Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 25, 2010 17:28:17 GMT -5
There are better ways to support freedom of speech without having to offend and entire religion. Not only are you offending the radicals, you're offending the normal believers who have done nothing to you.
I agree with the message, I disagree with the immature way it is being conveyed.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 25, 2010 17:35:52 GMT -5
Well, I said earlier, if you can name an alternative I'd be happy to listen, but it would have to be one that doesn't fulfil the terrorists' desire to successfully censor all images of Muhammed. The two better alternatives, out of our individual power, would have been for Viacom not to self-censor in response or for police to arrest those who made the threat, but as those did not happen, we're left with what we are capable of.
And frankly, I don't think it was immature; just because you disagree with something -- morally or for any other reason -- does not make it immature. Setting aside the fact that I don't think this was wrong to do, wrong ≠ immature. Some of the participants were, but making a blanket statement like that of everyone who participated is more discriminatory than drawing a stick man with the name Muhammed next to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 27, 2010 5:04:11 GMT -5
Blatantly wrong. While the threats of death CLEARLY violate the rights of those being threatened, Draw Muhammad 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. Either you honestly didn't understand or intentionally quoted that out of context. I was saying it violates their rights for freedom of religion because we're basically telling them that their religion is wrong. Saying you don't believe in what another person believes in that's fine that doesn't violate anyone's rights. But if there are people who believe that we shouldn't draw Muhammad and we're telling them that they're wrong and that it's a stupid belief that's disrespectful and a violation of their freedom of religion. There's a HUGE difference between telling someone you don't believe what they believe and telling someone what they believe is wrong and what you believe is right. That's what I think we're doing by drawing Muhammad. We're telling the people who believe a certain way that they're wrong and we're right. Clearly I don't condone the death threats of some of these people but what about others of the same religion who weren't involved in the death threats. The people who are actually terrorists deserve to be disrespected because it is wrong and stupid to resort to that level of violence to make others bend to your will. But for the other people who weren't part of the terrorist act and don't condone it, they don't deserve this. |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 27, 2010 14:30:29 GMT -5
And I'm saying that's not a violation of their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means they can't be forced to stop believing what they do. It doesn't mean we can't tell them they're wrong; that is my freedom of expression (in the US, freedom of speech).
Disrespectful, maybe, though I disagree. At the very least, I think it was a necessary or warranted response. By how on earth is drawing Muhammed a violation of their freedom of religion?! So under freedom of religion they have a right to enforce their laws on me!? I should think that would violate MY freedom of religion and freedom of expression if it were true! Next you'll tell me I can't eat pork because that would offend them!
Yes, we are. Quite clearly, really. In fact, I'll spell it out precisely:
They are wrong to think that they have a right to stop me from drawing their prophet Muhammed. I am right that I have a right to do so.
...look, freedom of religion is a right to freedom of thought and expression, but not all action. Freedom of religion does not mean you can kill if your faith says you can, it does not mean you can rape if your faith says you can and so forth. It also does not mean you can enforce your religious beliefs on others. You are attempting to sacrifice MY freedom of expression in the name of their religion, which is unacceptable.
Before arguing further I suggest you read exactly what freedom of religion means. In the US:
It means the government can't force you to think a certain way. It gives you the right to THINK you can enforce Shari'a law on others, but not the right to actually do so.
In other countries I imagine it would be worded differently (here in Canada it merely says "freedom of conscience and religion" and not a whit more), but the key meaning is the same. Freedom of religion is the right to think as you wish, and is usually paired with freedom of expression, the right to peacefully express your thoughts in public within the law. It does not include the right to have your beliefs respected by others, nor does it include the right not to be offended, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by tveir on May 27, 2010 22:20:07 GMT -5
Don't know how many times this has been said, but it needs to be very clear.
Religious, cultural and/or political groups pull the racism card way too often.
It isn't racism if you aren't a race and racism has absolutely nothing to do with prejudice based on the customs, opinions and beliefs of a group of people and everything to do with what they looked like when they came out of the womb.
The idea that you can believe something, very openly, preaching its doctrine all over the world, and then be terribly offended when a bunch of people openly believe differently on the internet, and not even by directly attacking you, but by hanging out making drawings, is not only totalitarian (and a double standard), but arguably borders on fascism.
The selective suppression of information will always mean the nullification of free speech.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 27, 2010 22:48:40 GMT -5
Well, I said earlier, if you can name an alternative I'd be happy to listen, but it would have to be one that doesn't fulfil the terrorists' desire to successfully censor all images of Muhammed. Oh right, because respecting the rules of a religion is something we cannot stoop to doing? Sorry if I sound like an ass, but this whole ordeal really annoys me. We have so much freedom to say whatever we want, but when we get censored on one thing, we all freak out and protest in the rudest, "kiss-my-ass"est way possible. No, it's not okay for there to be death threats over this. However, by responding with Draw Muhammed day, everyone is being extremely immature. It's like watching children argue. It never ends. Somebody has to be the bigger person first, and I wish you guys would let your pride go and do that. |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 28, 2010 0:19:18 GMT -5
Nobody ever gets angry at me spelling out the word "god" in conversations online, despite the fact that Jews find that incredibly offensive.
