Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images
jitendraharlalka writes with this excerpt from Al Jazeera English: "A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encouraged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called 'Draw Mohammed Day' is blasphemous. ... 'We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers,' Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said."
A theocracy would probably want to ban intentional mass blasphemy, especially when it was done for commercial purposes.
You mean the pedophile?
LOLMohammad?
Someone has had to have done that somewhere, right?
I don't get it. I mean, sure, I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.
But fuck man, relax. It's just those heathen bastards (who are gonna go to hell according to you anyway) so let them have their fun. Please, tell me, exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad? Dude's been dead for a long time. Trust me, he don't give a damn.
*Has this been deemed an official religion?
Sent from your iPad.
I can't find it on Facebook!! What is the group called?
How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
Sent from your iPad.
{$$}8-)>~
... Please don't behead me.
-
/|\
( ) - Hi! I'm the Prophet Mohammed! I KILL YOU!
-
|
|
/ \
Now kill everyone on Slashdot for Allah because of my "art".
So now the Anarchist's Cookbook should have a watermark of caricatures of Mohammed. Not only does the writer get a good free speech exercise, it prevents al-queda from learning howto make bombs! Do it with top secret nuclear documents, as well.
...and this is what? Last time I checked it was the 21st century. I wish there was a solution to this mess, but I fear there never will be...
At least they didn't demand the killing of the page owner!
I don't agree with how Thunderf00t is conveying his message but he has made an important point. Islamic Censorship has gone way way too far. I support free speech, and secular, rational thinking. I do think that religion is sort of the Human biological equivalent of a computer virus, or malware. (Most Windows users on the face of the Earth are infected with malware of some sort. Equivalently, most Human brains are infected with a Malware called Religion. The virus is different in different parts of the world, but its still a virus.
Computer malware makes computers function in ways it shouldn't to propagate the virus. Religion makes Humans behave in ways or experience things in ways they shouldn't. Computer viruses are created by malicious Humans to steal money, and cover commit other crimes. Religions exist to steal money, and rationalize the committing of other crimes that would not normally be acceptable in secular culture.
I can definitely understand iconoclasm - the desire to prevent mere symbols from being more important than the core idea. Applied to Islam, it would be a prophet's desire that his message not be cheapened by allowing it to be tied too deeply with its imperfect messenger.
What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.
Is that really the first priority for those who want to spread the ultimate revealed truth of the universe - playing image police against every person who is not a believer? Seems a rather silly priority to have in the context.
Ryan Fenton
i want to draw a picture of a crazy sex orgy with religious figures of all denominations that day and see if it upsets the right-leaning facebook friends i have. i wonder if they realize that this is about censorship, not "those crazy muslims"
Hello, it's called FACEbook! How long did you think it would be before Mohammed's face ended up on there?!
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Yeah, but the question is how much damage are they going to cause before they get to an Islamic Enlightenment.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Your example of sticking your hand into a fire isn't even close. This is more like dealing with a school bully, no matter what you do that bully will be after you. How crazy is it to make threats over drawings? These crazies need to be exposed as what they are and there is no reason to kowtow to them.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Or, maybe, those progressive Muslims who get their facebook banned will have one more reason to not like the old guard.
In a few centuries, or less, Islam will be mellowed out.
I hope Scientology never gets a turn...
I'm going to blatantly copy and paste an answer from Kwlest http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100518205646AAeQc1L
----
I'm a Muslim & I'm glad you asked this question - (sorry if my answer is too long)
Some people who call them selves Muslims have blown this out of proportion, letting their Anger overcome them.
As Muslims if we call for protests on the drawings of Prophet Mohamed we should have protested the same way when the movie passion of Christ was made as it is degradation of one of the Greatest prophets sent by God
Sadly similar to some Christians and Jews who do not know their religion properly there is a group of Muslims who do not know what they are doing or why they are doing so; in the process they have done more harm to Islam than the original drawing.
But here is the reason why you should not draw a picture of a Prophet (notice I said prophet and not just Mohamed)
A prophet is a Human sent by God to spread the word of God and if one does a painting of this man then with due time others would start idolizing this picture and praying to it instead of God, associating partners with God is an unforgivable sin
it is best to avoid drawing pictures of prophets as this would result in hanging such paintings/Drawings in important places and respecting it as if it were holy
Having said that, drawing inappropriate pictures of anyone for that matter is morally incorrect, imagine I draw a picture of someone’s mother or father in a degrading manner how offensive is that to the persons children, they may not react the same way but it is equally degrading
Why would a non Muslim want to draw a picture of Prophet Mohamed in a wrong manner (if not to anger Muslims) you can call it freedom but Freedom is a trial from God and to miss use it is to be answerable to God and we have no right to kill or hurt such a person
When Prophet Mohamed visited a town and the people of that town stoned him God sent the Angel Gabriel and asked the prophet if you wish god has sent me to punish them and our beloved prophet said No, Maybe some day they will realize their mistake and accept the right path therefore I forgive them
When the prophet was not angry of attacks against him why should we act in Anger
I conclude with a saying from the Quran
O you who believe seek help through perseverance and Prayer; surely, ALLAH is with those who patiently persevere.” [Quran 02:153]
Lets be patient and Allah is surely with those who are patient as mentioned in above verse of the Quran and we should not worry about their plans against Islam, we all should pray and Ask Allah to save us from their evil plans against Islam
In a few centuries, or less, Islam will be mellowed out.
Yeah, by then, it'll be the scientologists terrorizing people over making images of Tom Cruise.
OK ... I think that women should be free, not slaves. Evolution is pretty obvious, killing innocents is a sin, I could go on ...
Why do THEY get to offend my religious sensibilities? Why should their ideas get precedence?
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
No, in few centuries they will be mellowed out by today's standards. They will still be centuries behind.
End fine if you poke the bear with a lot of sticks, sticks that also happened to have sharp points too.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
What does it take to get Facebook banned in the US? I'm totally behind that project. /me checks his Facebook account.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had 'Draw a Religious Figure Day', that had some of Mohammud but some of any other random religious figure.
That would mean even more fun and more fun is always good!
Ezekiel 23:20
How does not sharing your point of view hurt anyone?
Enough said.
My parents taught me that sticking my hand into a fire was hot, that I'd get hurt and that I shouldn't do it. Surely these Facebook taunters learned that too?
That's not being prudent. That's being a coward.
Surely you're not suggesting that we relinquish our right to draw WHATEVER THE FUCK WE PLEASE, because someone is threatening us with bodily harm if we draw something that displeases them.
It is only natural for people to resist when their most basic right of self-expression is violated.
At this point, western democracies need to make a stand against the violence of radical Islam, even if it takes such comical form. If we fold any time they threaten us with violence, then we will live according to THEIR rules in no time.
Culture doesn't move linearly like that. Globalization should, and has to some extent, modernized much of the world. The problem in much of the Middle East isn't that the people are extremist, it is that the Governments are.
-|-
| |
Muhammad
'O'
-|-
| |
Allah
Great, now to sit back and wait for death threats to start rolling in.
[snip] If one looks at Christianity from circa 1550 they will see atrocities, brutalizing of the irreverent, and murdering of heretics. Sometimes en masse. [snip]
Yeah, and there has been a lot of repair work done to civilization since the Renaissance. We've pretty much gotten back to end of the Roman empire when Christians started mucking things up. Now, it would be irresponsible to let someone come along and vandalize it all over again.
And before you say, 'yeah but this is 2010, they should be over that in these modern times!', remember that the real world is not like a game of Civilization; not all cultures started at the same time. In a few centuries, or less, Islam will be mellowed out.
Actually, every culture is continuous from day to day. So culture did start at the same time and has been going ever since. It just changes locally over time. That's the thing about humans: we don't do very well without culture, so everyone has one... and every "peoples" has had one. What do you think the arab people we doing before Mo came along?
There's no good reason to believe that any particular culture will mimic that of Western culture like a blueprint. Western culture is the way it is because of internal and external pressures over its history. Christianity won out over a more tolerant society at its beginning and so can fundamentalist Islam now.
The only question is how much pressure can those of us who value liberty put on it, and where should it be pressed.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
I don't support any of the two views (extremists and provocateurs), but the message you are passing is:
"Certain religious people have some sensibility to something. If you provoke them and they kill you, it's your fault".
It's that kind of message that encourages the provocateurs, not the sensibility. It's just disrespectful (while maybe a service) to make fun of other people's sensibilities, religious or not. But it's simply unacceptable to consider such a reaction acceptable.
Religion is free to tell their believers what they cannot do. But they cross the line when they want non-believers to abide to their laws.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
Now if I want to keep islamic scriptkiddies, hacktivists and religious freaks off my website, all I have to do is post some pictures of muhammed and the governments will help me to keep them out of my server? Sweet!
Weren't they way ahead of the west in math and science while we were having our "dark ages"?
Anyway, judging them by their calendar is faulty. Wouldn't the Jews then be in interstellar space by now?
We are all God's parents.
Guess they are concerned for Mohammed's privacy...?
If no one knows what Mohammed looks like, how can you tell if someone is drawing a picture of him? Can I make a sketch of Lady Gaga and then scrawl "Mohammed" under it and expect a fatwa? More interestingly, can I scrawl "Mohammed" under someone else's drawing and have them killed?
Probably a lot, sadly enough. There is kind of a J-curve with these kinds of things. But the enlightenment has to be organic. If the world tries to force it, it will just get worse.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
My parents taught me that if I can't stand the fire, I should stay out of the kitchen.
I guess banning Facebook for themselves accomplishes this.
(This will not stop the fire from spreading however..)
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
On the flipside, Michael Moore had to hire a handful of bodyguards after he released Fahrenheit 9/11.
Or how about Jesse Helms stating that Bill Clinton had "better bring a bodyguard" if he comes to North Carolina?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Why would a non Muslim want to draw a picture of Prophet Mohamed in a wrong manner (if not to anger Muslims) you can call it freedom but Freedom is a trial from God and to miss use it is to be answerable to God and we have no right to kill or hurt such a person
We do it to express our freedom. You need to respect that we feel the same way about freedom of speech in the West as Muslims feel about Mohammed. We are willing to protect it at any cost. In all honesty if the Muslim extremists didn't get their knickers in a bunch every time somebody drew a half-assed picture of Mohammed there wouldn't even be an issue. However since they feel the need to censor us in our own countries we feel the need to prove that we still have the freedom to ridicule anyone.
My religious tolerance ends when you start trying to take away my freedoms. And with Scientology.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm? Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do. Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"
8-D -- Prophet Mohammed
Maybe the Pakistanis should go all Vader on Facebook.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
More fairy tales.
Uggh.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Again, this isn't Civ IV. It's not as if it goes from A to Z. Things like genocide and forced relocation tend to set cultures back a century or two. But yes, old-world Muslims invented things like algebra and chess. They were once some of the best educated people in the world.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.
