Please note I started writing this before Nick’s post went up, completing it only after I saw it on the blog. And due to time constraints, won’t have time to address his points directly.
As some of our readers know, while we at GayPatriot usually agree on the big issues of the day, we have a difference of opinion on whether or not to participate in Draw Mohammed Day.
I believe this blog should not participate and out of respect for pious Muslims who do not use their faith to intimidate “non-believers”, assault critics, murder innocents, or otherwise attack Western civilization, we should not defy a central tenet of that faith, not depicting their prophet visually. I believe we should show the same respect for any faith. And wonder why it is that some who criticize this project would, in different circumstances, mock Catholics or deride Mormons.
Instead of attempting to spit in the eye of an entire faith, which appears to be the purpose of this stunt, I believe we need stand up for those assaulted for speaking their minds. And wonder why the liberal civility police (who neglected their role in the Bush Administration) are more ready to condemn Tea Party protesters because they (the “civility police”) believe their rhetoric leads to violence, but are reluctant to climb those who actually engage in such violent acts or actually call for the death of a people.
That said, I believe the aforementioned project is a juvenile stunt, no different from some staged by the gay left. It will be counterproductive, doing more harm than good, possibly offending those most victimized by radical Islam–moderate Muslims.
Well, I lost the battle to have this blog keep out of this controversy, but in the process of making my case, did engage in a great discussion with Bruce and Nick on the idea. Given my time constraints, I won’t be able to present as thoughtful a post as I would like, so instead, I’ll simply, belong the “jump,” post (and edit) part of my e-mail to Bruce on the matter.Let me give you the best illustration possible before my wits fade (I had written this after the 3rd day of my x-country x-cursion, having averaged 5 hours of sleep for the preceding 3 days). While I did not grow up kosher, I have long since given up pork and shellfish as a sign of my faith. If I go out to breakfast with someone and they order bacon, only to learn I don’t eat such meat, sometimes, they apologize for possibly offending me. I laugh and say, you’re not asking me to eat it. You’re not doing it to offend me. You’re ordering bacon because you like to eat bacon.
Now, let’s change the circumstances a bit. A friend is planning a breakfast for some people, including me. And he knows I don’t eat bacon, but decides to go out and serve it just to spite me. Entire different situation. But, if he had called me and asked if I would be offended if he served bacon, it changes the hypothetical.
People are drawing Mohammed in order to spit in the eye of a faith which does not like to have its prophet depicted. Those who put forward the idea don’t normally draw cartoons mocking religious figures.
Let’s show respect for that faith as a whole, but take on those who use its scriptures to promote violent acts.
I believe very strongly in respecting all faiths, but condemning acts of violence committed in the name of any faith. This stunt crosses the line and risks offending those moderate Muslims who hold tenaciously to this tenet of their faith–that their prophet not be depicted visually.
Please note this stunt has been dreamed up by a woman who has since distanced herself from the project. So should we.
How would a Catholic feel if someone took to the streets to feed Eucharist wafers to a monkey in order to make fun of the Catholic faith?
We don’t do the kind of satire South Park does. And they mock just about everybody, Muslims as well as Mormons. So, we’re far different than that TV show.
This is the wrong way to stand up to Islamofascism. It is counterproductive. The Islamic faith is not our enemy. Muslims are not our enemies. Islamofascists who commit violent acts against innocent civilians, who assault cartoonists and vandalize their houses and who seek to overthrow our society are the enemy.
This juvenile stunt does nothing to combat the real enemy. Nothing. It doesn’t make a stand for civilization. It doesn’t protect us from violent attack. And that’s why, I believe, our blog should steer clear of the controversy.
By participating, we are neither promoting the defeat of Islamofascism nor advancing the values of Western civilization.
Of all the Rights man has been given the ability to think and to question is perhaps the most heartening and threatening at the same time. We question our own life. How did we get here? Is there a higher power? If so did he/she set us up to figure everything out on our own or are we supposed to divine a purpose and then stay true to that divination? We can speak and act in the name of a God that can inspire the most heart rending and beautiful works of music and art and in the same voice bring about the destruction of the world. ALL in HIS name.
I’ve come to a few basic understandings of life. First is that life basically boils down to a simple decision between laughing and crying over the things that happen to us. Given the nature of man and the inherent danger associated with our questioning nature we have a great many opportunities to cry. For me I CHOOSE to laugh as much as possible.
