This is true, but if we start limiting freedom of speech for fear of violence we're basically pussies. Conforming to explicit terrorist demands is one thing, but this isn't even a demand - it's just a general mindset. We can't afford to be bullied by implications and our situation. That said, I guess a 'draw Mohammed' day is kinda provocative. It has the tone of something intended to 'stick it to them', or prove a point, but it won't - as you said, Kayin, they don't think of it in that way. They'll just see it as a disgusting insult, and it will probably lead to more violence. My conclusion so far: it's not a good idea, but under no circumstances should it be barred from happening either, because that'd be a crappy violation of principles.
Unlike the violent response of many 'Christians' 'Jews' etc etc etc when 'offended'? These type of forum topics really bring out the generalisations and willingness of people to label whole groups as having this or that view. Everyone is an individual at the end of the day. /me goes to listen to my copy of "Not One of Us" by Peter Gabriel....
No. I agree about barring it. I, however, have enough sense to abstain from doing so. There is no reason for me to go around kicking sleeping dogs-especially ones that are known to bite. Before you say it, that's an analogy, Muslims aren't dogs-they're humans, and as such deserve a base of respect, even if you don't agree with their actions. Maybe we'd get our points across if they (our points) weren't so, shall we say, assholish at times. I get the message. As I've pointed out, though, they don't. Telling jokes that are funny to only one side only ends in tears. If a person skewers Christ, I know 1. Christ had it happen all through His life, and 2. I am not given charge by my faith to retaliate in kind. If Christ bore it, so shall I. Furthermore, I would do well to learn to do as He did, and use their jabs against them. Not everybody shares that viewpoint. Personally, I will defend your right to defame my religion, if for no other reason than to show you that there are some of us with rational minds on the side of faith. Draw Mohammed Day is a poor idea, but not because of freedom of speech. That's a right I wholeheartedly pursue. But with that right comes a responsibility, and that includes personally writing a check our corporate ass cannot cash. Just because I can does not mean I should, and a true sign of the moral high ground is the ability to both discern and do. Besides, an attempt to point out ridiculousness only functions if the intended subject is capable of recognizing so. I can see the flaws in many people's applications of Christianity-I understand a lot of the jibes. Sadly, I don't think the intended targets of this have progressed that far.
No, if we engage in Mohammed drawings we go by their rules: we attack their religious beliefs based on our political beliefs, just as they are attacking our political beliefs based on their religious beliefs. What we need to do is demonstrate the principle that really matters: you can believe what you want and live how you want, but you cannot behave like an asshole towards others who choose not to. Challenge the behaviour, not the religion. Actually, all religions follow this pattern. They start peacefully because they are about people trying to live in harmony with the universe: it is personal. Then it becomes about living in an ordered society: religion becomes social. Then it gets hijacked by leaders: a hierarchy appears with high-priests at the top and followers at the bottom, and religion is used by kings to justify conquest and war: religion becomes political. And violent. Christianity is an interesting example. The Old Testament is full of Jews being the Chosen People and conquests of heathen territory (and their enslavement) sanctioned by God. The Jewish church had a ponderous hierarchy that incidentally is not too friendly to women. Then Jesus Christ comes along with an egalitarian faith based on personal responsibility, peace and harmony with one's neighbour. Before you know it, over the next few centuries a hierarchical misogynist church structure springs up and by mediaeval times we have Crusades and inquisitions. Islam? Same story: Mohammed starts out as a peaceful prophet who did his own household chores and helped with all the housework and cooking. He is also said to have had accustomed his wives to dialogue; he listened to their advice, and the wives debated and even argued with him. However politics took over as he attempted to unite the bickering Meccan tribes, in which he succeeded, but it took the conquest of Mecca to do so. After that, of course, there were many more wars and conquests in the region, and clashes with Christian conquerors. Islam, like Christianity, was a useful political tool to unite people behind the conquerors. They don't have to. With Draw Mo day we are playing by theirs. Exactly.
while that is true, it is also true that after the first Muhammed drawings Denmark (from where the entire trouble began) and the rest of the western world was told not to draw Muhammed ever. If we do this then we are following an order, and thereby censoring ourself, effectively following their rules. in the end kinda a lose - lose situation. But again you CAN behave like an asshole towards others, I'm entitled to say that (as an example) you are ugly, dumb and smelly, this would make me an idiot and others hopefully judge me based on that, and act accordingly. But what I can't say is that I am going to kill you. When you have freedom of speech you can insult people if you want, but you can NOT make threats. Freedom of speech entitles you to your opinion whatever that may be, and to express it through whatever media you please (including pictures), but it does not give you the right to make threats.