That's quite a leap you've taken from what I said. I'm not saying that no-one should ever draw the Prophet Mohamed, or that everyone should agree with or honor everyone else's religious views. But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense. This Facebook group is not doing this for "artistic" reasons, they're doing it just to try to piss someone off. To me, just like the Chewbacca defense, it doesn't make sense.
The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah.
Of course worship of Mohammed is exactly what has happened. Anyone held in that much reverence is de-facto being worshiped.
Considering that you drawing Mo isn't blasphemous, you realize the answer is that they'd riot if they got attention, regardless of the excuse.
The rule, such as it is, is for believers only and is roughly akin to the "no idols" rules of xtianity. That even historical pictures would be bad seems to be a recent invention, somewhat like the ~6000 year age of the Earth some xians believe came from the bible but was instead invented years later by a "scholar".
This is what you get though when you pander to religious people and act like any of their crazy fantasies are true - they then force you to continue the charade. Like a billion loony-bin Napoleons all demanding to be the emperor.
Technically true. But the gap will be become less and less relevant as time passes. Like I was twice as old as my little brother when I was 12, but now the 6 year difference is much less noticeable. And in 30 years it will be imperceptible. I guess you could think of it in terms of percentages instead of years. Christianity is about 130% more mature than Islam. In 300 years it will be down to about 115% (or so).
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
It's a strength in numbers thing. The religious freaks have a more difficult time attacking 100,000 people who offend them, than 2 people that offend them.
My father was Catholic, my mother was Anglican, I was brought up a Catholic until my late teens when I saw for myself the hypocrisy of it all.
Other than that, it's none of your business.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
It restricts my freedom to draw humorous pictures, on the other hand no one forces them to look at my funny pictures.
Oh noes we must respect their delusions. Adults with invisible friends do not need to be respected.
Reason is having its First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammad Day
One right we absolutely don't have is the right to not be offended.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
2prophets1cup?
I couldn't figure out how to insert a space. Sure, horns. Why not? Knowing a bit about Muhammad's wife, he probably had some.
"Everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
--fstdt
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
If you want to be effective on the internet (which, contra a lot of optimistic mid 90's blather about the impossibility of censorship, can actually be censored with some degree of efficacy) you want to put the would-be censor in the position of upsetting as many "good, honest, law-abiding citizens" as possible if he choses to go after you. If they can just quietly squelch you, those people will cheer. If they have to cut off those people's lolcat supply to squelch you, there will be grumbling.
With this in mind, things like Facebook are excellent targets. If you just set up mohammedporcinebestiality.com, or something, you might attract a certain amount of outrage; but you could be blocked with basically zero collateral damage. If, on the other hand, you make heavy use of sites with "legitimate" uses, you can effectively force the fundies into the position of either enduring you or inflicting a DOS attack on themselves.
Other religions don't consider mere depiction to be blasphemy, so I don't think it would help so much to illustrate your point: Most religions don't have their followers send death threats because of mere blasphemy, at least not anymore.
A better example would be South Park. While it's been pulled before, the Super Best Friends episode aired unedited, as did many other episodes blaspheming Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, Mormonism, pretty much every major religion. But only Islam actually sent death threats and got South Park censored.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I suspect a lot of people said, basically, just that when currently "mainstream" faiths were just being started...
One that hath name thou can not otter
That may explain why they are like that, but it does not excuse it. Christian atrocities were unacceptable then, and Islamic atrocities are unacceptable now.
Also, cultural relativism should kindly go fuck itself.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I think this goes deeper than religious silliness - with facebook out of the way, the court/government has paved the way for a domestic competitor to take over pakistan's social networking needs! tinfoil hats, everyone!
I blame my poor memory actually - "Be nice to everyone" is much easier to remember than 10 commandments or passages from some holy book.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Hey, that's what most cults either do or strive for...
One that hath name thou can not otter
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
I don't know that I'd call it a bad thing, but I, personally, tend to respect things which deserve respect, because I, y'know, actually feel respect for them. I don't respect things just to spare someone's feelings.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it.
Actually, no, it's about freedom of speech, and about proving that chilling effect no longer works when we have the courage to stand up to them. Here's a much better explanation from the guy who started it.
when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? No, but disappointed as hell. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
No one should have to suffer a death threat for writing a book, drawing a picture, or saying something you don't like.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
No one's poking anyone. We are provoking, yes, but with words.
And the people we're provoking are humans, which means they're capable of coming up with fair retaliation -- like, say, blaspheming against our respective religions -- instead of killing people.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No Facebook? ...
This is the first time I wish I were Pakistani, and all my friends too. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It's not their religious sensibility.
Now, defaming Allah really would be inciting them. The restriction on depictions of Mohammad was to prevent idolatry (and thus perhaps the worship of Mohammad instead of Allah). So, if you're a worshipper, the rule (sort of) is that you don't create images to worship.
Now anyone outside the religion isn't bound by those rules (they don't actually believe Allah exists, though they may think Mohammad was a fine upstanding chap, or not). As they're not about to start worshipping either one, what's the problem with creating an image? In this context, the image is exactly that; just an image. Not a focus of worship.
By all means respect sensibilities where they're sane and meaningful (don't deface churches/mosques etc. and yess about how stupid you think religious people may be because they have a faith). Also, expect the same to be shown to you. You don't belittle Allah, they don't say you're not allowed to create images and stories (because images and stories are exactly that to the secular).
Now, if I were to draw Mohammad, and someone was to threaten me with it, what does it say about them? The automatic assumption that it's the figure they're thinking of? It's very unlikely to be the real image of Mohammad. Unless it's a chap I know called Mohammad who lives not far away.. I could probably do a fair likeness of him.. Though it's nothing for any religion to get uppity about..
As a secular person, I have the right to draw what I want, where I want, when I want (as long as it damages nobody else's property). Some things people draw make other people think they're a bit of an ass.. But hey.. That's their choice too..
While I agree with you, I don't believe religions are immune from change. The big backlash against this day seems to be from students who feel that their religion is being singled out and picked on, rather than the actual drawing of Mohammad. Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
We could just as well as said 'draw jesus fucking magdalene' or jesus jacking off cartoon - or the three wise men making out with mary.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I never understood this. I am a hindu and having seen Muslims closely, I know they are very sensitive about religion. There are some extremists who are hell-bent on making it seem like islam will die if something or the other goes wrong like this posting of Mohammed cartoons and everyone has to wage war. Here in US, we have what I see is Bully culture - if you have sensibilities, you are basically screwed. Naturally the US and Islam are at odds. I dont think it is right to insult some religion just because it happens to be protected as your fundamental right to draw. I dont think it is right to make death threats over it either. How will we ever make these 2 sides agree over anything if neither of them are going to ever relent ?
redundant? This was one of the first comments.
One word... tolerance.
Bill Maher said it best on that one.
Let us not become so tolerant, that we tolerate intolerance.
There is nothing I could possibly add to that.
Grow up, boy.
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
So asserting my constitutional rights makes me a bigot now?
What does the rant above make you?
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
Plenty. Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.
How 'bout that?
One word... tolerance.
Tolerance is a two way street. If they can't tolerate might rights, why should I tolerate their theological eccentricities? Especially when they're willing to be violent against a non-violent offender.
So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?
I shouldn't have to "earn" the right to draw a caricature of Mohammed. It is my inalienable human right to do so in the first place.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
Grow a pair of balls. Tyranny shouldn't be tolerated regardless of your age. I'm sure most Muslims are normal people. I don't have a grudge against them. I do however reserve the right to be a bigot against one who restricts my freedom of speech.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
Plenty, but I have yet to see any of them get violent over a cartoon Jesus. Plus, most of the people I've actually met, who own guns, are dead serious in regards to their use of such a hunting tool. So, your implication that people who own guns and are Christian are prone to violence shows just how bigoted you are.
Natalie Portmanism
let them continue to wall themselves from the rest of the world.
Morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan,
Do you think you would be afraid for your life if you drew these things in a Danish newspaper?
You know what offends me?
Someone telling me they want me to be beheaded because I drew a doodle.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
One word... tolerance.
Good point. Radical Muslims should really be more tolerant of those who do not follow their religion, and are therefore not bound by its rules.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
We're still talking about the Muslims who get so worked up over a cartoon that they want to kill someone over it, right?
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Any Muslim who is a normal person like me won't give a shit about any cartoon. Anyone making threats over a cartoon simply needs to learn not to take themselves so seriously.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems
No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,
How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.
Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.
Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.
Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.
I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.
inciting hatred is pathetic!
No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I have alot more respect for people who believe in God than I have for you and your pompous psychiatric advice, douche.
You spelled it this way twice, and twice with "u" and "i" for the vowels.
I like the former -- it seems like a passive-aggressive way of making the very word describing their religion, to be "formed in the image of Mohammed", and even if it was just a typo, I like the things my brain tells me, so I will keep rewarding it with alcohol.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Off the top of my head,
Many Buddhist sects.
(Neo-)Druidism.
LaVeyan Satanism.
Tolerance is a two way street. If they can't tolerate might rights, why should I tolerate their theological eccentricities? Especially when they're willing to be violent against a non-violent offender.
I view it completely differently, I'm afraid - you being able to tolerate them and them not being able to tolerate you makes you the better person, and probably more right.
I shouldn't have to "earn" the right to draw a caricature of Mohammed. It is my inalienable human right to do so in the first place.
Of course it is, just like you have the "right" to go out in your can now and run someone over in you want to - but as a human, you face the consequences of those actions. And if you can't face the consequences, then don't do it in the first place - that's what you learn when you become a responsible adult.
Plenty, but I have yet to see any of them get violent over a cartoon Jesus. Plus, most of the people I've actually met, who own guns, are dead serious in regards to their use of such a hunting tool. So, your implication that people who own guns and are Christian are prone to violence shows just how bigoted you are.
By all accounts, many of them get violent for much lesser things, as we've seen with the high school massacres that have taken place.
And, no, I'm no bigot, I just don't agree with the "right" to own a gun in a civilised society, especially one that declares itself as being majority Christian.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Ah, but we are. Again:
Most religions don't have their followers send death threats because of mere blasphemy...
That is why they're the target.
But then, if they bother to look, they'll find other movements against other religions -- for example, Anonymous vs Scientology.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
My God is real.
Your God is not real
My God doesn't want people to do X
This applies to everyone because they're believing in the wrong God.
Doing Gods work gets me into heaven.
These people insult God, therefore killing them means I'm protecting God.
Therefore God owes me a seat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of course people can draw Mohammed if they want to. But how many
people really have a burning desire to draw him? Just because you
can do something doesn't mean you should. If you're just drawing
Mohammed because you know it will insult a lot of people then you're
an ass.
