The “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” mess is a wonderful example of how ethics train wrecks begin to engulf anyone who get near them. It also an example of an idea that is clever, funny, well-intentioned, and wrong.
First “South Park,” as is its custom, decided to offend as many people as possible (while also amusing as many other people as possible) by creating an episode that included the prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit. A Muslim group threatened violence against the creators of the show for its blasphemy, and the craven suits at Comedy Central unforgivably censored the episode, firmly establishing that its willingness to fight for First Amendment expression was limited to, well, fighting those who wouldn’t really fight. This established the new standard that it is fine to ridicule religions that respect democracy and abhor violence on Comedy Central, but religions that do not embrace democratic ideals and that use violence should always be treated kindly.
Reacting to this pathetic capitulation by the comedy channel, Seattle artist Molly Norris created a funny poster-like cartoon declaring May 20th to be “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” Then she sent it out to radio talk shows and web sites, and…Voila! A viral cartoon and a viral idea! Suddenly there was a Facebook page organizing “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” Then more sites.
Norris suddenly backtracked, and attempted to disclaim any connection to the event. “I am NOT involved in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!” she posted on her website. “I made a cartoon that went viral and I am not going with it. Many other folks have used my cartoon to start sites, etc. Please go to them as I am a private person who draws stuff.” The organizer of the Facebook page dedicated to the event followed this with his own form of retreat, declaring that the pictures of Muhammad should only be “good and charitable,” whatever that means, since the religion forbids any image at all.
Now bloggers who supported the idea are ridiculing its originators as cowards and hypocrites. They have a point—maybe. If Norris and others suddenly lost their nerve to do what they suggested Comedy Central should have had the courage to do—and that is certainly a plausible interpretation of their actions and words—then they deserve ridicule. It is just possible, however, that they changed their minds for a different reason. “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” is unethical.
All Muslims didn’t threaten “South Park,” a few Muslims did. Intentionally offending all Muslims by portraying the prophet Muhammad is gratuitously mean-spirited and disrespectful. The way to make the point that America insists on free expression is to embolden some of our more lily-livered institutions (the media, academia) to exhibit some fortitude and sense of principle when free expression is under attack. It is not to cause random, wide-spread discomfort to every Muslim in the world. The United States stands for diversity and respect for all religions. If a comic, or a satirist, or a critic chooses to do otherwise, that is legitimate, protected expression, even if it is offensive. Urging everyone to be offensive, however, violates ethical principles to support Constitutional ones.
Burning a flag is protected expression, but we don’t insult millions of patriots and veterans by “Flag Burning Day” to show those who would make the act illegal that they are wrong. Excising the word “nigger” from Huckleberry Finn is impermissible censorship, but declaring a “Write the Word ‘Nigger’ Day” would be unimaginable. I have explained why trying to ban the word “retard” from the language is an offense to free thought and expression, but I would recoil from a “Use ‘Retard’ Day,” which would be pointlessly cruel.
The logic behind “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” ultimately comes down to the same, old refrain, an ethical rationalization for unkind, uncivil, harmful or deceptive, though legally protected, communication. “It’s our First Amendment right to say/write/print/draw whatever we want.” Yes, it is. That still doesn’t mean that what you say/write/print/draw is fair, respectful, honest, beneficial, helpful, civil or kind. It can still be a terrible idea and a destructive act, it can still hurt people who don’t deserve to be hurt. We should resolve to fight for the right to communicate these things, but be ready to try to explain why some communications shouldn’t be made, not because of fear, not because of law, but because we care about their impact on other human beings.
Ethics Alarms 
Wonderful column–just one issue: I think you implied, but did not mean to include Islam among “religions that do not embrace democratic ideals and that use violence.” Your post reads that way to me.
But heck, I read the Arizona law as requiring children to turn in their parents and vice versa. Maybe I’m too literal minded.
No, you are right, that’s careless and wrong. Thanks. That was not what I meant, but what it clearly implies.
I’ve been going back and forth on whether or not I would actually participate. To me, it was always about giving the terrorists so many targets, demonstrating that no one act will silence everyone.
There’s a debate on the message boards I frequent about it, and at one moment of personal and perhaps insensitive clarity, I said, “Sending a message to terrorists that we won’t be intimidated is of paramount importance, and the right to not be offended, if it exists, pales in comparison.”
Maybe that was wrong, or maybe it’s not our place to send that message (it’d be nice to hear Obama say something condemning these acts). I dunno.
This is one of those sentences that I want to begin with, “you don’t understand,” but I’ll resist that urge. But I REALLY want to support this idea. Maybe this is an issue so meaningful to me that it has overruled by good sense.
I’d be with you on the balancing issue if the demonstration addressed the real problem. It doesn’t: in fact, it obscures it. It’s easy to stand up for the First Amendment if everybody’s drawing Muhammad, just like there’s no courage in chanting epithets from a mob. The principle is already clear; the question is: do we encourage the media to have the guts to follow it? Sicking a giant finger into the eye of Islam isn’t the answer. Tell Comedy Central to grow a pair. If South Park was on every channel, I’m sure CC would be “principled” too.
I’d just like to point out that Mohammed was not in the bear suit. People just thought that Mohammed was in the bear suit. So I guess I’d like a follower of Islam to clarify if we should refrain from drawing people if we are uncertain if they are in fact Mohammed? As it turns out, it was Santa Claus in the bear costume.
Additionally, is this prohibition on drawing Mohammed limited to Mohammed or can artists draw a guy that looks similar to Mohammed? I’d like to point out that Mr Garrison… (or was it Mr. Mackey?) …tried to draw Mohammed and his image was shown, though it was just a stick figure. Can we draw an image so unlike Mohammed and call it Mohammed? I’m a little fuzzy about the rules. Can we draw a likeness of Mohammed that is very good as long as we call it Bob or Smithers?
Also, if this ban is specific to the image to Mohammed, can someone show me and the rest of the world what is not to be drawn? Also, since it is a sign of respect to the prophet Mohammed to name your kid in his honor, can I draw my friend Mohammed and call it Mohammed, or have I just drawn the prophet Mohammed?
Never mind. I’m not going to draw anything related to Mohammed, and I encourage everyone else to forget about him completely. Then we won’t have to worry about all this non-sense.
As you know if you’ve seen the poster-cartoon, that’s exactly the point she was making. Anything could be a picture of Mohammad. I don’t pretend to understand the fervor related to this issue, but Communion makes no sense to me either, or religious strictures against eating shellfish, or literal readings of the Bible. But if it isn’t actively hurting anyone, I’ll respect, if not the belief, the need to have others not to actively be actively disrespectful of it.
Hi Jack,
Thanks for really ‘getting it’ — the whole enchilada, I mean. I appreciate it!
Sincerely,
Molly Norris
And thanks for the thanks.
To be fairly honest, every time someone tells me people should never draw Mohammad because it would offend Muslims, I just reply that people should never draw Batman fighting Joker because that would offend pacifists. Or, if I’m really angry, Gay Jewish Hitler because that would offend all the Neo-Nazis. Truthfully, this anger over a cartoon is going to making more Westerners hate Muslims. Way to add to the vicious cycle, guys!
Trivia time: Most Shiites actually don’t mind portraying the Prophet Muhammad. Many of their paintings doing so are displayed in collections all over the world. I suppose it’s a good thing the crazies aren’t up in arms about that. Probably not cultured enough. 😛
Historically the issue of painting Mohammed has been enforced on and off through the years. The Quran does not specifically state not to show images of Mohammed. The hadith has a few statements in it that could be interpreted as not allowing depictions of Mohammed.
There are movements within ultra conservative Sunni groups dedicated to finding some of the older artwork (dating to the 12th century) depicting Mohammed and destroy it, similar to the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan.
Many of the Shi’ites are Persian, so some of the disagreement is ethnic as well as religious. And as with most groups, they want the depictions to be respectful, not with a bomb for a turban.
bousse to fesse ta !!
I did not know that!
Sticks and stones can’t hurt us, but….
we can manipulate words to kill us..
