Draw Muhammad day

[blackout]

Perhaps, expressing Islam or making demands based on Islam is going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Again, see how that works?

Exactly, and that goes for both sides.

I'm going to try this one.

(Even though one can...), if expressing disdain for homosexuality is going to upset millions of people,
perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

 

[blackout]

I'm going to try this one.

(Even though one can...), if expressing disdain for homosexuality is going to upset millions of people,
perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

or.... just because you have the RIGHT to slander, disrespect, and misrepresent
(ie, paint an unflattering and even maligning picture of) homosexuals,
it doesn't mean you Should.


You do realize, that to homosexual couples in love,
their partnerships ... are sacred to them.

 

[A Troubled Man]

or.... just because you have the RIGHT to slander, disrespect, and misrepresent
(ie, paint an unflattering and even maligning picture of) homosexuals,
it doesn't mean you Should.


You do realize, that to homosexual couples in love,
their partnerships ... are sacred to them.

Well said. It was literally on the same day that Obama stated he felt gays should be allowed to marry, the state of North Carolina passed an amendment to their state Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

It truly is amazing how the religious demand to take away the rights of others but demand their rights to express their beliefs and make it law, no matter how bigoted.

 

[Badran]

If they aren't aware of it, they eventually do get made aware but don't accept the charge of bigotry based on the fact they follow the religion and are devout to it. We see those debates and arguments here almost every day.

Once they do get aware of it they are out of the group i was talking about. Becoming aware and 'eventually' can take a long time. Thats why i clarified the difference between both groups.

If something is considered bigotry in Islam by others, you will not find many Muslims who won't try to defend Islam and the charge of bigotry.

Perhaps because its not?

Like i said, you're talking about this in a too general way. Specific examples will make it easier for me to address this.

If we take the homosexuality example given, i do think that many of the things said against homosexuals are bigoted and that it shouldn't be said. Just because people have a right to express their views doesn't mean that they always should, especially at certain times and in certain contexts.

So, to give a similar situation, if there was a day called "slandering homosexuality day", or something along the lines of people having a specific day to 'exercise their right' of slandering homosexuals by highlighting the 'horrors' of homosexuality, in response to some homosexuals who made death threats against those who oppose homosexuality, i would be viewing such a day as an unfortunate event because of its immaturity and the hatred expressed by it, and by some of the people involved. Somehow i think thats how you'd feel about it too.

Yet here, while there is a difference between both scenarios in one regard, its still similar in the part about the generalization (which is the part i'm addressing with the example), we get people defending the day and not only that, but also claiming that its a positive day where human rights have been celebrated.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Perhaps because its not?

Like i said, you're talking about this in a too general way. Specific examples will make it easier for me to address this.

I completely understand followers of Islam will disagree or defend Islam in debates of bigotry, that was my point entirely.

If we take the homosexuality example given, i do think that many of the things said against homosexuals are bigoted and that it shouldn't be said. Just because people have a right to express their views doesn't mean that they always should, especially at certain times and in certain contexts.

True, but we can find verses in both the Quran and the Hadiths that pertain to homosexuals. Those verses and the views presented by Muslims as a result are given full freedom of speech and freedom of religion to express those verses and those views.

It should be no surprise then that others who are offended by those verses and those views find them bigoted, especially when it pertains to them.

 

[Badran]

I completely understand followers of Islam will disagree or defend Islam in debates of bigotry, that was my point entirely.

Thats not what i said.

I said that specific examples as to what you're talking about would be helpful, because when you say Islam in general it carries under it lots of possibilities as to what claims of supposed bigotry you're talking about. Which is why i said "perhaps because its not?".

IOW, you're talking as if Muslims defend and deny some obvious bigotry in their religion in general, without clarifying which aspects are supposedly as such and while generalizing this to all or most Muslims.

We have a specified idea here, the idea of generalizing your response and including in others who didn't participate in the event that triggered your response. Anything similar to this done by Muslims, would be obviously judged the same way by me. However saying that "expressing Islam" in general is supposed to be the same idea without much, much more clarification gives me very little to appropriately address.

True, but we can find verses in both the Quran and the Hadiths that pertain to homosexuals. Those verses and the views presented by Muslims as a result are given full freedom of speech and freedom of religion to express those verses and those views.

It should be no surprise then that others who are offended by those verses and those views find them bigoted, especially when it pertains to them.

I understand that, but it doesn't necessarily make them so, neither does it make it an equal or equivalent to the situation here as an example used to demonstrate a point.

What would be similar is something along the lines of what i said in the last post, the whole part you didn't quote.

Note that the objection expressed (by me at least) is not at the idea of merely anybody drawing Muhammad at any instance in whatever context, or expressing views i disagree with, or holding a philosophy i find abhorrent or backwards or whatever. IOW, its not a mere objection to expression of views and/or ideals i find disagreeable.

I do think that some contexts would be entirely unoffensive for example to draw Muhammad (even if most Muslims would still choose not to view said pictures due to their beliefs or ideals/ideas in this regard), and things like that, or even specific separate instances where it is indeed offensive, is not what i'm talking about.