Sure, I'll join you with my sig.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Because many religions (particularly christianity and islam) actively seek to impose their worldview on those who do not share their beliefs. It is a key part of their belief system that they expressly do not respect the fact that I don't believe in their god. According to some of them I should be put to death for not converting to their irrational worship. Adults who believe you should respect their imaginary friends and will hurt you if you don't is not something I'm particularly inclined to respect. If they keep their crazy beliefs to themselves they'll never have a problem with me. But there always seem to be those who can't resist trying to convert the unbelievers by any means necessary.
Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? I don't think anyone is surprised at how crazy religious zealots get. That is also not a compelling argument for appeasing them or their crazy irrational beliefs.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
Depends on who is doing the poking.
One word... tolerance.
The whole thing is a protest for tolerance. It was set up in response to a small group of people who wrote death threats because they couldn't tolerate some pictures.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
I'm not going to let insignificant crap ruin my day, it just happens that part of that day is drawing a picture.
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Exactly, normal people (muslim or otherwise) won't give a toss and I don't want them to. The idea that I might piss off a few idiots might amuse me for a few minutes tho.
And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
No, I'd probably laugh because it's funny.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Shatnerology.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Your statements offend my beliefs and sensibilities about what life is and the freedoms that are innate to every individual. You are poking at the sensibilities of many people with your own stick with comments exactly like you've stated here.
There is no way that differences in belief can be resolved, or even stated, in a non-offensive way, especially when those beliefs are held as absolute. Offensiveness is protected speech in civilized countries, and is such for very good reason. If offense of one party is prosecuted, then offense to ANY (no matter how insignificant, as many clearly regard the Muslim offense as insignificant) must be prosecuted, if there is to be rule of law. There is no way that a society like that can function.
Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Ah, but we are. Again:
Most religions don't have their followers send death threats because of mere blasphemy...
That is why they're the target.
But then, if they bother to look, they'll find other movements against other religions -- for example, Anonymous vs Scientology.
We are focussing on them now, but as a rule, we also make fun of Christianity, Buddhism, Janism, Judaism, any ism.
A little harshly worded, but I agree with the parent (mod him up). The "Don't poke a bear with a stick" post is just saying it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to harm people- he is not saying you should avoid offending people at your own expense. You have more choices than just submitting to everyone's will or having zero concern for anyone.
My webcomic
While not so whacko crazy as many of the muslims calling for the outright assassination of anyone who dares portray Mohammed, you still avoid the central point:
What exactly gives any the muslims the right to judge and condemn my right to pictorialise anyone I like? The muslim prohibition on reproductions of mohammed's image is for muslims only. In any sane modern society, the members of any one sect do not have the right to impose views such as this. If your right to do this comes from the word of the prophet and thus trumps everyone else's rights then you're just as whacko as the other extremists.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?
Yes. That is part of freedom of speech it isn't the freedom to say "lets all be happy in our current situation, the USA is the best and Obama/Bush are gods!" that isn't freedom, every country gives you the "freedom" to say good things. Freedom of speech means that I can say fuck Obama, Bush, the USA, the UN, Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, The war on terror, communism, capitalism, socialism, etc. that is freedom of speech.
/might/ get a death threat. I'm sure as hell not going to get a car laden with explosives parked outside my house though. I'm not going to get killed, I'm going to get perhaps a boycott of any further art I draw, etc.
Why is it that Muslims get a free pass? You know what? I could draw a cartoon of Jesus screwing Moses and I doubt I'd get any thing more than a few laughs, a few angry e-mails and such. If I push it forth I
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet is a very interesting article. Why is it that every, single, other religion has embraced tolerance other than Islam? If Islam is so tolerant then why aren't the Islamic leaders doing more to embrace it?
And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
I wouldn't laugh at it, I would respect their right to free speech and do nothing. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, they have their right to post what they want, I post what I want, if I don't like it -gasp- I don't have to look at it.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
So we should "tolerate" the fact that Islam can get a free pass of criticism but every other religion we can do whatever?
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Yeah, most are. However, their leaders are advocating religious violence. I don't see the current Pope saying we should have a mass genocide of non-catholics but yet Islamic leaders are basically saying the same thing.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
I don't see Christians making death threats and attempting to carry them out on cartoonists who make fun of Jesus or any other biblical figure.
In short, out of all the religions in the world at the present age, it is only Islam that advocates violence for such stupid, insignificant things as cartoons.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'm also a Christian. Everyday Christians around the world are persecuted for their beliefs. This holds true in the past as it does in the present. Truth be told, it shouldn't bother you in the slightest if you are secure in your faith.
Muslims, and other people of faith need to learn that they're not instruments of destruction through Gods will. The moment you act on behalf of God, the moment you realize just how weak he is without you. Not exactly what I a call an all powerful all loving omnipresent deity.
Life is not for the lazy.
I don't know about that. At my (state funded) university, a single person managed to get a website banned from campus because he was offended by it. So far it seems to be the one person and the one website, but who knows what would happen if others complained. Me, I just use a proxy and see whatever I want anyway.
But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense.
It makes plenty of sense in the same way that mass protests against a misbehaving government make sense. If you tell them "the emperor has no clothes" just by yourself they might kill you. If thousands or millions say something is crazy, irrational and wrong then it is harder for those in power to push back. There is power in groups of people who are unwilling to be cowed by those in power. This demand that we "respect" their religious idol is an attempt to coerce MY behavior and I'm not willing to be coerced. When hundreds of thousands of people point out that they are being a bully and aren't going to take it any more then the crazies lose power.
Making some reasonable effort to show respect isn't always bad, but always respecting everyone's views is simply not possible. For example, I cannot show complete respect for a radical Christians's views that all adulterers should be stoned to death without disrespecting another radical Christian's views that the old testament laws don't apply anymore and that stoning adulterers is wrong. Incompatible world views exist, it's simply our choice as to which one's we're going to upset with our activities. Heck, a PETA member might even argue that poking that bear will end well for the bear when it gets a man-sized meal, so go ahead.
Oh, I'm not a Muslim. I thought it was clear I was quoting from yahoo answers.
To answer your question, they think God is real so even if we don't want to believe in it, we can't escape his laws. In the West, it is true we don't really have to follow their vision of the world as much, but if we were in a mixed society and you would start putting statues of Jesus, Moses, etc. everywhere, they would make sure to destroy them. Why? Because, in their opinion, they have the truth.
Some things should NOT be tolerated. Your line may vary.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I'll tell you exactly why: There is a strong sense of condescension behind political correctness and "tolerance".
I think the whole concept distills down to "Oh, we civilized people should be tolerant of others, but these $OTHER_FOLK are less civilized/human and therefore we can't expect them to understand tolerance."
It's a back-handed, dehumanizing degrading of those they claim to "tolerate", while they smugly hide behind politically correct terminology.
Either that, or a pure self-hatred of progress and its "costs", thus deferring to anybody seen as more primitive to literally take over with their more-in-tune-with-the-universe ways. Which again is still a degrading insult in how they relatively view their target of "tolerance".
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Then why is it that every single other religion has grown out of these stupidities and don't resort to violence in the 21st century.
Why is it that I can make cartoons of Jesus all I want, make fun of Buddha, criticize Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), declare that the big bang was a myth, prove Zeus never existed, and any other religious symbol other than those related to Islam and various small, irrational cults and have nothing more than angry letters?
There is a difference between respect and cowardice. And my respect ends when a religion tramples over human rights to make a point.
Every other religion has earned the right to have respect other than Islam and a few small cults. They don't trample over human rights and don't resort to violence. Why Islam gets a free pass is only because of cowardice.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing? Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it. Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it. Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
I would argue the exact opposite. Disrespecting religious views is extremely productive, especially for those in the religion who now get to actually hear an opposing argument.
At this point in my old age, I am glad people make fun of religions. Nobody writing on this board, nor any one in any Crapistan or anywhere for that matter, knows God or what he/she/they want. It is actually healthier for society to expose the fallacies in every religion via jokes than outright crusades unless you want to fight a real war. I would rather win with logic than have to slaughter 1 billion people, but hey, maybe you prefer the former. Sure the poking the bear method may cause temporary pain and/or problems, but in the long run, it is better for society when people are allowed to think--this is a reason why the internet is so important because it can help remove all of the bullshit that people and cultures are brainwashed with by their government, families, friends, or culture. This is precisely why the Chinese government does not want people to be able to read everything that is posted on the Internet. It is hard to lie to me when I have google and 40,000 sources telling me the exact opposite of the crap you are telling me.
I was raised Catholic and I thank god that people have been allowed to talk about how fucking ridiculous some of the leaders are portrayed in Christianity, from the pope to the bishop to the priest to mary getting pregnant without sex to a woman from a rib to adam and eve to parents not letting their kids go to the doctor because god will fix them. Its the same reason you shouldn't respect someones culture or norms if their norms hurt the progress of society. At one point in time, people thought many ridiculous things that were not true and we had to expose them. Christianity was and is full of shit too; however, they are tolerant in that they wont kill you if you draw a picture of Jesus or Mary or whoever. Instead, they tell you that you will rot in hell if you dont take Jesus into your heart, and they mean it.
If you simply cannot have a cartoon drawn of your leader or you will commit acts of violence or whatever most normal people would consider evil, what does that say about the validity of your belief system?
I'd say it means it's completely worthless and you have no business living where there is civilization--look at the root of that word, civil, civilized, civility. I am so tired of the fairy tale stories that drive the people to commit insane acts. What if I told you that you couldnt draw a picture of Snow White or Pinocchio because if you did, you would pay for your act of blasphemy with your life? You would call me a crazy person. So why I ask do you respect this joke of a fairy tale religion? Because so many people believe in the mumbo jumbo, or because you are scared?
Religion is a disease and/or a mental disorder and should be treated as such. Some can be treated with discussion, some will be treated with evolution and they will simply perish. In the long run, Pinocchio isnt going to fix your problems, you are going to have to fix your problems. I wish the writers at comedy central didnt back down from the threats, somebody needs to take a stand or ignorance will win.
Kind regards to all who want progress.
If you leave a nice car on the street with the engine running, it is wrong for someone to steal it, but you are also at fault when it gets stolen*. Same logic goes here. I don't expect the parent is suggesting it is okay for people to kill you over a cartoon due to religion or not, but if you don't like a religion you should try more productive methods to express it.
*If you don't agree with that one, how about airport security sitting back and watching a man carry an obvious bomb onto a plane- I would say they get some blame for the deaths. Yes, it's their job, but morals are independent of whether you are getting paid (ability to stop it is still a factor of course).
My webcomic
Of course it is, just like you have the "right" to go out in your can now and run someone over in you want to - but as a human, you face the consequences of those actions. And if you can't face the consequences, then don't do it in the first place - that's what you learn when you become a responsible adult.