This back-and-forward lash to EDMD is the zeitgeist of the present times– when everything is deconstructed, rehashed then re-served cold through the Blog-o-sphere. In the 70’s, feminism was reconstitued to signify man-hating lesbian feministas until nobody wanted to use that word to identify themselves. Remember when mens’ brains were perceived to have migrated south to their …? How about the days when Fundamentalist Christians like Anita Bryant marched with the Ku Klux Klan? I was there for that one. Of course, Love used to be signed as “luv ya,” and I wouldn’t want to go back to that one.
What???????
perhaps I forgot to connect all the dots back to the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” I should have said that by now America is so dumbed-down that every passing cultural bubble becomes the ethical barometer of our society. With Blogs now, every idea is given equal weight, which is heightened to the “truth.” I give examples of past cultural trends and how the media used to be manipulated by making the thing itself no longer desirable to be a part of.
The main theme is the changing ways that the media uses to manipulate people’s opinions and to sell us on ideas; and further, how easy that manipulation is now that people don’t read or think much. page
P.S. I write a column called “Front Porch Talker,” which is in the spirit of The New Yorker’s: “A Friend Writes,” mixed with other humorous topics like etiquette, etc.
Front Porch Talker Item #73: 1 May 2010
RE: “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”
Let’s Make May 20th National ‘Everybody Learn How To Think Critically (and spell) Day’:
Res ipsa loquitur! (the thing itself speaks!)
I have a greater appreciation now, given the ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Debate,’ why the Philosopher Plato argued in his book, The Republic, about the nature of justice and order. Using a Socratic Dialogue, he debates the nature of justice and order of the ‘just’ City-State (the government) and the ‘just’ individual. Socrates also discusses the meaning of justice, and whether or not the ‘just’ man is happier than the ‘unjust’ man by proposing a society ruled by philosopher-kings or guardians, because not every man is willing to do the thinking before opening his mouth.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. There is an important distinction between them: a Democracy, as a form of government, is ruled by a majority unlimited, without legal safeguards for the individual or minorities. The Republic, on the other hand, is a Majority Limited, safeguarding the rights of individuals and minorities.
These were the original definitions of “conservatives” (those who wish to conserve the spirit of the constitution) and liberals (those who wish to allow interpretations, for better and worse, of the constitution).
The real distinction is that a Democracy is rule by an omnipotent Majority, where the individual and the minorities have no power over the majority. The Majorities’ power is unlimited and absolute, without regard to the minorities. While in a Republic, the limited Majority, where powers are limited; we have safeguards against tyranny and the rights of individuals and minorities.
Jefferson argued that “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for. The dangers to people’s liberties are due to the excesses of Democracy on the least powerful. So, the framers of the Constitution created a Republic to protect not only excesses, but that the people’s (all peoples) could be secure in their liberties and protected by all abuse.
In our Republic, not all ideas are equal, even if you have equal access to the Media through your blog or You Tube. Maybe we also need philosopher-kings to discern for us what is a well-thought out debate, and what is merely a spewing of incomplete information.
Thank God our ‘forefathers’ had anticipated some sort of debauchery and excess through bullying minorities and anybody not of the majority. It was wise to have thought that the excesses of the majority might even bring down a government such as ours. And, in this case, a rabid, viral internet backlash against cartoonists and Muslims is a perfect example of that.
We all know the story by now— res ipsa loquitur—(the thing itself speaks!)– the one that went viral and was heard around the world, thanks to You Tube. How producers of “South Park,” Trey Parker and Matt Stone“ announced that Comedy Central had censored a part of the show (the part where they depicted Mohammed as a bear), due to “thinly-veiled death threats” by a “radical Muslim group.”
This story—“Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” has now multiplied to a google: that’s a number just shy of infinity! Everybody has an opinion or a cartoon or a misspelled word or two to say on the internet, and that’s not even including the more reasoned and intelligent responses. Thanks to the mass media, where everybody can be on You Tube or write a blog, because it’s, well democratic—all opinions seem to have been given equal weight.
The internet has masses of bad and superficial information—just enough to take something important out of context and capitalize it on it for your opinion. It is a short-cut to actually reading a thing or two about—even maybe a book—about your subject before spewing out incorrect assumptions about, say, Muslims, or the history of the Inquisition, say, to give you more perspective about the extremists and fundamentalists in other religions. Or at the very least, maybe you could research extremists like Osama Bin Laden. Maybe then you would not equate 911 or Al Qaeda with ALL Muslims!
The internet debate has been reduced to hype and hysteria, rather than reasoned and thoughtful ideas. It is a place where those who speak the loudest (not the most introspect) and incite most ignorant get most of the air-time. (“Let’s draw Mohammed riding in a wheel-barrel!” for eg.)
The ‘dumbing-down’ of America is a reality now. People (not philosopher-kings) see no reason to go very deeply by actually reading a book or two, or even understanding the history and overall picture of the situation before logging in on a blog and reducing the various debates into submission of short-sightedness and gossip.
Considering the difficulty in finding good information on the internet, unless you have a paid subscription to Nexus ,any information is good for a blog, which is sometimes gossip , sometimes polemical views spewed-out without thought or knowledge on the subject. More information is not necessarily better information. Some things are just hysteria, based on ignorance of all the facts.
In other words, no philosopher-kings and no Republic. These are the very excesses Jefferson and the other framers of the constitution worried about. With an uninformed public, and a dumbed-down public, this debate is a really a free-for-all scape-goating fest (no pun intended) for the internet express against the minority opinions—the cartoonist, the views of the Muslims, etc. In other words, it is a ‘veiled’ attempt to appear that any reaction is a reasonable response, which it isn’t.
Then, there was the part of the story where Molly Norris, a gentle character and cartoonist (editoonist) from Seattle had drawn the likeness of Mohammed as objects: a thimble, a cup of coffee, a box of pasta, etc. to make her stand in support of the South Park producers, and in support of the First Amendment, in order to water-down the threats.
She said, “It’s a cartoonist’s job to be non-PC.” So, she announced that May 20th would be National “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” in solidarity of all people who’ve been threatened by extremists. The story went “viral,” as in multi-national, thanks to the internet. Molly then apologized for any and all intentions or depictions of her work as being disrespectful towards Muslims and backed-down calling for “Everybody Draw Al Gore Day” instead.
Next, despite Norris’ attempts to stop the craziness that ensued, the provocative Dan Savage, the nationally-syndicated sex advice columnist and gay activist whom she’d originally emailed her cartoon to now refused to take her cartoon down. Instead, he ran with it adding his own agenda to the mix of an already volatile situation.
As for Molly Norris, the cartoonist in question here: would YOU stick your neck out, as she did, for what you believe in? Innocently, she believed that The First Amendment had an addendum: You can express whatever you wish AND you are guaranteed safety while expressing said opinions. We now know that that’s not a guarantee in our constitution. It’s no accident that the recent attempt to revive “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” is manned by groups of people, because there is, after all, safety in numbers. And I haven’t even covered the part about all the misspellings, etc. Couldn’t those bloggers and You Tubers do a spell-check at the very least? How are we to take these people seriously when they misspell basic words and then publish them on word press?
She deserves our respect for merely attempting to find understanding. And for attempting to come to the support of South Park, and for taking a stand in the first-place. Do you see the South Park folks watching HER back? I think not. AND, more importantly, THEY CAN AFFORD SECURITY to watch their backs, literally.
Thank goodness you have me, your ERUDITE front porch talker-in-residence, is the voice of reason and I say let’s make May 20th: National ‘Everybody Learn How to Read, Write, (Spell) and Think Day!’
While the major religions, in their most fundamental belief systems, are based upon peace and tolerance for all, FUNDAMENTALISTS AND EXTREMISTS use the Sacred Texts in a literal interpretation to justify violence. Why is that? The Inquisition would not have tolerated “Everybody Draw the Catholic Church Day.” Would the Zionists have tolerated “Everybody Draw—RE-DRAW the Israeli boundaries as a state?”