Obviously this argument is going to go nowhere, but I just don't think that giving in is equivalent to "being the bigger person." That can be true when it's just insults going back and forth. But this wasn't a case of slinging insults back and forth, it was a case of attempting to silence people from using a fundamental right. DMD wasn't about offending every Muslim in sight, it was about setting precedent and hopefully preventing ill-advised future attempts at censorship.
But apparently what I feel is an important moral issue is "childish" and "immature" simply because someone else feels it's less important and that it was a wrong decision. As I said, disagree if you will, but calling it childish or immature is just a base insult that adds nothing to the discussion. All it does is imply that we just reacted in knee-jerk fashion without thinking and I assure you that's not true, at least certainly not in my case.
As for the two sides not coming together because of something like this, apparently that's not even true. It apparently resulted in discussion at several universities between the local atheist and Muslim groups. For example, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison the "Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics" group and the MSA (which I believe stands for "Muslim Student Association") were last I read arranging to meet regarding compromise on the issue, though I never saw anything on how DMD itself played out. Last I heard from the blogosphere they were working on arranging a panel discussion in the Fall.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 28, 2010 1:02:39 GMT -5
I was just stating my opinion. Yes, I firmly believe DMD is childish and immature. I'm not insulting YOU, I'm insulting the reaction. Also, my word isn't law, so just because I dub it childish doesn't mean this "important moral issue" is childish and immature, it means I personally think it is.
I respect you, but I disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 28, 2010 1:42:41 GMT -5
Disrespectful, maybe, though I disagree. At the very least, I think it was a necessary or warranted response. By how on earth is drawing Muhammed a violation of their freedom of religion?! So under freedom of religion they have a right to enforce their laws on me!? I should think that would violate MY freedom of religion and freedom of expression if it were true! Next you'll tell me I can't eat pork because that would offend them! I wouldn't go that far, but there does seem to be a very fine line drawn between the two. I personally do not have a problem with cussing unless it is spicifically directed at another person to intentionally insult them but I try not to cuss when I'm around people who might be offended by it. It's kind of the same thing with this. If it was your best friend telling you they thought this offensive sure, you could still do it but I'm sure you wouldn't do it right in front of them. Showing respect is not censoring yourself but simply having the willingness to say I don't mean to offend you, I just don't see anything wrong with it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. Because if we're not at least respecting their religion then we are forcing them not to believe in it. That's a contradiction there. We can't force our believes on others but we don't have to respect each other's believes? How can that work, they're the same thing. That's how I feel anyway, if someone doesn't respect that I have different beliefs than they do I feel like they're forcing me to believe what they believe. Having respect for another persons beliefs is the only way you can't force them to believe the same way. |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 28, 2010 9:53:37 GMT -5
@rivalestro: No, we're not forcing them not to believe it. We're telling them it's a bad idea to believe it, we're not taking the choice away. They're still fully capable of believing it in spite of us, as has been clearly indicated by the fact that they still do. It's not like DMD resulted in millions of deconversions. Or any, for that matter. So we're not taking away their right to believe. The right to believe does not require protection from criticism. As an alternative scenario, what about creationists? They constantly try to tell proponents of evolution that we are wrong, stupid, ignorant and so forth. This is not infringing on our right to believe evolution is true, nor is it forcing us to change our minds. People can disagree, even vehemently, without infringing on one's freedom of thought. Or a closer alternative. What about the Muslims' or other religious folks' right to have signs saying "God is great" or "God is watching you" or sometimes "If you don't believe in God you'll go to hell." Neither the positive nor negative ones infringe on my freedom of religion to not believe in God. They clearly disagree with me, and I'm sure there are a lot of folks who would happily call me a stupid fool for not believing, but that doesn't force me to believe any more than the Muslims are being forced not to. That is their freedom of expression, even if I disagree with it, and I would defend that right as much as my own. Freedom of religion is a thought freedom. People are free to think what they want. They may continue to think that in spite of what others tell them. But there is also freedom of expression, that we can say and demonstrate what we want so long as we do so in peaceful fashion within the laws of the country. People are not free to not be told things they don't want to hear. They can ignore it, but they cannot silence it. Cortney: I apologize if I misunderstood you, but it sounded to me like you had directed those insults at me, at least the latter time. I do know that many people abused the activism in childish ways, but I still think that the core message was not a negative one, and I thought the statement sounded like a blanket one for everyone who participated. |
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 28, 2010 13:40:21 GMT -5
