|
Post by Jake on May 24, 2010 16:47:45 GMT -5
A very interesting comment from Dan's video: "When u attack Black people, they call it racism. When u attack Jewish people, they call it anti-semetism. When u attack women, they call it sexism. When u attack homosexuality, they call it intolerance. When u attack ur Country, they call it treason.When u attack a religious sect they call it hate. But when they- attack -the Prophet Mohammed they call it freedom of speech!"
Personally "attack" may be the wrong word, but the message is all the same. This thread has turned out to be a major disappointment. I am highly irritated right now by the opinions in this thread. Out of interest, which opinion are you annoyed with? Over a billion people believe Muhammed should not be drawn, and just as we have the right to free speech, Muslims have the right to free belief/thought. By "exercising our right to free speech", we are indirectly going against their (freedom to) belief. And I don't think that is right at all. (I realise what I just said may not have made much sense) Should we forget about talking about evolution publicly because of all the people who believe that the Earth and all its species were created 6000 years ago? We talk about evolution because we believe it to be true, that is (for most of us,) our belief and as I said - we have the right to belief. However, drawing Muhammad is being done to prove a point and nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 24, 2010 17:07:01 GMT -5
Here's a question for you to answer: Will/Has Draw Muhammad Day achieve something positive that outweighs the negatives?
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 24, 2010 18:00:56 GMT -5
What is freedom of speech worth if everyone is too afraid to say something that might be offensive? Now I'm not saying that we should try to be offensive, but if there is something truly worth saying we should say it without worrying whether it's gonna offend someone.
Now on the surface DMD may appear to be about proclaiming that we have the right to draw Muhammad, but there is more to it then that, it is about showing resistance to the muslim extremists. They threatened the creators of South Park for drawing Muhammad, and twelve thousand people drew Muhammad in response. DMD is about sending a message to the extremists that their violent tactics won't silence us anymore, and even if the extremists don't believe that, at the very least we know that there are people willing to stand up to the them. That is a message worth sending.
Now obviously this won't completely deter the extremists (or at all) but the point is to create opposition, since doing nothing would just allow them to continue their terrorism unopposed. And sure it may not be the most ideal course of action but it is better then none at all. Once you lose the ability to critique, Freedom of speech becomes worthless since the next thing you will lose is the ability to express yourself.
My previous post still stands.
|
|
|
Post by smithyponcho on May 24, 2010 18:18:36 GMT -5
I do understand the reasoning for draw Muhammad day, but I don't think we should offend the innocent people. I mean, if a select group of Christians did something insane because somebody burned a cross, should a different country start a national cross burning day?
|
|
Meds
Meteorite
Posts: 10
|
Post by Meds on May 24, 2010 18:54:23 GMT -5
I am not Muslim but half of my family is. And I feel like there's a thin line between proving a point and being offensive.
In Dan's Draw Muhammad day video, he explains Trey Parker and Matt Stone's attempt to protest by including Muhammad in episodes of South Park (whether they have or not I am unsure of because I don't watch the show). They weren't protesting against the religion, but rather against people getting killed over some silly newspaper cartoon.
Yes they were proving a point, and in this instance I feel they did it with the right intentions.