We Americans have much more in common with each other than with any Fundamentalist groups that operate in our country. These include Fundamentalist Conservatives and Liberals, which can better be called Hypocrites, Evangelists and Pollitically-Correct. We have numerous other provocative groups, often called radical, who steer far from the center of the status-quo to force change. But those who attempt to force change also take the chance of a backlash. I am not suggesting that we all hug and kiss, and live happily together. But tolerance to live and let live insure that we all have a chance at whatever we personally deem valuable to our lives.
P.S. Is anybody except me still wondering whatever happened to those bank bail-outs? Speaking of ridiculous..
Signed,
Your zesty and frothy Front Porch Talker-in-residence,
Page Faulkner Mordecai
Ethics have become a matter of semantics rather than hard-and-fast mores. It seems that every ethical dilemma we have in our culture (or nearly so) can be bought or sold. (for eg., bio-tech issues). Also, whatever is politically-correct or is believed to be the “truth” by one generation becomes a slur or something to be disdained to the next. (feminism from the 70’s, or how men think with their ‘other brain’).
The Blogosphere, et al. makes it possible to manufacture truth out of myths in a new way that the media could never have imagined. It’s like a wildfire. One moment you are a regular Joe and the next, you’re at the center of a firestorm.
The cartoonist who did the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” is a victim of this firestorm. I know her personally and can attest to her innocence and firm resolution to remove herself from any controversies—not because she is a “pc liberal” but because it wasn’t her point, in the first place.
First, this protest is still going at my site and all over facebook.
http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/
I think I offer a counter to every criticism here: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-we-draw-call-terrorists-bluff.html
But let me say a few things here, too.
> It is just possible, however, that they changed their minds for a different reason.
If you check out my evidence at my blog, it seems pretty obvious that Molly Norris is scared. Her cartoon on her new “fear diet” says it all.
> All Muslims didn’t threaten “South Park,” a few Muslims did. Intentionally offending all Muslims by portraying the prophet Muhammad is gratuitously mean-spirited and disrespectful.
Gratuitous implies that this is unnecessary. But in fact it is necessary. This has been going on since 1988, when Salmon Rushdie published the Satanic Verses. And over and over again, our governments have failed to protect our sacred freedom of speech. How much longer does this have to go on before it become “necessary” in your eyes to do something?
And what could better address the issue? As I say on my blog, this is about calling the terrorists’ bluff. They say they will kill everyone who insults or even depicts their prophet. But if enough of us choose to do this, then it will be impossible for them to carry out this threat. They can’t kill us all.
By the way, your comment that it offends all Muslims is slightly undercut by the fact that some Muslims are participating in this protest, and have made some of the most offensive drawings.
> The way to make the point that America insists on free expression is to embolden some of our more lily-livered institutions (the media, academia) to exhibit some fortitude and sense of principle when free expression is under attack.
And do what? Draw Mohammed? Good. I hope the fact that thousands of ordinary citizens are doing this will embarrass them into finding their courage. But I ain’t holding my breath. When CNN blurs out the Danish cartoons in a report on the controversy over them, I am not encouraged.
> It is not to cause random, wide-spread discomfort to every Muslim in the world. The United States stands for diversity and respect for all religions.
No, actually we don’t stand for respect for all religions. We stand for free discussion of all ideas, even religious ones, in whatever language we choose. I have never seen this kind of solicitousness given toward Christianity. Hell, if you insult Christianity, you might get a government subsidy. Gee, I wonder why it’s okay to dip my savior in urine, but not Mohammed?
We all know why suddenly so-called liberals suddenly have decided it’s a bad thing to insult religion. It’s not principle. It’s fear.
And here’s another thing we believe in: we believe in fighting for our freedoms.
> If a comic, or a satirist, or a critic chooses to do otherwise, that is legitimate, protected expression, even if it is offensive. Urging everyone to be offensive, however, violates ethical principles to support Constitutional ones.
And that’s the real rub with you, isn’t it? The great unwashed masses are participating, right?
But I will take constitutional principles over ethical ones every day of the week, especially given how conveniently your ethics are applied.
> Burning a flag is protected expression, but we don’t insult millions of patriots and veterans by “Flag Burning Day” to show those who would make the act illegal that they are wrong.
Yeah, because we have a Supreme Court to actually prevent that form of censorship. The government, or at least part of it, vindicated our freedom of speech making it unnecessary for the people to get into it.
And you go on and on with the same “but it will offend Muslims!” refrain.
Great. So what would you have us do? At best you have asked us to beg our betters to stand up in our stead. Well, you can hold your breath waiting for that to happen, but Comedy Central has been through this twice and they have only gotten worse. Up until the latest controversy, they didn’t bother to make their previous depiction of Mohammed disappear. Ezra Levant had the nerve to print in his newspaper the Dreaded Dutch Cartoons of Blasphemy in a NEWS REPORT on the controversy, and for that he faced years of litigation before Canada’s oxymoronic human rights commissions. It’s pretty clear that the elites are in full surrender mode.
But the people are not. Indeed, we don’t need all of the people, or even a majority. All we need is enough people to make it clear that they can’t kill us all. And then maybe we will win this thing.
Ah, but we will offend Muslims! You know what offends me? Knowing how my fellow Americans have literally died to give you freedom of conscience and expression, and watching people like you fritter it away like it is nothing. You know what offends me? Having those arrogant terrorists think they won this round. Well, I aim not to suffer that offense.
You can worry about people’s feelings. I worry about freedom, and I have the courage to defend it.
Gee—and to think I asked for commenters to avoid political rants.
What is especially funny and ironic about this juvenile “protest” is that it isn’t courageous at all…it’s the antithesis of courageous. There’s obviously no reason to be frightened to draw Mohammad—or insult Muslims, which is all it is when there is no other message of the drawing—when thousands and thousands of people are doing it. Molly has every reason to be be frightened: her political satire is the obvious focal point of the anger. 99% of thos drawing Mohammad are effectively anonymous. Great call to bravery: this is called “posturing.”
Artists and journalists tend to be cowards, like most of us. “Piss Jesus” was safe, and bound to be profitable. Every newspaper had an obligation to publish the Danish cartoons, because it was legitimate news, but most didn’t, citing “respect.” They were chicken, and abdicated on their journalistic duties. “EDMD” does absolutely nothing to address the cowardice or the cultural hate. It says nothing but “See? We can stick our finger in your eye, and there’s not a thing you can do to us, and oh, by the way? We don’t give a damn about your religion whether you’re violent of not.” Wow. And what does this accomplish? I makes people angry and hurts people’s feelings, and legitimately so. Does it validate American dedication to the First Amendment? No, not unless Comedy Central suddenly is willing to run a peiec of satire that was not intended to offend Islam. (It was intended to be funny.) Molly’s cartoon was funny too…the idea of EDMD. The actual event is incoherent, destructive, counter-productive, and craven.
Oh Ye Defender of Freedom, give us a break. This wasn’t your idea, it is impotent and mean spirited, and it demeans free speech, because it is garbage speech. It makes as much sense as “Let’s all bare our breast at the Superbowl Day,” so parents with young kids will be horrified. “Let’s all write e-mails asserting that we’re open to studies showing the intellectual inferiority of the black gene pool day,” to battle political correctness. “Let’s all get stoned day.” “Let’s all jerk off in public day.”
We would all benefit far more from “Let’s be civil and respectful to each other day.” No, you won’t get your 15 minutes of fame promoting that. But unlike EDMD, it will do some good.
Jack
“There’s obviously no reason to be frightened to draw Mohammad… when thousands and thousands of people are doing it.”
Yes, you just restated the whole point of the exercise. We are making it impossible for them to carry through on their threats.
We are calling their bluff.
And so maybe, if we are lucky, they won’t try to kill anyone.
> Molly has every reason to be be frightened: her political satire is the obvious focal point of the anger. 99% of thos drawing Mohammad are effectively anonymous.
But you want some people to stand up, but only a few. Well, right now at my site we have about 400 cartoons, about 200 of which give out name and location. Is that too many?
“Wow. And what does this accomplish?”
1) It might embarrass the newspaper and networks into discovering their courage.
