Slashdot Mirror
Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad In a Bear Suit
An anonymous reader writes "A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of South Park that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week. RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park."
"Modern Religion"? Answered your own question there, sport.
They could have put him in a pedobear costume.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...is to increase the number of targets by several orders of magnitude. No, really, I'm quite serious. If everyone posts or publishes a cartoon simultaneously mocking Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses, there will be no practical way for religious extremists to respond. (Yes, I know there are other religions, but it's the big three monotheist camps that are making most of the trouble.)
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The reverse is also true though, this is getting Al Amrikee much more attention than he deserves.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
I mean, so far, South Park has lampooned Christ, Budda, etc....and yet none of these groups have threatened them with anything more dangerous than possibly a boycott.
Seriously, what the fuck is with these people? Isn't it time to move into the 21st century with the rest of us?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's even more ironic that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed was originally (IIRC) to prevent him from being idolized and treated like a deity.
"Extremists Warn South Park Creators Over Muhammad in a Bear Suit"
What a total wimp-out of a headline. A 'warning' is when the weatherman says 'it looks icy out today, drive slow.' When someone calls upon the nut-jobs of the world to murder you because you pissed off their bronze-age sky fairy, that's inciting violence, an explicit threat. I'm willing to go pretty far in support of free speech, but this is definitely "fire in a crowded theater" material.
That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?
I seem to remember that they were close to backing off of Scientologists, mainly because of Isaac Hayes (voice of Chef) is one. But then they went ahead and did it anyway, so he quit, and they made a big deal about Chef leaving town to join some evil cultish adventure club.
IMO, nothing is sacred to them. They ridicule pretty much everything, which is one of the reasons I love the show. Like you, I don't really agree with all of the offensive things they have portrayed, but at the same time I did laugh at a lot of things that many people would find offensive. I think that a show like that has some cultural value, at the very least to let us see how ridiculous some of our prejudices and sensitivities are.
Islam, true Islam, is extremely peaceful. However like any large faith, it is often perverted by those who seek to use it to gain political power. A perfect example of this is Paul from the Christian faith. A simple skim over the books he wrote even leaves the most ignorant aware of the fact that he did not follow the teachings of Jesus. His books have been altered even more in the centuries since then to suit the political pressures at the time.. some parts were cut out, some were added in.
Any faith can be abused by those who want to get more money, land, power, opposite (or same) sex... Looking at Muslims who would threaten people with death over their depictions of Mohammad and taking that as the width and breadth of Islam is no more absurd then looking at the actions of Westboro Baptist and their "Got hates Gays" protests at fallen soldiers and thinking they are representative of all Christians.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
To be specific, they did not mock Muhammad. Muhammad didn't do anything controversial in the episode. They were mocking people's fear over showing the image and the reaction by some to that image.
Too be fair, the terrorists are no more about Islam then Pat Robertson is about Christianity.
"How dare you portray Muhammad as violent! We shall kill you for that!"
Table-ized A.I.
Honestly, these Muslim extremists are weakling ladylike pussies compared to the Buddhists.
Call me when you Muslim extremists have the balls to pour gasoline all over yourself, light yourself on fire and sit there and pray.
I really don't understand why the Muslim community is not publicly outraged at these people that give their faith a bad name.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The one constant truth of all zealots is that obedience to the rules they fight for is far more important to them than the reason for the rules' existence.
Same ep with Tom Cruise trapped in the closet. Are you suggesting you watched that episode without realizing scientology was being mocked?
If they're such extremists what are they doing watching South Park?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You don't understand why moderates aren't outraged?
Hint: they laugh off these hilariously pathetic whackos, then have a bacon sandwich and a beer, same as the rest of us.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Pat Robertson never flew an airplane into a building or blew up a bus full of women and children. The terrorists may not believe what the majority of Muslims believe, but we're still talking about a large number of sects within Islam with millions of completely faithful followers ready, willing, and thrilled to do violence in the name of their god as their belief structure requires.
I'd say you've never even heard of a little country called Ireland...
Why would we not want someone around who isn't afraid to mock things even if it means that they will be threatened with violence?
Clever signature text goes here.
From watching the episode, the entire point of it seemed to be to show the absurdity of a prohibition on any depiction of someone. By making a depiction of Muhammed (PBUH) that involved no image that was recognizably of him, they showed that the prohibition was ridiculous, because it is then a blanket prohibition on any image. I could say that the category icon for this story was a depiction of the Prophet disguised as a white man in glasses with a black rectangle over his mouth - suddenly that would be a prohibited image.
