Poll: Do you support Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?

[Infohawk]

Nice quote and all, but that's not the exact legal doctrine as applied under US Constitutional Law. It's applied against governmental regulations against free speech that are largely deemed to be overbroad or vague, not against what some private person may say.

Anyways, what do you propose to do exactly?

Remember the analogous part? It's not the exact same thing. Can you please wrap your head around that? And in any case you're still wrong. It also applies to civil actions which is why there are anti-SLAPP laws.

Anyways, what do you propose to do exactly?

Propose to do about what?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Wow, you've obviously never studied constitutional law and have no idea what I was even talking about.

Anyways, what do you propose to do about people fearing possible violent attacks in response to them wanting to exercise their constitutional rights to speak out against or offend Islam in some form? Or are you just talking about random crap?

 

[Infohawk]

Wow, you've obviously never studied constitutional law and have no idea what I was even talking about.

Anyways, what do you propose to do about people fearing possible violent attacks in response to them wanting to exercise their constitutional rights to speak out against or offend Islam in some form? Or are you just talking about random crap?

Honestly you have just lost all credibility. This is now the second time in a row you just end the discussion without admitting you're wrong but having no real arguments. First you refused to recognize the fact that you were misunderstanding the meaning of genocide. Now you're spouting off falsehoods about the concept of a chilling effect not applying to civil law. In each case when shown to be wrong you just ignore it with a quip. Sorry but there were more interesting posts in this thread. You are not worthy of any more responses and I don't want your hurt feelings to hijack the thread.

I've made it very clear I think Draw Mohammed Day is a good way to show violent Muslims that we will not self-censor. The fact you can't even figure that out is problematic.

 

[Schadenfroh]

No, but then again I do not go out of my way to intentionally piss people off.

Do I support the freedom of people to be able to draw Muhammad just to piss people off? Yes

 

[Craig234]

The question is not whether you support the constitutional right to draw Mohammed, the question is whether you think it's a good idea.

Although I haven't participated, I think it's a good idea. The arguments against seem to fall into two categories. 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. B) "You shouldn't make Muslims mad because they will be violent." As someone else recently posted, this is like blaming a wife for provoking an alcoholic husband into beating her. It is never legitimate to be violent in response to ideas or speech. What is more, is I think these kinds of threads need to be called out. It needs to be very clear to violent Muslims that their threats will only embolden our exercise of freedom.

And again, I was always against the Iraq war. We don't need to interfere with their business but they certainly shouldn't have any say in what goes on in the West. Sadly, the fact that people want to pander to Islam makes me wonder if Bush didn't have a point in wanting to take the fight to Islamic countries. If they're going to attack us for what we do in our own country, why not fight in Muslim land. (Of course I don't think this justifies the war (especially since Iraq was relatively secular) but still, it makes you wonder.)

No, there is no reason to do this but to disrespect people.

We should have the right to do it, and we should choose not to.

It has nothing to do with the threat of a violent response, which is wrong, but that's a separate issue that should be addressed directly with those threatening the violence.

This is the "should we be asses" question, and no, we should not. They have valid reasons for their preference, and it's wrong to disrespect them for no reason but to be asses.

 

[bfdd]

Rather indifferent on the subject. I think it's douchey to go out of your way to offend people just for fun, but I also like seeing uptight idiots get offended about the stupidest shit.

 

[Craig234]

Rather indifferent on the subject. I think it's douchey to go out of your way to offend people just for fun, but I also like seeing uptight idiots get offended about the stupidest shit.

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?

 

[woolfe9999]

No, there is no reason to do this but to disrespect people.

We should have the right to do it, and we should choose not to.

It has nothing to do with the threat of a violent response, which is wrong, but that's a separate issue that should be addressed directly with those threatening the violence.

This is the "should we be asses" question, and no, we should not. They have valid reasons for their preference, and it's wrong to disrespect them for no reason but to be asses.

I respect Infohawk's right to be a total asshole, and would fight to the death for his absolute right of extreme assholish behavior. In fact, the more of an asshole he is, the harder I would fight. Meaning I'll be fighting pretty damn hard. 🙂

- wolf

 

[nyker96]

Although I haven't participated, I think it's a good idea. The arguments against seem to fall into two categories. 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. B) "You shouldn't make Muslims mad because they will be violent." As someone else recently posted, this is like blaming a wife for provoking an alcoholic husband into beating her. It is never legitimate to be violent in response to ideas or speech. What is more, is I think these kinds of threads need to be called out. It needs to be very clear to violent Muslims that their threats will only embolden our exercise of freedom.