2) It shows the terrorists how impotent their threats are.\
” It makes people angry and hurts people’s feelings, and legitimately so.”
No, not legitimately so. People insult my faith all the time. Hell, they get government grants to do it. But one religion and only one religion in the world gets this special treatment. Why is that?
“No, not unless Comedy Central suddenly is willing to run a piece of satire that was not intended to offend Islam.”
Well, they have announced a brave new show making fun of the holy figure of a faith, to start next year… about Jesus. I don’t see how that vindicates freedom of speech though. It just proves that if you want your religion to get respect, you need to be terrorists. But the ethical implications of that don’t seem to bother you.
“This wasn’t your idea.”
That’s the beauty of the internet. An army of davids and all of that.
> We would all benefit far more from “Let’s be civil and respectful to each other day.”
Dude, you have to warn me before you say stuff like that. I totally choked on my soda when I read that.
Yeah, that would show them. let me guess, around 1960 or so you actually put flowers in gun barrels, right?
I am still waiting for a real solution.
And here’s my full essay “Why we draw–Calling the Terrorists’ Bluff.”
The terrorists threaten to murder anyone who insults or even depicts their prophet in a cartoon. And as long as it is a handful of individuals being threatend—Salman Rushdie, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and the dutch cartoonists—that threat is effective. You might even look at the murder of Theo Van Gogh and conclude it is not a bluff.
But it is a bluff. Because if enough people do it at once, they will not be able to carry through their threat. They can’t kill us all. It’s that simple.
That is why we must draw Mohammed. We must draw early and draw often.
And let me say something to the moderate Muslims who love freedom of speech and their prophet. While I can’t speak for everyone in this movement, I don’t draw to insult Muslims for the fun of it. If I could think of another way to defuse this threat to our sacred freedom of speech, I would do it. Your hurt feelings are the collateral damage in this fight for freedom.
But if you have not been told, it is time to learn. Freedom of speech is not just the freedom to say what everyone likes. It is the freedom to say what everyone hates. As Voltaire said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” And those of us in this movement are living that principle out.
And the reason why we believe in this freedom isn’t necessarily because we want to say awful things about your prophet, but if we propose to ban speech the next question becomes “who has the right to decide what exactly is banned and what is not?” You can’t trust the government with this kind of power—they will always use that power to prevent criticism of them. And you certainly can’t trust a bunch of thugs.
If you want to say, “I really wish you didn’t insult my prophet,” have at it. It’s your right. If you want to “retaliate” by insulting my cherished figures have at it. Here, let me give you a few targets. Jesus is my savior, and my favorite American figures are Lincoln, Washington, Thaddeus Stevens and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Internationally, I like Winston Churchill, Ghandi and Mandela. So sling your mud at them all you want, you won’t get any death threats from me. The correct response to speech you don’t like is counter-speech—that is, speech (not threats) in protest.
But, if you want to convince me and anyone else not to do it, then you need to offer a solution to this problem. We can’t just have our artists being bullied into silence. And we certainly can’t have any more Theo Van Goghs. So telling us to surrender or do nothing is not a solution.
And don’t tell me that your culture forbids it, or doesn’t respect freedom of speech and religion. Because here is the thing: I have a culture, too. And in my culture, not only do we believe in freedom, but we defend it, too.
Being rude and uncivil is not a virtuous or noble undertaking. “Calling someone’s bluff” while standing in a crowd is not taking a stand. Being offensive to peaceful, innocent Muslims because Comedy Central couldn’t mount the courage to stand up to threatening, violent Muslims isn’t a reasonable response. In short, your whole protest is a lot of air and half-baked reasoning cloaked in self-glorifying rhetoric.
Jack
> Being rude and uncivil is not a virtuous or noble undertaking.
I think standing up for freedom is actually quite virtuous. There are more offensive things than the cartoons on my site. The more offensive thing is to live in a world where you can’t speak freely.
I mean, heck, you can’t even oppose it without getting death threat spam. They’re fascist idiots who oppose freedom and someone has to take a stand.
Taking these a little out of order.
> Being offensive to peaceful, innocent Muslims … isn’t a reasonable response.
And what do you say to Muslims who have sent drawings to my site?
And by the way, there can be no freedom of religion without some people offending each other’s religion. For instance, Islam states that Jesus was not the son of God and didn’t die on the cross. I am offended, but I let that roll off my back, because its their right to believe an offensive thing. Some say freedom of religion is “respecting each other faith” but only a person decidedly ignorant of what each faith says about the other (counting atheism as a faith for purposes of this discussion) would think that is even possible in a multi-religious society.
But not only am I supposed to avoid offending Muslims, I can’t even depict Mohammed—that is I am expected to obey the strictures of a faith I don’t belong to. I mean that is all south park did. they merely depicted him. they didn’t depict him snorting coke like buddha did. nor did they depict him sh-tting on the american flag like they did with jesus in the first round of south park v. the jihadists.
And a no-insult/no-blasphemy rule makes it very difficult to argue the merits of faith. For instance, in connection with my website, I engaged in an email conversation with a gentleman in Pakistan. In the first email he was like (paraphrase), “I am a muslim so I can’t draw mohammed but I really like what you are doing. Is there any way to participate without actually drawing him?” In the second, he said, “Don’t worry so much about me being a muslim anymore. I’m not any more.” My curiosity peaked, I asked him if he was willing to share why. One of the two reasons was Mohammed’s relationship with Aisha.
He said he learned that he married her when she was 6, and consummated their relationship when she was nine. Simply put, that made Mohammed a pedophile and that was unacceptable in his mind. And to be very blunt, I had learned of this years ago, and that was exactly how I saw it.
But that is pretty insulting, isn’t it? You’re calling Mohammed a pedophile. But how can you ever discuss the merits of that faith without at least dealing with that?
> “Calling someone’s bluff” while standing in a crowd is not taking a stand.
In what sense am I standing in a crowd? Do write clearly.
And more importantly, rather than whine and complain that this isn’t what you want us to do, offer a solution. Its easy to sit in the background and complain “you’re doing it wrong.” Okay, then how do we do this right? How do we vindicate freedom of speech correctly. If you have a better idea, I am all ears. I have been “all ears” since about month ago when this all started. So far no one has offered a better solution.
And surrendering or just taking it is not a solution.
Aaron: this is a perfect example of non-ethical reasoning. Virually all of it. What isn’t is just illogical.
Like this: “And more importantly, rather than whine and complain that this isn’t what you want us to do, offer a solution.”
Solution to WHAT? Legitimate satirists did what they do, and their gutless employers let some random threats push them into censorship. No “solution” is needed. Artists create, Those who live by the First Amendment should be ready to defend it. It’s called courage and integrity. The threats? Ignore them. Take defensive measures if they are worth taking seriously: I haven’t seen any Americans kidnapped and killed in America by Muslims, have you? Speak out against Islamic bullies, like we should regarding all bullies. I didn’t say “you’re doing ‘it’ wrong.” I said you’re doing wrong. And so you are.
“And surrendering or just taking it is not a solution.”
Again, surrendering what? I have made it clear that Comedy Central’s conduct was craven. South Park should have been able to run its humor, which was not intended to insult Muslims; it was intended to amuse non-Muslims. Nobody, certainly not me, is advocating letting Islamic threats censor our humor. But your whatever it is—“let’s insult all Muslims day”—s just childish show. They’ve made it clear that certain things bother them very much, so you want to do as much of those things as possible, hurting millions of non-participants in the process.
I wrote: “Being rude and uncivil is not a virtuous or noble undertaking.”
Your non-sequitur reply: “I think standing up for freedom is actually quite virtuous. There are more offensive things than the cartoons on my site. The more offensive thing is to live in a world where you can’t speak freely.”
Sorry: this is ethics ignorance personified. Being rude and uncivil just to prove you can is a 4-year old’s protest. Yell “shit” in a library to celebrate the First Amendment, and those people who are offended or annoyed should just suck eggs, right? Ethics is not causing gratuitous harm to others just because you can. You’re not standing up for freedom. You’re just showing how freedom can be misused by irresponsible people. We knew that. We’ve always known that. It’s not “virtuous.”
