamental difference between caricaturing a religious prophet and knowingly screwing around with health and safety procedures. One of them makes other people feel they are in danger when they are not - hence, it is harmful and dishonest. The other harms nobody, but a small minority of Muslims choose to take offence to the act. I'm sure there are just as many people who would take offence to Jesus being portrayed as white, but I don't see anybody working to curve that trend. The point is that drawing Muhammed simply should not be such a cause for alarm, and if we hope to change people's attitudes with this regard the first step is not bending over backwards to appease the psychos who think drawing Muhammed is an executable offence.

Freedom of speech should always trump the feelings of people who think that the expression thereof is jusification enough for homicide. I don't see why we should silence people's rights in defference to murderous bigots.

 

[Nashitheki]

"I will probably get slightly more offensive with each post. Please tell me when I reach the limit because I actually don't want to start an inflamatory post"

Why say that ? From what I've read so far, you seem very fond of the Moslems :yes:

 

[Flankerl]

Strawman: nobodies taking about taking away anybodies legal right to draw a picture of Mohammad. The people making threats don't dictate the laws. Drawing a picture of Muhammad isn't making a stand for freedom of speech because freedom of speech isn't in jeopardy.

Well perhaps not in the USA but then again the US doesnt have so many people from a certain cultural and religious background like other places on earth.

Around 0.8% of the total population is basically nothing compared to europe.

 

[Nooj]

I think there's a fundamental difference between caricaturing a religious prophet and knowingly screwing around with health and safety procedures. One of them makes other people feel they are in danger when they are not - hence, it is harmful and dishonest. The other harms nobody, but a small minority of Muslims choose to take offence to the act.

Actually a large majority of Muslims are offended, as evidenced by the worldwide protests in response to the Danish cartoons.

The point is that drawing Muhammed simply should not be such a cause for alarm, and if we hope to change people's attitudes with this regard the first step is not bending over backwards to appease the psychos who think drawing Muhammed is an executable offence.

You say we, but I don't want to change Muslim attitudes towards Muhammad. I don't understand why you'd want to either. I'm fine with them protesting peacefully, lobbying people, boycotting and using all their power to express their outrage, every time so much as a benign picture of Muhammad pops up.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually a large majority of Muslims are offended, as evidenced by the worldwide protests in response to the Danish cartoons.

But offence itself isn't really the issue here. It's the minority of Muslims who take offense to such a degree that drawing a picture of Muhammed is actually an act that can put a person's life (or many people's lives) at risk. If I drew a picture of Jesus in a compromising position with Mary Magdeline, it would offend a great many Christians, but I doubt I would receive Universal condemnation or (that many) death threats, and doing so is arguably more offensive that simply drawing a picture of Muhammed. Maybe I just don't understand the Muslim point of view with regards to such an act, but frankly I don't want to. Regardless of religion, class, culture, history or any other factor, simply drawing a picture of a person should not invoke a hostile response. Muslims may choose not to draw Muhammed as they wish, but their religious ideology ends where I begin.

You say we, but I don't want to change Muslim attitudes towards Muhammad. I don't understand why you'd want to either. I'm fine with them protesting peacefully, lobbying people, boycotting and using all their power to express their outrage, every time so much as a benign picture of Muhammad pops up.

It's not about changing their attitudes towards Muhammed - it's about changing their attitude towards their capacity to enforce their views on to other people. Peaceful protest is fine, boycotting is fine, expressing outrage is fine, but none of those things should prevent me from expressing my opinion in the way I see fit and, if I so choose, drawing a picture of Muhammed. I simply want the Muslim community to be more tolerant of people choosing to express their views in such a way - even if such views (such as the Danish cartoon) are simplistic and childish. There's a difference between being outraged and allowing that outrage to escalate into the trampling of other people's rights, and telling people that they should not draw Muhammed purely on the basis of "I believe it's wrong" is entirely at odds with living in a society that champions freedom of speech and expression.

 

[beenie]

IMHO, it is upto the doer to decide whether it is 'should' or 'can' for him.

Think you missed the point there.

I think so too. I was saying that although one CAN draw a cartoon (legally), if it's going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Should it upset people? Perhaps not. Should people have the right to upset people? Yes. The point is, it's not wise to do so. That's all.

Both sides have responsibility in this; the person drawing the cartoon has to accept that he will upset a large portion of the Muslim community, and the Muslim community has a responsibility to respond without violence...which the vast majority already do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think so too. I was saying that although one CAN draw a cartoon (legally), if it's going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Should it upset people? Perhaps not. Should people have the right to upset people? Yes. The point is, it's not wise to do so. That's all.

Both sides have responsibility in this; the person drawing the cartoon has to accept that he will upset a large portion of the Muslim community, and the Muslim community has a responsibility to respond without violence...which the vast majority already do.

I agree with this. I think anyone who draws a picture of Muhammed and publishes it would obviously be a gigantic moron for not expecting a huge degree of backlash, but I will always side with their right to do so rather than siding with those who retaliate against it. I'm not about to go out and release a book featuring erotic artwork of Muhammed purely to prove a point, but I think an International Draw Muhammed day makes an overall positive statement about refusal to cow down to religious pressure and the extreme minorities who believe that such actions deserve violent retribution. I don't see any point to drawing such a picture other than that, really, and if the Muslim community (as most of them already do) are willing to accept that without too violent an opposition that would infringe upon the rights of the people who participated in the day, there's been no harm and no foul.

 

[Gharib]

Right here:

The words 'which shouldn't happen anyway' don't mean anything to you do they? All you see in that statement is the word murder and so to you that justifies your distorted interpretation of my statements. Very well done.

 

[Gharib]

Do you know what a questionmark is?

Who me????????? No I don't.

 

[Gharib]

That was an exceedingly dumb statement. You may wish to rethink it.

I fully agree.

 

[Gharib]

I will change my mind when non-Muslims get equal rights in Muslim lands and I see churches, synagogues, temples, universities teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories spring up in Saudi Arabia.

Until then, I think I have enough evidence to back my position.

Such hypocrisy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gross and cynically intentional disrespect for an entire class of people is reprehensible, while suggesting that 'those people' have no right to feel purposely denigrated is patronizing in the extreme.

People can engage in all manner of sophistry about free speech and expression, but most of these people would be appalled by the gratuitous use of intentionally racist and inflammatory speech directed against the Black community. The sole difference is that they are sensitive to racism yet insensitive to, if not supporting of, anti-Muslim bigotry.

The mentality and actions of a Terry Jones are no less repulsive when wrapped in pseudo-intellectual garb and promoted in the name of civil rights.

 

[BruceDLimber]

While the group I support indeed prohibits creating portraits of Divine Messengers or hanging them in our buildings, I must say I find it somewhat strange that there's an overall assumption that anyone wishing to "draw Muhammad" is necessarily trying to attack Him!

After all, Christians have been portraying Jesus for millenia, and many--if not most--of those portraits were done in an eminently respectful fashion.

I see no reason for any knee-jerk condemnation of someone who might in fact be donig this out of deep reverence.

Peace,

Bruce