Poll: Do you support Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?

[Infohawk]

This, exactly, is what I think as well. Same with bible burning. I wouldn't do it, but go ahead, OP, if you want.
.

You and Woolfe have both suggested I want to do things like burn Bibles. I never said that anywhere. In fact I said I haven't even partaken in everyone draw mohammed day.

 

[bfdd]

Here's a hot tip for you. If someone thinks a picture of a historical figure is "haram," that person is unreasonable and deserves to be mocked.

I'd like to go one more up and say so the fuck what? Who cares if it's sacred to them, it is not sacred to me so it has no fucking meaning whatsoever outside of just being a picture of some dude. Should they respect my view that it's just some dude and no big deal to me if I draw him wearing womans underwear?

 

[Double Trouble]

Personally I don't have any particular desire the mock someone's religion or do something offensive for no particular reason, but the fact that the muslim world is so hyper sensitive to anything that might offend them but yet doesn't give a rats ass about what might be offensive to others makes me think a draw muhammad day is a good thing.

Let them get mad and bent out of shape, it just further exposes them for the nutjobs that they are if they get all ticked off about someone else in some other country using their freedom of expression. If they don't like it, screwem.

 

[Moonbeam]

Personally I don't have any particular desire the mock someone's religion or do something offensive for no particular reason, but the fact that the muslim world is so hyper sensitive to anything that might offend them but yet doesn't give a rats ass about what might be offensive to others makes me think a draw muhammad day is a good thing.

Let them get mad and bent out of shape, it just further exposes them for the nutjobs that they are if they get all ticked off about someone else in some other country using their freedom of expression. If they don't like it, screwem.

Exactly, and include conservatives in there; they are self-righteous assholes too.

 

[Cerb]

So, bfdd, since you know how ridiculous the reason for the rule is, what is the reason? You do know what you're calling ridiculous right?

I mean, people peeing and crapping on the US flag wouldn't upset you at all, right, because that's just uptight to have any offense about right?

I was going to post something of my own composition, but it pretty much would have amounted to saying yes to the above.

If someone is attempting to use a symbol in a way that profanes it, I am going to assume that they have a point, and are trying to either express that through their action, or get attention for it through them.

People who worship idols will be offended (I find the amount and degree of flag worship disgusting, BTW). The purpose of not depicting certain entities, for Muslims, AFAIK, is to not tempt idol worship (FI, the Church's art is commonly seen as a lawyer's way around that commandment), and also to think about ways that one may express excessive (and potentially self-destructive) pride that is beyond normal awareness.

Non-Muslims doing something that Muslims are not supposed to do simply should not cause any alarm among them. If it does, and they are willing to threaten violence over it, yet want anything offensive to others they may say or do be accepted, why not be a dick about it? We put up with and offend religions all the time (how often will a month go by without a major newspaper printing a political cartoon that disrespects Christian and/or Jewish historical and/or mythical figures, including perverting the context that makes them important?). At the end of the day, we seem to all get along, except in the case of radical Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. Both try to make the rest of the world fit their standards, rather than try to find any middle ground with the rest of the world, and both are large enough to worry about (also neocons and far-left non-thinking Democrats, but that could be its forum, much less its own thread).

A cartoon should not have the capacity to incite violence. That it does exposes a huge cultural flaw in those that threaten, or take part in, said violence.

If they won't deal with that flaw themselves, then non-radicals need to come out, in large numbers, separating themselves from it, the way moderate and liberal Christians are openly not with the Fundies. That is not happening often enough, in large enough groups, to appease the masses. Preferably in bear costumes 😉.

I support it, because it exposes double standards, even though I don't support many of the people doing it out of hate. If only I had a simple world, with no gray shades...

 

[Rainsford]

A) "You shouldn't intentionally insult other people's religions." This one I find the most insulting. The idea that we have to tip-toe around people's absurd superstitions is outrageous.

Why is that argument at all "insulting"? We all try to not go out of our way to offend people, whether it's by modifying "normal" actions or refraining from intentionally trying to piss people off...it's a normal part of living in a civilized culture.

 

[Infohawk]

Why is that argument at all "insulting"? We all try to not go out of our way to offend people, whether it's by modifying "normal" actions or refraining from intentionally trying to piss people off...it's a normal part of living in a civilized culture.

I ... said ... why ... in ... the ... following ... sentence. I am not going to act like idiotic supernatural superstitions are legitimate. Sorry. Not going to happen.

 

[Rainsford]

I ... said ... why ... in ... the ... following ... sentence. I am not going to act like idiotic supernatural superstitions are legitimate. Sorry. Not going to happen.