That said, I think Draw Muhammad day is bordering on offensive. If people are participating to protest in the same respect as Matt and Trey, it's fine. But I feel like the majority will do it to hate on Islam and it's followers.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 24, 2010 19:48:43 GMT -5
I do understand the reasoning for draw Muhammad day, but I don't think we should offend the innocent people. I mean, if a select group of Christians did something insane because somebody burned a cross, should a different country start a national cross burning day? YES
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 24, 2010 20:53:13 GMT -5
Why should you need to draw him, it doesn't concern you in any way, your life wont be effected by it. Exactly what I was about to say. The whole point of Draw Muhammad Day seems to be to defend our right to draw Muhammad if we want to, which I will agree is a right we have. But I just want to ask, when would you ever have to draw Muhammad? I also have the right to walk around wearing an inverted crucifix (considered offensive by some Christians), but why would I ever need to do that? How many of you would find it offensive if I walked around with an inverted crucifix on my shirt to protest the fact that some Christians find it extremely offensive? When you want to show that he should not be treated as so holy it's okay to defend his laws with death threats. When you see so many people around the world parading him as the "perfect example for humanity for all time" even though he is clearly just as flawed as any other human; perhaps more so. Again, the arguments you make are so very similar to the ones made in the US against the atheist bus ads. One of them was "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." That wasn't even targeting theists, just non-believers who were hiding their true feelings and guiltily attending church because society made them feel that there was some obligation to be religious or you can't be good. Yet Christians took it immediately as highly offensive and tried to have them taken down legally. Their failed attempt to silence the ads merely resulted in more being used. Why, after all, should we be told to hide our thoughts in private when they can build churches with giant crosses and signs that threaten passers-by to go to hell? The argument is basically a jumped up version of "think what you want, but do it in private where it won't bother anyone," only more politely worded. Well, I won't. I will make the point, and I have every right to do so, that Muhammed is not so sacred that even non-Muslims have no right to draw his image. I will make the point that people who try to enforce Shari'a law on me WILL fail. I will make the point that we will defend our rights, and trying to threaten us into silence will only make us louder. THAT is what the point of Draw Muhammed Day was, and that is why I participated. The next time some extremist nutjob -- of any race, religion, creed or colour -- tries to silence something they find offensive in spite of our right to freedom of expression, they will know that any public effort to do so will meet with public outrage and a campaign against their threats. It's not about hating on Muslims. I do find the religion to be wrong, harmful, and deceptive, but I find that of nearly every religion, and I don't judge Muslims by their religion any more than I would judge Christians by theirs -- which is to say, I don't judge them by it at all, only by their words and actions. This protest was about making it loud and clear that an attempt to silence freedom of expression will fail -- period. And for the record, I'm rather angry myself at those people who took this as an opportunity to put their bigotry on display by posting images intentionally insulting Muhammed such as the bomb-head and Aisha ones. Incidentally, it turns out I wasn't the only one to draw the parallel between the outrage at Draw Muhammed Day and the outrage at the atheist bus campaign.
|
|
|
Post by DubiousKing on May 24, 2010 21:40:28 GMT -5
When you want to show that he should not be treated as so holy it's okay to defend his laws with death threats. When you see so many people around the world parading him as the "perfect example for humanity for all time" even though he is clearly just as flawed as any other human; perhaps more so. Again, the arguments you make are so very similar to the ones made in the US against the atheist bus ads. One of them was "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." That wasn't even targeting theists, just non-believers who were hiding their true feelings and guiltily attending church because society made them feel that there was some obligation to be religious or you can't be good. Yet Christians took it immediately as highly offensive and tried to have them taken down legally. Their failed attempt to silence the ads merely resulted in more being used. Why, after all, should we be told to hide our thoughts in private when they can build churches with giant crosses and signs that threaten passers-by to go to hell? So is it fine for me to openly publish art that depicts an upside-down crucifix, and attempt to establish a national day where I try to get as many people as I can to do so as well? Because, just as orthodox Muslims see artistic depictions of Muhammad as offensive, many orthodox Christians would not stand idly by while someone essentially defecates on the central figure of their religion. I know that this is an extreme comparison, but there are some extreme examples of Muhammad drawings that people have done that spread a message of ignorance and hate, not of protest. There are plenty of well-meaning people (such as yourself) who have used this to speak out against violence, but there are just as many who have used this as a chance to carelessly insult an already unstable group. On a side note, despite the fact that I identify myself as atheist, some of those bus ads went a little far, IMO. I do like the one that you quoted, but many others seemed to be pushing atheism on people in similar fashion to how many religions try to push their beliefs onto others ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"). Way to be hypocritical, AHA. The argument is basically a jumped up version of "think what you want, but do it in private where it won't bother