The last basic understanding I’ve reached is that God has a sense of humor. Above most any other thing I’ve figured out this is probably the most important. If God in his/her infinite wisdom can laugh at what he creates and by default himself/herself, I have to believe that he cannot and will not condemn his believers if they make fun of the various interpretations of believing in HIM/HER. If the followers of one strain of his believers haven’t figured out that God DOES have a sense of humor I truly pity them. Until they grasp that simple fact they won’t truly understand him at all.
Typically, we agree on a great many things. But on this one, I’m with Zombie.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speech-movement/
But those are not the circumstances of EDMD. So the analogy fails.
The circumstances of EDMD are more like this: if you were to go around killing people who eat bacon (and I know you never would – it’s just a story), then your associate might be serving bacon to spite you… and also, then he would be right to.
Or the circumstances of EDMD are more like this: if some other people were to go around killing those who eat bacon, then your associate might be serving bacon to spite them. And again, he would be right to. And he might tell you, sorry, but this is what’s happening; I totally understand if you want to stay away and get breakfast with me on a different occasion. And you might tell him, no, I understand why you’re doing it, I’m still not going to eat the bacon but yes, I’m going to come to the breakfast.
(Emphasis added.) I question the emphasized assumption.
OMG, I actually agree with ILoveCapitalism.
Muslims have a right to believe whatever they want. They are free to follow the demands of their religion. They don’t have a right to make ME follow those demands.
Muslims have every right to speak out against actions they deplore. They can write about it, protest, picket, or anything along those lines. Death threats are unacceptable. Threatening people with physical violence is simply unacceptable. And I applaud those who have not buckled under to these threats.
So I get the point of Draw Mohammed Day. I don’t think it will change anything but I do get the point.
(continuation of #4) For completeness, I should also register my objection to the misattribution of motive there. It’s not to spit in the eye of that faith. Its to spit in the eye of that faith’s self-appointed fascist enforcers. They are not the same thing.
It’s not to spit in the eye of that faith. Its to spit in the eye of that faith’s self-appointed fascist enforcers. They are not the same thing.
Exactly. And it’s a pretty big insult to the rest of the faith to lump the fascist enforcers in with them.
If someone said to me, “Since you’re a Mormon, I’m not going to say anything bad about polygamy,” I’d be offended. Actually, I’d think, “What a dumbass,” because most people in my faith find the practice abhorrent. It would be insulting and condescending to me that someone attributed that belief to me.
The Muslim community is collectively trying to extort a de facto ‘right not to be offended’ by threats of violence. While I may think that deliberately working to be offensive is a sign of a lack of couth (witness Comedy Central), I also feel that in this case it’s very important indeed to not allow the “New Muslim Right (or ELSE!)” to come into being. There should be no ‘special and protected’ classes of citizens, for whom we all have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending. That way lies Canada, where any speech not wholly in line with the Official Pravda is labeled as “offensive” and criminalized… and truth is no defense.
It boils down to free speech. Making a personal decision not to offend Muslims versus being afraid to offend Muslims due to death threats are two very different things.
We have to show radical Islam we will not be cowered and frankly, I think moderate Muslims – if they are truly moderate – will undestand this. And not only understand but secretly (because they have to keep it a secret or they get killed, too) support this.
I’m Catholic and would be offended about the whole “feeing Eucharist wafers to a monkey” deal but I would not think of threatening someone with anything more than flippin them the bird. That’s the difference here.
I do think it’s a war of civilizations ™.
Western Civilization, especially with the United States, is built around freedoms. We (meaning most of the west) have been able to use that to thrive and prosper. To be a Christian in the West is to accept (if not like) that others have the freedom to mock your faith and offend you. While you have the right to boycott and not use the services of those who offend you, you don’t have the right to silence them, either by fear or by violence.
We respect the freedoms of others to damn themselves to hell. 🙂
Too many people, including the radical Muslims, want their cake and eat it too. They’ll used Soviet made AKs or American made cell phones, to deprive people of the liberty and freedom that inspired that cell phone. They want to ‘drag us to their future’ whether we want to or not, because they ‘know better than us’.
To me, as a Westerner and a Man of Faith, the balance is simple. I can deal with Comedy Central’s Christian bashing, because my Western sensabilities accept they can do it, my Faith says that it has endured much worse and survived.
