[Phantom Hoover]

If you guys truly can't see why drawing Jesus next to Muhammed makes more sense than drawing Muhammed on his own, I give up.

At best it would be an empty, meaningless gesture.

[Mr. Vega]

"Look, you can say '**** you', but at least be respectful about it."

[karajorma]

Luis, once again you've failed to get my point. I'm not saying that it should be a Draw Jesus and Muhammed Day, I'm saying I might respect those people more than people who only drew Muhammed if they make it obvious that they're trying to make a stand of their freedom while going out of their way to try to not be offensive.

Of course trying to tell people that they must draw the two would be a bad idea. You'd simply create the world's largest repository of prophet on prophet hentai. But there is something be said for trying to express your rights without making the world a worse place.



Let me try to give another analogy, because this topic is obviously too charged for what I'm saying to get through.

I'm quite happy to say I'm a strong believer in feminism. But the problem is that in any discussion on feminism, you're going to spend a lot of time explaining that RadFem is full of idiots. We've seen that time and time again here on HLP.

Now if you really believe it's important to deal with gender issues because they hurt both sexes, lead to rape and spousal abuse and a whole host of other problems, you're probably not going to be amused by someone who posts saying "All men are rapists!"

Despite claiming to superficially support your cause, they're only making it harder to get your point across. And they're doing it not to actually improve things for the people actually suffering. They're doing it because their ideology is so important to them that actually finding out if it's the truth, and actually would make things better is less important.



Fundamentalism is a big problem. It needs a lot of work to be stamped out. Draw Muhammed isn't helping with that. It's a quick fix to make people feel better. It's a Facebook Like on a post about a cancer charity.

If everyone in the West drew Muhammed tomorrow, it wouldn't decrease fundamentalism on iota. In fact you'd probably see a net increase.

Worse than that though, the very idea is flawed at the basic level. You want to show ISIS and the Muslim world we're not scared of their threats? Don't respond to them at all. Cause in the end, the West (with the exception of Dragon) doesn't even really consider them a threat. France could nuke them back into the stone age if they wanted to. They haven't because no one thinks they're remotely dangerous enough to do that.

In the end, that's how to respond to terrorism, by refusing to let it affect you. Few things ever made me as proud to be an Englishman as my fellow countrymen's response to the 7/7 bombings. Not worries about terrorism but grumbling about how to get home when the underground was shut and questions about when it would reopen..

[Mr. Vega]

We might be less ardent in our desire to focus on Muhammad if that weren't the one thing that TV and print were censoring out of fear.

[swashmebuckle]

You'd simply create the world's largest repository of prophet on prophet hentai.

You English people might be good at weathering terror attacks, but here you have yet another idea that could change the world and make you millions, and you've buried it in a wall of text, treating it like a completely incidental non entity. Does this sound familiar?

Some kid in Algeria is gonna read this post and rocket to international superstardom on the back of prophetonprophet.com, and your struggle in the courts to regain control of your idea will be a footnote in his wikipedia article.

You know what? That's fine, Kara. But don't be bitter about it when he's picking up his Nobel Peace Prize and you're still stuck arguing about entitled feminist gamers on HLP.

I've done my part.

[Flipside]

I've seen very few arguments resolved, however, by someone repeatedly walking up to the person they disagreed with and deliberately performing acts they find insulting or hurtful.

The idea that it is a 'solution' is fundamentally flawed, if you'll pardon the pun, insulting Mohammed is no more a solution to the problem than breaking into a Newspaper and shooting people is, it's one of those cause and effect things again.

[karajorma]

We might be less ardent in our desire to focus on Muhammad if that weren't the one thing that TV and print were censoring out of fear.

And?

Why does that make it the issue you have to spend your time on? There are so many much worthier anti-fundamentalist things you could be doing with your time.

Again, I suspect the reason many people are behind the Draw Muhammed thing is because it requires little effort, it immediately makes people feel they've accomplished something (when really they haven't) and cause you can look down on everyone who doesn't join you as being a coward.