If I tell you not to jump off a cliff, would you feel compelled to do so just to prove that you are a free agent? No? Aren't you then just a slave to my commands? Seriously, psychological reactance is a stupid-ass reason for any behaviour. Moreover, it is still playing by their rules. What we need to do is not play the game. The Muslim faith is not the problem. It never was. The behaviour of some crazy-ass fundamentalists is --and I'm including those on our side in this. Challenge the behaviour, not the religion. That's fine. So why are we not challenging terrorists making threats? Why are we challenging their religious beliefs --which is just their opinion, after all? They are entitled to their opinion, surely? It is their behaviour --making threats-- that is at issue. Challenge the behaviour, not the religion.
the simple answer to jumping off a cliff is yes I would feel like doing it just because you told me not to. However I do not find it a fitting example. if I told you to never eat meat because it was against what I believed in, would you do it? This is what they want us to do, stop doing something because it is against their believes. While not playing the game does sound attractive, I do believe that we are playing the game regardless of what we do, if we like it or not. It is true that the main problem is fundamentalists on both sides, and I would never support any violent action based on religious believes. Christian people may be as stubborn and short sighted as any other. I personally lived a year with a Mormon family so I know that one from personal experience. I would like to know how exactly we should do that. While I would never do something simply to piss someone off, and would never participate in something like this draw Mohammed day. If I was making something where a drawing of Muhammed was relevant I wouldn't think twice in making a picture. Drawing Muhammed just to piss someone off as "properly" most of the people participating in this happening is doing. Is stupid and mean, but in the end they have the right to do so.
I'm starting to feel Nexxo, that the only reason your argument is making sense to me in a justifiable sense is that you're calling everyone assholes. We need to define our terms! (see what I did there? ) 1) Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists are being violent assholes when they get angry about mohammed pictures. They are attempting to use violence to punish other people for a percieved offence. 2) Westerners are being verbal (or pictorial) assholes when they draw mohammed pictures. They are attempting to either offend about a billion people, or to make a point to anyone who can take it, that freedom of speech is important to them. You've said the price of being the wise/good guy is being the wise/good guy. The second lot of people may not be the "good" guys (they're dead), but verbal assholes are certainly not on a par with violent assholes. In fact, when I retreat back into Kantian ethics like I always do when the world scares me a little, I'm inclined to believe that the second group is actually doing nothing at all wrong, while the first group is doing something terrible. Moreover, whether this is about offending the other side or not, everyone has a right to do this anyway. If muslims are offended now then they should be offended constantly because in the west we have the right to do this every single day (maybe that's an idea) and people throughout the west will be doing something that someone finds offensive at every moment of every day. Finally, to end on a slightly grumpier note: This be Serious Discussion mate. Really should have the somethingawful rules or something...but in short, I think it's safe to say that no-one really cares if they made you lol.
If I ate meat before, I would continue doing so. If I did not eat meat before, I would continue doing so. I would not start eating meat just to prove to you that I am a free agent. Doing what they say is letting them control your actions. But doing the opposite of what they say is also letting them control your actions. The idea is that you do not let your behaviour be affected by their commands in any way. Oh I dunno, make fun of terrorists? Challenge the behaviour, not the religion. Challenge the behaviour, not the religion. Is this such a hard concept to grasp FFS?!? You keep bringing this back to human rights, and right and wrong. My argument is not about that. I have already said that people are free to Draw Mo (it just makes them assholes IMO). I also think that on a sliding scale of evil, drawing Mo is probably a lot less objectionable than blowing people up. But that is not what I am on about. What I am on about is: Does Drawing Mo get the message across? KayinBlack has already eloquently explained why it does not. Psychologically speaking, we are dealing with correspondent inference theory: people's inference of the motivation behind an action is strongly influenced by the observed consequences of that action. So fundie terrorists blow people up thinking that we'll get the message that Allah is the one true God, Mohammed His prophet and that Islam is the only sensible, virtuous lifestyle. The message people get, however, is that terrorists are psychopathic nutters who like to kill people (which, incidentally, is a lot closer to the truth, but the terrorists don't want to admit that to themselves). Similarly, we may Draw Mo thinking that fundies will get the message that we value freedom of speech and we'll exercise it whether they try and stop us or not. The message people get, however, is that we like to ridicule Islam and taunt its followers (which, again, for some is probably closer to the truth than they'd like to admit). Not working, no?
Why isn't Nexxo running the world again? +rep'd Oh, yeah, he thinks the iPad has legitimate uses. Nobody's perfect, I guess...
Are you being disrespectful of my beliefs?!? Steve Jobs is the one true god and the iPad is his latest prophet!!! Well, at least he thinks so....
his ipad obsession makes me question his sanity xD I dunno why this has to be so deep really.. I know nexxo likes it because he studies people.. but it's not like people are trying to change some law or civil rights
Remember the last time someone drew some cartoons of Mo? It led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, police firing on crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths), setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and storming European buildings there. Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. It all got very deep, very quickly. And for what? To try and make a bad point, badly. "Freedom of speech is the right to offend, and we'll show those fundamentalist terrorists by offending the sensitivities of all Muslims." If that is how people demonstrate freedom of speech, they obviously don't even understand the principle that they are defending.