Religion is a blight on humanity in all its forms, and while it may have helped through some tough times at key junctures during our formative years, at this point the whole institution is a useless dinosaur that is holding up the progress of mankind.
My least favorite thing about religion is how it gives people the the propensity for taking at offense at the most ridiculous and harmless of activities. Whether its Muslims wanting to kill people because they drew cartoons, or Christians wanting to prevent gay marriage because of their sexual insecurities, at the end of the day, the reasoning behind all of these positions is the same; because my imaginary friend told me so! Or probably more accurately, because an international conspiracy dating back thousands of years that was designed to control and intimidate and exploit people that has at its core the insincerely held belief that there is an imaginary friend that told me so!
With all of the deception that occurs in our everyday lives, why someone would believe what another person says about something that is fundamentally unknowable is confounding. It really has to do with getting them young; religious people begin indoctrinating their kids as soon as sentience begins to set in, which exploits the evolutionary adaptation of human children to fully believe everything their parents tell them about the world. The first lessons that most religious people give their kids in terms of cognition and critical thinking are obey, don’t believe your lying eyes, and always defer to this specific group of authority figures regardless of whether or not they can back up anything they can say. Hey – it kind of makes sense that the right is the home to the most religious factions in this country, doesn’t it?
Who cares if Muslims, even sensible Muslims, don’t like having their prophet depicted? This is one of the fundamental parts of the first amendment. Freedom from religion means you don’t have to defer to some absurd religious demand if you don’t want to. Obviously, it’s your right to defer if you feel like it, but why do you feel like it? I think all religions need the occasional finger in the eye whenever they forget themselves and start thinking they’re still calling the shots in our secular society. People need to stop apologizing to religious people when religious people get offended, and start asserting themselves.
After Draw Mohammed day, I say we target the evangelicals that don’t want gays to get married and stage a “Take Your Gay Partner to the Parking Lot of an Evangelical Church Just After Services are Letting Out and Make Out With Them Day.”
And Levi shows up to spread his bile and hatred of anything different than him.
Levi? 83 days and we’re still waiting for that successful socialist state. Islam does have one advantage, it’s killed less people than socialism.
I think its somewhat hypocritical for people to participate in this when if a bunch of atheists were planning a day to mock Jesus, there would be nothing but rants about why thats awful and terrible. I would see nothing about they are mocking the found beliefs of the Nation and so on and so on.
I’m not getting involved either way, I personally do not care. I think these are often pointless and nothing will come of it, is this actually going to change the minds of anyone? People are free to use their freedoms however they want and more power to them. I’m just not sure if they then have the right to complain if they provoke a reaction of violence. You know what kind of reaction you are going to get from the extremist world, and none of its good.
And Levi shows up to spread his bile and hatred of anything different than him.
Levi is a perfect demonstration of what a bunch of hate-filled a$$holes the anti-religious side is.
“I’m not getting involved either way, I personally do not care. I think these are often pointless and nothing will come of it, is this actually going to change the minds of anyone? People are free to use their freedoms however they want and more power to them. I’m just not sure if they then have the right to complain if they provoke a reaction of violence. You know what kind of reaction you are going to get from the extremist world, and none of its good.”
So basically you are saying that if I offend someone by saying something, or in this case drawing something, they have a right to kill me? Cause that’s what I am hearing.
“After Draw Mohammed day, I say we target the evangelicals that don’t want gays to get married and stage a “Take Your Gay Partner to the Parking Lot of an Evangelical Church Just After Services are Letting Out and Make Out With Them Day.”
Go for it. I doubt you will get more than a few disapproving looks and who the hell cares about that.
Shouldn’t Levin be off blowing Bill Maher in an alley somewhere?
I’m not saying they have the right to kill you, but are you going to surprised by a violent reaction? I mean its not like we are all ignorant of what the ramifications of this could be. We have seen violent consequences because of how these extremist think and feel they are justified in doing it. They should be charged and brought to justice if they hurt anyone in involved in this. I definitely did not mean to imply they have a right to commit violence or kill anyone, that is something I would never agree to. I said you are free to express yourself in anyway you see fit, but don’t act like there won’t be a reaction.