No, you actually didn't really explain anything. You took an almost universal aspect of human culture and acted like it was being uniquely applied in this particular situation. Are you objecting to the general idea that people should try to not go out of their way to offend their fellow citizens, or just when it's Muslims who are being offended?

Let's be clear, we're not talking about some normal behavior that happens to offend people, we're talking about specifically doing something you wouldn't otherwise do, for the express purpose of pissing people off. That's going well beyond not being forced to act like you believe the same things other people believe.

In other words, I don't have to hold sacred what you hold sacred to realize that maybe intentionally shitting on your beliefs is a nasty thing to do.

 

[Infohawk]

No, you actually didn't really explain anything. You took an almost universal aspect of human culture and acted like it was being uniquely applied in this particular situation. Are you objecting to the general idea that people should try to not go out of their way to offend their fellow citizens, or just when it's Muslims who are being offended?

Let's be clear, we're not talking about some normal behavior that happens to offend people, we're talking about specifically doing something you wouldn't otherwise do, for the express purpose of pissing people off. That's going well beyond not being forced to act like you believe the same things other people believe.

In other words, I don't have to hold sacred what you hold sacred to realize that maybe intentionally shitting on your beliefs is a nasty thing to do.

I am objecting to the idea that superstitious people are offended when people mock their beliefs. Their religious beliefs are by definition not based on reason and are not worthy of one ounce of respect.

Satire isn't normal behavior? Most of the time it is INTENDED to be critical and insulting. The best satire is often the most biting satire.

You make the assumption people are doing things for the only reason to piss people off. One could easily characterize draw Mohammed as an expression and act of freedom, especially when you look at the real-life context of the event.

 

[Moonbeam]

Infohawk: I am objecting to the idea that superstitious people are offended when people mock their beliefs. Their religious beliefs are by definition not based on reason and are not worthy of one ounce of respect.

M: Surely you see what a moron you are, no? This is just your stupid opinion, no better than any opinion based on superstition and probably worse, because it's nothing but imbecilic bigotry. The brain dead should never assume they know anything about respect. You are just a primitive asshole and cultural dunce.

I: Satire isn't normal behavior? Most of the time it is INTENDED to be critical and insulting. The best satire is often the most biting satire.

M: Why? Because you deserve the most vicious form of satire known to man because you're a pig doesn't mean you should be subjected to it, does it?

I: You make the assumption people are doing things for the only reason to piss people off. One could easily characterize draw Mohammed as an expression and act of freedom, especially when you look at the real-life context of the event.

M: Right, the freedom to be a total moron, which you have easily proved you are, without lifting a finger to draw.

 

[coreyb]

hell yes I support it. I think its gotten crazy how much we bow to this radical muslims. South Park has made fun of Jesus for years but when they decide to just put Islam's precious prophet in the show it's the end of the world.

 

[coreyb]

It's insane to think that in the year 2010, we still believe in this fairy tale characters from thousands of years ago and base our lives around their books. totally crazy

 

[Craig234]

Why should a SINGLE religion be placed on a pedestal above all others, beyond reproach, beyond insult? If it is then the others will use it as a guide to gain this esteemed status. If you want to encourage violence then bow before it and it will flourish unchallenged.

Insult is a peaceful challenge. So Muhammad is drawn and books are burned.

A SINGLE religion isn't.

This religion has its peculiar quirks. I don't follow their rules; if they're for wearing certain clothes, eating certain foods, I don't need to do those things. If I want to do them and it offends them, too bad, they go too far in wanting to restrict others if that's a problem (but note our laws against eating cats, dogs, or even horses to impose 'our' values on others). Laws I support, which I think is defensible - where I see a bit of hypocrisy on my own part is in how this is inconsistent with allowing the use of pigs for food, but at the end of the day this is about secular - right or wrong, but secular - views of animals. Even perhaps irrational - but secular.

This isn't about putting a religion "above reproach, above insult." Should your wife be "above insult" by anyone else? No, people have the right to insult. But if someone on the street walked up and was very insulting for no reason but the sake of trying to hurt her with insults, would you stand there and perhaps join in saying you were exercising your right, and approve their behavior of exercising theirs? Of course not, you would react with anger and criticize the person for their rudeness to you and your wife - and the person would be wrong to do that.

If someone puts up a sign in their yard, saying '(name of neighbor teen girl) craves having the big black penis of (name of black neighbor) inside her, learned it from her mother - and father who each want the same thing', perhaps that's their legal right - but is it something that should be done?

If a veteran who lost his legs in the war is in the neighborhood, someone might have the right to put up a sign saying 'too bad the explosion didn't kill them, now he steals our tax dollars to pay for his 'rehabilitation' just so he could enjoy going over to kill people - hopefully he at least can't reproduce now', but is doing so just to try to hurt the person or to protest the war a good idea?