The objection is towards the idea and results of "Draw Muhammad day". A day devoted to doing this as a response to a minority of Muslims.

 

[839311]

I can't say that this is the impression i got in anyway. Neither by its name, what its about, whats done by it or by what its advocates usually say. That said, if this is indeed the case, it doesn't change the following though; that Muslims in general, rather than anybody else, will be the ones getting hurt by it. And that they're the ones this'll at least seem like a message to be sent towards, given the attributes i mentioned about it.

It seems they are the only ones taking it seriously enough to murder others because of it, so yeah its pretty much targeted at them specifically, though the message is broader than that. People will draw what they want, whether its muhammad, or buddha, or jesus, or whatever else they feel like even if that offends others.

I think more consideration and a more thoughtful approach in such issues is helpful.

In the west, for everything that can be made fun of there are groups that do it, and often do so in an in your ******* face kinda way. Thats just the way it is here. Presidents aren't exempt, religious leaders aren't exempt, religious founders aren't exempt, gays aren't exempt, mentally disabled people aren't exempt, races aren't exempt, etc. It can be offensive, but people just have to accept that that is the way it is.

If the backlash against those danish cartoons didn't happen, the whole thing would have passed by quietly like everything else that is made fun of. Instead, the riots and murders happened. To be honest, those muslims just made it worse for themselves. Theres plenty of people in the west who are going to pick on them now.

The worst thing about all this, though, is the fact that so many muslims have turned to rioting, violence, and murder. Its disappointing, as well as dangerous. I suspect that such violent and extreme behavior has sparked a lot of resentment from westerners in general.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

'

Is anybody actually talking about legislating against drawing pictures of Muhammad in European nations?

 

[Quagmire]

Exactly the point, rights have to be shared equally on both sides of the coin.

Not seeing how that has anything to do with what I said.

 

[beenie]

I would appreciate it if you would stop talking to me like I'm a 3-year-old. It's counterproductive.

Just because you can express Islam to others doesn't mean you should.

See how that works?

Where have I expressed Islam to others? What does that even mean?

Perhaps, expressing Islam or making demands based on Islam is going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Again, see how that works?

Are you accusing me of making demands? Did you read my posts? I said they have the right to be upset by the drawing, but they don't have the right to be violent. What's your problem with my opinion?

Exactly, and that goes for both sides.

Indeed it does. Your turn.

Take it back one more step and you've got it nailed. The Muslim community has a responsibility to understand that spreading and making demands based on Islam is going to upset people. And, very much like the vast majority of Muslims, those people aren't going to respond with violence, but that doesn't mean they aren't upset.

Starting to get the big picture, here?

What demands? You're quoting me and repeating that Muslims can't make demands and "express Islam". Where have I done either of these?

 

[Badran]

It seems they are the only ones taking it seriously enough to murder others because of it,

Who are?

so yeah its pretty much targeted at them specifically,

Targeted at who?

The answer to those two questions is different, which should simply demonstrate the obvious point that is somehow not being acknowledged.

IOW, yes, like you agreed, it is obviously targeted at Muslims. However, since 'Muslims' in general didn't actually do anything to warrant being targeted like this, perhaps you can see why targeting them, instead of the minority which actually did do something warranting this, would be inappropriate.

though the message is broader than that. People will draw what they want, whether its muhammad, or buddha, or jesus, or whatever else they feel like even if that offends others.

I understand that.

In the west, for everything that can be made fun of there are groups that do it, and often do so in an in your ******* face kinda way. Thats just the way it is here. Presidents aren't exempt, religious leaders aren't exempt, religious founders aren't exempt, gays aren't exempt, mentally disabled people aren't exempt, races aren't exempt, etc. It can be offensive, but people just have to accept that that is the way it is.

Actually no they don't have to. But regardless of that, nobody actually asked for any exemption, at least from most of the people this was targeted at, that is.

If the backlash against those danish cartoons didn't happen, the whole thing would have passed by quietly like everything else that is made fun of. Instead, the riots and murders happened.

Which doesn't really say anything at all that would affect my point. A lot of things wouldn't have happened if the event prior to it didn't happen. Just because something bad happened doesn't justify any response to be made in whichever way, and targeting whomever.

To be honest, those muslims just made it worse for themselves. Theres plenty of people in the west who are going to pick on them now.

(Assuming you're talking about the ones who acted violently)

Yes, they did make it worse. Them and the ones who decided to react immaturely to what they did. They both made it worse for the other billion of Muslims who didn't do anything.

The worst thing about all this, though, is the fact that so many muslims have turned to rioting, violence, and murder. Its disappointing, as well as dangerous. I suspect that such violent and extreme behavior has sparked a lot of resentment from westerners in general.

Yes it did.

Not that this was really needed, but in any case, the response to said actions also, made things even a little bit more bad than it already was.