I just don’t see how its constructive, what exactly are you gaining by doing this? So you piss off people who are known to blow themselves up in the name of their god. I’m not sure how thats a smart move.
Dan, even when I disagree with you, you usually make good points. This is one of those times. In fact, for similar reasons, I wasn’t sure this was a good idea. Others have made good counterarguments, and some of mine may echo what has already been stated.
As Nick said, if this was to simply poke fun at Moslems, then I would be against it. A LOT more is at stake here. It is unfathomable at this point that a simple depiction, or even mocking, of someone, even a revered religious figure, causes a significant amount of people to threaten, and actually murder someone because of it. Somehow, this intimidation was able to coerce Comedy Central to censor an episode of South Park that appeared to depict Mohammed, while other depictions and representations of other revered religious figures, which by any unbiased standards were much more offensive, have not been censored.
Here’s the other issue, one that demonstrates exactly the point of the First Amendment. We all have the right to be offended by things, whether religious or not. But at what point do we let ourselves be hamstrung by others’ sensibilities? For example, what if I said that I am offended when a gay person espouses conservative views. Suppose further, I’m a “moderate” gay leftie, so I won’t threaten violence or do other nasty things that some on the gay left have done. I doubt very much that you would stop blogging on my account. Now back to reality, I would be offended, in fact, if that was the reason you chose to stop publicly espousing your views.
Now you may believe that a Moslem being offended by others depicted by Mohammed is reasonable. And if that’s the case, I completely understand why you would not participate, and why you would never intend to draw Mohammed for any reason. And that’s fine. But many, including me, believe that this is a totally unreasonable request. And since this has led not only to people being offended, but to lead to murder in too many cases, this reaction is a reasonable stand to take those who have stomped on free speech rights.
I just don’t see how its constructive, what exactly are you gaining by doing this? So you piss off people who are known to blow themselves up in the name of their god. I’m not sure how thats a smart move.
Darkeyedresolve, at what point to appease extremists for having unreasonable demands? Should we just submit to sharia law now to not offend the extremists?
Yes, there is a risk. But this is a show of solidarity to those who have been threatened and killed simply for exercising free speech. What else should we give up so we don’t upset the extremists?
darkeyed,
No, I would not be surprised in violence, but I won’t let it stop me. That’s my point. I would be offended by Southpark (if I bothered to watch it) but I’d not call for Trey Parker’s head.
I would love if abortion was stopped in the US. But I don’t see it being stopped because a few Christian Nutjobs think that murder is the answer.
Instead I’m seeing people afraid to mock Muhammed (Please Beat Upon Him) for fear of Muslim Nutjobs.
Levi can whine all she wants, but it comes down to he knows the Southern Baptists won’t come lynch him in the parking lot. Try it in a mosque in Dearbournistan and watch the result.
(Also note how Levi’s little tirade involves tresspassing, so he is advocating breaking the law to offend, this is just a little artwork)
“I just don’t see how its constructive, what exactly are you gaining by doing this? So you piss off people who are known to blow themselves up in the name of their god. I’m not sure how thats a smart move.”
So what is the smart move? To cower before them? To allow them to take over Western society and impose their values on free people. Because that is what they are doing. Bit by bit, piece by piece. And many of us are too frightened or too politically correct or too blind to see what is happening.
You rightly point out that some Christians are restricting the rights of gays as regards marriage and that they deserve mocking for it; however, have you taken into account the fact that radical Islam won’t just forbid them marriage but also life? And whether you mock them or not it won’t matter.
As to the violence this may or may not generate. Well, they are already blowing us up (or trying to), and drawing their prophet isn’t going to make them work harder at it anymore than not drawing him is going to make them stop.
Anyway, if I have to die, I for one would rather go out like a lion rather than a sheep. So I say mock away. If nothing else it shows them that we are not just a few, but many, and we will not be cowered.
I challenge the assumption, again, that this is about “mocking” Mohammed. I object to the misattribution of motive.
Also, DER, your claim is to be challenged on the evidence. _South Park_ (who may or may not be atheists; I don’t know) mocks Jesus all the time. I don’t see a bunch of “rants” about that. Most important: I certainly don’t see people making death threats over it.
(To be clear: Some of the participation in EDMD may well consist of mocking Mohammed. But that doesn’t make it the event’s point. The point, again, is to mock the self-appointed fascist judges and enforcers of what is, or is not, sufficiently respectful of Mohammed. They are not Mohammed.)