@rivalestro: No, we're not forcing them not to believe it. We're telling them it's a bad idea to believe it, we're not taking the choice away. They're still fully capable of believing it in spite of us, as has been clearly indicated by the fact that they still do. It's not like DMD resulted in millions of deconversions. Or any, for that matter. So we're not taking away their right to believe. The right to believe does not require protection from criticism. As an alternative scenario, what about creationists? They constantly try to tell proponents of evolution that we are wrong, stupid, ignorant and so forth. This is not infringing on our right to believe evolution is true, nor is it forcing us to change our minds. People can disagree, even vehemently, without infringing on one's freedom of thought. Or a closer alternative. What about the Muslims' or other religious folks' right to have signs saying "God is great" or "God is watching you" or sometimes "If you don't believe in God you'll go to hell." Neither the positive nor negative ones infringe on my freedom of religion to not believe in God. They clearly disagree with me, and I'm sure there are a lot of folks who would happily call me a stupid fool for not believing, but that doesn't force me to believe any more than the Muslims are being forced not to. That is their freedom of expression, even if I disagree with it, and I would defend that right as much as my own. Freedom of religion is a thought freedom. People are free to think what they want. They may continue to think that in spite of what others tell them. But there is also freedom of expression, that we can say and demonstrate what we want so long as we do so in peaceful fashion within the laws of the country. People are not free to not be told things they don't want to hear. They can ignore it, but they cannot silence it. This is why I think there's a very fine line between disagreeing with someone and forcing them to believe the same way you do. The Muslims who sent out the death threats are without question trying to force their beliefs on others and they use violence to other. Note that I am not speaking of all Muslims only the ones actually involved in the terrorist acts. However even under threat of death of it's still possible to believe your own way despite them. In history when religion was repressed by penalty from the government they didn't bend to the will of the state, they just practiced their own religion in secret. That is why the rights were set into place, so people could practice freely without feeling threatened. However there are still ignorant people who don't understand that not all Muslims are part of the terrorist act and the Muslim religion is in my opinion being repressed in the same way that the Terrorist are trying to repress the rest of us. Because I think there's such a fine line between forced religion and a simple disagreement in religion it's really up to what you think personally as to where the line should be drawn. For me, I draw the line at not offending people who have nothing to do with the terrorist acts. You don't have to agree with me on that but as long as we have a respectful disagreement with each other I'm OK with that.  |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 28, 2010 13:58:18 GMT -5
Yes, the death threats were not actually a violation of freedom of religion at all; they were a violation of the right to personal safety (or whatever it's called), or more specifically, a violation of the law that says you're not allowed to threaten people with physical violence. Believe it or not, the threats didn't violate freedom of religion at all. Freedom of religion basically only affects the government to be honest.
I'm okay with where you draw the moral line, but I'm talking about things in the constitutional/legal sense. The way the constitution sets out the right to freedom of religion does not protect anyone from being offended. Constitutionally, even the physical threats by the Muslims don't violate freedom of religion (only the laws governing threats, and possibly the right to personal safety, whose exact wording I forget).
A true example of violation of constitutional religious freedom (if they had it in the first place that is) is Iran, where the government requires its people to follow Islamic law, and has legal punishments that can be meted out when it is not followed. It almost has to be government action to warrant religious freedom being violated. Of course, Iran doesn't have that freedom, so it's not truly a violation, which is unfortunate, and something I hope can change in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mohaski on May 31, 2010 11:23:50 GMT -5
im a muslim nd i wanna say dat islam doesnt allow u to kill ppl if u dnt have an authority over dem nd if u did den dey hav to had dun sumtin wrong lyk kill another innocent person nd da reason we dnt want anyone drawin him is because he gave us a purpose dat many muslims nowadays just dnt go after nd islam is a religion nd we do allow freesom of speech as long as u dnt harm ANYONE in any way so now i hope u understand better
|
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jun 12, 2010 17:29:54 GMT -5
May 25, 2010, 11:55am, Jake wrote: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?
War. While the very idea of wars makes me queasy, they have, in the past, been necessary. Individuals consciously put their lives at risk - even sacrificed their lives - to protect the rights and freedoms of their fellow countrymen. Do we believe that these individuals SHOULD have gone to war? Should the Allied Forces have "turned the other cheek"?
I believe that while this is an extreme example of the concepts being discussed, and is not on the same level as a peaceful - if offensive - protest such as DMD, they are not wholly incompatible. Sometimes, people feel that it is necessary to act in a way they are not completely comfortable with for the greater good. There were soldiers who did not believe in war, who did not agree that war was good, who hated the idea of going to war. But they did it anyway, because it was necessary.