Now, if you want to answer "but I'm doing that to to oppose the radicals who threaten violence if it's done", that's not a good reason, because you are showing major disrespected to the large majority who are NOT saying that, too, and they don't deserve that. You deal with the group who threaten violence directly - attack them for their position advocating violence, but don't do wrong to others.

Face it, the reason you want to say 'it's not wrong', is because you are some combination of ignorant and rude to other people.

Marching around a neighborhood of Jewish famlies with a sign with a graphic picture of a Nazi oven with victims burned, and a slogan of 'alternate energy source - finally a use for the Jews', to protest the settlements in Palastenian territory, that's your right - and your cause is even just, just as opposing violence for drawing Mohammend is the right position - but you are doing wrong 'for your point'.

I've not put Islam 'on a pedastal' compared to other religions, I haven't said it's 'above reproach or criticism' - those are your straw men; I've posted repeatedly criticizing things from their immoral anti-gay policies and views common to many Muslims, to many Muslims' acceptance of religous states that deny others freedoms. That's criticism. And yet I also oppose violating their view on the practice of drawing Mohammed.

In fact, I support the opposing of the Muslims who try to push their view to the point they'd commit violence or, if they could, make it illegal - I just look for a way to protest that doesn't show insensitivity to the many more Muslims who do not do those things. In fact, if some publication wants to oppose that group by having a cartoon, I'm ok with that.

Why? Because it's 'defending a right by exercising it' against the real offense of those who want to use violence against free speech, and it's doing so in a way that isn't trying to insult other Muslims who can avoid it by avoiding that publication, and as I understand it doesn't violate the spirit behing the Muslim reason for opposing images. That does make it a more targetted act against the violence.

But face it, the choice to have a 'day' like this has another agenda for some, as well.

Such a day isn't just a 'principled free speech protest against violence', it's also the chance for people to simply show bigoted hate to Muslims and will draw that audience, too.

The same type of people who started a fire at Mosque construction, the same type who cheered the 'burn a Quran day' simply to express their hate.

If we're going to oppose extremists like those who advocate violence for making a drawing, then oppose the extremists who would make the drawing just to express hate, too.

Save234

 

[nobodyknows]

Of course. If the lunatics didn't react how they do, nobody would care.

They can't help themselves. Their religion is so intertwined into their culture that it is basically OK in their society to vent the way way they do against the "evil empire'. They hate us and use their religion to justify it. That is why there are so many radical terrorists and why their leaders can't seem to control their own countrys.

Can anyone imagine the peole in this country allowing terroist training camps to teach peopleto terrorize other cities/countries?

I make it a habit to offend you assholes on a regular basis because so many of you are attached to the notion that what you think is true. You are on the same mental level as the pygmies that think Mohamed shouldn't be drawn. But none of you has ever become less of an asshole because of me, have you?

So you think it's OK to be an asshole whern the situation warrants it? Then you must be in favor of a "draw Mohammed Day"? Drawing is just another form of expression, the same as speech. I personally don't think it's a good idea and wouldn't participate for the very same reasons that I don't think building a Mosque in the shadow of the WTC is a good idea.

 

[Bateluer]

I fully suspect the rights of anyone to insult any religion they choose. If I'm not a follower of Islam, that's my concern. If I'm not a follower of Christianity, that's my concern. My beliefs do not effect your beliefs. If I draw your prophet, and you belief I will be punished in the after life, that's my concern, not yours.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I am objecting to the idea that superstitious people are offended when people mock their beliefs. Their religious beliefs are by definition not based on reason and are not worthy of one ounce of respect.

Satire isn't normal behavior? Most of the time it is INTENDED to be critical and insulting. The best satire is often the most biting satire.

You make the assumption people are doing things for the only reason to piss people off. One could easily characterize draw Mohammed as an expression and act of freedom, especially when you look at the real-life context of the event.

How about all you guys put on your Mo T-shirts and post your pics with your names and addresses.
Ya, didn't think so.
Would you even just put on a T-shirt making fun of Jesus and hang out around your local Baptist Church?
Nope.

 

[nonlnear]

wrong thread

 

[Jaskalas]

Since when have Democrats not made it their very existence to crap all over religious folks? Unless you're somehow pretending otherwise Craig, it's a bit late to feign piety.

Now suddenly it's taboo to even insult them?

 

[DivideBYZero]

More Islamic hate propaganda. *yawn*

 

[Orignal Earl]

Since when have Democrats not made it their very existence to crap all over religious folks? Unless you're somehow pretending otherwise Craig, it's a bit late to feign piety.