Christians are not restricting the rights of gays. Christians just elected a gay bishop.
_South Park_ (who may or may not be atheists; I don’t know) mocks Jesus all the time.
Bill Maher hates on Christians on pretty much every show. Yeah, people take note… mainly because, like Levi, Bill Maher is a pompous, unpleasant ass of the kind whose presence on the other side is affirming to religious folk… but no one rants, much less threatens to kill him.
“I think its somewhat hypocritical for people to participate in this when if a bunch of atheists were planning a day to mock Jesus, there would be nothing but rants about why thats awful and terrible.”
I’ve never heard of any Christians threatening to kill atheists for mocking Jesus. Sure, some will rant (if you think calling for boycotts that are largely ineffective “ranting”) but that’s about it, but they have a right to free speech as well.
And as ILoveCaptalism said, this is not about mocking Mohammed (although he is a prophet that begs to be mocked – seriously), it’s about mocking radical Islam and their threats.
“Christians are not restricting the rights of gays. Christians just elected a gay bishop.”
I said some Christians.
Let’s have a “Draw a Picture of a Quark Day.”
I’m not sure why it’s bad to speculate about God, who is, in principle, unknowable, and OK to speculate about quarks, which are, in principle, unknowable. We can only theorize quarks exist–we will never know for sure. We will never see a quark since quarks are smaller than a photon. We can only know about quarks from what we think are their effects on what we CAN see. I’m not sure why believing in quarks is smart and believing in God is stupid.
Both Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel and Rothko’s Chapel in Houston are testaments to God. One is filled with images. One is monochrome canvases. Both attempt to describe the unknowable.
My drawing of Mohammed would be a Rothko or a Pollock or a Mondrian. So would my picture of a quark.
I am not saying cower or subjugate to their will, I would definitely never want to live in a society that is under Islamic law. I think there is line though between confronting and just antagonizing. I just don’t think this will make the regimes and extremist of the Middle East sit back and go, “Oh, maybe we are over reacting.” I could be wrong, if this sets off a sea change of revolution in the Islamic World I will totally apologize for being wrong.
ILC- You are probably right, the main goal behind this isn’t mocking but I doubt they will see it that way. Extremist have shown that they take this action very seriously and do see it as a offense, so actually they see it as more than mocking. They will just use as a propaganda tool to incite more violence and get more people to join their cause. You are also right to point out that we don’t have that level of extremism in the States, at least not to the levels it is over there.
I just don’t want to see people be hurt cause I fear mainly what will come out of this. Its awful to think that is a likely outcome because these people have no respect for human life and don’t agree that people are free to express themselves.
Dark – If someone is hurt, you should blame the attacker not the victims.
I’m not sure dumping tea in a harbor wasn’t offensive to somebody, too. It probably hurt a lot of people’s feelings that those uppity colonists demanded their liberty — really, how rude of them!
Those silly colonials…dressing up like Indians and throwing tea!
Do the people we’re supposed to be so careful not to offend ever bother to consider how offensive THEY might be to everybody else? I’m offended that they cut that kid’s head off a few years ago — on videotape — and brandished his decaptiated head before the world.
I expect an apology any day now. Sensitivity, after all, is SO important.
And they have apologized for their rudeness in killing 3,000 Americans on September 11 of 2001. Right? I don’t recall seeing anything in Emily Post about that having been a socially-appropriate means of airing grievances.
I’ve had it with the sensitivity police. Screw them. We don’t have to tumble down the rabbit-hole into total insanity with them.
James Taranto, as usual, has it exactly right. EDMD was always ill-thought and counterproductive. Contrary to what some have claimed, by its very nature it tells even the most moderate Muslims that we dont welcome them, that we view them as outsiders, not worthy of the civility we show everyone else:
You can read the whole thing here.
AE:
You know, I’m a big fan of Taranto’s. I’ve been a loyal reader of his daily column (and a sometimes-contributor thereof) for many years. One of the things he’s great at doing is exposing instances of critics who, rather than arguing the point, project an ill-centered motive on their adversaries and argue that motive instead. It’s therefore ironic that he’s doing exactly that in this column of his from last month.