CAVEAT: This line of argument also means that prohibitions on depictions of things that _we_ think shouldn't be allowed are also absurd.
Finally, this is not to say that I think that any image is acceptable, but it must have to do with the objective content (or at least consensus agreement of what the objective content is), rather than what the artist intended it to depict, or what it may have been interpreted as depicting.
Always remember when the media portrays this sort of threat it is the extremists. There is nothing wrong with 95% of Islam followers - just like there is nothing wrong with 95% of Christianity, its the 5% of Christians/Muslims that blow up buildings. Just like its the 5% of Atheists, 5% of NRA members, etc.. that blow up buildings! Its got little to do with the religion, and more about the people
Without remembering they are extremists we end up with huge societal prejudices (in times past; slavery, racism) and the death of what makes America great - in effect turning America from an open, freedom-loving-country, into exactly what you despise about the Muslims!
Is that Islam has not undergone a process analogous to the Enlightenment.
Pre-Enlightenment, much of Europe was basically a mass of warring theocracies, split between the Catholic ones and the Protestant ones. Separation of church and state were basically nonexistent, blasphemy laws were on the books(and had real teeth, with limited exceptions[thanks a whole fucking lot Ireland] the ones that remain are just relics at this point). You easily could be, and people were, killed for having the wrong doctrinal positions. Censorship was rampant. Things pretty much sucked.
Thanks to the dedicated(and at times heroic, not a few faced jail, or worse) efforts of various Enlightenment figures, along with a number of political occurrences(the French Revolution had its minuses; but it did have the salubrious effect of annihilating a schlerotic and corrupt divine-right absolutism and replacing it with a secular nation-state. The Glorious Revolution in England was less dramatic; but went rather better. Then, of course, you had the American Revolution, which was absolutely dripping with Enlightenment sentiment[much to the displeasure of today's crop of "America is a Christian Nation founded on the Bible!!! Dominionist nutjobs]).
The Enlightenment was not an easy process. Much blood, sweat, and ink were spilled; but the results helped make the modern west the more-or-less pleasant place it is today. It was basically the death-knell of absolutist theocracy in the west, and the impetus behind the broad introduction of fun concepts like "human rights" and "freedom of religion"(also coffeehouses and atheism, what's not to love?).
The relatively benign forms of Christianity that we think of today are basically creations of the Enlightenment(even among the zealous, things like persecution and warfare between Catholics, protestants, and various sects thereof are basically off the table). It wasn't always that way. Even today, there are reactionary hardliners who would really prefer to roll things back(Rushdooney and the "Reconstructionists", for instance, "Dominionists" more generally, are the main thrust of that in the US, where the hardcore are predominantly fundamentalist protestants. On the European stage, we still have the Catholic church pretending that its "canon law", rather than being simply a set of rules for a private club, somehow takes precedence over Civil Law. Without substantial moderating influences, Abrahamic monotheisms are mean, ugly, primitive, and brutal.
Unfortunately, Islam has not, historically, experienced an analogous process. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of more-or-less modern people who are nominally "muslim" in the same way that much of the west is still nominally "christian"; but it does mean that none of the major strains of Islam have been subjected to the radical reduction in power that all the various flavors of Christianity have. For instance, a Christian advocate of theocratic government qualifies as a right-wing nutjob(they exist in surprisingly large numbers, unfortunately; but they still qualify as a fringe position). In large areas of the world, Islamic theocracy(either as a matter of law, or in the form of a state so heavily subservient to religious enthusiasts and Sharia courts that it might as well be) is simply the local form of government.
This is not to say that there is anything intrinsically superior about Christianity. It fought progress tooth-and-nail, every step of the way, during the Enlightenment. To this day, it harbors downright nasty reactionary elements. And, despite protestations to the contrary, most of the noblest aspects of our society exist in spite of rather than because of it. (Fun stuff like "Civil law" and "freedom of conscience" are either classical, or modern derivations from the classical philosophical tradition). However, because Islam has not been subjected to the moderating(some would say "neutering") influence of an Enlightenment, it retains many of the ugly elements that Christianity no longer has the political power or cultural clout to employ.
To be fair a good percentage of those being brought up as Muslims are being taught that it'd be an honor to kill a few infidels like Matt and Trey.