anyone," only more politely worded. Well, I won't. I will make the point, and I have every right to do so, that Muhammed is not so sacred that even non-Muslims have no right to draw his image. I will make the point that people who try to enforce Shari'a law on me WILL fail. I will make the point that we will defend our rights, and trying to threaten us into silence will only make us louder. THAT is what the point of Draw Muhammed Day was, and that is why I participated. The next time some extremist nutjob -- of any race, religion, creed or colour -- tries to silence something they find offensive in spite of our right to freedom of expression, they will know that any public effort to do so will meet with public outrage and a campaign against their threats. I keep hearing the "freedom of expression" argument, but you have to realize that their people don't have the same freedoms as many other countries. Until you can change their views on human rights, this will accomplish little past making them angrier because you are not following what they see as the rules laid out by Allah. To them, you are disrespecting their prophet and his teachings and must be punished accordingly. It's not about hating on Muslims. I do find the religion to be wrong, harmful, and deceptive, but I find that of nearly every religion, and I don't judge Muslims by their religion any more than I would judge Christians by theirs -- which is to say, I don't judge them by it at all, only by their words and actions. This protest was about making it loud and clear that an attempt to silence freedom of expression will fail -- period. And for the record, I'm rather angry myself at those people who took this as an opportunity to put their bigotry on display by posting images intentionally insulting Muhammed such as the bomb-head and Aisha ones. Glad to know. PS - I know that with my inverted crucifix argument, no one has been killed over that sort of thing (in public knowledge), but the effect it has on a person's beliefs is relatively the same. It is taking something held sacred by the religion's people and desecrating it. I don't know of any religious group that takes blasphemy lightly.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 24, 2010 22:32:05 GMT -5
Until you can change their views on human rights, this will accomplish little past making them angrier because you are not following what they see as the rules laid out by Allah. To them, you are disrespecting their prophet and his teachings and must be punished accordingly. I agree that DMD isn't going to make the Islamic countries change their view on freedom overnight, but had DMD never happened wouldn't that just support their belief that they can force Shari'a law onto the rest of the world? I know that with my inverted crucifix argument, no one has been killed over that sort of thing (in public knowledge), but the effect it has on a person's beliefs is relatively the same. I don't know of any religious group that takes blasphemy lightly. But are they justified in reacting in a way that is detrimental to another person's freedom?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 24, 2010 23:34:39 GMT -5
DubiousKing: You basically stated my response to the first half. In short, what is the message you are trying to send with the inverted crucifix? If you had a good reason to do it, I would support it. But as it stands, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to do that. There was a good reason behind Draw Muhammed Day: the message that we will not allow Shari'a law to be imposed on us (as above). As for others not having our rights, I do fully understand that. But the people who made the threats were on US soil (New York to be specific). If they're in the US, they'd better damn well learn to respect US rights and freedoms. And as for those actually living in countries where they don't have those rights, I get that there is very little we can do for those within the country, but we can still react to and reject any efforts they make to enforce their laws on us. And I don't really see "There is probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life," as being a very negative ad. We want to send the message that we don't think there's a god, and that people shouldn't let their lives be ruled by the possibility of one. The AHA doesn't say "we'll never give an opinion," so I don't see it as hypocritical. Hell, they even stuck the word "probably" in there; you don't see churches using that on their billboards much.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 25, 2010 1:12:07 GMT -5
I agree that DMD isn't going to make the Islamic countries change their view on freedom overnight, but had DMD never happened wouldn't that just support their belief that they can force Shari'a law onto the rest of the world? I don't get this idea that Islamic countries are forcing their beliefs onto us. The encourage it, but hey, that's "freedom of speech". The way I see it, Dan says "over 100 people died" because one person drew Muhammad. And now it seems like the best way to retaliate is to get thousands of people to draw him? That just seems like an incredibly bad idea just to prove a point.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 25, 2010 1:33:35 GMT -5
I'm going to have to make this post in three parts because I think there are two equally valid arguments on both sides of this debate. Part 3 is my conclusion after looking at each side of the argument.
Part 1, For Draw Muhammad Day: I'm starting here because Dan Brown seems to be for it and I totally understand where he's coming from. I mean it really is stupid to threaten someone's life over a drawing.
This isn't about weather or not a drawing should or shouldn't be offensive but rather it's about taking offense to the point where you feel the need to kill someone over it. I would take offense if someone drew a picture of me wearing a dress with an arrow pointing to it saying "GAY!!!" just because I work in theater does not make me gay but I would never threaten to kill someone over said picture.
I also have a problem with the censorship of the Muhammad episodes of South Park and censorship in general, because I think that is a clear violation of our Freedom of Speech rights as American Citizens. Just one of many examples why this country is not as "free" as we're made to believe it is.