It's Get Kony all over again.

[Luis Dias]

No. This is the wrong point of view. You are still thinking in terms of not insulting "them", when, first, that's a completely ridiculous criteira to follow: you will always insult islamists no matter how hard you try not to. No matter how benign or fair or commited you are to treat them properly, you are insulting them. This is an old argument, the same that went about how 9/11 was actually a response to what happened in Palestine and Iraq's invasion. But they (Al Quaeda) have written extensively about this. What riled them up was how East Timor was freed from Indonesia's dictatorial grasp (that is why the Embassy where De Mello was was bombed, btw) and how the non halal American troops desecrated holy soil when they parked on Kuwait to free it.

You are still thinking you are dealing with sane people here. You are not. Islamists (not confuse with muslims) are irrational and insane. Now I can still hear you going "yeah that's why we shouldn't rile them up", but that's not the whole story. The main story is how we should NOT ever let the narrative come about on how we allow them to dictate to us what we are allowed or not to do. What is amazing here about the Mohammad shenanigan is that not only they are themselves forbidden to draw him, they somehow put in their freakin minds that nobody else is allowed to do so as well. This is not happening in a vacuum. There is a wide world movement to enact and strengthen blasphemy laws everywhere in the world (the huge lobbys to do this in the UN for instance) and so whether you like it or not, there is a war on free speech acting itself out in front of our very own eyes.

This is a war that must be confronted. And I think the most accessible way for everyone to do so is to either participate in these things or support those who do these satires, etc. In here lines are drawn, it becomes immediately clear where the enemies of free speech are when they start talking bull**** (like Bill Donohue), or so many politicians when they dared say that the real problem was the cartoons (none of that **** now, but I did saw too much of it in 2006).

Works of art like "The Life Of Brian" were also deemed to be immature, senseless riling up and extremely offensive at the time. But they freed minds. And so do cartoons. The number of young people who go to the internet, always thinking that such drawings are extremely forbidden only to find thousands of them, that will slowly start to erode their fanaticism over this issue. And yes, it might radicalize a few. But I think you are miscounting the much bigger silent majority of people who are watching this unfold and go "hey maybe...." in their minds. And it's those who will reform Islam. It's those who will revolutionize their own countries.

The mere existence of a depiction of such a SERIOUS figure in so many unflattering cartoons will be seen by billions of youngsters. And I believe this impact is assuredly positive in the long run.

Also, I do not think of anyone who doesn't participate as "cowards", that is absurd, especially if they don't believe it's useful like you do. I do try to instill this necessity, but I am 100% confident each one of us will do what they believe is right in the end.

[Flipside]

To ask a devout Muslim to not care about an insulting depiction of Muhammed is like asking a devout Christian not to care about an insulting depiction of Jesus though, that's kind of like asking them to stop being Muslim.

That's what I keep saying is wrong with this whole thing, people defend what they believe, that's what Freedom of Speech allows you to do, whether that is through pictures or words. Muslims are fully entitled to get angry about it, march about it, even demand the resignation of those who created it, that's no less than any other group with interests do when they find something that offends them. The idea they should 'just deal with it' is fundamentally flawed.

The problem is when people decide to express their anger by physically attacking people and things, and that's the problem that needs to be dealt with, but simply expecting people not to be offended at things that are designed to be offensive is wishing for the impossible.

[Luis Dias]

Insult is in the eyes of the beholder. Caring about cartoons is a choice.

Demanding others not draw X because of their *personal beliefs* is unacceptable. You understand?

This is not negotiable. Anger away if you please, by all means. But work that **** out for yourself. In a civilized world, being offended does not grant anyone special rights. People talk about "proportionate responses" and so on. Of course. We should be civilized. This is why I support the cartoons so much. This is why I was deeply against the Iraq War. Killing people is not the answer. You are all behaving as if there is blood involved in a pen. Look, the Islamists have told us what they fear the most: Ridicule. Of all the targets they could have chosen to destroy they went for cartoonists. They are TELLING US what is working against them.

