See, I just don't agree with this. People can do all sorts of things to you. They can beat you up...they can threaten you. But you are still entitled to say whatever you want...and no one here is arguing otherwise. I support the RIGHT to draw a cartoon. No question about it. I'm just saying i disagree with the exercise of this right in this instance. I also think it's silly to pretend this is a meaningful exercise. If it's to expose radical Islam...to show how ridiculous it is that they would go to violent measures in response to a cartoon...well....they've already exposed themselves. have you taken a poll? because I don't think of Hakeem as being much of an extremist, and he wouldn't even allow someone to build a statue of him....at the heart of that is the same core value behind the belief about not drawing Mohammed....because Islam has always been opposed to idolatry and see these things as being potential objects of worship, above God.
I respectfully agree to disagree with you in this instance. The thing is that they have been "successful" with their South Park threat and have "successfully" managed to intimidate in other instances. The reason why they have been "successful" is because individuals needed to feel threatened by them. The management of Comedy Central, the creators of South Park, Molly Norris, Danish and Swedish cartoonists. However, if thousands and thousands of people draw cartoons, what are they going to do? Intimidation only works when you have individual targets that can be singled out - same thing if you have bullies on the streets who are threatening people walking around alone. These same bullies cannot intimidate thousands who are standing against them, and they won't dare to do so. This is the point of this exercise. Not wanting a statue of himself doesn't make him an extremist. If they had put up a statue and he would then have threatened those who did with death or - like Mathloom - would have taken joy in others doing so, that would have made him an extremist.
Me too . I think some select posters, possibly some whom Clutch knows personally can give negative rep. I remember that Fatty Fat b*stard claimed he gave someone negative rep once. I wouldn't be surprised if MadMax or Groogrux or Batman Jones or some other posters could give negative rep.
They probably look at posts that are reported -- at least that's what I think they should be doing. I don't really know though. I imagine some of the well-known long-time posters probably have their ear too, so when they get their feelings hurt prepare for the red! Onoes!
I'll leave the other points alone because we just disagree. But on this one, I'm not sure I was clear given your response....what I meant was simply that Muslims are very wary of idolatry. That's the heart behind the rules regarding not drawing or painting or sculpting anything that could become a religious icon that would draw worship, like an idol. Mosques are devoid of any of those kinds of representations. Even stained glass windows lwith representations of Jesus ike you'd see in a church would be something they would shy away from. Now one doesn't have to be an extremist to have a view like that....unless you're just saying all Islam = extremist. So that sensible, peaceful Muslims would be offended by not only drawings of Mohammed...but ones that attempt to belittle him...really isn't all that surprising to me. And of course it isn't appropriate for anyone to respond violently....but I just think we'd do far better in stamping out radical Islam by seeking NOT to offend those elements of Islam we count as our friends.
I see what you are saying (and have been all along) and I understand that this is what many others are saying as well. This is also why I would hope/wish that most cartoons in this exercise are not of a demeaning/belittling nature. I just personally think that it is better for them to get used to being desensitized than for everyone to continue to cater to overly sensitive criteria. Your approach is more noble, mine is more confrontational. Basically, I think you strengthen radicals by continuing appeasement and therefore would rather draw a line in the sand, whereas you think I strengthen radicals by offending those who might not yet be radical, but who might lean more towards being radical after having been offended.
Hey ATW, will you be using this same thread to post your drawings or will you start another thread in order to consolidate them?
I am terrible at drawing, I could do nothing other than a stick figure. I was more interested in starting the discussion, and for that, I had to say that I was going to draw one. If I do and get around to it (I'll be traveling tomorrow), it'll be a stick figure in this thread. The most offensive thing about it will probably be how badly it is drawn.
If anyone has a bit of artistic talent... "Dogs Playing Poker" but with religious figures. Go! (pro tip: Buddha scratches his nose when he bluffs)
If anyone needed more proof that this is about a clash of cultures, and not just a few extremists - Pakistan is banning THE ENTIRE FACEBOOK site because of this little exercise. Those who say the exercise strengthens radicals will say that it is "our fault", I say that it just goes to show the lack of understanding of free speech in Islamic countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8691406.stm Pakistan court bans Facebook in row over prophet A court in Pakistan has ordered the authorities temporarily to block the Facebook social networking site. The order came when a petition was filed after the site held a competition featuring caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. The petition, filed by a lawyers' group called the Islamic Lawyers' Movement, said the contest was "blasphemous". A message on the competition's information page said it was not "trying to slander the average Muslim". "We simply want to show the extremists that threaten to harm people because of their Muhammad depictions that we're not afraid of them," a statement on the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" said. "They can't take away our right to freedom of speech by trying to scare us into silence." The information section of the page said that it was set up by a Seattle-based cartoonist, Molly Norris. It contains caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and characters from other religions, including Hinduism and Christianity, as well as comments both critical and supportive of Islam. 'Blasphemous' Publications of similar cartoons in Danish newspapers in 2005 sparked angry protests in Muslim countries - five people were killed in Pakistan. Facebook has more than 400 million users sharing 25 billion things a month Already the Pakistani press has reported protests against Facebook on Wednesday by journalists outside parliament in Islamabad, while various Islamic parties are also reported to be organising demonstrations. Correspondents say that the internet is uncensored in Pakistan but the government monitors content by routing all traffic through a central exchange. Justice Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court ordered the department of communications to block the website until 31 May, and to submit a written reply to the petition by that date. An official told the court that parts of the website that were holding the competition had been blocked, reports the BBC Urdu service's Abdul Haq in Lahore. But the petitioner said a partial blockade of a website was not possible and that the entire link had to be blocked. The lawyers' group says Pakistan is an Islamic country and its laws do not allow activities that are "un-Islamic" or "blasphemous". The judge also directed Pakistan's foreign ministry to raise the issue at international level. In the past, Pakistan has often blocked access to pornographic sites and sites with anti-Islamic content. It has deemed such material as offensive to the political and security establishment of the country, says the BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad. In 2007, the government banned the YouTube site, allegedly to block material offensive to the government of Pervez Musharraf. The action led to widespread disruption of access to the site for several hours. The ban was later lifted.
One side will say "See, they shouldn't have done it" While the other will say "This is exactly WHY they did it" LOL - and the beat goes on ! DD
The "Against Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" group on FB has more than 8,000 users (twice the size of the "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" group). Let me re-post some of the posts of people in that "Anti" group.
I'm coming back late to this thread and haven't had time to catch up but I sitll find this argument to be very biased. You are arguing now that Muslims shouldn't be offended well who are you to decide what people should or should not be offended by? I mean should we have an everyone say "n-&&-er" day? (FYI the CF.net filter prevents that actual word from being displayed. Under the criteria that you have raised that is censorship. in this case censorship done by a private entity just like Comedy Central censored South Park.) What about an everyone say "Gook and Chink" day since us Asians that should just get desensitized and we need to draw a line in the sand against radicals who might want to kick someone's ass for saying those words. Free speech is a good thing and should be protected but you have to ask yourself to what end are you using it for?
