Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" set for May 20th      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 126
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20thPage 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
As stated, he had no problem with the show satirizing & parodying Chritianity, Mormons, Jews etc. But soon as they were going to portray HIS belief ( Scientology) well, that's when it became a bad thing.


Yes, but.....that's human nature, in a way. Yes, a bit hypocritical or self-righteous perhaps, on his part, but at the same time (IMO) still understandable. The fact is things upset us more when directed at our own perceived in-group of whichever type (whether ethnicity, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc). Some can take it better than others. Some won't admit to being upset about it although it bothers them on the inside. Evidently Hayes was not willing to actually quit his job until his colleagues took aim at something he felt was personally out of bounds to him.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 127
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 12:15:42 PM

Some won't admit to being upset about it although it bothers them on the inside. Evidently Hayes was not willing to actually quit his job until his colleagues took aim at something he felt was personally out of bounds to him.


Quite possible. But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :

"The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said.
'Religious sensitivity'
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 128
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 12:23:59 PM


It is only disingenuous if one assumes that the role of Sharia court HERE would be the same as in Saudi Arabia where it IS the actual courts... And not an alternative choice to secular court in the same manner as Beth Din... That (replacing secular court completely) wasn't the main thrust of the movement to allow it though... The main thrust was as an alternative CHOICE for those who wanted it... And there certainly was no SERIOUS effort made to allow it to make "life and death" decisions...


That's fine. To be fair, I don't like the idea of Beth Din courts either and think they should be eliminated, but likely as not we are stuck with them.





And if the moderate's don't like it either, well, I guess they'll just have to check out the history of their faith and remember back to a time when it wasn't forbidden to depict the prophet and they weren't hijacked by this noisy minority from Saudi Arabia that is trying to hold them and their whole faith as well as Western society hostage with threats of violence when they can't get their own way.

If you feel hijacked simply by treating others with respect, that's your issue, and no one else's.


That's a massive straw-man and I of course said or implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I implied that moderate Islam is allowing itself to be hijacked by it's more extremist elements, extreme Sunni and Wahabbist viewpoints that intent to make their view the only view in Islam to the detriment of Shia or others, completely eradicating Sufism or any minority forms of Islam and enacting literalism and acts of violence and extremism against their own members as well as the West.

It is as toxic an element of religion as the Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement in Christianity that is pervasive in Protestant churches throughout America that preaches politics in the pulpits.

Again, I have to re-state this: any faith that issues death sentences for criticism or satire and carries them out in our cities does not merit our respect. Those moderates who cling to the notion that they are adherents of a faith of peace and tolerance may believe that if they wish...they have to realize their faith is filled with "people" who simply do not believe the same way they do and would have no difficulty counting them as goats among the sheep when their believed in "end" comes. They need to disown the extremists, and disown the extreme beliefs and the penalties that go with them.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/things/depictions-of-muhammad-in-islamic-art.htm



Unlike the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps surprisingly, there is no commandment against making images of living beings in the Qur'an. But it does make clear that nothing should be honored alongside God:

"God does not forgive the joining of partners [Arabic: shirk] with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48).

All the Islamic injunctions against making religious images come from the hadith, traditions recorded by various followers about what the Prophet said and did. Although not divine revelation like the Qur'an, hadith is considered binding when multiple trustworthy sources agree. Following are some examples of hadith on images:

"Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created." (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5268)

"This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu'awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures...." (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5271)

"Narrated [Muhammad's wife] 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, 'The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.'" (Bukhari vol.9, book 93 no.646)

"Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.’" (Bukhari vol.8, book 73, no.130)

"Umar said, ‘We do not enter your churches because of the statues and pictures.’ Ibn ‘Abbas used to pray in the church provided there were no statues in it." (Bukhari vol.1, chapter 54)

"‘Aisha played with dolls while her husband Muhammad was with her. (Sahih Muslim vol.4, book 29 ch.1005, no.5981)

"Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain." (Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3, book 21, no.3746)

History of Images and Figurative Art in Islam

In the earliest days of Islam, a specifically "Islamic art" had not yet begun to develop and art in general was not a prominent issue. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Earliest Islam as seen in the Qur'an or in the more verifiable accounts of the Prophet's life simply do not deal with the arts, either on the practical level of requiring or suggesting forms as expressions of the culture or on the ideological level of defining a Muslim attitude toward images.... There is no prohibition against representations of living things, and not a single Qur'anic passage refers clearly to the mosque, eventually to become the most characteristically Muslim religious building." {1}

But as the Islamic community grew and conquered a great deal of new territory, it came into contact with the religious art and architecture of other cultures and began to develop its own. By the mid-8th century there was a clear Muslim doctrine against the creation of images, as seen in the hadith above.