There's a big distinction between me drawing a picture and running someone over. The former doesn't physically hurt anyone and the latter does. The point at which my rights come into conflict with other's rights is the point at which the law should come into play. Anything before that is just someone making up laws to be obeyed not to benefit society.
By all accounts, many of them get violent for much lesser things, as we've seen with the high school massacres that have taken place.
If you're referring to the Columbine massacres, that occurred with a small group of troubled teens who had a lack of parental supervision, the know-how to make or obtain weapons, and were harassed over a period of years. I fail see how constant emotional abuse is trivial to drawing a picture. If you're referring to some other massacre, most cases will point to some form of gang violence. The youths in those cases usually have a bleak future and are peer-pressured into violence to fit-in/survive.
LaVeyan Satanism.
You must be joking. Why I bet there are more people that have "Jedi" as a religion then that.
Grow up, boy.
I'll jump in since I'm WELL past the age where I could be described as a "boy" you condescending prick.
When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
Bullshit. There are sometimes things that cannot under any circumstances be tolerated. There are some world views that simply cannot peacefully coexist. There are those who will attempt to conquer, destroy, enslave and humiliate. I should just tolerate this? I think you are the one who needs a dose of the real world.
Oscar Wilde actually said it best "everything in moderation, including moderation". That applies to tolerance too.
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.
Read my other responses if you want answers to your other points because I'm not repeating myself over and over again.
I don't *believe* in Free Speech because it already exists - you now, at this moment in time, can go do or say what you like to whoever you like.
But you have to accept there are possibly *CONSEQUENCES* to saying those things, and therefore you need to be aware of those consequences before you say those things in the first place.
If I went into the office tomorrow and my boss told me he'd cut my salary by 20%, I'd go and say something to him about it. A consequence of my saying something might mean I lose my job completely, but since 20% of my salary is important to me, I'm still going to say it to him.
Being able to acceptably draw cartoons of Mohammed *ISN'T* that important to me, therefore I don't feel the need to do it in the first place, therefore my *RIGHT* to do it is irrelevant.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
There's a big distinction between me drawing a picture and running someone over. The former doesn't physically hurt anyone and the latter does. The point at which my rights come into conflict with other's rights is the point at which the law should come into play. Anything before that is just someone making up laws to be obeyed not to benefit society.
Okay, so how about a Muslim cartoonist starts drawing cartoons of injured soldiers in Afghanistan? What about if your son or brother got injured or killed over there? Are you *REALLY* supposed to sit back and not take offence at it? And why's that any different? Who do you think *YOU* are dictating to someone else what relevance they should put on their own beliefs? And why is that any different to you believing they are inflicting their radicalist views on you?
If you're referring to the Columbine massacres, that occurred with a small group of troubled teens who had a lack of parental supervision, the know-how to make or obtain weapons, and were harassed over a period of years. I fail see how constant emotional abuse is trivial to drawing a picture. If you're referring to some other massacre, most cases will point to some form of gang violence. The youths in those cases usually have a bleak future and are peer-pressured into violence to fit-in/survive.
Oh, I see it now... you're basically saying violence is justified as long as it originates from an American!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Between that and the Anti-Choice movement folks who post abortion doctors home addresses and schedules on websites, just in case any of their viewers want to go sniping that day. Hatred is hatred, and just as unacceptable for Christians as it is in Muslims.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
All that says is that either Jesus isn't as revered an icon in your neighbourhood than Mohammed is in a Muslim one.
So what you are saying is that the appropriate course of action to take when someone offends you is to kill the person.
No, actually what it says is that people here understand that there is a big step between emotion and action.
And let's pretend while you're walking down the street, a Muslim person runs up to you, pointing at you and accusing you of being a pedophile, say. By your argument, you'd not be allowed to take offence at that...
I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.
The fact that you can't perceive the difference makes you one or more of the following:
1. stupid
2. sociopath
I wouldn't laugh at it, I would respect their right to free speech and do nothing. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, they have their right to post what they want, I post what I want, if I don't like it -gasp- I don't have to look at it.
Rubbish! What if your son got in injured in Afghanistan? Or your brother or sister?
And like I said in my other reply - you telling them how deeply they should hold their own religious beliefs is utter hypocrisy on your part.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I read somewhere that the LDS has branches devoted to this, and that they are so heavily into genealogy because they believe they can baptize dead people by proxy. Thats what some elements of the Church of LDS are actively engaged in, baptizing our dead ancestors into their church so that come Judgement day, they all get to go to heaven (or whatever they actually believe happens, I am not sure).
Mind you its no odder than those BA Christians who are actively hoping that Israel will go to war with the Palestinians because if they do it might herald the Second Coming.
Personally, I can't help think the world would be a far better, more peaceful and saner place if all those people who follow religions "of the book" were gone from the Earth.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Your passive neutrality offends my religion. I declare fatwa on you.
MABASPLOOM!
Sigh.
The new political statement of the 21th century:
"I don't like your point of view so I'm blocking your website from being accessed by the people of my (nation, region, city, ISP users, company, etc.)."
In other news Pakistan is experiencing massive depopulation. When ask why a family was moving the reply was: "I can't do any social networking when they blocked my access to Facebook!"
So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?
Yes. It absolutely is that important that we have the right to do this. Because if some group of fundamentalist douchebags is allowed to tell us what we can and cannot draw then it's only a matter of time before the avalanche starts. No, you can't have my first amendment rights, not yours to take.
So what you are saying is that the appropriate course of action to take when someone offends you is to kill the person.
No, not at all. I'm saying "be aware of the consequences of your actions before you do them." And if it's not that important you do them, why bother in the first place?
I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.
Neatly sidetracked but you didn't answer the question so I know the answer you'd give - yes, you'd be offended just like I or anyone else would, that might make you angry and you might then lash out.
The fact that you can't perceive the difference makes you one or more of the following:
1. stupid
2. sociopath
Well I guess that makes you a telepathic empath then because I'm not sure I could determine that much about a person from a few lines they'd written. Well done, but WRONG!!!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Close... 2prophets1grail
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
It is MY belief that I should be free from anyone else's "religious" bullshit and that if they choose to try to push it on me that I should be free to kill them in the manner that I deem fit.
So you can respect MY beliefs as well.
Anyone who wants to do me harm for NOT cowing to their beliefs is going to meet a miserable end if they want to get into my face about it. Period. Full stop. End of fucking story.
My friend, it takes more than a First Amendment to build a civilised society - it's not just about having the right to say what you like but also having enough respect for everyone else in your society so that you understand how they might react once you say it.
And if you consider a right to draw religious cartoons as being important, then can I suggest you get yourself a better hobby, because you clearly have far too much free time in your day.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Its only natural for someone else to kick their ass or kill them for it too. Theres a difference between cowardice and prudence even if you can't see that difference yourself.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I agree with Voltaire
Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write
You know, I'd like it for everyone to have the same political views as me, yet I accept the fact that democrats and republicans have both the right to speech, even speech I disagree with very much.
Perhaps some of the uncivilized barbarian might rise up within me, but when you look at it rationally you will find that censorship is the destruction of basic human rights. That censorship leads to tyranny and oppression.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Too bad you're not who I thought. I have a number of muslim friends but none are dumb enough to try and justify imposing the koran over all the belief systems of other people. It would have been fun poking holes...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
The various tyrannies in power now are the result of regime changes.
404: sig not found.
And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
No. Actually, I'd dislike it intensely and find it revolting - but still fight for their right to post them. What does a cartoon tangibly hurt? Do those soldier cartoons wreck my car or give my kids club feet? Nope. They might offend me, sure, but my sun will still rise tomorrow.
To paraphrase South Park, tolerance doesn't mean you like something, but that you put up with it even if you can't stand it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
I don't share your views, and how does Blackface hurt anyone? This contest is protected free speech, but so is a Neo-Nazi using the N word. Someone posting to the site might have more noble goals, but I suspect most of them are religion baiters just as the NN are race baiters, even if they tell themselves something different. You can have free speech and good manners.
I don't consider it the business of Government to decide what we can and can't see, of course as we all know All Governments do. Blocking a site isn't a death sentence and all governments do it. I don’t approve, but our approval isn’t needed it turns out.
You really ready to support true free speech, plenty to fix at home first I assure you.
Clearly you're new here.... :P
Just because we think being offended by Mohammed images is silly, doesn't mean that it doesn't piss other people off. The closest thing that could compare Mohammed images to would be the N-word for Americans. It is just a simple word, but it has alot of power. I could easily imagine riots over this word. Basically, not everyone looks at the world in the same way. Does it justify murder? Of course not, but you might see why this might be upsetting...
And let's pretend while you're walking down the street, a Muslim person runs up to you, pointing at you and accusing you of being a pedophile, say. By your argument, you'd not be allowed to take offence at that...
No he didn't. You are allowed to take offense at the actions of other persons, it is your right to protest in a civilized manner. It is your right to consider him an idiot. What is not your right is to physically assault him or threaten him with violence because of what he said. The same goes with the cartoons.
I don't really see why having a right to not be physically assaulted means that nobody is allowed to be offended. Free speech does not protect speech that everyone agrees with, as such speech does not need protection. Free speech protects speech that some people may consider offensive, repulsive and/or sacrilegious. You are allowed to be offended by someone's speech, but if you assault the speaker or threaten him with violence, you carry all the blame. You can never blame your violence on being offended by speech.
Besides, if you have no grounds for your accusation, accusing a specific living person of crimes is not protected by free speech. It is called defamation, and you can do prison time for it. Mohammed is no living person, so defamation laws do not apply to him. IANAL though.
Those individuals need to be careful because those that take offence can be rather dangerous, which is ridiculous really... this should never happen in a free world.
In which case, they should download and run Freenet and do it there, anonymously.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Again, there is still a difference.
People who disagree with abortion view it as murder. People who disagree with the Mohammed images at most can say its "blasphemy". If your going to go after someone, it makes a whole lot more sense to go after someone who you view is a murder than someone who is "defaming" someone who has been dead for centuries.
There is no comparison in this day and age between Islamic violence and violence from almost every other religion.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
This is a religion that, when a woman is raped, gives the rapists a stern talking to, then beats the woman to death for being such a slut. It's ful of moral values straight from the middle ages; things other religions are emarassed they did 500 years ago are still done under Sharia law in many places in the world today. Saying "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" is completely appropriate. Tolerance of this culture is immoral.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If a woman goes out in the street, not wearing a tent-like burka, it's totally her fault when she get raped, and we should beat her to death for being such a slut? Thats the actual law in some countries! You seem to be OK with that line of reasoning, so I guess it's no surprise that you're defending a religion stuck in the middle ages.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And if you consider a right to draw religious cartoons as being important, then can I suggest you get yourself a better hobby, because you clearly have far too much free time in your day.