And the fact that there are “more offensive” things on your site makes the other offensive things OK? That’s one of the great, dumb, unethical rationalizations, you know: “It’s not the worst thing!” I know. There are always worse things. It still doesn’t make bad things good.
Speaking freely without consideration for consequences or impact on others is uncivilized behavior, and hardly virtuous either. Can’t you see the difference between the right to speech and the obligation to use that right fairly, respectfully and responsibly? The kind of use you want to put free speech to just makes life ugly. And yes, you have the right to do that too. It’s nothing to be proud of.
“They’re fascist idiots who oppose freedom and someone has to take a stand.”
And your stand is to insult vastly more non-fascist idiots to mock the few idiots. Fairness? Proportion? That’s firing a shotgun into a crowd. Understand what’s wrong with that?
You really think it is fair and rational to declare that no religion can declare certain conduct offensive and wrong when delivered by anyone, even non-believers? So non-Americans should feel free to spit and defecate on the American flag in America: after all, what do they care? Christians should feel free to defile Jewish sacred objects. That’s your formula for a civil society, is it?
Islamists should be able to have their sensitivities respected within reason and practicality. Your repeated “I don’t care if they defile my God” is a backwards Golden Rule….the question is, how would you feel in their shoes, with their upbringing and background. Just because you have a high level of tolerance for disrespect does not mean it is fair or right for you to insist others have the same attitude.
“But how can you ever discuss the merits of that faith without at least dealing with that?”
Who says they, or anyone, has to discuss merits of their faith? Discussing merits of faiths is a futile pursuit for anybody but the religiously detached. You are insisting on religious detachment. That’s none of your business.
In what sense am I standing in a crowd? Do write clearly.
But that’s exactly what you are doing! You are reducing your own exposure for an insult you want to deliver by urging others to insult with you. And in order to do this, you are willing to rationalize the insulting of millions of people who intend you no harm—they just want you to stop making fun of their religion just to upset them.
This is per se unethical conduct. Hurting someone jsut to show you can hurt them. That’s all it is.
We warn you that if you did not desist from humiliating our Prophet that we will not leave you….this is challnge of muslim…we want to live in peace and give space to others. Allah Akbar..This is not to disrespect you or ur religious but to tell you that DO RESPECT OUR RELIGIOUS OTHERWISE WE MUSLIM WOULD PERFER DIE THAN LIFE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR PROPHET (S.A.W.W)
Hey…look! Even a piece OPPOSING EDMD gets one of these warnings! Advice to Muhammad fans: learn to know whom to threaten and when to shut up.
we know whom to threaten and when to shut up,its better for you to shut up this coward effort..if you want peace and respect ,then respect our religion..otherwise MUSLIMS know how to deal it..we love our Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) and we can die for Him…ALLAH O AKBAR,,,.we,The Muslims,have greatest power in all the nations..so better behave!
No, you don’t. You didn’t read my post, or can’t comprehend it. I oppose “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day,” because it is pointless, hypocritical, and disrespectful to all Muslims when only a handful of arrogant bullies have behaved badly. Stop making random threats to people (like me) who have done you and intend you no harm. Then stop making threats to Americans and American artists, (like the “South Park” creators) exercising their rights. Then stop making threats period. Don’t tell me to “behave.” Tell yourself to behave.
From now on, any further threats from you or your pals are officially SPAM.
Im pleased to read your article. At least all the western people dont think likewise. We the Muslims are condemning the event on 20th may by Molly Norris because it is forbidden to draw the sketch of the Prophet in our religion. And these guys are not only drawing but making humiliating fun of the Prophet. This is hurting the Muslims all over the world deeply. If those violent people just think once and just put their Prophet (Forgive me God) in place of Muhammad PBUH for a minute. They will too be ashamed of doing all this. In spite of being too much hurt and all this hatred by the artist and her followers, you will never see any disrespect for Jesus PBUH. We the Muslims LOVE JESUS too and we not even can think of doing this. It is not forbidden to sketch Jesus in your religion, but have you ever heard in the history that any Muslim has sketched him (neither good nor bad one)? No, never we are not violent; rather such people are trying to create hatred and violence by hurting the Muslims all over the world.
I want to ask a single question from the artist, would you like make fun of your Prophet/God??? Certainly not, and if yes, then do you call this freedom of speech???
You better know this is certainly wrong.
Thanks for your comment. If you check, you will note that Molly has made it clear that she is not (and says she was not) trying to encourage a real day in which people would set out to insult the Islamic faith. Her original cartoon was intended as satire, which is often irreverent, and sometimes intentionally blasphemous. The question you ask is based on the so-called “Golden Rule,” which Christians and Muslims embrace, and I think it is well-placed in this controversy.
Nevertheless, in America Freedom of Speech includes mean speech, insulting speech, hurtful speech, violent speech, dishonest speech, crude speech, and many other kinds of speech that are offensive to many or most. This is true to an extent unmatched anywhere else in the world, and is a bedrock of American political thought and culture. The fact that we are free to do something, however, doesn’t mean that it is right to do it.
Noman
> it is forbidden to draw the sketch of the Prophet in our religion.
I don’t belong to your religion. I am not required to adhere to it. Get it?
That’s what this is all about. Are we allowed to disobey the dictates of Islam. Get used to that fact. We don’t have to say pbuh every time we say his name, we don’t have to hide our women’s flesh, etc. you want to do all that, your business. I mean isn’t that awesome. You can be free to do all kinds of things we don’t like. But in exchange you have to put up with us doing what you don’t like.
> And these guys are not only drawing but making humiliating fun of the Prophet.
Blame the terrorists. They forced this situation upon us.
> This is hurting the Muslims all over the world deeply.
No, it is not hurting you. It is hurting your feelings. And as every american mother teaches her child “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
The whole problem here is you can’t differentiate between actual harm and hurt feelings. Develop a thick skin.
> If those violent people just think once
Lol, violent? Let me assure you, no actual holy men have been harmed in making these cartoons.
> and just put their Prophet (Forgive me God) in place of Muhammad PBUH for a minute.
Actually, if you go to my site you see many cartoons that are also offensive to christians. Just today we had one that offended four major religions at once. http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-cartoon_2146.html
And incidentally, your comment right there insulted my Savior, Jesus Christ. He is no mere prophet in my eyes, but the Son of God. Now if I was as thin skinned as your co-religionists, I would be demanding that you call Jesus the Son of God. Heck I might call for your death for failing to do so. And sadly, in the past Christians used to actually do pretty much that.
But we have learned better. We know that your freedom to believe what you believe requires you to have the freedom to insult what I believe. All we are asking for is reciprocity. You insult Jesus, we insult mohammed, and we both don’t get upset about it. That is the way—the only way—we can live together in peace.
> It is not forbidden to sketch Jesus in your religion
And its not forbidden in my religion to sketch Mohammed either. So why should I obey the dictates of your faith?
> we are not violent; rather such people are trying to create hatred and violence by hurting the Muslims all over the world.
Oh, so its our fault if you kill someone over a cartoon? Is that what you are trying to say. I hope for everyone’s sake it’s a misunderstanding.
Jack
> If you check, you will note that Molly has made it clear that she is not (and says she was not) trying to encourage a real day in which people would set out to insult the Islamic faith.
Go to my site, here: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/search/label/Molly%20Norris
Check out the entries related to Molly Norris. She was 100% down with this movement, and then got scared. That’s the real truth.
> The question you ask is based on the so-called “Golden Rule,” which Christians and Muslims embrace, and I think it is well-placed in this controversy.
Yes, and nothing better fulfills the golden rule than to intentionally incur the same dangers that Salmon Rushdie, the danish cartonists, and matt and trey are facing today.
My first compassion is those who are under threat of death from terrorists. You would leave them flapping in the wind and then call yourself compassionate.
Oh, please. You really think any of this reduces the risks those guys face one iota? Here’s what it does: it increases the hate quotient, and will radicalize those who will decide that yes. Americans really do have contempt for us. Good work. I’m sure Salmon, Trey ad Matt will sleep more soundly, thanks to you.