It is interesting that Islam came into contact with Byzantine culture at the height of the iconoclastic controversy. It is possible that those intensely negative associations of religious art influenced or strengthened Islamic views on the matter. Regardless,

"it is likely that, more or less intuitively, the Muslims felt a certain reluctance toward representations from the very beginning. For all monuments of religious art are devoid of any representations; even a number of attempts at representational symbolism in the official art of coinage were soon abandoned." {1}

In the 8th and 9th centuries, Islamic art experimented with a wide variety of materials, techniques and designs, many of which were influenced by China and other parts of the world. But the decorative arts remained generally consistent in excluding depictions of humans and animals. Some minor exceptions are birds drawn from the folkloric past of the Near East and "occasionally human figures drawn in a strikingly abstract fashion." {1}
Fatimid figurative art
Fatimid bowl from the 12th century, depicting a Byzantine Christian priest swinging a censer. (Victoria & Albert Museum, London)

The art of the Fatimids (a Shi'ite dynasty that ruled 909–1171 AD) continued to focus mainly on calligraphy and decorative vines, but also frequently depicted animals and humans. The celebrated lustre-painted Fatimid ceramics from Egypt are especially distinguished by "the representation of the human figure. Some of these ceramics have been decorated with simplified copies of illustrations of the princely themes, but others have depictions of scenes of Egyptian daily life." {1} The Fatimids also developed an art of manuscript illustration.

The Seljuk Turks sought to restore Islamic orthodoxy. They made many contributions to Islamic art and architecture, including monumental minarets, mausoleums of holy men (to which pilgrimages were made), citadels and madrasas. Paintings and sculptures of animals and people were among the decorations employed for the monumental new architecture, but the Seljuks were especially interested in geometry and mathematical proportion in art. {1}

The Mamluks ruled Egypt, Palestine, and Syria from 1260 to 1517 and were very wealthy. The Mamluks are especially known for their splendid architecture, which included the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Mamluk art seems to have been virtually devoid of human and animal depiction.

Meanwhile, in the Mongol period in Iran, Persian art became especially notable for its figurative art in wall painting and illuminated manuscripts. These include many narrative scenes of the Prophet, Iranian kings and other humans. Examples include the 56 minature paintings of the 14th-century Shah-nameh ("Book of Kings"); illustrations of the Jami' at-tawarikh (“Universal History of Rashid ad-Din”); and the Khwaju Kermani manuscript from 1396. The Iranian style of painting was influenced by Seljuk art, but more so by Chinese painting. The most celebrated Islamic painter was Behzad (1455-1536), who led an academy of art in Iran.

The Ottoman Turks (15th-19th centuries) are best known for their tiles and pottery, but also developed their own form of miniature figurative painting.

Ottoman miniatures do have a character of their own, either in the almost folk art effect of religious images or in the precise depictions of such daily events as military expeditions or great festivals. Among the finest examples of the latter is the manuscript Surname-i Vehbi (Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul) painted by Levnî in the early 18th century. {1}

To view examples of Islamic art depicting Muhammad, please see our separate page, Examples of Islamic Depictions of Muhammad. All the depictions are respectful and Islamic, but Muslims who are offended by seeing such images or feel they are breaking religious laws by doing so, should not follow the link.

From this brief history, it is clear that figurative art (depictions of humans and animals) has made regular appearances in the Islamic world. However, figurative art has largely been a private and secular matter, with most mosques kept free of such imagery. As explained on the website of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art:

Contrary to a popular misconception, however, figural imagery is an important aspect of Islamic art. Such images occur primarily in secular and especially courtly arts and appear in a wide variety of media and in most periods and places in which Islam flourished. It is important to note, nevertheless, that representational imagery is almost invariably restricted to a private context. Figurative art is excluded from the decoration of religious monuments. This absence may be attributed to an Islamic antipathy toward anything that might be mistaken for idols or idolatry, which are explicitly forbidden by the Qur'an. {2}

Today, the depiction of prophets and especially Muhammad is widely rejected. The 1976 film The Message, directed by Moustapha Akkad and starring Anthony Quinn, tells the story of Muhammad, but follows Islamic law by not showing Muhammad or even portraying his voice (it is filmed from his perspective).

But aside from the taboo about Muhammad, and despite the clear rules in hadith, only the most conservative Muslims (such as the Taliban) believe it is wrong to create images in general, such as portraits or photographs. The introduction of television into Saudi Arabia was widely protested at first because of its images, but is now a common part of Saudi life.
Depictions of Muhammad

The outrage and violence occasioned by the infamous "Danish cartoon controversy" perhaps had more to do with disrespect for Islam than depictions of the Prophet. But many of today's Muslims consider any public depictions of the Prophet Muhammad offensive and objectionable, no matter how respectful, and frequently request their removal.

The reasons for this sensitivity to depictions of Muhammad are not immediately clear, since Muhammad is as human as anyone else, Islamic sources do not prohibit depictions of him any more than other images, and past Islamic art has depicted Muhammad.

Islamic scholars have explained that the main reason for the ban on depicting Muhammad is the fear that the images of Muhammad might be worshipped. Political scientist As'ad AbuKhalil, visiting professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained:

"In the Holy Koran of Islam, the one sin unforgivable is that of polytheism. The prohibition is intended to protect the faithful from that sin. The fear was that intense reverence for the prophet might if unrestrained cross over into worship. In the 8th and the 9th centuries a general consensus banning such depictions arose among the clerics, but not all Muslims knew of it, paid attention, or obeyed." {3}

According to Imam Talal Eid, director of the Islamic Institute of Boston:

"He [the Prophet] instructed his companions not to draw a picture of him, and this has been taken as a general prohibition. He also told them not to pray in places that have images. There also is a general prohibition against full statues. And -- though today, of course, we find photos in all passports -- many Muslims have felt some hesitance about permitting portraits of any kind." {3}

Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, told NPR.