Part 2, Against Drawing Muhammad: From the religious perspective it is disrespectful. It's on the same level of telling someone that they're stupid to believe in any God that they can't prove even exists. I don't personally believe in God but I do my best to be respectful to people that do.
Drawing a picture of Muhammad might be just as disrespectful to the Muslim people as it is disrespectful to me to draw pictures of me in a dress saying I'm gay just because I work in theater.
This level of disrespect to wards an entire religion is also a violation of our rights, freedom of religion. How can any Muslim feel free in this country right now when so many people are treating them like terrorists. Seriously, this has been going on ever sense 9/11 and people are too ignorant to understand what the war in Iraq is even about. We're not at war with Iraq, we're not at war with Muslims, we're not really at war at all, really it's just a rather small group of terrorists. The "war" on terrorism, term is used loosely I think. I mean if this was a real war people would be bombing the crap out of the U.S. on a daily basis.
Part 3, The Conclusion: Disrespecting and threatening people is not good to do. Whatever difference in opinion you may have shouldn't resort to that level of immature and/or violent behavior.
That being said in this particular case both sides are also violating the other's rights in some way however not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Americans are ignorant people who don't know that not all Muslims are terrorists. And in this particular case being disrespectful is in a way taking a higher ground than threatening their lives.
I mean if you're going to argue with someone over a difference in opinion and resort to violence to solve your problems and get a non-violent disrespectful response well, I'm going to go to wards the non-violent side.
Now if you are one of the Muslims that is offended by pictures of Muhammad and is NOT going to respond by threatening people's lives then YOU'RE AWESOME! And because you are awesome I don't wish to offend you so I will NOT be participating in Draw Muhammad day.
To the Muslims who are in fact terrorists, you deserve every bit of hate and disrespect you have coming to you. I don't have any sympathy for you because you're freaking morons. I don't know who I'm righting this paragraph to, I doubt any people like that are browsing these message boards.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 25, 2010 2:39:46 GMT -5
I don't get this idea that Islamic countries are forcing their beliefs onto us. The encourage it, but hey, that's "freedom of speech". They threatened the lives of the creators of South Park for drawing Muhammad, how is that not them forcing their beliefs onto us? I suppose at the very least it would be the extremists imposing their beliefs onto the creators of South Park, but conceivably they would do the same for any other person. And there are numerous examples of muslim extremists committing violent actions against people who are critical of Islam, which is them forcing their beliefs onto others. I will accept the fact that they have their own beliefs and I will support their right to have them, since I believe they have the right, however I do not believe they have the right to force those beliefs onto others, which is what they are doing when threaten or harm people for criticizing them. I believe in Freedom of religion, but that right does not mean that the religious are exempt from criticism, they may be exempt from defamation (all muslims are terrorists) but not criticism (women are abused in Islamic countries). EDIT: I suppose that "beliefs" is a little vague, so to clarify, in the first paragraph it more or less means "you cannot draw Muhammad" or "you cannot criticize Islam", and in the second paragraph it is used in the normal sense. The way I see it, Dan says "over 100 people died" because one person drew Muhammad. And now it seems like the best way to retaliate is to get thousands of people to draw him? That just seems like an incredibly bad idea just to prove a point. Fair enough, but I don't think we can allow ourselves to give in to such intimidation.