If you don't see that the right to draw religious cartoons is important, then you don't understand free speech at all.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A generation ago, it was, in fact, interchangeable in English. It's really not used anymore, due to pressure from Islamic groups, from what I understand.
I also understand that there seems to be a discrepancy regarding the exact meaning of "moslem". I've seen it referred to as "one who is evil and unjust" - which would explain the pressure from Islamic groups, and the other is "the will" as in "the will that a believer submits him or herself to".
On the other hand, the American Moslem Foundation still uses the old spelling.
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Respect is not carte blanc. If I go to someone's place of worship or home, I'm going to have the decency to respect their religion and customs; wear a hat, take off your shoes, be a part of the group singing the song, etc. But that begins to wane once we're out the door. If they want to come over to my house, I'm going to want that same level of respect. As a good host, it'd be respectful for me to provide hamburgers as well as the pork ribs that I think really makes a good BBQ. And I'm not going to be offended if someone must pass on my killer baby back ribs that's one of my specialties. But we're not going to dump out the rack of ribs because someone's religion prohibits pork and it's ludicrous to listen to any such demands.
The whole Islam thing just can't take a joke. Of course they are "morally" upright and all that, GET OVER IT. Need I mention murder?
My friend, it takes more than a First Amendment to build a civilised society - it's not just about having the right to say what you like but also having enough respect for everyone else in your society so that you understand how they might react once you say it.
Respect is earned. More importantly, even if it's initially assumed, it's easily lost through one's actions or even beliefs.
Islam has done absolutely nothing positive to earn respect in the last several centuries, and a lot of negative things to lose it.
Why should it be awarded any respect whatsoever, again?
Once you think you disagree with someone, you stop listening to what they say and only hear/read the bits that further convince you. I've done it myself, and I've learned to re-read posts I disagree with- until I understand why they are saying whatever it is they are saying, I'm misunderstanding something, and I know my reply will come across as misinformed. (sorry for the lecture)
I did not say leaving your car unlocked means its being stolen is entirely your fault and everyone should steal unlocked cars- nowhere near that. I said leaving your car unlocked puts part of the blame on you (I said "also" before, I'll be more explicit here). I sure hope the scumbag who steals the car gets caught and prosecuted, but I'm only so concerned about the foolish car owner. As for a woman being beaten or worse for not conforming to religious dress code, it is ridiculous, I wish people committing such crimes against women were subject to fair laws and I hope such horrible rules and laws were abolished. I still would consider the woman to be partly at fault if she knew what would happen, though. Purposely putting herself in danger like that isn't going to help anything- working to spread awareness or get people talking about the situation is a better way to deal with the problem. I'm sure you've heard of win/win, win/lose, lose/win, lose/lose philosophies- win/win is the only correct approach.
I realize, in a perfect world, it should only be the one committing the offense that is to blame. Given an imperfect world, I prefer to be practical. It may seem harsh, but intentionally being foolish makes you part of the problem.
As for the specific cartoon problem, just because someone's religion promotes their acting like a 5 year old doesn't mean I am defending said religion when I tell others to stop trying to act like 5 year olds in response.
My webcomic
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
Because the same people that will come after you for making drawings of Mohamed the pedophile will come after you for other things that do matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ). If we do not want them to gradually strangle freedom of speech, they must be confronted at every opportunity.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Censorship is fucking obscene.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Spoken like somebody who has the freedom to not give a rat's ass about all fellow humans.
Essentially, some asshole effectively killed the party for everybody in that country, even those who are not Muslim or who are not that "hard ass" about this particular aspect of Muslim religious law.
To what end? What have they achieved? Nothing, and they messed it up for a whole bunch of people not involved and not in a position to change it.
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy. If anything, it just proves you have little more important to do in your life than going around and stirring shit up in some other country's political/theological system.
You know what people take most unkindly to non-citizens sticking their noses into the political/economic/religious power structure? Quite often the same folks who do shit like this, and turn around and claim they're making any kind of contribution to society.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Before you protest Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, imagine the following.
Me and my friends break into your house, trash your computer and theaten you and your family with death if you post your criticism of our holy Draw Mohammed Day. Do you still post your reply, or do you back down in consideration of our outrage or fear of our threats?
This is reality for many people. This is what we're protesting. Yes, it's a protest, not a provocation. I'm sure it's provoking, however.
It makes sense to anyone rational that murder would be worse than blasphemy. The entire point of laws are to protect people's rights from being violated. What right is violated in drawing anything? Humans have a right to live, murder violates that. There is no right not to be offended. There is, however a basic human right to have the right to offend. Such a right is needed in a free society.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Considering the very nature of Pakistan and several other nations in the region should they even be allowed to have such things as laws and courts? After all, to most of the world they look like a pack of village idiots.
Until recently (less than 50 years ago), Christians perceived depiction of Jesus on Screen to be blasphemous. And even today, a mainstream film damn well better show Jesus as Anglo. If they were to show him as he likely was, olive-skinned with Middle Eastern traits, there would be frickin' riots in from the of the theaters. Remember Islam is, by far, the youngest of the other religions you named (except Mormonism, but that's a Christian sect). Young religions (Christianity included) are prone to extremism. It sucks I know, but that has been and always will be a fact.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Here we go, maybe we should put this in all our sig's and webpages we maintain:
Smiley Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh:
[[:->
ASCII Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh
____
(____)o
(_____)
| o o |
W ^ W
WWW
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
So.. you're saying it's OK for an organized religion to illegally harrass, threaten, and murder people.. as long as the person they're targeting has committed a "sin" that's not recoginzed as such by the law of their country.
Just because they believe it's murder doesn't make it so. I don't give a fucking rat's ass what their rationalization is - it's still wrong.
Your entire argument is "well, it's not the same because it's different", when it's obviously not different.
Fuck you and your apoligism.
Such a right is needed in a free society.
Hold on, then, did GWB actually have a valid point? I must be misoveranalyzing the situation.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
By all accounts, many of them get violent for much lesser things, as we've seen with the high school massacres that have taken place.
I might take offense. I wouldn't exactly threaten violence over it. I might disagree with what they say, but I support their right to say it. Besides, I'd rather they be out in the open where I can confront their ideas in dialogue rather than have their hatred pop up violently like an unseen cancer.
Oh, I see it now... you're basically saying violence is justified as long as it originates from an American!
I'm not saying it's justified. I'm simply pointing out that the extenuating circumstances building up to the violence in those cases is more significant than someone getting into a religious rage over a drawing of Mohammed. The former is a chronic problem while the latter is an mildly acute problem at best.
I don't *believe* in Free Speech because it already exists...
Do I really have to rephrase this?
The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone should have a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is worthless if we accept physical retaliation for that expression. Then it's not much of a right (NSFW), is it?
If I went into the office tomorrow and my boss told me he'd cut my salary by 20%, I'd go and say something to him about it. A consequence of my saying something might mean I lose my job completely...
And your boss very likely has the right to do that.
Muslims do not have the right to kill people. In fact, death threats are one of the few areas of speech which, as far as I can tell, aren't protected.
I think I've said pretty much everything I want to, and I'm not going to dig up all of your responses. Instead, I should remind you: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Spoken like somebody who has the freedom to not give a rat's ass about all fellow humans.
Everyone has that right. That's not what I'm exercising here, though, or why would I champion freedom of speech for everyone, even those I disagree with?
Essentially, some asshole effectively killed the party for everybody in that country,
Essentially? Effectively? That's a lot of weasel words... And which asshole would that be? The guy who spawned the Facebook event, or the asshole who actually blocked it? No one forced them to block Facebook -- they did that on their own. They would've been entirely free to block only parts of Facebook, or to instead launch their own Draw Jesus Day event -- they could've handled it any number of ways other than outright censorship.
To what end? What have they achieved?
Good question.
The event has proved that entire countries are on the run -- censoring just to protect themselves from ideas they don't like.
Or if you mean the asshole who blocked Facebook, well, not much. Those who really want to see it will find ways around, and in the meantime, they've blocked their countrymen from a site which is presumably useful and popular. They also haven't censored the vast majority of the Internet, so one wonders what they hope to accomplish by blocking just this one instance of blasphemy -- there are even Mohammed ASCII-art drawings on Slashdot now.
Do you honestly think they should block Slashdot? Would you honestly blame the ACs for "ruining it" if that happened?
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy.
Are you serious?
No one said "Rise up and overthrow your government." Someone posted something on Facebook, and the government chose to block it. The government thus chose to pursue a course of action which might lead to increased tension between it and its citizens.
How is this in any way my fault for speaking my mind half a world away?
And why is it so difficult to wrap your mind around this concept: Words and ideas have only the power you give them. If Islam didn't get its panties in a wad every time someone makes fun of Mo', those words and cartoons would have no power.
Think about it -- you probably felt a bit of anger there at the way I worded the above paragraph. I did that deliberately, to illustrate a point: They're just words. They do not even have the power to make you angry, if you do not allow it.
And I'll present this as evidence that I do care about my fellow humans. I used to be very angry, often. I let my anger control me. I've broken free from that, and I am much better for it. I am happier, healthier, and I make better decisions when I do not let anger guide me. At least right here, in this moment, I am trying to share that with you. I hope you, or someone reading this, is in a position to share that with those who are in a position to change the political situation in Pakistan.
Quite often the same folks who do shit like this, and turn around and claim they're making any kind of contribution to society.
Because clearly, all I do all day is draw Mohammed? Is that really what you think?
I have a summer internship starting soon. In the mean time, I'm preparing to go to a convention, where I'll be speaking about some software I've developed. I'm also learning a martial art, and looking for another to practice over the summer. In the fall, I will be going back to school.
Or is it that you think drawing Mohammed contributes nothing to society? Political cartoons have a long history of contributing to the discussion, and one of our most respected news sources is one w
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Until recently (less than 50 years ago), Christians perceived depiction of Jesus on Screen to be blasphemous.
Did they kill people who attempted to do so?
And even today, a mainstream film damn well better show Jesus as Anglo.
Or what? It won't get funding, and thus won't be "mainstream"? So what?
If they were to show him as he likely was, olive-skinned with Middle Eastern traits, there would be frickin' riots in from the of the theaters.
Really? I can't imagine that many people would care. Did you see riots about Religulous? Or Letting Go of God? Or The God Who Wasn't There? How about the South Park movie?
With all that actual blasphemy, I wouldn't even expect many angry letters about your imagined blasphemy.
And yet, a few drawings -- not movies, but cheap photoshoppings for the most part -- and we get this.
Remember Islam is, by far, the youngest of the other religions you named (except Mormonism, but that's a Christian sect).
If you are honestly going to count Mormonism as a Christian sect, you may as well count Islam as a Jewish sect. Or even a Christian sect -- they believe Christ was a prophet, just not God, which many Christian sects believed before the Council of Nycaea.