"The fear was, both in Judaism and Islam, that if you represented a holy figure like a prophet who had discussions with the divine, there would be a danger of people worshipping the image." {4}

Muslims certainly do revere the Prophet extremely highly. As Professor of Islamic Studies John Esposito put it,

"To criticize the prophet Muhammad is as direct an attack as mocking or attacking the Koran, which is seen as the word of God or the sacred Scripture. Muhammad is seen as the living Koran. His life Muslims are to emulate." {4}

Summary and Conclusions

The above evidence might be summarized in the following facts:

1. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all consider idolatry a heinous sin.
2. The Qur'an does not prohibit making images, only worshipping them.
3. Hadith clearly and consistently prohibits all images of any living being, with special mention of punishment for painters.
4. One exception to this rule is dolls for children, probably because children are not considered in danger of worshipping them as idols.
5. Neither the Qur'an nor hadith mention depictions of Muhammad.
6. The hadith prohibiting images are directed at Muslims only (e.g. Muslims are instructed not to enter buildings where there are images, not to demand their removal).
7. Muslim outrage against depictions of the Prophet does not usually extend to outrage against all images.
8. The hadith prohibiting images do not call for Muslims to take action against those who make images, but instead say that God will punish them severely at the Day of Judgment.
9. Muslims have applied the prohibitions against images in various ways throughout history and there is still some variation today.
10. Figurative art of Muhammad and other humans has been a significant part of late medieval Islamic art. But it was generally limited to secular contexts and elite classes who could afford fine art.
11. Shi'ites tend to be more open to religious images than Sunnis.
12. The main reason given for not depicting Muhammad is to avoid the temptation to worship the image.
13. Neither the Qur'an nor hadith say that viewing an image accidentally is a sin, but in the hadith the Prophet teaches Muslims to avoid them.

Sources

1. "Islamic arts." Encyclopædia Britannica (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
2. "Islamic Art." Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA).
3. Paul Richard, "In Art Museums, Portraits Illuminate A Religious Taboo." Washington Post, February 14, 2006.
4. "Why Cartoons of the Prophet Insult Muslims." NPR analysis, February 8, 2006.
5. "Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?" Answering Islam.
6. Amir Taheri, "Bonfire of the Pieties." Wall Street Journal editorial, February 8, 2006.
7. "Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad." BBC News, February 2, 2006.
8. Serpil Bagci, "From Translated Word to Translated Image: The Illustrated Şehnâme-i Türkî Copies." Muqarnas, Vol. 17, p. 162.


The hadith makes it pretty clear that the believer isn't permitted to take action...but typically, the fanatic makes himself or herself the "right hand of God" and decides to tell you what God thinks" for you.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to defy these nutters, one may alienate those of a more moderate bent. Question is, can the moderates or those protesting come to a meeting of the minds...will this kind of an action be more divisive? Have the more conservative ideas about depictions of the prophet crept insidiously into moderate beliefs to the point where there is no going back?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 129
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 12:45:41 PM

It is only disingenuous if one assumes that the role of Sharia court HERE would be the same as in Saudi Arabia where it IS the actual courts...


In this case, threatening to kill cartoonists, that particular sharia law was administered HERE exactly how it would be in some more fanatical Islamic states.

I would also think that normal muslims would be more offended by the nutty actions of extremists who actually bring more harm to their religion than good. I still believe that the greatest benefit of a draw Mohammed day, or of not censoring any cartoons, would be to bring attention to this on a larger scale and perhaps marginalize the extremists to some greater extent. If enough muslims gets pissed off at the crazier version of their religious kinfolk, it might help get rid of them.


And no-one stopped the broadcaster from showing the episode intact... Except the broadcaster... It was their CHOICE, ergo, no infringement or suppression of free speech


That's uh,well, that's just funny. Just ask yourself this really simple question.....why did they CHOOSE to censor the episode?


1. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all consider idolatry a heinous sin.
2. The Qur'an does not prohibit making images, only worshipping them.
3. Hadith clearly and consistently prohibits all images of any living being, with special mention of punishment for painters.
4. One exception to this rule is dolls for children, probably because children are not considered in danger of worshipping them as idols.
5. Neither the Qur'an nor hadith mention depictions of Muhammad.
6. The hadith prohibiting images are directed at Muslims only (e.g. Muslims are instructed not to enter buildings where there are images, not to demand their removal).
7. Muslim outrage against depictions of the Prophet does not usually extend to outrage against all images.
8. The hadith prohibiting images do not call for Muslims to take action against those who make images, but instead say that God will punish them severely at the Day of Judgment.
9. Muslims have applied the prohibitions against images in various ways throughout history and there is still some variation today.
10. Figurative art of Muhammad and other humans has been a significant part of late medieval Islamic art. But it was generally limited to secular contexts and elite classes who could afford fine art.
11. Shi'ites tend to be more open to religious images than Sunnis.
12. The main reason given for not depicting Muhammad is to avoid the temptation to worship the image.
13. Neither the Qur'an nor hadith say that viewing an image accidentally is a sin, but in the hadith the Prophet teaches Muslims to avoid them.


Now that's informative. Thanks.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 130
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 12:55:53 PM
Free speech is legal, threats however aren't considered free speech & can result in criminal charges.