Yes, from last month. I’m curious as to why he chose not to mention it today. After all, it was news on MSNBC and CNN, and he’d already written on it way back then. I’m not one to project a motive onto someone, but perhaps he’s softened his recalcitrant and unfair characterization of those of us who support this event. Dunno, because he hasn’t written on it.
#35: “Contrary to what some have claimed, by its very nature it tells even the most moderate Muslims that we dont welcome them, that we view them as outsiders, not worthy of the civility we show everyone else”
BULLSHIT. Americans have bent over backwards catering to the feeling of so-called “moderate” Muslims and in return, we have seen little more than lukewarm, terse statements of disapproval of radical Islam and the destruction and death they have caused. In my observation since 9/11, the perfunctory efforts of “moderate” Muslims to distinguish themselves from the savages have been grossly deficient and I have seen ZERO unity or cooperation flowing from the “moderate” Muslim community to American law enforcement to weed out those “bad apples” that they claim are perverting the Muslim faith. What I have seen is lots and lots of lawsuits and whining about discrimination against Muslims, hate crimes against Muslims, and accusations of “Islamophobia.” They view US as outsiders–I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
In fact, in my opinion, what I would consider a “moderate” Muslim at this point is one who actually gets what Draw Muslim Day is about and can handle it without interpreting it as a message from Americans that we don’t think they are “worthy of the civility we show everyone else.” Show me that Muslim, because I have seen NO EVIDENCE of the existence such an individual. I am DONE worrying about offending Muslims no matter what their stripe. Now our military won’t even allow the word “Islam” to appear once in an 86-page report about the “investigation” of the Ft. Hood shootings, but where has that kind of pathetic deference gotten us with this mythic “moderate Muslim community”? Aren’t there plans to build a giant mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero now? Let me guess–it’s a group of “moderate” Muslims that bought the land and drew up those blueprints, right? Obviously, our first priority should be to make THAT group feel “welcome” and that we “don’t view them as outsiders.” In fact, I just had a great idea! Why don’t we tell them that they can just go ahead and build the mosque ON Ground Zero!? Wouldn’t that be a great way to show those “moderate” Muslims that they are “worthy of the civility we show everyone else”?
I can’t believe that even somewhat conservative people are worried about this. The day that I become concerned that Americans are risking the alienation of moderate Muslims is the day that someone can show me that there is some powerful bond of peace, love, and understanding between Americans and this mythical “moderate Muslim community” that I have never seen before.
Ummm… has it occurred to Taranto, et. al. that if “Moderate Muslims” are incapable of tolerating the degree of mockery that other parts of the culture routinely endure, than they are not part of our culture? Tolerance is the price of admission, here. If they aren’t prepared to pay it, if they are demanding exceptions be made for them in perpetuity… maybe they aren’t a good fit.
Bravo! and “Well said!”, Sean A.
Most AWESOME argument ever!
So, since the top story today was Mexican president Calderon and Democrats slamming border enforcement, and you didnt write about it, you obviously must have changed your positions on immigration issues!
And health care was in the news today, and it was announced that congress is going to try to pass another massive spending bill
…but since you didnt repeat your positions on those issues you totally support Obamacare and massive new spending!
this argument is TEH MOST AWESOMEST EVER! It works on anything! Why didn’t i think of it before?!!
Oh yeah, ‘cus its ridiculous.
Neither Taranto nor I are talking about American Muslims, we’re talking about how to interact in the world with 1.5 billion people (or thereabouts) — a population that is GROWING — who don’t share our values, while the western world is SHRINKING. How do western values survive under such circumstances?
Certainly not by giving in as the left would do, and is doing, but also not by treating ALL Muslims the same as we treat terrorists.
As Taranto says, and I had been saying
Did we get a moderate Muslim nation that was very recently siding with terrorists against the United States to arrest Al Qaeda terrorists who were going to attack the world cup by attacking ALL the Muslims in Iraq?
Or did our troops go to GREAT pains and in many cases great personal risk to establish that we saw an important DISTINCTION between terrorist behavior and moderate behavior and therefore ONLY TARGETED TERRORISTS?
Indeed, I’ve read many military experts saying that our reaching out to Iraqis was ESSENTIAL to the success of the surge.
Drawing their god as a dog isnt really reaching out is it?
Or perhaps you’d like to argue that Levi and Tano help their cause by insulting all conservatives? Makes us all much more receptive to their ideas doesn’t it???