|
|
|
Post by low on May 25, 2010 8:51:08 GMT -5
Here's a question for you to answer: Will/Has Draw Muhammad Day achieve something positive that outweighs the negatives? It already did. Muslim kids in the western world created Facebook groups for honoring the prophet Muhammad in protest, which is an extremely positive reaction to illicit and enhance their reputation. A giant stick-figure drawing with "Muhammad" written below it in sidewalk chalk (I can't remember the source I heard this from) had boxing gloves added along with the word "Ali." I'm not sure you realize how good of a reaction this actually is. In addition, yes, we are showing that another group's religious law will not overshadow our civil law. We talk about evolution because we believe it to be true, that is (for most of us,) our belief and as I said - we have the right to belief. However, drawing Muhammad is being done to prove a point and nothing more. (Yes, I do understand the distinction you make between a value-judgment and a measurement of reality in the sense that someone can have a valid opinion, say, that Bach is better than Beethoven, but has a completely invalid opinion to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but the value judgment I'm making is whether or not someone's personal offense to an idea makes the idea inherently offensive or wrong, simply because they don't want to hear it, so, continuing on, negating this huge run on sentence....) --And we talk about evolution to prove the point that it's actually true. Furthermore, my belief is that drawing the prophet Muhammad isn't offensive. Why should someone impose their belief on me?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 25, 2010 9:29:12 GMT -5
Blatantly wrong. While the threats of death CLEARLY violate the rights of those being threatened, Draw Muhammed Day does not impinge on the rights of Muslims or anyone else. One more time for good measure: Nobody has the right not to be offended. You can dislike it if you want, but saying that it infringes on their rights is basically just saying we should all live under Shari'a law.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 25, 2010 11:55:40 GMT -5
I feel we reminded of the topic of this thread and the topic being discussed in general. Many people are coming out with a list of reasons of why they have a right to draw Muhammad and why Muslims have no right to force their beliefs on us. And I completely agree with that, but the question we are meant to be answering is in fact "Should Muhammad be drawn to make this statement?". We have every right to draw him, but does that mean we should? Muslims shouldn't try and force beliefs on people, but should we retaliate or turn the other cheek? Is a statement worth being made if it puts innocent people's lives at risk? I don't get this idea that Islamic countries are forcing their beliefs onto us. The encourage it, but hey, that's "freedom of speech". They threatened the lives of the creators of South Park for drawing Muhammad, how is that not them forcing their beliefs onto us? I may not be fully informed. Which country(/countries) threatened the lives of the creators of South Park?
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 25, 2010 12:32:54 GMT -5
Jake, I don't think that any nations thretened anyone's lifes, its the fringe groups in that countries that spoke out agains it. But I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 25, 2010 14:07:40 GMT -5
I may not be fully informed. Which country(/countries) threatened the lives of the creators of South Park? Jake, I don't think that any nations thretened anyone's lifes, its the fringe groups in that countries that spoke out agains it. But I may be wrong. Poor wording on my part really, the threats themselves come from extremist groups not really associated with any particular country, but there are countries like Iran whose governments are based on Islamic fundamentalism, which means they support shari'a law which is in line with the extremists. And I completely agree with that, but the question we are meant to be answering is in fact "Should Muhammad be drawn to make this statement?". We have every right to draw him, but does that mean we should? Muslims shouldn't try and force beliefs on people, but should we retaliate or turn the other cheek? Is a statement worth being made if it puts innocent people's lives at risk? I think it's one thing for a group like the Mormons to go door-to-door trying to spread their religion and another to do what the Muslims have tried to do, which is actively take away our freedom and our right to do something. Sure something like drawing Muhammad is a small insignificant part of my life, but part of it is the principle, part of it is the fact that this is not the first time they have tried to impose certain beliefs on others, and part of it is you have to make a stand before the problem becomes even more significant. It's like a snowball rolling down a hill, if we don't take a stand now they are just gonna keep gaining more influence, and seeing as how many people in America either outright hate Muslims for no legit reason, or are too afraid to voice any shred of criticism I think these extremists have enough influence. I think it's worth the risk, but I don't live in NYC, and I can understand why people may think otherwise, but to me freedom of speech is too important and not worth giving up simply because some potential threats.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 25, 2010 14:31:02 GMT -5
In short, my answer is "Yes, we should have." I don't think it was a childish, rash or bigoted response as some have blanket accused the DMD participants of being (though certainly some of the participants were all three, sadly); for me, it was a well thought out and finally decided on response. I understand that some people disagree, but I just want those people to understand that, to me, this really was that important that we had to get the message out, and make sure any future extremists (of any sort, not just religious) know well in advance that any potential efforts at censorship will fail.
I guess that's pretty much the point I've been going for in my last few posts. I'm okay with those who disagree with me (it'd be rather hypocritical to protest in favour of free speech otherwise!), but I just want those people to understand that I did have a reason, it was a well-thought out decision, and that the issue really was important enough to me to warrant my participation.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 25, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -5
This isn't directly meant to be to prove a point or anything to do with this specific argument, but out of interest - how active is the muslim community in the areas in which you all live? Are there a large amount of Muslims, not so many, or none you know at all.
|
|