fine...then dont watch it. or go protest infront of viacom. or organize a boycott of their sponsors. that is all w/in your rights. but in america we dont make death threats against people for saying or doing things you dont like. if you have a problem with this then you are free to go live in a country that doesnt allow free speech. if it offended me i would simply change the damn channel. as i already said, i was an altar boy when i was a little kid but i dont want to kill the south park guys b/c they make jokes about pedophile priests and show altar boys on leashes. some people need to get over themselves.
stop being so obtuse. if you are in america you should respect our laws. one of our laws is that you cant kill people b/c they say or do something you dont like. got a problem w/ it than you are free to go live elsewhere.
and some kids need to reduce their caffeine intake. i have not questioned yours or anyone else's right to "free" speech. i've only questioned the purpose of broadcasting material that many will obviously find offensive. sure it's perfectly legal and it bolsters your American pride to feel unique and special in the world, but other than that what is the point? it's also legal to make cartoons mocking US marines with limb amputations so why not go ahead and broadcast that as well? how come viacom isn't expressing their free speech rights to the fullest?
that is exactly what you are doing. furthermore, you are just going to unnecessary lengths to defend people who make death threats against those who exercise it. south park is funny. if you think that would be an entertaining cartoon than go right ahead and make it. that is your right in america.
Because in one case it would make people think and laugh and get them money, in the other case it would likely not result in that. Viacom is expressing their right to censor their content, but I'd rather see them exercising that right without a gun to their head held by some religious militants.
this post seemed to be pretty defensive and full of excuses for these jackholes behavior. furthermore, you say they are "funny" when they mock other religions, but get upset when they try to show an image of mohammed? seems pretty hypocritical to me. and your claim that they are harsher towards the muslim religion is just flat out wrong. this post is one long excuse for their death threats. you put alot more effort into defending this behavior instead of condemning it. and i actually totally agree w/ your 2nd to the last paragraph. america has indeed waged illegal wars in the middle east, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed brutal dictators (iran), supported both iran and iraq in their war (illegally, i might add) and given a disproportionate amount of military support to israel over the rest of the muslim world. but none of that excuses making death threats over a cartoon.
I have a muslim friend. Real nice guy and all. Preaches love and all the crap. But when it come to his religion you better watch out what you say. It's all a mask.
I'm saying if you can impose your beliefs on the Christians, (They must respect your prohibitons on insulting your panjandrum and not draw him or speak ill of him), then it is only natural that other religions should be able to impose their beliefs on you. And the Christian belief is that they should be able to attempt to convert you all to Christianity. They don't really care about you insulting Jesus so much, but being allowed to try to convert you is certainly as central and core an idea as your prohibitions on insulting the prophet. And if you make the claim that Islam is the whole world, then they should be able to make the same claim about Christianity being the whole world. What's fair is fair. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you impose requirements on others, they should be able to impose them on you.
I have read through the thread and there were a couple of post that cited that the censorship was done as a deliberate joke. These threads are hard to follow sometime so those posts might've been addressed. That said it is an undeniable fact that Comedy Central aired the original episode in question so there was no censorship there. How is my observation that Muslim posters have also spoken against the Muslim Revolution group incorrect? This post was on the first page of this thread: It sounds like you are saying that Muslims criticizing other Muslims for these type of things isn't enough well then what more do you want from them? You seem to be selectively reading Muslim responses to a point that ignores that Islam isn't a centrally controlled religion and that there is a vast diversity of views among Muslims.
What? No one posted any proof that the censorship was done as a joke. In fact, the only source that has been posted related to that was specific quotes from the creators saying that it in fact *was not* a joke, and that comedy central did it against their wishes. And no, Comedy Central did not air the original episode in question. They aired an edited version that was literally censored out the wazoo both in terms of video and audio.
The Muslims don't have a centralized controlling authority and are very diverse. But it appears that some people's view the Muslims are universal despite the Muslims in question and their actual beliefs.
If I had a nickel for all the times somebody has made this unfounded, erroneous remark in this thread.
Which episode are you referring too? Episode 200 was the one that caused the problems. Episode 201 was the one that was cited as being censored. As I said these threads are hard to follow but from waht I recall there was speculation Episode 201 was censored as a joke in response to the brouhaha over Episode 200. How would a brouhaha over it the content of it have started in the first place if it hadn't been aired uncensored? Did someone leak a copy of it to RevolutionMuslim in advance of the broadcast?
Consider you wrote this: If you don't actually view Muslims as universal why then should moderate muslims be responsible for stopping the violence and rhetoric of the extremists? THis strikes me as saying that Christians like Babtists should be responsible for stopping pedophiles in the Catholic church.
Bah. Let's stick to signifying which episode's we're referring to. 200 aired uncensored. 201 was censored. 201's censorship was *not* a joke. It was done deliberately by CC because of threats and concern over violence against the network and the creators. The brou-haha started despite the fact they didn't show an image of Muhammed in 200. That is what is really messed up. People took issue with depicting Muhammed in a bear suit, even though they played by the "rules" and never showed his actual visage. That was part of the joke, which makes it all the more ridiculous. So CC, in response to the threats, bleeped out every instance of the word "Muhammed" in the show as well as covered him up with a black box any time he was thought to be on screen, even if it was wearing a full body suit, etc.
I did not say they were responsible/obligated to do so. I said I wished they would. If they aren't going to try to get them to stop, then who will, or better yet, who should? Who has a better chance/ability to get them to stop? DonnyAgnostic or MuslimMathloom? I'm not betting on me. Seems to me that they have a vested interest in it, and it would behoove them and their religion to find ways to curtail violence within their ranks, instead of making excuses for it. I do the same thing when I see someone who feels the same way as I do about religion behaving poorly, I try to get them to curb that behavior so that I and my viewpoint are better represented, or at the very least, I denounce them and disassociate (not make excuses), even though that isn't the best I could do.
I'm sorry but those sexual abuser Christians aren't doing it in the name of religion. It's out of sexually being suppressed or desire or whatever in their perverted mind. Islams is another matter.