And it shouldn't surprise anyone. Historically this is absolutely true: Ridicule cuts THROUGH the extreme ideologies like knife in butter. This is a PROVEN TACTIC of authoritarian ideological deconstruction. So. It works. They are telling us it works, they are telling us they fear it the most. DON'T STOP IT. DON'T RUIN IT. DIAL IT TO ****ING 11.

[Flipside]

It's not a question of 'demanding' anything, it's a question of using the intelligence we were born with and the ethical compass we develop in a productive manner, it shouldn't have to be demanded because people should be smart enough to figure this **** out for themselves.

And frankly, do you know what another PROVEN TACTIC of authoritarian ideological destruction is? Internally fueled Terrorism.

Like I said, Decadence of Speech, without the limits of common civility, inflammatory speech is pointless, because everyone is doing it in a huge, meaningless circle-jerk that just gets progressively worse with each iteration.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, worse. As in, "omg that black ink is deeply hurtful in that shape". It's ridiculous, and we should never think of it in any other way.

Islam, in order to reconcile itself with Western Civilization, must understand that its rule that says "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him" is wrong, period.

The struggle against Theocratic Authoritarianism is the very cornerstone of our Modern Civilization. The Enlightenment started in the heels of the Protestants and the Reformers, all the French Revolution ideals and eventual American Independence with all that secular Constitution were battles against theocratic divine rule.

Don't overestimate how secure these rights are. As many people say, the world is a very big place, and it's getting increasingly "multi-cultural", "multi-polar", etc. Pax Americana is slowly fading away as we see a lot of these developing countries getting more and more of the pie (as they should!). We have grown so numb about the certainty of our values that we don't even appreciate how lucky we are for having them and how possible it is that we will slowly lose them by the same rate that these more authocratic cultures are getting more and more important in the whole picture.

[Mr. Vega]

If only that damn provocateur Voltaire hadn't made religious mockery fashionable none of this would have happened! And then when Mark Twain came around none of us stood up against him!

[Flipside]

Let me put it this way, Christians who stand outside an abortion clinic carrying placards saying 'Abortion is Murder' are moderate Christians, they are displaying their opinion in accordance to their Rights and as long as they do not harass or assault anyone, they have every right to behave as they do, even though I do not agree with them.

Christians who break into abortion clinics and set light to them are Criminals who should be apprehended and punished under the law.

However, both groups would be angered by someone yelling at them that 'Jesus should have been aborted' or the like. Now, if someone wants to do that, they do have the right, but they also have to be honest with themselves that they are insulting moderates as well as extremists with what they are saying.

If it was truly a question of attacking the extremists, rather than the religion, the tool used would not be one that is utterly indiscriminate with regards to the attitude of the listener towards extremist views and actions. Attacking the core of a culture is no way to deal with the edges of it.

[Phantom Hoover]

Can I just say here that I think the Islamic prohibition of drawing Mohammed is unusually broad as far as the category of 'things religious people get pissed off at' goes, and so I think it's a good case study in how much we let the beliefs of the religious impinge on our freedom of expression in the name of etiquette. Because I mean, it's not like you have to deliberately go out of your way to offend people by doing it the way saying 'jesus was a whore' does; all you need to do is draw any kind of picture of this prominent historical figure. This goes much further than one's right or need to mock religion, it's about the right to depict the world in certain ways.

[zookeeper]

The whole discussion about the cartoons themselves is pretty absurd. It's like if you'd say how you don't like someone's hat which would result in them flying into a blind rage and gouging your eyes out. Sure you can discuss how it's not a good idea to tell people you don't like their hat because 1) it's not a very nice thing to do and 2) sooner or later someone will react violently, but the harm caused by the remark is like 0.00001% of the harm caused by the gouging, so the merits of the remark are practically irrelevant in context of the incident, no matter the direct causality between the two.