I don't know if it is a good idea to draw Mohammed/Jesus/Budda, well maybe Budda (he looks so affable like santa with a big stomach, just couldn't resist). but I know that if we ain't got two wars over there in middle east, I doubt people over there will pay much attention to us drawing Mohammed or not. They just sensitive right now I think, very sensitive with us, especially with the war going on. Well, one psychologist has it right I think, most Muslims is feeling insecure and violated in some way since their land is invaded at this point. so if you start drawing Mohammed, they'd be like "you violated our land now even our religion?" or something like that in their mind. That make them feeling inferior. This also explains why post WW2, Jewish policy tends to be very militant and retaliatory. They are, understandably, sensitive.

But on this note, I think some of the more violent reactions (probably due to pent up frustration) might be too excessive, indeed. All this probably underlines less about who we actually draw then the fact that, there's quite a bit of animosity toward US over there.

 

[Moonbeam]

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?

 

[zinfamous]

indifferent.

I think people should do whatever the hell they want when it comes to art and expression, so long as their actions don't directly harm anotehr (nailing someone on a cross and hanging them up in a gallery is not acceptable, for example...)

as for the draw mohammed day, the intent is to simply be a prick. You can say we are doing it to express our freedom, so as not to let the terrorists win, but the prophets image is haram to all muslims, not simply the batshit loony ones. It's been offensive long before pricks showed up to attempt such things simply to incite anger and rage.


I remain indifferent simply b/c freedom of expression has never been interpreted, in my book, to mean "freedom to be a giant dick."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like others I support the right of people to burn books or whatever as an expression of their rights. I do not have to agree with their reasoning but I have to ask what good comes of it? Does it edify or instruct? Does it spread good will? Does it inspire another to do what is known as a mitzva? No to any of these. It does nothing productive other than give a person the satisfaction that they have insulted another.

I see no reason for me to participate in something like this and don't see the constructive purpose in others doing so.

My answer is no.

 

[Jaskalas]

as for the draw mohammed day, the intent is to simply be a prick. You can say we are doing it to express our freedom, so as not to let the terrorists win, but the prophets image is haram to all muslims, not simply the batshit loony ones. It's been offensive long before pricks showed up to attempt such things simply to incite anger and rage.

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.

 

[irishScott]

Didn't participate, but yeah I support it. Islam starts making death threats over drawings of Muhommad, did they really think people were just going to take that and submit to their stupid medieval rantings? It wasn't spreading hate, it was sending a message to Islam that it needs to grow the fuck up or at least try (while we lol) to follow through on their childish death threats.

Now the burning of Korans I vehemently disagree with, as that's not a response to anything and is simply a radical Christian spreading his self-righteous hate around.

 

[woolfe9999]

Didn't participate, but yeah I support it. Islam starts making death threats over drawings of Muhommad, did they really think people were just going to take that and submit to their stupid medieval rantings? It wasn't spreading hate, it was sending a message to Islam that it needs to grow the fuck up or at least try (while we lol) to follow through on their childish death threats.

Now the burning of Korans I vehemently disagree with, as that's not a response to anything and is simply a radical Christian spreading his self-righteous hate around.

Why is "Islam" always doing this or that bad thing? Why is it when a Christian does something like bomb an abortion clinic it's a fringe kook who's doing it, but when a Muslim does a bad thing, it's "Islam" that's doing it? WTF man, a religion is not a conscious actor. Religions don't do anything.

Unless it's Islam, of course.

- wolf

 

[zinfamous]

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.

why do so many in the US believe that Christianity is the SINGLE religion to be placed so high on such a pedestal?

 

[irishScott]

Why is "Islam" always doing this or that bad thing? Why is it when a Christian does something like bomb an abortion clinic it's a fringe kook who's doing it, but when a Muslim does a bad thing, it's "Islam" that's doing it? WTF man, a religion is not a conscious actor. Religions don't do anything.

Unless it's Islam, of course.

- wolf

Last I checked radical Christians didn't have their own nations. Violent radicalism is much more widespread in Islam than any other major religion, at least from what I've heard.

I can google "Jesus fucking" and come up with all sorts of messed up depictions of Christ, yet you don't hear Christians tracking down the "artists" and threatening to kill their families.

 

[bfdd]

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 wouldn't be offended by that, so what now? Being offended by something and thinking something is in bad taste are very different things. I do not give a flying fuck if someone takes a crap on the American flag, but I could think it is in bad taste depending on how and why it was done.