Then perhaps you can link us to the criminal threat which had the segment pulled... Remembering that it is not difficult to track down the poster of a blog, meaning, that if the threat quoted in this thread were criminal... Why weren't charges laid...? Perhaps because it WASN'T criminal but fell within the bounds of free speech...?

And a desire to suppress the free speech of supporters of organized religion...


Could you explain how a person choosing to draw an image of Mohammed is suppressing the free speech of supporters of organized religion?

You were the one who stated that "Draw Mohammed Day" was about putting a stop to the protests and "threats" which got the South Park episode editted... Since the "threat" you posted clearly wasn't a criminal threat, but within the bounds of free speech... Then the goal, as stated by you, is to suppress the free speech of those particular supporters of organized religion...

That's a risk that is taken when you have free speech

You seem intent on pulling the thread away from your own stated topic of using "Draw Mohammed Day" to address the "threat" that got the South Park episode editted... No-one has EVER stated that "drawing Mohammed" wasn't free speech so I'm not clear on why you think it necessary to argue a point never made... Perhaps you can quote the exact comment that says that since you are so intent on rebutting it (even though it hasn't been said)...? The only point made against the idea is that it is NOT a defense of free speech (because NOBODY has suppressed free speech here) but just a juvenile, ineffective, unnecessary and useless means of saying "na na boo boo" at best and bigotted way of saying the same thing at worst...

And as I said, it's their choice ( infantile as it may be) to use their right to free speech in that way.

And... once again... Where has ANYONE stated "you aren't allowed..." or "you can't..." ...? How is this point relevant since no-one has said it isn't free speech...?

Again... What is your point in attempting to mount an utterly irrelevant rebuttal to a point no-one has made...?

Btw, we're still waiting for you to provide a link to a site informing us of ( as you posted) " free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists".

I already did... See message 88... I've posted it once, I'm not going to repost it everytime you forget where it is...
But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :

"The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said.
'Religious sensitivity'

Oh, so it ISN'T his free speech right to publicly state his reasons...? It ISN'T his free speech right to publicly express his objection...? Why am I getting the impression that the only "free speech right" you support is the right to debase, insult, offend and protest organized religion, but not the right of organized religion to protest against that debasement, insult, offense and protest...?

Why didn't Hayes have the right to state his opinion...? Why should he have "just left" in silence...? Where is HIS free speech right, including his free speech right to "come off as the victim" (which he IS if it was his belief being demeaned) according to your standard expressed here (I guess it doesn't count if it isn't biased against organized religion)...?
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 1:11:31 PM
The hadith makes it pretty clear that the believer isn't permitted to take action...but typically, the fanatic makes himself or herself the "right hand of God" and decides to tell you what God thinks" for you.{/quote]

I agree 100% with this statement and as noted,whatever the religion Muslim,christian Jewish etc once these fanatics get it into there heads "god is on our side".You get the murder of journalists,painters the bombing of abortion clinics etc.A small example

Hitler had the German Army wear belt buckles inscribed with “Gott Mit Uns”—God with us. He modeled his SS after the Jesuit order, and directed SS officers to study the work of the Jesuits’ founder, Ignatius of Loyola (Waite, op. cit.).

And to be clear I am not referring to all Muslims,Jews Christians just these wacko fringe elements.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 132
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 1:53:04 PM
And as I said, it's their choice ( infantile as it may be) to use their right to free speech in that way.

And... once again... Where has ANYONE stated "you aren't allowed..." or "you can't..." ...? How is this point relevant since no-one has said it isn't free speech...?


I made that statement becasue you made the statement:



This is no more than "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day"... THIS is a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues...


Implying that it was a pointless gesture & as such somehow wasn't an exercise in free speech.

Perhaps you can explain why having a "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day" as a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues " shouldn't be considered as exercising free speech?


Btw, we're still waiting for you to provide a link to a site informing us of ( as you posted) " free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists".

I already did... See message 88... I've posted it once, I'm not going to repost it everytime you forget where it is...

.

Yes, and that link provides a list of incidents perpetrated by the JDL... nothing mentioning any attempt to suppress free speech. That the incidents happened isn't disputed, what is disputed is thatthe incidents were an attempt to supress free speech, & you have provided no link to any evidence stating that was their purpose.

Or does any sort of incident involving the JDL constitute ( in YOUR mind, at least) an attempt to suppress free speech?


Why didn't Hayes have the right to state his opinion...? Why should he have "just left" in silence...?


As free speech he can state his opinion. But if he trys to explain his leaving the show because of how the show treats religions he can expect to be called on it.

I said he can't come off as the victim & play the moral card ( not that he can't say it, just that he can't COME OFF AS THE VICTIM, try to keep up) by saying :

"The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said.
'Religious sensitivity'

When he had NO problem with the show when:

"In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews.

"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show."

Can't have it both ways Isaac; either you aren't a hypocrite & have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show OR you don't.

Or you ARE a hypocrite & don't have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show unless it's YOUR religion.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 133
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 2:39:36 PM
Implying that it was a pointless gesture...

I didn't IMPLY anything... I CLEARLY and PLAINLY STATED that it WAS "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day" and "DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS" ...

This is no more than "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day"... THIS is a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues...

There is NO implication there... It is a direct, deliberate and clear statement...

Implying that ... as such somehow wasn't an exercise in free speech.