<sarcasm>Yes, because we all know that Christians have NEVER tried to hurt anyone for believing differently than them.</sarcasm>
The problem is humans tend to want to kill/remove/banish anyone who doesn't agree with the local groupthink. Be it religion, science (global warming, for instance) or just cultural. The problem is that "beliefs" are held up high while "ideas" are not. Most religions amplify this tendency. Try being a non-Christian in the US today, it is a pain in the ass because of the sheer stupidity of others. Every time someone hears that I am not a Christian, the first thing they say is "oh, are you an atheist?" as if that is the only other option. When I tell them that 80% of the entire planet is not Christian, their response is "Well, everyone is in America", which is obviously not true and obviously saying that no one outside of America matters anyway.
I was raised in the Catholic church, so don't preach to me how Christianity is about "love". It is yet another flavor of control whereby you follow the rules, or "burn in hell", and anyone who believes different than you is automatically suspicious. Christians are not better than Muslims. Both have extremists even if the vast majority of believers are rational persons. Both believe their view of God is right and everyone else is wrong. Even their God is the same, the God of Abraham. And here in the southeastern USA, not being a Christian can still prevent you from having employment and make life difficult, which isn't very Christian of those folks, is it?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
That's not a disease specific to Islam, though. There are plenty of people -- possibly a majority -- in the US, other Western countries, and on Slashdot who support freedom "X" in principle but are opposed to any specific use of freedom "X". When pressed they either react just like those Muslims, or babble about how liberty is not license, or talk about how rights have to be balanced with responsibilities, or whatever. There are few who actually support freedom in practice.
Catholicism != Christianity. Catholicism is based on Christianity, but is far more "Roman Empire" than Christian.
I disagree. Naming rights go to the ones who shout the loudest. It's up to other muslims/christians to retake the name if they want it. As a non-muslim, it's not my problem who is/is not a *real* muslim.
It may not be ideal, but that is how it works in practice. I mean, most communist states we've seen in the past 100 years would probably have had Marx and Engels rolling in their graves.
It shows exactly how wacko the muslim community is.
Imagine this:
Muslims invade your country just for profit, kill some of your relatives, control your country natural sources, and in general disrespect you as a person and nation. Control your life with physical power IN your country. And they live WAY better than you and your people. Christ trasforms to a different think than just a metaphysical/religious being. Its a symbol. Your people symbol. The only thing that you feel is anger and you live for revenge and justice. You look for enemies, and you find what? Muslims. And they also make fun with your symbol. You take it as an offend. You are an extremist. You are a wacko...maybe...i don't know...
I am against terrorism/war, im not a religious person at all, just try to think how this people think.
Bingo. This is the most important thing to understand. In the "Cartoon Wars" episode, he just showed up at the door at the end holding a hat—and that was considered so incendiary that Comedy Central had to black it out. And in "Super Best Friends," he was actually a major force for good, proving instrumental in the defeat of the giant stone Abraham Lincoln that had been animated by Blainetology.
South Park has never to my knowledge portrayed Muhammad in a negative light. But the extremists don't care. That's the worst part about all of this—and why it's so incredibly important that someone do it. It doesn't surprise me at all that it's Parker and Stone. Hopefully they won't be the last. The extremists want to rule us by fear—we cannot let them.
--Matthew
"If the lights of Broadway blind me, I won't mind..."
Honestly, I think this guy "Al Amrikee" has violated the first rule of a public argument... Never pick a fight with someone who buys their ink by the barrel.
What his miscalculation is going to be is that South Park has a HUGE bully pulpit and they are NOT afraid to use it. They'll look America in the face and say "These people are wrong and this is why." South Park will do is do an episode detailing the stupidity of this explaining how they've made fun of every other religious figure and that fair is fair.
But they won't stop there. South Park will do an episode of him getting butt raped by a guy named "Mohammad" in a bear suit. They'll call him out by name and make fun of him.
In short, they will publicly fuck him up bad.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
I live in the deep South East of the US, have my whole life, and in my 30+ years of employment both for others companies large and small and while working on my own as an independent, have never, ever, not even _once_ been asked whether or not I was a Christian (or any other religion), and certainly not within a framework of reference which would have determined whether or not I would get the job. I think you are ***WAY*** over the top with exaggerating this, propagating a stereotype that works great in movies, but has shit-all to do with real life.
;) ). But until the Muslim religion can show us a _worldwide known and recognized leader_ speaking out regularly and vociferously against the violence perpetuated against non-Muslims, then I have a very hard time believing that all they really are is only about peace and love and just plain old gettin' along...