Of course it doesn’t. Of COURSE its counter-productive. yet you are arguing the opposite here.
Perhaps you think instead of reaching out to moderates in Iraq, our troops should have handed them pictures of Mohammad made out of poo, and told them to suck it if they didnt like it? Its free speech baby!
It all comes down to the old adage, “you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar”.
Its fine to be all full of piss and vinegar when it doesnt matter. But I think the war on terrorism matters a lot.
So then, I take it (referring to a comment I made to an earlier post) that the image of Mohammed on the Supreme Court building in DC should be removed?
As you should.
One of the big difference is there aren’t many Catholics or Mormons who consider the mocking of their religions to be capital offenses. Hence an Everyone Draw Mohammed Day instead of an Everyone Mock the Pope day or Everyone Mock Joseph Smith Day.
Do you now? Do you also believe that it is counterproductive to offend the Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and others who are victimized by radical Islam?
You can’t have it both ways, Dan. Either you want to tell Muslims they have to act they way Buddhists did when South Park showed the Buddha snorting cocaine — which is do nothing — or you want to tell Buddhists to act the Muslims did when Vilks drew his pics. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS. The world is far too small nowadays.
Here is where you fail, Dan. A strain of Islam IS our enemy. Your weak spot for religions (which I correctly identified –also in an earlier post’s comments) keeps you from seeing this.
AE @ 43:
I rather think wisdom lies in telling the developing Muslim world not to make an enemy of us.
Your attitude, and Taranto’s, is based on cowardice, pure and simple.
Oh my gosh, AE!
I just read the link — the one under the word “BULLSHIT” in your comment #42. You must be joking!
That’s your example of moderate Muslim turnaround. The American-freed Iraqis arresting Saudis? SPARE US, PLEASE!
AE @ 35:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
What EDMD tells Muslims is that we expect from them the same civility that everyone else displays. Anything else would be viewing Muslims as inherently inferior beings.
You would say that, you’re a raging effeminate pansy ass flaming queen! Not to mention a frequent liar.
Oh, I see how it works now! That’s so BRILLIANT! Cus yer like totally afraid of making an enemy of me now aren’t you!?
Or maybe thats the dumbest thing ever. Hmm. Tough call.
Yeah, cus you know whats REALLY braaaaave? Anonymous drawings on the internet.
Well, since you’re so macho and brave, why dont you send me your Muhammad drawing with your full name and real home address, for me to send to all the mosques in your area?
I’m sure our troops would be interested to know that their strategy of putting themselves in greater danger to make a clear distinction between moderate muslims and terrorists is cowardly.
If you ask me, its smart, and effective. Unlike you.
Actually, its rather the ENTIRE POINT of establishing a democracy in Iraq to begin with! To turn a terrorism supporting enemy into an ally in the war on radical terrorist Islam, and its a very big deal.
Uncivil behavior to demand civility?
Do you even think before you type?
You may now be THE dumbest person on the internet!
See! See how smart that is! I’m totally making you afraid to make an enemy of me by mocking you aren’t I? I’m totally winning you over to my way of thinking by pointing out what a blithering dumba*s you are!
WAAAY more effective than treating you and your ideas with respect isnt it!
i> Well, since you’re so macho and brave, why dont you send me your Muhammad drawing with your full name and real home address, for me to send to all the mosques in your area?
Why? What do you think would happen if he did, AE? Should he be fearful?
Even if EDMD was a bad, ill-conceived idea, and if I believed the reasons you gave for why it’s a bad idea, then, frankly, there is no hope in dealing with Islam at any level.
Because why can’t the Moslem moderates here and globally say, “The depiction of Mohammed may be offensive to me. And perhaps EDMD is a stupid idea. In fact, this is how we should deal with the fanatical scum adherents of my religion… But I understand that you felt something had to be done to make a point, so you would not cower to persons who don’t value your freedom.” I would like to think this is how moderate Moslems are reacting to this.
Pat, that would make too much sense.
Sean A, Taranto really said that? LOL 🙂 How absurd. What civility? “We”, as a broad public space include both Left and Right and all religions and philosophies, collectively manage to be INCIVIL TO EVERYBODY. We call it free speech. If we excluded Muslims from that – if we granted them a special “right not to be offended” – then, and only then, we would truly be bigoted agsint Muslims, i.e., truly viewing them as outsiders.