The statement doesn't say even the smallest thing in that regard... It does NOT IMPLY anything as it is a DIRECT, DELIBERATE and CLEAR statement... How you get "imply that as such somehow wasn't an exercise in free speech." from that is beyond me as there are NO rules of English grammar and construction that could concretely lead one to that conclusion...

The statement says it "is National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day"... that it is "DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS" but it doesn't even come close to referencing free speech... Perhaps you can explain how it does...? Parse it out for us and show us how the words used, by definition and in the combination and the position of placement, leads to a LOGICAL conclusion that it "implies" ANY reference to free speech...?

Perhaps you can explain why having a "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day" as a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues " shouldn't be considered as exercising free speech?

There is no need for me to do so as I haven't said or "implied" anything of the sort... This is a logical fallacy, a failure of reasoning and an irrational conclusion... One normally only sees this kind of thing in cases where the person making the claim has no valid argument to stand on (hence the need to "invent" an argument that doesn't exist)...

I said he can't come off as the victim & play the moral card

Why can't he claim to be the victim...? I thought he had a right to free speech...? What "rule" about free speech states that one "can't use free speech to play the victim"...?

When he had NO problem with the show when:

"In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews.

"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show."

Can't have it both ways Isaac; either you aren't a hypocrite & have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show OR you don't.

Or you ARE a hypocrite & don't have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show unless it's YOUR religion.

Ah, so NOW we get to the TRUTH of the thing... Once again you are utterly contradicting your own argument (not that this is a "first" or anything, I've already pointed out other contradictions)... You have continuously argued against the VERY SAME POINT you just made when it was made against "Draw Mohammed Day" (aka "Na na boo boo, Look what I did. I hope you're offended, Whatcha gonna do about it, huh? huh?" day)... But NOW you're going to use that point you argued so vociferously against before to argue against another's free speech YOU disagree with...

Yes, that alone makes it abundantly clear that the TRUE intent here was simply an effort to "slag" organized religion, not defend free speech... Abundantly clear that the only TRULY acceptable free speech is the right to debase, insult, offend and protest organized religion, but not the right of believers in organized religion to protest that debasement, insult, offense and protest...

Apparently those who mock religion are "merely" exercising their free speech, while those who protest such mocking are not "merely" exercising free speech but "suppressing free speech" and "being hypocrites"...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 134
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 2:57:47 PM
Satire is protected speech under the first amendment.

And who on this thread has said it isn't...? Who has violated ANYONE'S 1st Amendment rights in this matter (given that SCOTUS has CLEARLY ruled that 1st Amendment protections don't restrict private individuals)...? If a private individual CANNOT be found to be violating another's 1st Amendment rights (as ruled by SCOTUS) how have anyone's 1st Amendemnt rights been violated...?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 135
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 4:55:22 PM

Implying that it was a pointless gesture...

I didn't IMPLY anything... I CLEARLY and PLAINLY STATED that it WAS "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day" and "DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS" ...


This is no more than "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day"... THIS is a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues...

There is NO implication there... It is a direct, deliberate and clear statement...


Implying that ... as such somehow wasn't an exercise in free speech.

The statement doesn't say even the smallest thing in that regard... It does NOT IMPLY anything as it is a DIRECT, DELIBERATE and CLEAR statement... How you get "imply that as such somehow wasn't an exercise in free speech." from that is beyond me as there are NO rules of English grammar and construction that could concretely lead one to that conclusion...

The statement says it "is National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day"... that it is "DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS" but it doesn't even come close to referencing free speech... Perhaps you can explain how it does...? Parse it out for us and show us how the words used, by definition and in the combination and the position of placement, leads to a LOGICAL conclusion that it "implies" ANY reference to free speech...?


Perhaps you can explain why having a "National Na-Na-Boo-Boo Day" as a DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS effort to thumb noses and stick out tongues for no other reason than thumbing noses and sticking out tongues " shouldn't be considered as exercising free speech?

There is no need for me to do so as I haven't said or "implied" anything of the sort... This is a logical fallacy, a failure of reasoning and an irrational conclusion... One normally only sees this kind of thing in cases where the person making the claim has no valid argument to stand on (hence the need to "invent" an argument that doesn't exist)...


The point is that whatever the purpose of the drawing, malicious or nose thumbing, it's their right under free speech. You appear to take issue with the term free speech being used with the "draw Mohammed" suggestion as it's in your view malicious.

You posted :


I said he can't come off as the victim & play the moral card

Why can't he claim to be the victim...? I thought he had a right to free speech...? What "rule" about free speech states that one "can't use free speech to play the victim"...?


Perhaps if you read the entire section posted there about Hayes & not just the section of sentence you chose to quote, you'd be able to understand my post. What I said prioor to that was :


As free speech he can state his opinion. But if he trys to explain his leaving the show because of how the show treats religions he can expect to be called on it.


Because he clearly is beong a hypocrite as to the reason for leaving. Free speech means he can say he left the show because "The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs" but because of the hypocrtical appearance of his words VS his prior acceptance he can expect to be called out on it, with people asking " But Isaac, if that is an issue why didn't you leave when the show mockewd Christianity, the Jewish faith, Mormons, etc?"

Yes, he can claim to be the victim; he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him.

I noticed that you didn't comment on this part of my post:


Btw, we're still waiting for you to provide a link to a site informing us of ( as you posted) " free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists".