But really, go read about Mormonism. Better yet, watch the South Park episode -- it's pretty accurate, though not complete. If anything, it's a parody of Christianity -- it's no more sane than Scientology.
religions (Christianity included) are prone to extremism.
Fixed that for you.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
dang it. How Are we ever going to find out what this Mohammed dude looks like???
- No Sig for you!
Plenty. Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.
How 'bout that?
K, now draw a picture of muhammed taking a load in the face, and put it on your fridge. Now walk down the street. No bullets? Didn't think so.
Now get either picture published in the wrong place, or show it to the wrong group of crazy nutjobs, and I'm pretty sure they'll try to shoot you. To make it easier for you to think of an example, think of "The South". It's not a fair characterization of the southern states of america, but there have certainly been examples.
K, now draw a picture of muhammed taking a load in the face, and put it on your fridge. Now walk down the street. No bullets? Didn't think so.
Now get either picture published in the wrong place, or show it to the wrong group of crazy nutjobs, and I'm pretty sure they'll try to shoot you. To make it easier for you to think of an example, think of "The South". It's not a fair characterization of the southern states of america, but there have certainly been examples.
admittedly, the "wrong place" for a picture of jesus isn't any international newspaper... but that's probably more the result of the relative socioeconomic situations of the places where christianity and islam are most widespread.
...with thier high school boyfriends. Very sad,
Except, of course, for the incidental media play facebook gets and the fact that some of its users want such a day.
What's more interesting is that this is the Pakistani Lawyers, who are usually the voice of reason over there. (i.e. the people who say it's not okay to have dictators in power, and who are a counter to the extremists.) So maybe this is a political move to help them solidify their base and help keep them more attractive to the rank-and-file than the extremists. The idea is to show that moderates support religion, and so not to let religion be too great a tool for the extremists. Or perhaps not.
(I don't actually follow the politics over there, I just have a general sense from a few Pakistanis.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
It is time that someone starts suing all religions of the world. And the reason should be that religions are just dividing humanity and making us not accountable for our actions.
But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense.
No, cowering like a dog (and BTW my dog is called mohammed) because you are afraid of extermists doesn't make sense at all, unless you like being bullied by people. Just as the US government, and most modern governments do not deal with terrorists who hold hostages, we should not cower from these morons.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
Or the philippines (hyper-catholic and a strong hold for Opus Dei and worse) or maybe malayasia and indonesia, the two of which have laws against 'disrespecting' someone's religion, and despite being majority muslim, they tend to apply them in 'defense' of all the major religions.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Facebook removed all pages when it comes to Holocaust but since it's Islam then all "Freedom of Speech" is being exercised. BTW, banning Images is in Bible too. Has any Christian or Jew ever read Ten Commandments?
Given the placebo effect exists and is so strong (lots of scientific studies out there proving it), even if there really is no God, a bunch of people who believe in a God who helps them will do better than people who don't believe there's a God. Makes it easier to access the placebo effect- anywhere, anytime. In contrast it would be harder for an "enlightened atheist" to access the placebo effect. This advantage could make a religious group evolutionarily fitter than an atheist group and do better over generations. Why is there a placebo effect in the first place? I don't know, seems it's present in some animals too.
Also, a semi-decent religion would help bias individuals towards behaving altruistically[1] which benefits the group as a whole. The individuals might die sooner or "lose out" from time to time but the group will benefit. [1] Yes I know atheists can be altruistic too. I'm saying that religion has a proven track record of influencing people to do good stuff that they otherwise wouldn't. So what if that person really isn't that good, the bottomline is others still benefit. So overall the group becomes more likely to survive. The group becomes the new evolving organism.
It'll be delusional to design a society that only works if most people are knowledgeable, intelligent, rational and altruistic. You need a system that takes into account the fact that most people are ignorant and irrational.
I see your point- I concede it isn't as clear-cut as I made it sound, although I think it is still a matter of intent. If I like metal and my neighbor likes country (i.e. we hate each others' taste in music), I'm being a jerk if I blast my music just to annoy him. He's being a jerk if I'm playing my music so he can only incidentally hear it, yet he still complains. The "draw Muhammad day" sounds closer to me blasting my music, as the intent of the event seems to be to purposely rile up these religious folks. I would completely agree with you if the intent was entirely for a laugh among themselves, with the angry Muslims as just an incidental consequence (which may have been the case).
Asking us to outwardly respect their religion is just asking for respect as people really (their motives may be off but I think rules of politeness give them the benefit of the doubt); asking us to respect their religion amongst ourselves is an attempt to encroach on our rights. Of course, the ones making death threats might not represent the majority of the offended Muslims (I really don't know either way).
I appreciate your patience to still argue, sorry to drag this out. : /
My webcomic
Shatnerology.
LoL! I was pretty sure that Shatner was the deity in that religion.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
This Facebook group is not doing this for "artistic" reasons, they're doing it just to try to piss someone off.
I see it more as a bit of commentary, or satire. A statement highlighting the absurdity of certain groups of fundamentalist nutjobs. Its just like the silly "boobquake" idea, it draws attention to a bit of nonsense that some people hold holy, but which is really complete and total idiocy. It also tells these extremist morons; "we're not afraid of you. Indeed, we think you are a bunch of very silly people." Something that more people need to do to all extremists, regardless of faith, culture, or dogma.
I also see no need to respect destructive cultures. This subset of Muslims are dangerous, and totally unworthy of any respect. Its like saying we shouldn't poke fun of neo-Nazis or White Supremacists, we should respect their differing views. There is a line there, I respect your honest day to day x, who keeps their cultural quirks out of everyone else's business, and doesn't try to inflict their arbitrary cultural rules on others. Once you cross that line, I have nothing but contempt for you. I am not a Muslim, there is no reason that I should be forced to live by their rules, their book holds nothing on me. Their threat of violence deserves more contempt than respect. Trying to coerce people into acting by the tenets of a religion that is not your own is distasteful.
Also no one is saying "fuck you, here's what I think of your religion". they are more saying "wow, your dumb" to a very small, vocal, somewhat insane subset of a religion. Is making fun of young earth creationists making fun of all Christians? Is making fun of the strange fundamentalist nutjobs who blame major (and tragic) natural disasters on cleavage or "the gay" making fun of everyone of faith? No, its highlighting dangerous elements within the larger group of mostly-benign believers.
Also, no religion, creed, or culture is worth giving up humor. If something becomes humorless, it becomes very dangerous, and probably should be market for extinction before it hurts someone.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Very nice troll. I'm not sure if it was inadvertent, but well played!
This fits very well for both groups, the irreverent blasphemers, and the stuffy fundamentalists, it also works for those whose PC sympathies have gotten to the point where no one should be allowed to say anything that might even mildly offend some random slob somewhere in the world.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH
(The filter cares not for those who are sarcastic.)
1. No one ever attempted to do so, so I don't know. When King of Kings came out the studio had to get 'permission' from the Vatican.
2. You don't know what 'mainstream' means.
3. With the exception of the South Park movie, those are all very low distribution films. And the SP movie was pandering to a teeny, tiny demographic and was in and out of theaters in a week (or less in my area).
4. Yes, they were just a few drawings...that were published to billions of people.
5. Last I checked, Mormons count themselves as Christian. They are certainly part of the worldwide empire of Christendom (i.e. for-profit, praise the Lord, pray-for-pay churches). These days, any group that calls itself that...is that. I don't agree (sounds like you don't' either), but whatever.
6. You don't know what the qualifier 'prone to' mean.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
I'd find it distasteful, but I wouldn't threaten to kill them, or put a large bounty on their heads, or anything even close to what the radical Muslim community is doing. Actually, I would probably shake my head, go "tsk-tsk-tsk", and go on living my life. If it was a television channel, I would simply turn it off. If a magazine or paper, I would close it, and walk away. I would AVOID it, not try to brutally murder anyone who offended me. I think offence is largely the problem of the offended, they chose to be offended, they chose to react violently. People have free will, and personal responsibility, thats why "she was asking for rape", or "his cartoon of my personal subjective religious icon made me try to hurt him" aren't valid defenses. If I make fun of you, or your dog, or your God, are you justified in hurting me? Is your response my fault?
If this was a response to a group of normal Muslims who just went "ugh. tsk-tsk-tsk", then this would be a VERY silly gesture. This isn't a response to this. This isn't even aimed at normal sane and civilized Muslims, this is aimed straight at a group of crazy people who want to tell you how to act.
I suppose, in a sense, it is aimed at normal Muslims... Not disrespectfully, but it is saying "look at the people who are giving you a bad name, you realize how silly this is, right?".
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
As a very vocal atheist, who LOVES a good argument, I have yet to be shot by one of these gun toting Christians. The least Christian of them have said some rather nasty words, and implied some nasty things for my mythical immortal soul, but it has never gotten down to violence. Most of them just shrug and move on with their lives, knowing damn well my opinion doesn't matter to them (I think that Jesus guy liked this approach best), some of them get into a lively debate with me, and we end the encounter on a friendly note. The nasty ones are a minority. they always are. It just seems the Muslims have a nastier minority than most right now, and somehow this nasty minority has ceased power (I suppose being willing to kill anyone for any reason has its perks) and is basically holding the majority of Muslims hostage.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You do not have a constitutional right to deliberately provoke religious (or racial) intolerance - if you believe you have that right, that makes you a bigot. So if the cap fits, wear it.
First Amendment. You even have the right to believe that the White Race is awesome, and everyone else is basically a monkey deserving death, and that Hitler guy was awesome!. You have the right to say as much, out loud, in public. I find this belief odious, but it is a right, and worth defending.
Also... as for deliberately provoking religious intolerance... That doesn't make much sense. Our Constitution doesn't say that we only have the limited range of rights proscribed by the least tolerant us. And you can't provoke intolerance, they were intolerant BEFORE the action that provoked them happened. These cartoons did not make these extremists intolerant, they are only a target for preexisting intolerance.
Its like saying all Gays should move out of communities that are predominantly intolerant Christian extremists. Or blacks should be forced to leave areas known for having large KKK membership.
No. the intolerant should be uncomfortable, and should NEVER be listened to. They should not have ANY power over anyone, it only encourages them. People should make fun of them at the drop of a hat. Do you have a problem with making fun of those nutjobs who claim Katrina (or 9/11, or tsunamis, or earthquakes) are caused by cleavage, or the existence of gay people?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
That censorship leads to tyranny and oppression.
What about, say, the kids who would be oppressed if your lack of censorship meant the distribution of child pornography was not a criminal offence because of your Free Speech?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Respect is earned. More importantly, even if it's initially assumed, it's easily lost through one's actions or even beliefs.