 

[woolfe9999]

Last I checked radical Christians didn't have their own nations. Violent radicalism is much more widespread in Islam than any other major religion, at least from what I've heard.

I can google "Jesus fucking" and come up with all sorts of messed up depictions of Christ, yet you don't hear Christians tracking down the "artists" and threatening to kill their families.

And you don't hear any but a very tiny number of the billion Muslims in the world making death threats over South Park. Or any but a tiny percentage of Christians killing abortion doctors. Sorry, but no, "Islam" does not make threats. Certain particular Muslims do, and not many at that.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

I don't know if it is a good idea to draw Mohammed/Jesus/Budda, well maybe Budda (he looks so affable like santa with a big stomach, just couldn't resist). but I know that if we ain't got two wars over there in middle east, I doubt people over there will pay much attention to us drawing Mohammed or not. They just sensitive right now I think, very sensitive with us, especially with the war going on. Well, one psychologist has it right I think, most Muslims is feeling insecure and violated in some way since their land is invaded at this point. so if you start drawing Mohammed, they'd be like "you violated our land now even our religion?" or something like that in their mind. That make them feeling inferior. This also explains why post WW2, Jewish policy tends to be very militant and retaliatory. They are, understandably, sensitive.

But on this note, I think some of the more violent reactions (probably due to pent up frustration) might be too excessive, indeed. All this probably underlines less about who we actually draw then the fact that, there's quite a bit of animosity toward US over there.

Buddha is the most well described ancient religious figure around. Fat Buddha is a different Buddha from The Buddha. Pro-tip, there have been numerous Buddha and anyone can achieve enlightenment to reach Buddhahood. One doesn't even have to be a practicing Buddhist.

 

[irishScott]

And you don't hear any but a very tiny number of the billion Muslims in the world making death threats over South Park. Or any but a tiny percentage of Christians killing abortion doctors. Sorry, but no, "Islam" does not make threats. Certain particular Muslims do, and not many at that.

- wolf

Yes, and those "particular" Muslims were primarily what the day was directed at. That and pointing out that even getting pissed or grumbling over an image for any reason is juvenile. I'm sorry, but Islam is, among the major religions, pretty damn primitive.

I see people burning the American Flag, however much I love America I don't take it personally. I just say "yeah, shut up douchebags" and move on in a matter of seconds. Meanwhile "draw Muhammad day" gets worldwide press coverage on the "outrage of Muslims".

 

[Infohawk]

but the prophets image is haram to all muslims, not simply the batshit loony ones.

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.

 

[bfdd]

why do so many in the US believe that Christianity is the SINGLE religion to be placed so high on such a pedestal?

Define "many", because even though most of the USA identifies as Christian you'll find most will laugh at a joke about Jesus just as hard as they'd laugh at a joke about Big Mo.

 

[Fern]

The question is not whether you support the constitutional right to draw Mohammed, the question is whether you think it's a good idea.
-snip-

Nope.

First of all, I don't see a reason to offend others because they offended me. I think it's kind of childish. If their behavior was so bad, why engage it in yourself? You're just going down to their level....

I don't think it's going to be productive, that alone makes it a bad idea. In fact, I think it's counter-productive. I think it will just encourage more intolerence on the bad guys' part.

I can see protesting against those Muslims who would kill others for a Muhhamid cartoon etc, but if so target it at them specifically. This effort is not sufficiently focused, I see no reason to purposefully insult ALL Muslims. heck, the bulk of the Muslim world is non-Arab. Why drag them into this stupidity?

So, I don't see this as constructive in the least bit.

For the above reasons I don't see it as a good idea. Nor is this a question of 'rights', as usual it's more a question of judgement. Just because you have the right, is it a good idea to excercise it? And are you excercising that right in a wise way?

( I remember being impressed by something I saw in one of the Excorcist movies many years ago. Still think to it occasionally even now. IIRC, those victims of possession in Africa were targeted because they had special power. It was a good power, a calming power. E.g., when teh locust swarmed they could step into their midst and calm them down, stopping the swarm and resultant devastation. They absorbed, rather than elevated, 'bad energy'. So are you the kind that steps in reduces 'tensions' in a bad situation (a good thing) or elevates it (a bad thing)?

This whole thing just strikes me as elevating it.)

Fern

 

[Evadman]

No, but then again I do not go out of my way to intentionally piss people off.

Do I support the freedom of people to be able to draw Muhammad just to piss people off? Yes

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

none of you has ever become less of an asshole because of me.

This quote wins not only this thread, but the entire internet. Moonbeam, please turn off the lights when you leave.