You know, freedom of speech is often completely different than what we envision it. Freedom of speech was given to us to ensure that we are able to do things like speak out against government practices we don't believe in, to allow us open practice of our beliefs (and by the way, most religions actively tell their followers to proselytize, so bitching about someone doing that is paramount to saying I want freedom of my speech, not yours. If you can't defend your beliefs enough to stand on your own two feet, you need to reexamine your beliefs. Other religions trying to convert me does not offend me at all-nor do you atheists who attempt to create valid logical discussions that I often participate in. I disagree, but in truth I find my faith renewed and challenged, and it only grows by being challenged. Would that more people did understand tolerance...) and to generally ensure that we are truly a democracy. There are other types of speech that are not protected-slander, libel, threats, overt racism-and to be honest Draw Mohammed Day belongs to the latter category. For the gentleman who stated that to argue we must first define our terms, there is a decent definition of free speech. You may call my faith baseless and me deluded if you wish. I am protected by law if you choose instead to attack me verbally, implying threats to personal harm or doing something like attacking my ethnicity. Draw Mohammed Day is nothing less than an outright insult (a non-protected by law one at that) to an entire demographic of people-one who don't even believe in free speech to begin with. You can kick the bull in the nuts if you want, but as for me, I'd rather just put up with what came out the rear. Only one of those courses of action is harmful, you know. There's an awful lot of derogatory statements made back and forth in these threads, but claiming free speech isn't an excuse-it's a cop-out, one made by people who wish to say something nasty and want to get away with it. If we can prove that it's not a good idea in this thread, I wonder how long it will be before someone goes ahead and does it again anyway, because it's those silly Christians this time, or some other rubbish. I can debate just fine without calling any names or saying "**** is what's wrong with *****" and subbing religious names (or irreligious, if you prefer) for the stars. Nexxo can debate just fine without calling names. I'd love to see a day when we could all choose to discourse without being offensive, where the arguments were constructed so as to inform and persuade without the undertone of accusation. I'd also love to see a day where there wasn't something like the demotivational Jesus drawings posted either, but I don't see either one as coming anytime soon. "Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial." Truer words are seldom spoken. The Bible may not be everyone's source of help and inspiration, but it's hard to deny that it gets some really good quotes sometimes. Anyway, (the Neurontin is fun, by the way, this is rambling) if you want free speech, practice it yourself-by letting other people have it without taking the piss. Prove to them that your idea is valid by the benefit it brings, not the offense it brings. If you want to have a positive impact, don't choose negative statements. Simple truths, folks-it's really not too hard to grasp. *No Pastafarians were harmed in the typing of this message.
no I agree with you totally.. on the drawing end of it, there's really no attack on your freedom of speech and as far as that is concerned- it's really more comparable to what the kkk does down south no sense in riling up the pot when you don't have to
Here's the reaction of a typical Muslim (I am in a position to say that, because I am one): Meh. I don't actually mind people drawing Mohammad. Hell, if there's actually any artistic merit in the work, I'm likely to judge it based on that. If it's actually funny, even at the expense of me, my faith, or whoever else, it might even get a smile or a chuckle. And if, as is the case with most of the "Draw Mo Day" art (and I use the term "art" very loosely here) it's the sort of puerile drivel one finds in the bathroom at a truck stop, then I probably just roll my eyes and move on, having mentally lowered the author a few notches in my estimation. Yes, I've seen the drawings. No, I am not impressed by the creators' rapier wit. If the purpose here really is (and I truly have my doubts that the motives of everyone involved are so pure) to assert to whoever (radical Muslims, all Muslims, network censors, governments, the world at large) that you have a right to free speech, well, in my humble opinion it fails miserably. It insults the faith of a huge group of people because of the actions of a statistical pittance. Just because you can do something, just because you have the inalienable right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. That someone or a collection of someones told you that you shouldn't or couldn't changes that not at all. It doesn't make going through with that action any more righteous or high-minded. It doesn't make that action a protest or movement. It's still just being an asshole.
That's odd. All the Muslims I know are freaking out about draw Mo day. Out of curiosity, which part of the world are you from? Because most of my Muslim friends are from Pakistan, India or the Middle East (UAE, Lebanon and Jordan).
I'm from the Middle East (though none of the three countries you named), currently living in the US-which, admittedly, gives me a certain amount of perspective some others may lack. But the fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims aren't actually just waiting for a reason to fly into an indignant rage. Much like most Christians don't picket the funerals of soldiers and miners with hateful messages. They just want to live their lives and be left alone to do so, for the most part. I'm curious, as well: is it the simple fact that Mohammad is being drawn that has your friends freaking out, or the nature of what's being drawn? Most of what I've seen thus far has no apparent purpose other than to be insulting and inflammatory. The dubious stated goal of taking a stand for free speech matters not at all when all that it looks like the participants in such are doing is going out of their way to be insulting to every member of a particular faith. This isn't going to "Show them!" All it does is reinforce every negative stereotype less educated and less privileged Muslims may have about Westerners-providing ammunition for those who take advantage of such. Any intended message about the right to free speech is utterly lost in its misguided and often (in what I've seen) downright hateful execution.