Right, but if everyone sits there insisting "Respect is earned" then nobody ever respects anyone else because everyone is sat there waiting for it - sometimes it's about demonstrating that you can make the first move to break that impasse.
Islam has done absolutely nothing positive to earn respect in the last several centuries, and a lot of negative things to lose it.
Who's talking about respecting Islam? I don't respect Islam, I just respect peoples' rights to believe whatever they want and as long as they don't impact my life doing it, they can do what they like.
And if that means I shouldn't draw a few images that I probably wouldn't be interested in drawing in the first place, then so what?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Exactly right. Which is why I'm prepared to put up with not drawing cartoons of Mohammed for fear of offending someone.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
As Frank Herbert put it in God Emperor of Dune: All religions leads eventually to witch hunt. And thus religions are driven by guilt.
You don't know what you don't know.
AC? This must be a glitch, I'm pretty sure I didn't check the AC box.
What about, say, the kids who would be oppressed if your lack of censorship meant the distribution of child pornography was not a criminal offence because of your Free Speech?
No kids are 'oppressed' by the distribution or possession of child pornography. The reason that child pornography is banned is ostensibly because kids are harmed in the making of child pornography. Allowing a legal market for such materials promotes their creation, so distribution and possession of child pornography are also banned, even though neither of those activities actually harm children directly.
This is why I think that the UK's ban on cartoons depicting child sex abuse is pretty much unacceptable; no children are harmed in its creation. Though the subject matter utterly disgusts me, I nevertheless think that banning it is a disturbing restriction of free speech.
Pirate Party UK
We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
All very good and patriotic. But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing
But the campaign's intent is that they should certainly not ignore it. You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims? This campaign's is entirely trolling and about provocation.
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything? Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up. If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it. Only then can we be assured that all is right in the world and our ideals and beliefs are protected! Or, if we're unlucky, this piece of immature trolling will be just another small contribution to the kind of hatred in the world that causes wars and death.
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone?
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.
Why on earth is this marked troll? It seems pretty damned sensible and balanced. Maybe the Christians don't like to receive as well as give negative views?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
They've given us the very tool with which to solve the problem. Put the face of Mohammed on every single useful, item in our society from canned food to computer chips. The religious zealots will in knee-jerk fashion declare all those useful things as blasphemous, and that all good Muslims must abstain from antibiotics, plane travel, food, cars, and clothing from outside their country. Those people with an IQ greater than 3 will immediately decide that maybe the stone age sucks and leave, while the rest slowly sink into cannibalism and wearing mud. We'll have instantly allowed Darwin to take the shallow end of the gene pool. Problem solved in one generation or less.
On the topic of reasons for extremism - I don't think that colonialism and poverty are the main reasons here. The parallels to evangelical fundamentalism are quite revealing. Both movements are more like a reaction to the extremely fast cultural developments in the last century - a reaction to a "culture shock", which is being perceived as a decline and degeneration of cultural values and morals. The very interesting BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" elaborates on that point. If you haven't seen it yet, I strongly recommend it.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.
Neatly sidetracked but you didn't answer the question so I know the answer you'd give - yes, you'd be offended just like I or anyone else would, that might make you angry and you might then lash out.
You're still not getting it. He's saying that
1. there's a difference between someone trying to offend you and you feeling offended.
2. there's a difference between taking offence and becoming angry
3. there's an ever bigger difference between becoming angry and acting violently.
But apparently you really can't perceive those differences... :)
And there's nothing that you can yell at me in the street that would make me feel offended. Only a person I respect can do that, and respect is something that first has to be earned. I would just think you an idiot.
No, Reason is not "having" anything. They are reporting on something that showed up at someone else's blog.
I don't know if you've ever read Reason magazine, but if you did, you'd know that they don't have anywhere near the cleverness or sense of humor required for this.
The original is a tribute to South Park's creators Stone and Parker.
You are welcome on my lawn.
LaVeyan Satanism has a God. Yourself.
I concur with most of their statements, I just don't see myself as a God. Plus, I don't think compassion with those weaker than you a cardinal sin. I consider it unfair to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Go to images.google.com and view all the depictions of the prophet Mohammad that you want. I image it's the same for images.yahoo.com, and so on.
LaVeyan Satanism has a God. Yourself.
That's right.
Also, "imaginary friends" != Yourself
Ok, so there's a religion that actually has a real God. I guess it all depends on your definition of "God". ;)
Or on the definition of "religion". Because I wouldn't consider this a religion at all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It may or may not be time for a Mohammad gif that we can all put on our websites to promote free speech.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Yeah I thought so too ;)
It was modded 'insightful 2' for a while. I guess this is a pretty emotional issue for a lot of people.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Ah yes, the old "he was asking for it", blame the victim mentality. Of course people should be aware of the consequences of their actions. However, that does not mean that those consequences are justified. Me calling you an asshole or your wife a slut in a public place does not exonerate you if you decide to break my nose or shoot me. The point is that you have no right to not be offended. Any action you take in response to an offensive statement, image, etc is entirely on you. Blaming the victim of your rage for "inciting" you is just a cop out and shows that there is no place for you in a modern, peaceful society since you could potentially fly off the handle over the smallest annoyance and you are completely incapable of taking responsibility for your actions.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
It's not often I'd be this direct, but I think the situation calls for it:
Fuck you and your cowardice. I have the right to offend (and be offended by) anyone, and that right trumps their (or my) right to violently react to it. Maybe in your terrified little universe, it's OK to appease everyone scary in the hopes that they'll just go away. In the real world, people who value freedom have to push back and declare, loudly and proudly, that they won't be silenced.
It wouldn't be OK for Republicans to tell you that you can't criticize Bush. It wouldn't be OK for Democrats to tell you that you can't criticize Obama. It's sure as hell not OK for religious extremists half a world away to tell you that you can't even make a line drawing of their dear, dead prophet. Push back or shut up. There is no room for your chickenshit acquiescence in a free society.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I wonder what would happen if hackers started targetting Ppakastani websites - the biggest/most official ones, and put images of the prophet mohammed on them. I think that'd make for a nice protest of the actions towards this Facebook fan page, and a much more interesting article :)
Or perhaps if the hacking lasted long enough (perhaps over a few years) there would be desensitization to this issue, resulting in an overall moderation of the extremist attitudes of some people?
Nah, I doubt that. Heads would roll.
For bonus points, the images (carictures only here please) would be of him on his wedding night.
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
But it isn't really murder. It's only murder according to some Christians. What right is violated in destroying non-sentient human tissue? It makes sense to anyone rational that you must kill a sentient creature for an act to be considered murder. (See I can do that too.)
If a religion were to eventually decide that piercing your tongue or other body mods is murder, would it be OK for them to do the same to workers at piercing shops what radical Christian anti-abortionists do to abortion doctors? Would it be "not as bad" as the radical Muslims do to cartoonists?
Both the Muslims' "blasphemy" of depicting Mohammed and the Christians' "murder" of aborting fetuses are just "sins" of one religion or another that don't infringe anyone's rights. I don't see a difference. The Christians have just tarted-up the name of their sin in an attempt to make it seem relevant to the rest of the world.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone
I sense a contradiction in there. Oh, right, you can't have free speech if it's by definition limited.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Can't believe in all the hundreds of comments I have just sorted through, about Mohaumad as a Pedofile, athiesm, and many others, not once did anyone ask for the link to the Facebook group.
The small cults make the news, while most members of most spiritualities do not. Islam is not unique.
OKC was done by a small cult of Christians. Waco was by two. The threats against the Danish cartoonist and South Park were made by a small group out of 1.6 billion Moslems who may have been offended, but not enough to take action. The entire Israel situation is explicitly state-sponsored religious violence, as was Northern Ireland. Tibet, India, and Pakistan have shown that the Eastern faiths can get into it as well.
All this has occurred in the last 20 years, spanning faiths in which over 80 per cent of the world's population participate. And yet all the actively violent faith-mongers from all faiths worldwide at any one time would probably not fill a professional football stadium.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
Maybe it's both. Getting the rise out of them also helps to marginalize them (at least for most reasonable people). It might have the counter effect of generating support with already sympathetic groups, but it's really hard to justify killing someone because they draw a picture and call it your prophet.
Of course, you may be entirely right and I'm giving way too much credit to those participating...
Fuck Religion! Your Religion and all the others too!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
He makes a point there, however. Everyone has a hotbutton issue that sparks emotion over reason. I'd be very surprised if you've never hit that threshold before, and gotten so mad you felt like being violent. (Most people simply divert this into exercise, or punching bags, or what have you)
But let us not get so wrapped up in our superiority that we forget our nature. We're social animals.
Except that
- there is no murder
- killing someone over an imagined slight is murder
Any theological basis for killing someone else is inherently flawed, whatever the imagined crime. Humans have a right to live, religion violates that.
Shit, someone build a time machine, go back a few centuries and convince Mohamed's mother to have an abortion..
So, this Allah bloke. Anybody seen him?
Ever?
Fucking magic fairies shouldn't prevent drawing pictures of the people that made up the stories about them.
I'm saying "be aware of the consequences of your actions before you do them."
For the record, do you feel those consequences are an appropriate course of action for the offended person to take?
This is your opportunity to support or declaim the killing of people that choose to draw pictures of someone that's been dead for centuries. Go for it. Put your neck on the line.
They did.
Okay, so how about a Muslim cartoonist starts drawing cartoons of injured soldiers in Afghanistan? What about if your son or brother got injured or killed over there? Are you *REALLY* supposed to sit back and not take offence at it?
Whether I take offence or not, they're welcome to go for it. In fact, the thing more likely to make me take offence is your labelling the cartoonist as 'Muslim'. If the cartoon makes me laugh, who gives a shit what religion he is.
If the cartoon doesn't make me laugh, who gives a shit about the cartoon, let alone the cartoonist.
Even if (unlikely as it is) the cartoon offends me, I'll just stop looking at it. Oops, did I just ignore the harmless thing that just doesn't fucking matter?
What, am I meant to froth at the mouth, go to my local cult den, whip up a frenzy and beseech my fellow frothers to hunt down and kill a cartoonist? I think that would be a little excessive.
Do you disagree?
But its -very- easy to see why it could be considered murder.
A) The baby has 100% human DNA
B) If carried to term the baby will grow into someone like you and me
C) There are people who are considered to be living at the moment who have less signs of life than a fetus in the mother's womb
On the other hand, no Muslim is going to say Mohammed is still living and making comics of him is going to offend him.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The "draw Muhammad day" sounds closer to me blasting my music
Sensitive Muslims are free not to go to the site and watch the pictures, so it's not a good analogy. Blasting your music would be more in line with dropping leaflets with the cartoon of Muhammad with the bomb in the turban on every major Islamic city.