Now suddenly it's taboo to even insult them?

How have Democrats ever achieved power in the US if this were true?
Odds are very high, this is another myth you have formulated in your head.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I am objecting to the idea that superstitious people are offended when people mock their beliefs. Their religious beliefs are by definition not based on reason and are not worthy of one ounce of respect.

Satire isn't normal behavior? Most of the time it is INTENDED to be critical and insulting. The best satire is often the most biting satire.

You make the assumption people are doing things for the only reason to piss people off. One could easily characterize draw Mohammed as an expression and act of freedom, especially when you look at the real-life context of the event.

I love how you dress up your religious hatred into seemingly innocent tales, but let's play, Break Down That Post!™

I am objecting to the idea that superstitious people are offended when people mock their beliefs. Their religious beliefs are by definition not based on reason and are not worthy of one ounce of respect.

That is simply your view upon their beliefs. This is no justification for any action. For example, I may hate green cars. I may consider that all owners of green cars should be called a douchebag. However, it is not sensible to think that this is what everybody thinks or wants to happen. If I were to call green car owners douchebags many people may consider this unresonable, especially if they own green cars.

Satire isn't normal behavior? Most of the time it is INTENDED to be critical and insulting. The best satire is often the most biting satire.

Satire, by definition, is insulting, yes. So here you admit all you want to do is insult, ridicule and deride a specific group. That's just like the KKK. Is that how your like to associate yourself?

You make the assumption people are doing things for the only reason to piss people off. One could easily characterize draw Mohammed as an expression and act of freedom, especially when you look at the real-life context of the event.

Ahh, the finest of arguments, the single malt of excuses. Freedom allows you to do anything. You have the freedom to shout, the freedom to shoot people in the face, the freedom to burn your own house down. You do not have the freedom from responsibility, however. Is it responsible to drive an ever bigger wedge between yourself and another culture? Are you not the same people that complain that "they" keep themselves to themselve and will not fully integrate into society? If I were pilloried constantly I would also be wary of integrating fully, for fear of further actions against me.

For further information about the importance of responsibility associated with freedom, I suggest you watch this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Freedom


Edit: I expect you drive a green car.

 

[Craig234]

Since when have Democrats not made it their very existence to crap all over religious folks? Unless you're somehow pretending otherwise Craig, it's a bit late to feign piety.

Now suddenly it's taboo to even insult them?

Your problem here is that you think telling 'religious folks' they are not allowed to brand a cross into the forehead of every person in America is 'crapping on them'.

It's easy to pander to any majority by saying that those who demand equality for minorities are 'crapping' on the majority telling them they can't have all the privileges they want.

It's wrong to intentionally offend any religious group for no reason but to express hate or 'make a point' about a small number of them by offending the majority.

Hindus find cows to be something they have one opinion of - they oppose violence to cows, if I understand that correctly.

You and I disagree insofar as we like to eat our beef. That's not license to have 'cow slaughter in front of hindu churches day', even if some hindus threatened violence.

That's the issue here, the expression of hate and animosity involved that's wrong.

I like Monty Python a lot, but found some of Life of Brian in bad taste - yet I support fully their making a hilarious satire. And I'd support a counterpart for Muslims, in the same spirit.

There's a line between satire, and hate. If the same move about Hindus actually had a cow slaughter instead of joking about one, that could cross that line. One about Muslims actually creating images of Mohammed - it'd have to be looked at whether it was 'humor' or 'hate'. One in which people actually urinated on crosses on the ground, pushed the law by displaying explicit pornography to groups of nuns, could pass 'satire' to 'hate', especially if it were a non-Christian group in conflict with Christians who seemed to hate them.

You are trying to use rhetoric to invent a point about 'taboo to even insult them', when the point is pretty universal about intentionally offending people for no good reason.

This isn't 'exposing' something with satire, it's simply violating them for the sake of causing distress - and glee among those who like to cause them distress.

 

[Craig234]

I fully suspect the rights of anyone to insult any religion they choose. If I'm not a follower of Islam, that's my concern. If I'm not a follower of Christianity, that's my concern. My beliefs do not effect your beliefs. If I draw your prophet, and you belief I will be punished in the after life, that's my concern, not yours.

You still don't get the difference between 'right to offend' versus whether it's right to offend. I can tell a stranger on the street she is terribly ugly as my 'right'. That doesn't mean I should.

 

[Craig234]

Can anyone imagine the peole in this country allowing terroist training camps to teach peopleto terrorize other cities/countries?

Why, yes.

http://www.soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec

 

[DivideBYZero]

This isn't 'exposing' something with satire, it's simply violating them for the sake of causing distress - and glee among those who like to cause them distress.

This.