I already did... See message 88... I've posted it once, I'm not going to repost it everytime you forget where it is....

Yes, and that link provides a list of incidents perpetrated by the JDL... nothing mentioning any attempt to suppress free speech. That the incidents happened isn't disputed, what is disputed is thatthe incidents were an attempt to supress free speech, & you have provided no link to any evidence stating that was their purpose.

Or does any sort of incident involving the JDL constitute ( in YOUR mind, at least) an attempt to suppress free speech?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 5:25:16 PM
RE Msg: 168 by pirateheaven:
Satire is protected speech under the first amendment.
It is?
sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satire
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:satire

So, the First Amendment gives you the right to insult or scorn others using humour?
I don't recall the First Amendment saying that things can be done using humour but not otherwise.
Do you mean to say that the First Amendment gives you the right to insult or scorn others?

Do you think it is a basic human right to be treated with respect?
Do you think is respectful to insult or scorn others?

Do you honestly think the Amendments to the Constitution give anyone the right to ignore their basic human rights?
If so, then the Second Amendment, the right to the people to bear arms, gives everyone the right to ignore their basic human rights, and that includes murder.
If so, then the right to bear arms gives Americans the right to murder other Americans.
Do you really believe that the Amendments to the Constitution give anyone the right to kill someone with a gun?

Now, that doesn't entitle you to make death threats, or kill anyone, just because you have been insulted or scorned by others. But insulting or scorning others, even using humour as a method of delivery, does come into the category of slander, libel, defamation of character, and false light, which all make them a matter than can be sued in the courts.

The UK newspaper Private Eye is chock-full of satire. It gets sued all the time, and loses very, very often. There is no reason why anyone else should be treated differently.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 137
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 6:41:01 PM

You appear to take issue with the term free speech being used with the "draw Mohammed" suggestion as it's in your view malicious.

Where have I asserted that I "take issue with the term free speech being used with the "draw Mohammed" suggestion"... Never have... This canard keeps getting thrown out and every time it gets shot down... But it is never shown where it has been said (at least not without adding a lot of "imagination")...

And it IS malicious... It IS also deliberately so... Neither is it the "defense of free speech" that you attempted to characterize it as... It IS juvenile and "school yard"... I've said that... many times... but never once did I "take issue with the term free speech being used with the "draw Mohammed" suggestion"...

Because he clearly is beong a hypocrite as to the reason for leaving.

So...? You have consistently claimed that pointing this out about "Draw Mohammed Day" means that those who point it out are denying it as free speech or are "take issue" with calling it free speech... Seems to me, that for this to be logically consistent then it also has to apply to your arguments... does it not...? Seems to me that, by the standard of your own argument, you are denying that Hayes' objection is free speech...

Yes, he can claim to be the victim; he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him.

But you didn't say "he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him"... You didn't even say he "can claim to be the victim"... You specifically said he's not supposed to make himself out to be the victim...

But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :

Again, by the standard of your own argument... The standard you have applied to others' arguments... This implies that "coming off as the victim" isn't free speech by saying he shouldn't do it (And to think, I never even said people shouldn't draw Mohammed, I just said the idea was juvenile and "schoolyard".)...

Because he clearly is beong a hypocrite as to the reason for leaving. Free speech means he can say he left the show because "The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs" but because of the hypocrtical appearance of his words VS his prior acceptance he can expect to be called out on it, with people asking " But Isaac, if that is an issue why didn't you leave when the show mockewd Christianity, the Jewish faith, Mormons, etc?"

Once again... you are repeating the same argument you argued AGAINST when applied to "Draw Mohammed Day"... How does it apply to Hayes, but not "Draw Mohammed Day"...? Again, you are contradicting your own previous argument... And, again, we have to ask... What conclusion should we draw if we apply the same standard to this as has been applied to others' arguments...? And, again, we arrive at, by the standard applied, the conclusion that this implies it isn't "free speech"...

The consistent element that does not change here is that you have contradicted your own arguments... several times... And yet consistently repeated your contradictions... Or canards such as above, which have consistently been disproven... And yet consistently repeated... This entire contradictory, circular argumentation is beginning to resemble the contradictory, circular arguments used by hard-core Bible thumpers to "prove" the truth of the Bible and the existence of God...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 7:48:10 PM

Do you think it is a basic human right to be treated with respect?


Absolutely, without a doubt, in the loudest possible way...no.


If so, then the right to bear arms gives Americans the right to murder other Americans.


Now we're talkin'.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 139
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 7:59:22 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_prophet_drawing

STOCKHOLM – A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted as furious protesters interrupted his university lecture about the limits of free speech.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press that a man leaped from the front row and head-butted him Tuesday as he was delivering his lecture at Uppsala University, breaking Vilks' glasses but leaving him uninjured.

Police later said the attacker was stopped before he could reach Vilks and that the artist may have bumped into plain-clothes officers who briskly evacuated him from the room. Three people were detained, but it wasn't immediately clear whether the attacker was among them.

A video clip of the incident by a Swedish newspaper showed police using pepper spray and batons to hold off an angry crowd shouting "God is great" in Arabic after Vilks was escorted out of the lecture hall.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body, but Tuesday's incident was the first physical assault directed against him.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane," and who now faces life in prison. She has pleaded not guilty.

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at the university in Uppsala, about 40 miles (70 kilometers) north of Stockholm.