;)
Like yourself, I was raised in a Christ-based church (Lutheran, my father was a minister and deeply religious, as are most of the rest of my family), and also like you, have grown and 'intellectualized' myself (for good or for bad) out of the church/religious belief system in which I was raised. Not surprisingly, I too feel that there are some large parts of religion, especially historically, that are pretty simply just about 'control', for whatever reason. But what you will not find in the recent history of religion by-and-large are numbers of religious fanatics other than Islamists who are ready and willing to go out and kill other people who have a different religious belief system. Who, if I am to believe what I have read, are to some degree *encouraged* to do so - and not only by ancient/old writings, but by clerical leaders within that religions framework even this very day. Worldwide.
No other religion in our day and age regularly has public call-outs for the death of 'unbelievers' like this particular religion does. Period. *That* is what makes it different, and to my mind, a throwback and dangerous. I would really, really, REALLY like to see some ACTION from the moderates I always hear about 2nd or 3rd hand who claim that this religion is of peace and love, but IME I have yet to see any public, noteworthy call for a cessation of the hostility and barbarity, as well as a condemnation of those who would encourage these acts of senseless cruelty.
Where is the big leader in this religion who will risk fatwa and jihad against himself to try and put an end to the attitudes which prevent the ability to live side by side with others who think differently in their personal choice of religions?
I don't see them, not in any significant way. That, to me, says that there may well be something of merit to what those who call them "islamofascists" have to say.
I do have an open mind, and would love to see harmony instead of strife over these things. I bear no ill will against anyone who is a PEACEFUL Muslim and/or otherwise named follower of the precepts of Islam/Mohamed (or any other religious figure, include L Ron, if I have to
So maybe now, having written this, I'd better pack my bags and go live with the boys in their Colorado mansion...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Reminds me of a quote from Life of Pi:
There are always those who take it upon themselves to defend God, as if the Ultimate Reality, as if the sustaining frame of existence, were something weak and helpless. These people walk by a widow deformed by leprosy begging for a few paise, walk by children dressed in rags living in the street, and they think, "Business as usual." But if they perceive a slight against God, it is a different story. Their faces go red, their chests heave mightily, they sputter angry words. The degree of their indignation is astonishing. Their resolve is frightening.
These people fail to realize that it is on the inside that God must be defended, not on the outside. They should direct their anger at themselves. For evil in the open is but evil from within that has been let out. The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart. Meanwhile, the lot of widows and homeless children is very hard, and it is to their defence, not God's, that the self-righteous should rush.
My page.
Always remember when the media portrays this sort of threat it is the extremists. There is nothing wrong with 95% of Islam followers - just like there is nothing wrong with 95% of Christianity, its the 5% of Christians/Muslims that blow up buildings. Just like its the 5% of Atheists, 5% of NRA members, etc.. that blow up buildings! Its got little to do with the religion, and more about the people
Will you stand by your claim that proportionally as many (self-proclamed) Christians and atheists engage in acts of religious terrorism as Muslims? Can you provide a reference to back this claim?
Rubbish. Fire is physically dangerous, and fear of that danger can cause panic - which is itself dangerous. Insults are not - and don't try to make out that the reactions to them are the same thing.
So it's really more like shouting "you're all poopy-heads" in a crowded theater.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Oh no! Power hungry politicians might use appeals to "progress" in order to dominate and control us! Quick, lets establish a class of politicians(yes, a religious leader is nothing but a politician in a funny hat) who already have absolute power, and thus don't need to promise anything, aside from an afterlife, which is a very cheap promise indeed, in order to dominate and control us. Problem solved!
In the same, contradictory, vein, you mention "In the US, the President can wage his own private war; in Iran, only the Ayatollah can." as though that were some sort of advantage. Yes, the US executive has too much ability to do whatever the fuck he wants, with the only real penalty being losing office after 4 years. The alternative proposed, though, is even worse. (Incidentally, the idea that the Pope would be a moderating influence is largely only true because of the Enlightenment. Wasn't so long ago that Popes had their own standing armies, and called crusades[in a manner rather similar to today's more militant "fatwa" declarations]. Nor were all of these crusades external. The reason that the "cathar" variant of Christianity is mentioned only historically is because of the thoroughness of the Albigensian crusades[best line of that particular conflict: "Kill them all, God will know his own"].)
Yes, it must, undeniably, be admitted that the Enlightenment didn't live up to the highest hopes of its backers. That much is undeniable. However, it was an improvement over what came before, and subsequent reactions against it have, unequivocally, been steps backwards.
Fascism and Communism in Europe, and Fundamentalism in the Middle East, have preserved most of the vices, and destroyed most of the virtues, of Enlightenment. If you think that religious authoritarianism manages to create "rules that apply to rich and poor alike", where secular rule of law has not, you are dreaming.