“Yes, and nothing better fulfills the golden rule than to intentionally incur the same dangers that Salmon Rushdie, the danish cartoonists, and Matt and trey are facing today.”
This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the Golden Rule.
Let me add something else, because I want to be clear. I noted that it seemed that Molly Norris was scared and that is why she stopped. I think this cartoon alone tells the story: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/molly-norris-latest-cartoon.html
If you listen to early radio interviews she seemed to be surprised, yes, but genuinely glad to see this happen and was talking about how to carry it forward. and if you see her video calling it off (it might have been pulled), it has a nasty “hostage video” quality to it. she looked scared as hell.
But i don’t say any of that to denounce her. i wish she had found the courage to go on, but I don’t denounce her for not having it.
And it has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea to carry it forward. Seriously, if you read or listen to (listening is much better) the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, you will hear him describe a crisis in the montgomery bus boycott. he was tempted to step out. now what if he did? should everyone in that movement have stopped because he lost his nerve–because frankly he caved to the KKK terrorists? no, of course not. if MLK had lost his courage the movement should have gone on.
Same thing here. We are going to stand together and destroy this threat. And muslims the world over will start to be conditioned to accept that every now and then we will say something about their faith or their holy figures they don’t like. They will learn to get used to it.
I said she might have been scared off. She might have changed her mind and decided that it wasn’t a good idea. She might have been scared AND changed her mind. It doesn’t make any difference. It’s a bad idea. The grandiosity of comparing this silly exercise to the Civil Rights movement shows incipient delusions. Insulting a large number of innocent Muslims isn’t going to “destroy” anything. And you have no right, as in, no justification, for trying to change the tenets of a world faith. Muslims believe that it is blasphemy to show the Prophet, except in a positive manner in some circumstances. Most of them do not believe that non-believers who violate this should be hurt or killed, but it still upsets them, just as it upsets many Christians to take the Lord’s name in vain. That ought to be respected, unless there’s a very, very good reason. You think you have a good reason, but it’s fantasy and air. You hurt people who have done nothing to you, and accomplish nothing.
It’s distressing that so many Americans see Muslims as they saw Jews in the ’30s and ’40s, or worse, as they saw Japanese Americans in 1942. And they think it’s ok to be vile–even blogging that Miss USA didn’t deserve to win, and was given the crown because she’s Arab and Muslim.
Millions of hurt Muslims have withdrawn their accounts from Facebook after announcement of the Day. After the peaceful protest against the day in some countries, the site involved in this activity has been blocked by the Government of some Muslim countries for good. And I guess it would be banned in all Muslim countries of the world soon. We will request the Presidents of all Muslim countries to ban the Channel showing South Park in their States. Above all the Girl behind the whole drama should be sued for the unbearable activity against Muslims. And if she thinks Muslims cant do anything to a whole lot of people sketching the Prophet. Yes may be. But the God knows every person, what he/she is doing and all these guys would see hell in this world by Almighty God.
Jack
Let me aggregate all of my responses.
> Solution to WHAT?
20 years of suppression of speech by terrorism, starting with salmon rushdie.
> Those who live by the First Amendment should be ready to defend it.
Are you under the impression that the first amendment is only there for the artists? “Legitimate satirists,” and the like?
No. It’s there for all of us. The free flow of information benefits all of us. Duh.
By the way, what counts as a “legitimate satirist?” I mean, its not like the legal profession, where there is a group of people who decides who may and may not practice. It seems to me that anyone can be an artist, or satirist and legitimacy is a matter of opinion.
> The threats? Ignore them.
It’s kind of hard to ignore them when you see the sad and ridiculous display of CNN covering the cartoon controversy and blurring out the images in the cartoons. That is right, they showed you the sheet of paper with the cartoon on it, but then blurred out the cartoon. So in short they showed you a blurry piece of paper. I mean, seriously, why bother even showing the paper?
> Take defensive measures if they are worth taking seriously: I haven’t seen any Americans kidnapped and killed in America by Muslims, have you?
Yeah, no Americans have been killed by terrorists, in America, in the last 10 years. *rolls eyes*
By the way, speaking of 9-11, I suppose you would have told the people on Flight 93 to wait for “legitimate law enforcement” to handle the situation, right?
I would have been tickled if all the newspapers had just published the dang cartoons. I would love it if the media decided to take up the cause. But when the elites fail, you can hardly blame the rabble for stepping up.
> I said you’re doing wrong. And so you are.
Because you are so hung up on hurt feelings, that you don’t care a whiff about the people who might get murdered.
> South Park should have been able to run its humor, which was not intended to insult Muslims; it was intended to amuse non-Muslims.
Oh, so you only think South Park has a right to show Mohammed if it is not insulting, is that it? Have you ever watched the show? They offend literally almost everyone else. Before that they had an episode pretty much trashing scientology. One of the voice actors, Isaac Hayes, was so offended, he quit. Just last night I saw a rerun where the local catholic priest was having sex with a woman in the Confessional. Nobody is spared.
But according to you, one religion, and one religion only, should be spared. Gee, why is that?
> Nobody, certainly not me, is advocating letting Islamic threats censor our humor.
No, you just don’t want the rabble to actually do anything to prevent it from happening. Or even to try.
> They’ve made it clear that certain things bother them very much, so you want to do as much of those things as possible, hurting millions of non-participants in the process.
See, that is the problem with you. You treat insult like as if it is a real injury, thus encouraging and enabling their thin skins. If I acted like them every time my faith was insulted…
> Sorry: this is ethics ignorance personified. Being rude and uncivil just to prove you can is a 4-year old’s protest.
You have said some variation of that about 5 times now, but besides the insult and the assertion you have not proven it.
I have a God-given constitutional right to say what I please. And if anyone says “don’t say X or I will kill you” I consider that an invitation to do it. Even if it’s not normally something I would say, because I don’t want them to think for one moment that their threats were successful.
If you reward certain behavior, you get more of it.
Meanwhile, you want to give the screaming children whatever THEY want. It seems I am acting more like an adult than you.
> Yell “shit” in a library to celebrate the First Amendment, and those people who are offended or annoyed should just suck eggs, right?
Come on, you are a lawyer. You know that time, place and manner restrictions are reasonable. Give me a break.
> Ethics is not causing gratuitous harm to others just because you can.
Well, you done killed that straw man good.
Here’s a hint. Your repeated assertion that we have no purpose in this doesn’t make it so.
> And the fact that there are “more offensive” things on your site makes the other offensive things OK?
I didn’t write that, and if you reread what I wrote you will figure out what I did write. The rest of your argument against this is, therefore, a straw man.
> Speaking freely without consideration for consequences or impact on others is uncivilized behavior, and hardly virtuous either.
Au contraire, I am considering the consequences. The consequences are that the death threats are shown to be precisely the hollow words they are. Indeed, look down thread at what Noman said: “And if she thinks Muslims can’t do anything to a whole lot of people sketching the Prophet. Yes may be.” Then he goes on to say we will burn in hell. It worked on him, at the very least.
> Can’t you see the difference between the right to speech and the obligation to use that right fairly, respectfully and responsibly?
Then I assume you are going to lobby to take South Park completely off the air, right? Seriously, have you watched the show?
(Note, I am not endorsing that you take it off the air, but if you REALLY think we have to be respectful in our speech, then you have to think the whole show is “unethical” as you put it.)
> And your stand is to insult vastly more non-fascist idiots to mock the few idiots.
Did you mean to call all Muslims idiots?
> Fairness? Proportion?
Proportion? You are the one who pretends a cartoon is doing actual harm to people. Salmon Rushdie had to live his life under protection, more or less a prison, he even converted to islam in the hopes of appeasing. Theo Van Gogh is dead. And some idiot tried to set off an SUV bomb near the Viacom building. But you are focused exclusively on the “harm” of a drawing.
Run for your life! It’s the Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy!