I'm sure there are gaping holes in my argument (which I'm looking forward to discussing, should they be pointed out), but I'm sure you get my point.
|
|
kovac
Moon
I am the Alpha and the Omega.
Posts: 161
|
Post by kovac on Jun 13, 2010 8:30:20 GMT -5
if we make a draw Jesus day, will it be less offensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by zmcluvin on Jun 13, 2010 14:16:13 GMT -5
Of course it's offensive to people but I don't believe that just because it's offensive it's wrong. Personally I think draw Muhammad day is a good way to practice freedom of speech and show that religion should never have the power to terrorize people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jun 15, 2010 12:05:47 GMT -5
if we make a draw Jesus day, will it be less offensive? Yes. It is against Islamic code to draw Mohammed. It is not against most Christian beliefs to draw Jesus. Of course it's offensive to people but I don't believe that just because it's offensive it's wrong. Personally I think draw Muhammad day is a good way to practice freedom of speech and show that religion should never have the power to terrorize people. Although I disagree with Draw Muhammad Day, I feel that this is a very well made point here. Especially that first sentence. While I still do think that it is wrong, your great way of putting it could be applied to many other "offensive" things. War. While the very idea of wars makes me queasy, they have, in the past, been necessary. Individuals consciously put their lives at risk - even sacrificed their lives - to protect the rights and freedoms of their fellow countrymen. Do we believe that these individuals SHOULD have gone to war? Should the Allied Forces have "turned the other cheek"? I believe that while this is an extreme example of the concepts being discussed, and is not on the same level as a peaceful - if offensive - protest such as DMD, they are not wholly incompatible. Sometimes, people feel that it is necessary to act in a way they are not completely comfortable with for the greater good. There were soldiers who did not believe in war, who did not agree that war was good, who hated the idea of going to war. But they did it anyway, because it was necessary. While in many aspects the similarities you have attributed to war is very good, there are (as you said there may be) some flaws in the argument which make it quite a different example to use. The main problem is that in WW2, fighting back against the enemies definitely prevented something negative. Now if drawing Mohammed was to cause all extremist Muslims to be offended to a state of shock preventing them from terror attacks then I would go right ahead and get drawing. However, drawing Mohammed doesn't prevent this (some could argue it could even provoke extremists). Going to war was necessary and for the greater good. However, in my opinion (as what I am about to say is purely opinion not fact), if "not offending a large religion" and "making a statement" were put on the weighing scales of "the greater good", the former would come out as the winner. This is, however, unless the statement made is justified as creating a greater good effect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 12:15:00 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thread, but this is my view:
1) The Islam says that Mohammed isn't allowed to be portrayed. This is a rule for Muslim people, not for non-Muslims, so every non-Muslim should be allowed to draw Mohammed.
2) I can see why it would be offensive to a certain group of Muslims, being the rather extremely religious part. The majority of Muslims don't give a crap about a college kid drawing Mohammed in chalk on a side walk. So to the people above who said "this is offending an entire religion": no.
3) So, my conclusion:
It probably shouldn't have been done, as you offend people with it, but on the other hand, it was a reaction to Islamic reactions to earlier drawings (being death threats). So I think the reason was definitely valid, the act it self may have been a little stupid. I guess there are other ways of addressing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jun 15, 2010 12:37:13 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thread, but this is my view: 1) The Islam says that Mohammed isn't allowed to be portrayed. This is a rule for Muslim people, not for non-Muslims, so every non-Muslim should be allowed to draw Mohammed. 2) I can see why it would be offensive to a certain group of Muslims, being the rather extremely religious part. The majority of Muslims don't give a crap about a college kid drawing Mohammed in chalk on a side walk. So to the people above who said "this is offending an entire religion": no. 1) I don't feel that this is meant to be about "are we allowed to draw Mohammed?". Because, as you said, there is no rule for us non-Muslims. This is instead about " should we draw Mohammad." Now, I'm sure you have plenty of reasons why we should, and perhaps you are even right, but it being allowed to do it does not justify doing it. 2) Probably bad wording on my part by saying things like "this offends a religion of 1 billion people". I understand plenty of muslims don't find it offensive, but what I meant to imply is that it is offensive to the religion itself. So if the religion itself were a human, it would be "offended". 3) Touche. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 13:02:30 GMT -5
2) Probably bad wording on my part by saying things like "this offends a religion of 1 billion people". I understand plenty of muslims don't find it offensive, but what I meant to imply is that it is offensive to the religion itself. So if the religion itself were a human, it would be "offended".Isn't that a bit too abstract to use as an argument? :/ It's kind of funny that you first say "you probably have a lot of reasons why we should draw Mohammed", while I say I think there are better ways of criticising extremist Muslims  ;D |
|