Asking us to outwardly respect their religion
They are not politely asking us to respect their religion, they are demanding us to respect their religion, or else... Demanding respect is like asking for contempt. Respect is earned by those who make themselves worthy of respect. People who demand respect are the opposite. They get nothing else than contempt, and they have only themselves to blame.
Bears that attack people, especially those that kill people, are usually hunted down and killed. Was that the analogy you were trying to make?
I've heard those arguments. My personal view is that women have the right to defend themselves against parasitic organisms that put their hosts at physical and financial risk.
Like I said already, if it's worth fighting for I'll fight for it.
And don't assume everyone on here is an American with American values because then you just show your complete ignorance - I'm British, proud of it and couldn't give a damn about your Rebublican or Democrat politics.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Right, but if everyone sits there insisting "Respect is earned" then nobody ever respects anyone
Not necessarily true. You can have a baseline amount of respect for people you don't know, but whether they lose respect or gain respect is decided by their actions. Islam hasn't made anything to earn respect for a very long time, while doing everything it can to lose whatever baseline respect we might have. In fact, Islam has lost so much respect because of its actions that it is approaching negative infinity on the respect meter.
I don't respect Islam, I just respect peoples' rights to believe whatever they want and as long as they don't impact my life doing it, they can do what they like.
So you don't give a rat's ass about Muslims threatening or assaulting people over a few cartoons? I mean, "as long as they don't impact your life".
When they assault our freedoms, they impact my life, despite the fact that I have never drawn any Muhammad cartoon. I cannot accept that our rights are encroached by their silly "sensitivities".
So you are living in fear, despite claiming the contrary in another post.
you seem to provide the counterpoint to your own post within the same sentence, by listing 2 places where it probably would happen...
Which are also places I don't consider to be part of the free world, particularly so long as they have anti-blasphemy laws.
Want me to list dozens of places it would very likely not happen? Like France, the UK, the US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Germany... Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
this nasty minority has ceased power
I think you meant "seized power" (i.e. hijacked power). Ceasing power would mean quite the opposite, as in abdicating from power.
When King of Kings came out the studio had to get 'permission' from the Vatican.
Have to or chose to? Was the government actually going to break their doors down if they didn't?
You don't know what 'mainstream' means.
I do know that mainstream movies tend to have lots of funding, and things without funding tend not to be able to become mainstream movies, with very few exceptions. Do you dispute any of those points?
With the exception of the South Park movie, those are all very low distribution films.
So what? Are you saying this Facebook group isn't?
Yes, they were just a few drawings...that were published to billions of people.
They were published on Facebook. Billions of people chose to visit them. I don't recall any reports of anyone actually printing copies and delivering it to your door.
You don't know what the qualifier 'prone to' mean.
I do, and I mean exactly what I said.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
All very good and patriotic.
Not particularly. I value freedom of speech no matter what the country, and have no particular loyalty to my own.
But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
That depends very much on the reason why not. If we don't do so simply because we were threatened, that is a threat.
Look up the history of the KKK here. There was a landmark case in which they were allowed to have their own local public access TV show. Hate speech may be reprehensible, but you are not allowed to censor it.
Where we draw the line is actions. The KKK
You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims?
Viacom, for one -- the company which recently caved to Muslim death threats and self-censored out of cowardice.
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything?
Because when moderate Muslims remain silent, the extreme voices speak for you, and they are increasingly barbaric and intolerant. Prove that the average Muslim is more like this guy and less like this guy.
Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
The people who built it.
You see, it's not only ideas and discourse that benefit from a lack of censorship, but scientific progress as well. The computer you are using is a product of those values -- of scientific inquiry and the free exchange of speech, thought, and ideas.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up.
Much more so than censoring and blowing shit up, yes.
If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it.
None of which results in people dying, or in multiple networks being blocked to silence the voices of a minority.
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.
Sorry, yes, trolling is free speech. Again, freedom of speech is worthless unless it is all speech, even speech you personally find offensive.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If you value free speech so much, why not also draw swastikas and offensive cartoons of Jesus?
Oh, we do, sometimes. But this is specifically a retaliation to the south park incident.
South park has been going for more than a decade, and no religion or organization of the thousands they offended ever sent them death threats, other than Islam. Only Muslims actually managed to get an episode censored and then removed from the website, demonstrating sheer cowardice on the part of the network.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
but I have a facebook group to go join. neener neener neener.
Actually, in about 90% of the US, if you left a car running on the street, it would not be stolen.
I'm going to blatantly copy and paste an answer from Kwlest
Thanks for that, made for an interesting read.
One thing I can never get my pointy little head around is the way people think of God, almost as if God were little more than just a Big Human sitting on some throne, scowling at all the world with little more than a teenage boy's myopic worldview.
To the religious people of the world I would say, "If you're going to worship God, try and remember that fact - God isn't Human! God is God! "
To illustrate my point, consider the difference in attitude between a teenager and the same person in their seventies. The wisdom, patience and maturity that one gains in fifty or so years is clear for all to see. Given that God is meant to have a little more life experience than a seventy-year-old Human, it occurs to me there's little that could ever anger or upset or even please or satisfy a Godlike supreme being. From that perspective, the concept of Sin seems absurd, laughable even.
It's hard not to imagine that sin is a 100% man-made concept, one we came up with all on our own without any outside 'help' from whichever supreme being we were scrapping over at the time.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
4. Yes, they were just a few drawings...that were published to billions of people.
Mostly by Islamic imams, trying to incite hatred and violence. The cartoons were published in local newspapers, but imams living in Denmark felt offended and wanted to use their connections in the middle east to really stir things up, thinking that they could get the Danish government to harshly punish the cartoonists. That the Danish prime ministers stood up for the cartoonists, and explained that freedom of the press is non-negotiable, infuriated them even more. But anyway, the blame rests entirely with the Danish imams, who spread the cartoons in the middle east. Because of the extreme reactions, many people around the world started publishing the cartoons themselves.
Had the imams just swallowed their anger, the cartoons would just have been known to the local newspaper audience. They made sure that they would become famous around the entire world.
Wow just wow.... I don't think I can say anything to make you seem more ignorant or trollish than you are. Congrats!
Ogre Wedding Planners llc.
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy. If anything, it just proves you have little more important to do in your life than going around and stirring shit up in some other country's political/theological system.
If cartoon drawings can instigate a conflict of ideals between citizens of a country and its ruling theocracy, than that just go so show how absolutely important freedom of speech is. The first step to crushing your citizens under an iron heel is restricting their freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the first, and arguably the greatest, bastion of liberty.
No, I get on with my life and not let pathetically trivial things ruin my day.
And if you're so "big and brave", rather than sitting there and cowering behind your Facebook cloak of anonymity, show your *REAL* conviction and belief in Free Speech - go sit outside a mosque and hand out your cartoons, then I'll start believing you.
You're the one living in fear, not me...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
And if you're so "big and brave", rather than sitting there and cowering behind your Facebook cloak of anonymity, show your *REAL* conviction and belief in Free Speech - go sit outside a mosque and hand out your cartoons, then I'll start believing you.
Doing that alone would just be immensely stupid. Doing it with a thousand friends, all armed to the teeth and willing to use their weapons, would be fine.
I believe it's the Iranians who have nuclear weapons, and could theoretically trigger Armageddon, not the Palestinians.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Speak for yourself, I do not have such an extreme view of freedom of speech, it is not as absolute as you seem to think (and no I'm not from the US).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I believe there is a range of Muslim opinion about evolution, there are fundamentalists who deny it just like some Christians do.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And neither do we have a right to offend people without comeback.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Most Jews or Muslims wouldn't expect you not to ear port, simply that you didn't mix up pork and other meat either while preparing or cooking it (in the same way that most vegetarians don't mind you eating meat as long as you don't fry their carrots in lard, or something).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, but there would be consequences which you would have to expect, for instance it might cause you to lose friends, alienate family, find it hard to get a promotion, etc. And if there was enough publicity I'm sure physical assault wouldn't be out of the question (in the US Christian zealot anti-abortionists have murdered doctors, after all).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
3. prophet!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
LOLZ, nice one.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That's a stupid fucking argument if ever I heard one. Did Hitler wordlessly slap every single Nazi party member until they agreed with him?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, that was fast. You're seriously going to compare drawing a few cartoons with signing orders for genocide?
Alright, first of all, examples of speech which is not protected are things like orders and threats. Actually telling someone to do something from a position of authority counts as an action, as does paying someone to do something (hiring a hit man). And while I'm not sure I agree with this part, death threats are not protected speech in the US.
The significant difference here is whether the speech has force and authority behind it. If you have a gun to my head, and you demand that I hand over my wallet, I can still refuse, but it would be stupid of me to do so. Make that demand without the force, and I can simply ignore you.
Even this doesn't immediately place all blame on Hitler. If the people he was speaking to were a bit more cautious and discriminating, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials held that the Superior Orders defense is not sufficient -- in other words, while Hitler may have been guilty of giving orders, that doesn't mean every member of the Nazi party was simply, innocently following those orders.
Furthermore, Hitler had no power except that which people gave him. Had cooler heads prevailed early on, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a raving lunatic. It's also worth mentioning that there are still neo-Nazis in the US, and they're still allowed to freely express themselves, so long as it's merely expression -- rant all you want, but without an army to back it up, it's just ranting.
Let's tie this back to what I actually said:
No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to.
But Hitler had a lot more than mere words, didn't he? And he was doing a lot more than simply expressing himself -- he was giving orders and making threats, two things which are not considered protected speech.
Now, if Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic, and the Nazi party was never formed, does that make Hitler a good person? Of course not. The fact that I think certain speech should be protected does not mean I agree with that speech or think it's moral.
But that is the real difference here, isn't it? There may be many people in the US who think this "Draw Mohammed day" thing is immoral. The execs at Facebook itself might even think that. But no one is going to block that speech merely because they think it's immoral. Pakistan did.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Most Jews or Muslims wouldn't expect you not to ear port, simply that you didn't mix up pork and other meat either while preparing or cooking it (in the same way that most vegetarians don't mind you eating meat as long as you don't fry their carrots in lard, or something).
In the same light, they can handle me drawing a picture of Mohammad. The point here isn't the specific religion and associated specific custom. My point is that respect goes multiple ways and being respectful does not require me to completely adjust my life to accommodate everyone else in the world.
So, that's how you feel about Americans. So, why again should I give a shit about offending you?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
er; wikipedia actually says:
>Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy.[2] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[3] Supporters argued the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.
Your choice of clothing offends me. I demand you wear a burka immediately. (I don't care if you're male or female.)
Your voting habits offend me. I demand you vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate.
Your existence offends me. I demand you kill yourself at this moment so that I am no longer offended.
Since you know these things offend me, any further attempts to show your body in public, vote for a major-party candidate, or live are clearly designed to intentionally offend me. Therefore under your own reasoning they must be stopped.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.