(http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/search/label/Dreaded%20Stick%20Figures%20of%20Blasphemy)
> You really think it is fair and rational to declare that no religion can declare certain conduct offensive and wrong when delivered by anyone, even non-believers?
Absolutely.
But what a curious thing to say by a guy who supports gay rights. https://ethicsalarms.com/2010/01/29/ethics-trumps-morality-ending-dont-ask-dont-tell/
I mean a version of Christianity declares that being gay is evil, and wrong. But you nonetheless believe that gay people have a right to be gay. Good for you, but it seems a little inconsistent.
Indeed, radical Islam doesn’t like gay people either. In Afghanistan, they would literally pull down walls on top of homosexuals. So just as you say I should refrain from speaking my mind, or drawing certain cartoons so as to avoid violating the tenants of their faith, then why don’t you equally say that we should ban homosexuality, to avoid offending them?
Don’t you know that when men can kiss each other in public, this horrifies and radicalizes Muslims everywhere?
Do you see how dangerous that logic is?
> So non-Americans should feel free to spit and defecate on the American flag in America: after all, what do they care?
Again, have you actually watched South Park? They have actually showed Jesus defecating on the American flag.
And should we feel free to do it? Absolutely. There was even a Supreme Court case that said they should. At best, you could arrest them for public nudity. Now I will be there to call them jerks, but that is the answer to speech you don’t like: counter speech.
I mean, think of how dangerous that thought is. So disrespecting the American flag is wrong under all circumstances, according to you. What about other nation’s flags? Is it unethical, for instance, to disrespect China’s flag because of what they did in Tiananmen square? How about the Nazi flag?
Of course you might say that the American flag is different from the Nazi flag, and I would agree. But there are people in this country who don’t agree, who call us Amerikkka, etc. And who are we to tell them they are not even allowed to think it, or to express it?
> Christians should feel free to defile Jewish sacred objects. That’s your formula for a civil society, is it?
Given that what is sacred in one faith is often profane in the other, and vice versa, learning how to let it slide is the ONLY way to live together.
But let me be clear on one nuance. The object in question has to be your property. I can purchase a flag and burn it, but I can’t burn yours, without your permission.
> the question is, how would you feel in their shoes, with their upbringing and background.
Well, by that logic, I guess in 1950, no one should have advocated for racial equality because the white southern people, by their background and upbringing, would have been really offended. *rolls eyes*
> Who says they, or anyone, has to discuss merits of their faith?
Well, how do you think freedom of religion operates, exactly?
Here, let me walk you through it. Answer these questions for me.
1. Do you have a right to freedom of religion?
2. Does that right imply the right to choose your religion?
3. If you have a right to choose your religion, do you have a right to make an INFORMED choice on the subject?
If you answer yes to all three, then freedom of religion depends on the freedom to discuss the merits of each faith.
> Discussing merits of faiths is a futile pursuit for anybody but the religiously detached.
No one ever converts? Are you joking?
> But that’s exactly what you are doing!
My apologies for that comment about clear writing. I wrote that before I saw your response above it.
> You are reducing your own exposure for an insult
Yes, you have just restated the entire purpose of this. They say, “we will kill everyone who insults or depicts Mohammed.” So we say, “there’s 35,000 of us (at last count on facebook alone). You can’t kill us all.” You want to insult us somehow as cowards, but I see the real and practical good of diffusing the threat, which you are implicitly admitting we are doing. Then the next time someone decides whether to depict or insult Mohammed, maybe they will remember what we did and say, “yeah, they’re all talk.”
> This is per se unethical conduct. Hurting someone jsut to show you can hurt them.
So you don’t want them to know that we are free to depict or insult mohammed.
See, you keep restating our exact goals, but adding your own warped gloss. The fact that we are calling their bluff, means that we are cowards, according to you. The fact we are exercising our right to establish that we still retain that right, you rephrase as hurting just to hurt, as if there are no rights involved at all, because you have unilaterally decided there wasn’t, or at least you don’t care about the right asserted.
> You really think any of this reduces the risks those guys face one iota?
It has a better chance of doing that, then doing nothing. And as noted above, Nomen admits it is working.
> Here’s what it does: it increases the hate quotient, and will radicalize those who will decide that yes[,] Americans really do have contempt for us.
So you believe that we shouldn’t actually exercise our freedoms for fear that we might then make people decide they don’t like them?
Here’s a hint: if they can’t stand freedom of speech, they are not our friends.
> [me] “Yes, and nothing better fulfills the golden rule than to intentionally incur the same dangers that Salmon Rushdie, the danish cartoonists, and Matt and trey are facing today.”
> [you] This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the Golden Rule.
Sure, what does laying down your life for another have to do with the teachings of Jesus? *rolls eyes*
> She might have changed her mind and decided that it wasn’t a good idea.
Well, this is purely a matter of opinion, but I think anyone who goes to my site and examines the evidence gets the picture. But its not a matter of absolute proof, obviously.
> And you have no right, as in, no justification, for trying to change the tenets of a world faith.
If the tenants of a few radicals say that I must adhere to their faith and they may enforce that tenant by any means necessary, you bet your kiester I have a right to try to change that.
Sheesh.
> Muslims believe that it is blasphemy to show the Prophet, except in a positive manner in some circumstances.
No, actually, you are wrong. Those who are objecting to South Park actually believe depiction is absolutely forbidden, even when it is positive. There was nothing negative in South Park’s depiction of Mohammed. But they don’t represent all Muslims. There are many Muslims who think there is nothing wrong with a positive depiction. Further many Muslims believe that the rule literally only applies to muslims, and everyone else is free to do what they want (although they might burn in hell as a result). But you would require all Muslims to adhere to a rule that they don’t necessarily agree with. How exactly does that respect their faith?
> That ought to be respected, unless there’s a very, very good reason.
And vindicating freedom of speech doesn’t count. Good to know.
Aaron, there’s obviously no point: you just keep repeating the same fallacies. It’s really quite simple. Someone who had something worthwhile to do with free speech was foiled by Islamic threats, from one group, and the resulting cowardice and hypocrisy of Comedy Central, their employers. Another cartoonist made a valid point about the seeming absurdity of the Islamic complaints to non-Muslims, and suggested a tongue-in-cheek response. This response—setting out to insult a world religion—is clearly protected speech, and just as clearly irresponsible, mean-spirited, disrespectful and uncivil speech. This kind of speech is ethically dubious even if it has beneficial effects. This will have NO beneficial effects. It will increase tensions between the West and the Islamic world. It will not assert “vindicate” or “protect” Freedom of Speech—using that freedom recklessly and cruelly only defiles it, and helps give support to those who would legislatively limit “hate speech.” It is not brave because the very effort diffuses danger, simply repeating Comedy Central’s hypocrisy—it will be bold about free speech when mocking groups that can’t, or won’t, fight back. Your incoherent protest has no real content, other than playground-level mockery; shouting insults as a way to “show” those Islamic radicals. It appears bigoted and disrespectful, a true example of harming millions to make a sort-off point to a few, who are guaranteed not to be dissuaded at all—because, you know, they are nuts. Because you are not sufficiently passionate about your own religion to care about others mocking it, you feel empowered to dictate that every other religious person on the globe should feel the same way. That’s not the Golden Rule. That’s just arrogance.
So, in exchange for hurting millions, increasing international hate of our culture, all with no threat to yourself, you achieve…hmmmm…what? You get publicity. Bravo. You get a lot of people who couldn’t tell you what the First Amendment says an opportunity to puff out their chest with pride for “protecting it” when they really are just abusing it. You don’t help “South Park,” you don’t give Comedy Central any reason to do its duty the next time. It’s a stunt, like a group fart, done just to show you can.
Ok, you can. It’s unethical. Like lots of things, it’s also Constitutional. Personally, I think the fart would be more interesting.
Everyone can comprehend the hatred by reading between the lines that lie in your heart against Muslims. This confirms that you guys are doing it deliberately. Actually you guys are sick and need to attend an insane asylum otherwise the terror of those few so called terrorist is going to kill you yourself. Salaman may have a sound sleep, but i can bet you guys dont…
Jack
> It’s really quite simple.