Some of them stormed toward the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as "complete chaos."

"A man ran up and threw himself over me. I was head-butted and my glasses were broken," Vilks said before hanging up for questioning by police.

Uppsala police spokesman Jonas Eronen later said that the attacker was stopped by officers before he could get to Vilks. The physical contact Vilks described probably happened when police in civilian clothes evacuated the artist "in a brusque manner," Eronen said.

A man and a woman were detained on suspicion of violence against police while another man was held for disturbing public order, he said. All were just under 20 years old.

Uppsala University spokeswoman Pernilla Bjork said Vilks was showing an excerpt from a film by an Iranian artist about Islam and homosexuality that had been banned from YouTube when the commotion started.

"It was about when Muslims and Muhammad are represented in homosexual situations," said Anders Montelius, a 23-year-old student who attended the lecture.

"Some people started shouting, things happened really fast. About 10 to 15 seconds later it erupts. A guy from the front row gets up and sets upon Vilks. Several others followed this man. There was commotion and police pepper-sprayed a couple of people," Montelius told AP.

"When the university person responsible for the lecture announced that the lecture was discontinued, there were cheers and chants in Arabic," he said.

The video posted on the website of the newspaper Uppsala Nya Tidning showed agitated police officers clashing with protesters at the front of the lecture hall. A female police officer uses pepper spray to subdue a young man. Another youngster is wrestled to the ground.

University officials said there had been a peaceful demonstration by Muslims outside the university before Vilks started to speak, and that about 260 people attended his lecture. Bjork said the university had been in contact with police and security guards before Vilks' lecture to ensure his safety.

"We think it is our task as a university to be able to discuss difficult issues," she said. "We think it is very unfortunate that this has resulted in violence."

Vilks made his rough sketch more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

A Swedish newspaper printed the drawing, leading to further protests, and revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 140
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 8:22:26 PM

But you didn't say "he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him"... You didn't even say he "can claim to be the victim"... You specifically said he's not supposed to make himself out to be the victim...


Actually, in the post were I'd mentioned him trying to portray himself as the victim I said:


But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :


And proceeeded to quote his statements.

My saying "but then he should have etc etc is me expressing my opinion. Not He's NOT supposed to make himself out to be the victim, but rather "he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim".

My opinion ( and the opinion of others), nothing more.

And again we have to ask :

Where's your "alleged" evidence that there have been:


free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists

???

Not the website page from your post #88 you keep tossing out, that link is merely a list of incidents perpetrated by the JDL, no mention of attempts to supress free speech on it.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 141
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 8:30:57 PM

Apparently those who mock religion are "merely" exercising their free speech, while those who protest such mocking are not "merely" exercising free speech but "suppressing free speech" and "being hypocrites"...


Actually, if you'd read what is written & not what you think is written you'd see that I said


Can't have it both ways Isaac; either you aren't a hypocrite & have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show OR you don't.

Or you ARE a hypocrite & don't have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show unless it's YOUR religion.


As he had no problem with mocking other religions on the show, & only felt it showed that: "The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins"

when it satirized & mocked HIS religion then yeah, he's a hypocrite.

So to recap ( maybe this will help you realize what I'd actually said):

1)mocking/satirizing religion is free speech

2) saying"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins" is free speech

3) mocking & satirizing several different religions but then saying "There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins" when it is YOUR religion being mocked or satirized is being hypocritical.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 142
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 8:36:16 PM

Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted as furious protesters interrupted his university lecture about the limits of free speech

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body, but Tuesday's incident was the first physical assault directed against him.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007


But don't let that sway you, just ask a follower & they'll tell you Islam is a religion of peace ( or sometimes they'll call it a religion of reason).
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 143
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 9:24:00 PM

But you didn't say "he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him"... You didn't even say he "can claim to be the victim"... You specifically said he's not supposed to make himself out to be the victim...



Actually, in the post were I'd mentioned him trying to portray himself as the victim I said:



But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :


And proceeeded to quote his statements.
....

Yes... yes... That is neither here nor there... The inclusion or ommission of the statements of Hayes' you quoted do nothing to change the context of what was said or the fundamental reality of this observation...

But you didn't say "he can't assume & expect everyone will believe him"... You didn't even say he "can claim to be the victim"... You specifically said he's not supposed to make himself out to be the victim...


But then he should have just left & not tried to come off as the victim & play the moral card by saying :


Again, by the standard of your own argument... The standard you have applied to others' arguments... This implies that "coming off as the victim" isn't free speech by saying he shouldn't do it (And to think, I never even said people shouldn't draw Mohammed, I just said the idea was juvenile and "schoolyard".)...

Nor does this...


Apparently those who mock religion are "merely" exercising their free speech, while those who protest such mocking are not "merely" exercising free speech but "suppressing free speech" and "being hypocrites"...



Actually, if you'd read what is written & not what you think is written you'd see that I said



Can't have it both ways Isaac; either you aren't a hypocrite & have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show OR you don't.

Or you ARE a hypocrite & don't have a problem with the way religion is treated on the show unless it's YOUR religion.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 144
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 11:01:19 PM
^^^^^^ and you are going to choose to interpret it however you choose.