There's all sorts of levels of things which could provoke the other person into gouging your eyes out:

Your face isn't pleasing to them
You look at them the wrong way
You dislike their hat
You dislike their hat, rudely
You punch them in the arm
You punch them in the face
You attack them with an axe

If instead of commenting on their hat you punched them, then sure, that would be worth considering in the discussion; it'd still be disproportionate, but not so disproportionate that it wouldn't be relevant in some manner. But if you just comment on their hat (even if rudely!), then the gouging is so disproportionate that it's absurd to give any real focus to the hat comment, except to illustrate how disproportionate the reaction was to the provocation.

If you dislike their hat and they in turn merely call your mom fat, then that's pretty proportionate and we can discuss the merits of dissing people's hats all day. In this case, the reaction is so disproportionate to the provocation that the details of the provocation should be almost completely irrelevant.

[Bobboau]

To ask a devout Muslim to not care about an insulting depiction of Muhammed is like asking a devout Christian not to care about an insulting depiction of Jesus though, that's kind of like asking them to stop being Muslim.

and it's like asking a person who has liberal values to censor speech, and to ask a atheist to not oppose religion. they are not the only people with deeply held sincere beliefs and values.

Christians who stand outside an abortion clinic carrying placards saying 'Abortion is Murder' are moderate Christians

So I think we have identified a major disconnect on our models of reality that might explain a few things.

[Flipside]

If we are going to have a discussion on the depiction of Mohammed in any form then that's a pretty different discussion to the concept of drawing ones that are deliberately insulting though, that's a Shia/Sunni thing that has been going on for years, and it's pretty commonly known that there are depictions of the Prophet in several sacred Islamic locations.

It's just the concept that showering a culture with what is largely interpretable as an image of hatred and resentment for their entire culture is doing anything to allow moderates anywhere to actually fix the problem that irks me.

Yes, this reaction was wrong and criminal and should be treated as such, but I don't agree that pelting an entire culture with images designed to be offensive to them is a sensible way to achieve anything. People have the Right to draw those images without fear of repercussion, that's a given, but to actually try to hide behind an excuse of 'we're bringing about Peace by deliberately offending them' is kind of weird and doesn't ring true to me.

@Bobboau : They are 'Moderate' as in they are not doing anything that they are not allowed to do, that's why I differentiated, as I continued to say in the same post, I don't agree with them, and I find what they say slightly offensive, but they have the right to say it as long as they harm no-one, that's the point of Freedom of Speech.

[Scotty]

Christians who stand outside an abortion clinic carrying placards saying 'Abortion is Murder' are moderate Christians

So I think we have identified a major disconnect on our models of reality that might explain a few things.

On a scale from Moderate to Extreme where Extreme is killing people and burning buildings, picket protest is pretty ****ing Moderate. 

And also a legal expression of the right to peaceably assemble and free speech.  It's pretty much the ideal outlet for that sort of antipathy.

Even if you vehemently disagree with their viewpoint you can't really call that Extremism.  To do so devalues the concept of extremism, and reeks of painting everything you don't like with a broad brush.

Please note that carrying signs saying "Abortion is Murder", while certainly abrasive and disagreeable to some, is not even in the same league with the sort of **** the Westboro Baptist Church does.

[Mongoose]

However, both groups would be angered by someone yelling at them that 'Jesus should have been aborted' or the like. Now, if someone wants to do that, they do have the right, but they also have to be honest with themselves that they are insulting moderates as well as extremists with what they are saying.

But here's the thing: people already do exactly that to Christians all the goddamn time.  It's ubiquitous.  There are certain examples of it  (like that one asshole who took a picture of himself shoving a nail through the Eucharist and throwing it in the garbage for no reason whatsoever) which have offended me, and others (like a few of those Charlie Hebdo covers) which I chuckle at myself.  But even in the case of the assholes, I don't sit there thinking that it would be better if people chose not to be assholes, because hell, sometimes I'm an asshole myself.  No one has the right to not be offended, and the roles of the offender and offendee can flip-flop at a moment's notice, so to suggest that one side should withhold comments because of some potential future harm feels like nothing short of a chilling effect on speech.