 

[Sunstone]

What purpose is served by drawing Muhammad that cannot be more effectively served by some other means?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What purpose is served by drawing Muhammad that cannot be more effectively served by some other means?

It demonstrates solidarity against those who try to inhibit free speech by violence.

And the fact that it does so in a way that could incite violence against the person making the statement shows that the statement isn't just a matter of paying lip-service to the idea, since the person is taking on a measure of personal risk by making it the way they do.

I'm sure there are other ways that a person can express the sentiment "I will defend the right to free speech even if it costs me my life", but not as easily or in such an organized way.

 

[Nooj]

Yes, they emigrate "TO" the US, that's what I said.

Emigrate: the act of leaving ones country "TO" settle in another.

Maybe this is a difference in our English dialects. I don't have think I've ever seen someone use 'emigrate to' before. Do you pronounce emigrate differently from immigrate?

That is the can of worms I referred in which a Muslim here said that if you don't like the rules of a country, don't live there.

So gays should not live in America if they don't like the laws prohibiting gay marriage? Gays and Muslims are American citizens, they have a right to change the rules of their country if they don't like it.

I haven't heard that one before.

Where exactly? What laws?

Many Muslims eat only halal food. Islamic law determines what is halal.

 

[Sunstone]

It demonstrates solidarity against those who try to inhibit free speech by violence.

And the fact that it does so in a way that could incite violence against the person making the statement shows that the statement isn't just a matter of paying lip-service to the idea, since the person is taking on a measure of personal risk by making it the way they do.

I'm sure there are other ways that a person can express the sentiment "I will defend the right to free speech even if it costs me my life", but not as easily or in such an organized way.

Interesting points, but do you think you are going to change the attitudes of many Muslims by drawing Muhammad?

 

[beenie]

Interesting points, but do you think you are going to change the attitudes of many Muslims by drawing Muhammad?

Honestly, I think if it's done enough, most Muslims will just get sick of fighting it and learn to ignore it. I tend to be an eternal optimist though.

 

[Father Heathen]

It demonstrates solidarity against those who try to inhibit free speech by violence.

And the fact that it does so in a way that could incite violence against the person making the statement shows that the statement isn't just a matter of paying lip-service to the idea, since the person is taking on a measure of personal risk by making it the way they do.

I'm sure there are other ways that a person can express the sentiment "I will defend the right to free speech even if it costs me my life", but not as easily or in such an organized way.

This. :clap

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think what gives these cartoons their perceived "value" in the eyes of their publishers is the reactions they incite. The more violent reactions they get, the more "special" of a feeling it gives those who draw them, as they know that it could get them killed/harmed somewhere else (and hence the 'freedom' part).

But I think that it is needless and immature to draw them, nonetheless. An ability to do X doesn't necessarily mean that X has to be done, or that it is even useful/logical to do it.

I know I can do X, and have even done it before, but when risks of controversy and upsetting millions of people become attached to it, I'd think that it would be more mature to just avoid X.

Also, even if the publishers of such cartoons intend them to offend extremists, the fact of the matter is that they also offend millions of moderate Muslims as well; the extremists' feelings towards the cartoons and their publishers are only more apparent due to their violent actions whenever such an event takes place.

Had there been people who dedicated great reverence to walnuts, I'm pretty sure we would have seen a 'Draw a Walnut Day' held to the provocation of the extremist (and possibly moderate) followers of the Great Walnut.

 

[Anonymouse]

Interesting points, but do you think you are going to change the attitudes of many Muslims by drawing Muhammad?

It is the attitudes of many Muslims that have to be questioned. Just as freedom is needed for art to grow, religion by its very nature needs to be examined in order for it to evolve. This ‘Drawing Mohammed’ is exclusively a Muslim “hang-up”. If I were to pin a reason on this I would have to cough it up to bad sportsmanship.

Muslims weren't necessarily offended in the way that Mohammed was depicted in these pictures, they are constantly offended because they were told that they could not express themselves in this same manner. If you look through the pictures of Draw Mohammad Day, a small percentage of those pictures were serious, sincere portraits of the prophet (some were painstakingly crafted with oil paint). Some were done by small children who weren’t knowledgeable of the politics and beliefs of that religion.

Whether it was an earnest attempt or a juvenile depiction, Muslims were outraged because artists all over the world were able to express their individuality and imagination and depict Mohammed and not incur the wrath of Allah. Since no godly penalty or justice was ever forthcoming, a few Muslims became impatient and dealt their own brand of justice. Not one of these extremists ever considered the talent involved in producing this art, the thoughtful consideration to composition that goes towards the completion of such artwork nor did they ever consider the possibility that Allah might not care how Mohammed is depicted. By striking out violently, they have brought more shame and dishonor upon their religion then a 1000 Draw Mohammed Days could ever produce.

 

[A Troubled Man]

So gays should not live in America if they don't like the laws prohibiting gay marriage? Gays and Muslims are American citizens, they have a right to change the rules of their country if they don't like it.

Your argument is with ssainhu on that matter who feels people should leave a country if they don't like the rules.