And yet again we see no evidence for your post:


Why would we go out of our way to offend the other muslims just to offend "the offended" when we DID NOT do this after free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists


Despite your constant reminder that you have a post in Msg 88 that gives your evidence for that statement ( free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists ) the site you list gives no evidence to support your claim, merely a list of incidents ( no free spech suppressing mentioned) involving the JDL.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 3:57:14 AM
RE Msg: 183 by pirateheaven:

The UK newspaper Private Eye is chock-full of satire. It gets sued all the time, and loses very, very often. There is no reason why anyone else should be treated differently.
The laws in the UK concerning Free Speech are quite different than the U.S. first Amendment.

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. For example, the privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[15] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[15]

The specific elements of the Tort of false light vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:
1) A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2) made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3) which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4) that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).[15]

Thus in general, the doctrine of false light holds:

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in a reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed."[16]

For this wrong, money damages may be recovered from the first person by the other.

At first glance, this may appear to be similar to defamation (libel and slander), but the basis for the harm is different, and the remedy is different in two respects. First, unlike libel and slander, no showing of actual harm or damage to the plaintiff is usually required in false light cases, and the court will determine the amount of damages. Second, being a violation of a Constitutional right of privacy, there may be no applicable statute of limitations in some jurisdictions specifying a time limit within which period a claim must be filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#False_light

Yes, that's right. This is the law of the United States. Of course, some states say that the same crime has been committed, but it must be pursued in the courts under a different name, that of defamation. But, whether it is called defamation, or false light, when you publish something deliberately to make someone else look a way that the full picture does not, and that would be highly offensive, then it is illegal.

This group don't have the right to kill the creators of South Park over a cartoon of Mohammed. But, they do have the right to mount a class action suit on behalf of every person who would be considered negatively by such a cartoon. Considering that Mohammed is the founder of Islam, and if Mohammed is seen as stupid or selfish or something like that, then people would likely think that anyone who did what he said was a fool for doing so, then it would be defamation or false light against every Muslim in the world, about 1.57. billion people. Even if they only had to pay out $100 for the harm caused to each of those people, that constitutes $157 billion. That would bankrupt Comedy Central. That would, in my opinion, be the legal and fair way to go about it. However, then there would be no South Park and no Comedy Central. Far more vicious. But, that's the law for you
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 146
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 8:17:56 AM
I think that several of the posters here are missing the whole point of the debate... which boils down to what the proper course of action is when one has been offended.

Do we look to persuade the person or group that has offended us - saying to them "I believe that you were wrong is saying what you did, and here's why..."

Or do we attempt to silence them, using threats of violence (veiled or overt) to ensure their silence.

The whole 'Draw Mohammed Day' is, essentially, a show of solidarity. It is intended to show that we, as a group, will not be intimidated into silence by people who seem to think that THEIR beliefs are the only ones that matter. While I will not be participating, I can understand and support those who choose to do so.

And to those who would argue that the concept of Free Speech doesn't include speech that offends... I would submit that this is the very ESSENCE of Free Speech - that everyone is allowed to speak their minds, no matter how repulsive we take it to be. I believe it was Voltaire who said - "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The way to deal with speech that offends you is to start a dialogue, so that both parties can learn a little bit about the other. You DO NOT use violence, or the threat of violence, in an attempt to intimidate your opponent into silence. It does nothing but weaken your position, while strengthening theirs. If suppression is your only argument, then it's time to question the validity of your stance.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 147
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:19:06 PM

The way to deal with speech that offends you is to start a dialogue, so that both parties can learn a little bit about the other. You DO NOT use violence, or the threat of violence, in an attempt to intimidate your opponent into silence. It does nothing but weaken your position, while strengthening theirs.

And, if you substitute "violence, or the threat of violence, in an attempt to intimidate your opponent into silence." with "deliberately mocking and offending, in an attempt to intimidate your opponent into silence." ... The same argument would apply to "Draw Mohammed Day"... Perhaps even more so when it is done to be deliberately incendiary, to deliberately mock in a way that will offend not just the very small minority who have threatened, but also the majority who have done none of that, and do so under a pretext of "standing up" to the very small minority...
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 148
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:28:22 PM
Except that depictions of Mohammed (or Jesus, or Buddha) are NOT attempts to silence anyone, so your argument is unfounded.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 149
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:34:30 PM
...so how many Draw Jesus Days or Draw Buddha Days have we had? I hate when people play dumb in a debate... Having a Draw Mohammed Day is designed not to silence at all but to stir the pot further, nothing more. And then people wonder why extremists become even more extreme. Then comes the outcry when they wonder why there are more violent repurcussions and plead innocence in playing any part in it. Guess what happens when you poke at a hornets nest in an attempt to dislodge it? Yup, the likelihood of being attacked back is great. That's certainly not the way to do away with the nest - there are other methods that are better suited.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 150
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:46:22 PM
Except that depictions of Mohammed (or Jesus, or Buddha) are NOT attempts to silence anyone

In a very generic way, perhaps not... However, this is not about the "generic", it is about the "specific"...

so your argument is unfounded.

But in the case of "Draw Mohammed Day", 'silencing' those who protest out of offense is EXACTLY what it is about... It absolutely IS intended to 'silence' them... The whole point of "standing up" in "defense" against such protestation is to put a stop to it, to 'silence' it... In this case by "stirring the pot" in overwhelming volume... This is exactly the point made by the supporters of "Draw Mohammed Day" and the original artist...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" set for May 20th