Yes, it is. South Park has been outright profane to Christianity, but you are okay with that. A man submerged a crucifix in urine and got a government grant for his trouble. None of that bothers you.
But insulting Mohammed, in order diffuse a real risk is another holocaust or something to you. I see exactly the double standard.
> This will have NO beneficial effects.
You can’t possibly know that. Nor can you “know” that it will be bad for us, too. What we can say for sure is that we have been taking this sh– for around 20 years, and if the elites won’t step up, then we have to.
> using that freedom recklessly and cruelly only defiles it
You know by now this isn’t true.
> and helps give support to those who would legislatively limit “hate speech.”
“Don’t you dare speak freely, or else I will try to limit your freedom of speech!” Now there is a fallacy.
> It is not brave because the very effort diffuses danger,
See, that is your fallacy. You keep assuming it has to be brave to be legitimate.
> it will be bold about free speech when mocking groups that can’t, or won’t, fight back.
So it’s only ethical to vindicate freedom of speech, if it’s just me, is that it? okay, and what if they kill me. I mean besides it being inconvenient to me, doesn’t that then chill freedom of speech even more?
> Your incoherent protest has no real content, other than playground-level mockery
By the way, now through every thread you have insulted me. Which is ironic because, well, what is the purpose of it? if it is always wrong to insult unless it serves a purpose, then haven’t you behaved unethically? Physician heal thyself.
> It appears bigoted
Name one thing I have said that is bigoted. Indeed, you have repeatedly ducked a simple question. If the protest is so unjustifiable awful, how come Muslims have joined in.
> Because you are not sufficiently passionate about your own religion to care about others mocking it, you feel empowered to dictate that every other religious person on the globe should feel the same way.
Would you prefer I start killing Jews as Christ killers? I mean that is where “passion” for Christianity leads. Indeed, that is an ugly part of my faith’s history. They would play out the crucifixion of Christ, the PASSION of the Christ, and then go kill any Jews who had the bad luck to be hanging around. Gee, and funny, I thought it was a good thing we were beyond that, so that we could even watch a movie called “The Passion of the Christ” and Christians didn’t go and kill the nearest Jew.
Freedom of religion demands freedom of information about religion even freedom to insult the other religion. I cannot discuss the merits of Islam, for instance, without asking first how to deal with the story of Aisha. Is it insulting to say Mohammed was a pedophile? Even in the law of defamation truth is a defense. You’re a lawyer, you should know that.
> That’s not the Golden Rule. That’s just arrogance.
No, it’s a refusal to infantilize everyone who calls themselves Muslim. Let me put it as simply as possible. If Muslims cannot live in peace with those who insult or depict their prophets then all the bigots are right: Islam is not compatible with democracy. But unlike you, I am not ready to write off the Muslims I know so quickly, or my own freedom.
I know Muslims who have no trouble with this protest. There are even Muslims on my site who are participating, and one couldn’t bring himself to draw, but he joined a letter I sent to creators of South Park. If this is so awful, why are they participating? That is a point you have dodged again and again.
You go on, attacking my motives, the intelligence of the cartoonists on my site, you know, showing them the exact respect you show islam. /sarc
And notice in simplifying it, you ignore how I point out the contradiction between you telling me to obey the rules of their religion, but your refusal to the same when it comes to gay rights. It’s funny how the appeasers always want us to give up what they don’t want, but never anything they care about.
Notice you don’t even bother to refute my point that freedom of religion requires freedom in the exchange of information about religion. You don’t answer my questions because you know the answers lead directly to losing the argument.
And most importantly, you have never offered a reasonable answer to the question: what’s your solution to the problem?
I mean seriously, do you think the terrorists would actually be impressed by a “Let’s be civil and respectful to each other day.” sheesh, the naivete about our enemies is stunning.
It doesn’t take much to make them mad. Take this vignette that radicalized Sayyi Qutb:
> What was so awful about Sayyid Qutb’s experience in America that led him to regard modernity as an abomination? Well, he went to a dance in Greeley, Colo.: “The room convulsed with the feverish music from the gramophone. Dancing naked legs filled the hall, arms draped around the waists, chests met chests, lips met lips . . .”
> In 1949, Greeley, Colo., was dry. The dance was a church social. The feverish music was Frank Loesser’s charm song Baby, It’s Cold Outside. But it was enough to start a chain that led from Qutb to Zawahiri in Egypt to bin Laden in Saudi Arabia to the mullahs in Iran to the man arrested in Afghanistan on Sept. 11. And it’s a useful reminder of how much we could give up and still be found decadent and disgusting by the Islamists. A world without Baby, It’s Cold Outside will be very cold indeed.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060925_133309_133309
Once you start surrendering, it’s never going to end.
But let’s end this by again showing that this view that we should not insult Mohammed is fundamentally at odds with freedom of religion.
So again, I ask you
1. Do you have a right to freedom of religion?
2. If so, does that right imply the right to choose your religion?
3. If you have a right to choose your religion, do you have a right to make an INFORMED choice on the subject?
Oh and let me add a fourth:
4. Does that mean you have a right to hear all views about a religion and its holy figures, including but not limited to truthful information that is nonetheless insulting?
If you answer yes to all three, then freedom of religion depends on the freedom to discuss the merits of each faith, and yes, even the ability to insult each other’s faith.
Jack
And let me take another example. Scientology. According to their faith, you are not even allowed to know what the faith is about until you reach a certain level about it. But the secret has leaked out and its, um, well its unique. It goes like this.
Billions of years ago, the galaxy was experiencing horrible overpopulation. So the leader of the Galaxy, Lord Xemu, decided to kill a few billion or trillion aliens. He flew them to earth in rocket ships that looked just like DC-9s and then dumped them into volcanoes. If memory serves he also blew up the volcanoes. Then as the alien souls escaped for some reason (I never got this part), he used some kind machine to trap their souls and forced them to watch 3-d movies about jesus, mohammed, buddha, and so on. Then they released the alien souls. Tormented they wandered the earth until the cave men came along and the souls attached themselves to the cave men. And that is why we have all other religions and all of our neurosis, because of these tortured alien souls that Scientology will remove from you, for a small fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now, I admit the first time I heard that, I was like, “No, they can’t actually believe that…” I googled around found some court papers and discovered, and yeah they do. I suggest you do the same.
And even if you don’t believe me, okay, the imagine a fictional religion as a hypothetical. That mostly works for the remainder of my points.
Now several interesting points can be unpacked from that. First, it settles the question of whether scientology is a religion or not. It clearly is.
Second, notice that the teachings of that religion are an offense to every other religion, including Islam. So I guess Islam can ban scientology?
But at the same time, how is it wrong for me to say, “Gosh, that has to be the dumbest religion I have ever heard of”? Yeah, its insulting but come on! It IS dumb.
Third, suppose I had a friend who was interested in scientology. Now according to their rules, no one is supposed to know what they teach until they are deep in it. So I am not allowed to tell him what his own religion teaches, because they judge him not important enough to be told? Because I get the feeling that most people, knowing what they teach ahead of time, won’t sign up. This is a perfect example of how the free flow of information about a religion is necessary for a person to truly make an informed choice about a religion. Most people, the moment you mention Lord Xemu, say “ I am out of here.”
And fourth, they were mocked on South Park, too, mainly by telling this story and also when they declare it’s a sham. I am sure you raised a protest over that too.
Frankly, I don’t believe that Scientology is a legitimate religion, having been involved with one individual who was essentially kidnapped by them to get her money. I think it’s a scam crossed with a cult, and one of these days soon will be thoroughly exposed. But even so, I would not go out of my way to upset John Travolta (who has enough misery in his life) and who is clearly one of those scammed, in an effort to put Scientology in its place. If I had to, for the greater good of stopping more good, dim-witted people like John from buying (and spending on) this nonsense, I would, but a gratuitous “Let’s Insult Ron Hubbard Day” would be wrong.
But Constitutional!!!
I also think comparing Scientology to Islam is a grossly unfair insult. In fact, comparing Scientology to Star Trek is an insult…