Whoops, sorry. The bit I nicked from Sean A’s comment wasn’t Taranto, it was a commentor’s here. My mistake, not in the content of my ideas, but in the fact that I misunderstood the attribution and so responded to someone I didn’t intend to.
V the K, agreed… except I don’t necessarily believe that *moderate* Muslims are demanding it. This may be getting into semantic quibbles, but isn’t a moderate Muslim one who accepts free speech and pluralism, sort of by definition? The ones who don’t – The ones who are demanding exceptions, or the ones who are present in the minds those effectively urging us to carve out a “Muslim exception” in our public space – wouldn’t those ones, sort of by definition, not be moderate Muslims?
“My drawing of Mohammed would be a Rothko or a Pollock or a Mondrian. So would my picture of a quark.
Comment by Ashpenaz”
Just note that Mohammed was a human, not a god, and requires no such abstraction. He existed, was depicted, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Just a human, not a quark.
🙂
-Blake
Blake – Add Wikipedia, I guess, to the list of ‘anti-Muslim’ ‘bigots’ who would dare make or show a drawing of a known historical figure!
Oh, so you think our troops have failed in Iraq? Because they behaved like I am suggesting we should, NOT the way you suggest we should, and most people believe they have been very successful
Your comment is frankly, asinine. You are exactly paraphrasing Taranto’s headline: “If we don’t act like inconsiderate jerks, the terrorists will have won!!!!”
Which is stupid beyond description.
But what can you expect from people who are trying to defend the idea that you attract more flies with VINEGAR than with honey.
Of course you dont. Every rational human being knows that. But we have a group of children, caught acting like children defending EXACTLY that proposition.
People make very stupid arguments to defend stupid, indefensible positions.
Oh, so you think our troops have failed in Iraq?
We’re talking about two different things, AE. I was not even suggesting how are troops should act. Two different subjects, with two different ways to deal with it. Or is this another asinine suggestion?
Your comment is frankly, asinine. You are exactly paraphrasing Taranto’s headline: “If we don’t act like inconsiderate jerks, the terrorists will have won!!!!”
Which is stupid beyond description.
together with
But what can you expect from people who are trying to defend the idea that you attract more flies with VINEGAR than with honey.
Hmmm. So, let’s see if I get this straight. You’re argument is that you attract more flies with honey. And you proceed to demostrate that with plenty of vinegar. Great job!
Of course you dont. Every rational human being knows that. But we have a group of children, caught acting like children defending EXACTLY that proposition.
Yes, AE, I guess a lot of us, liberals, moderates, and conservatives just can’t grab your wisdom all the time.
People make very stupid arguments to defend stupid, indefensible positions.
Well, we’re in agreement there.
We are???
You mean American civilians have different goals than our military??? And it doesn’t matter if we do things that contradict their efforts? I would think very hard about that if I were you.
Pat, you sound hostile, dare I say…offended?
I have been insulting all of you, on purpose, to illustrate the very simple, inarguable point that offending people you need to persuade is DEEPLY counter-productive.
You mean insulting you doesn’t ingratiate me with you? It doesn’t make you more likely to listen to my ideas, and even makes you less receptive to them?
Really? Who would have ever thought! If calling people stupid offends them, imagine what gratuitously disrespecting their religious beliefs does!
I apologize for the name calling, but it seems to have worked.
Yes, I know, it’s one of the burdens I must bear. But I thank you for recognizing it. 😉
i>
You mean American civilians have different goals than our military??? And it doesn’t matter if we do things that contradict their efforts?
Again, AE, I wasn’t addressing whether civilians have different goals than the military. But I did say that the strategies of establishing a government in Iraq and dealing with abridgment of free speech may be different.
Pat, you sound hostile, dare I say…offended?
Hostile? definitely not. Offended? not really. But if I was, so what?
Really? Who would have ever thought! If calling people stupid offends them, imagine what gratuitously disrespecting their religious beliefs does!
Just like your point wasn’t really to call people stupid, the point of EDMD was not to disrespect people’s religion, except for idiots and scum who would threaten and commit violence for such offense.
I apologize for the name calling, but it seems to have worked.
Perhaps it worked for some. Just like people are hoping EDMD will work. Maybe it won’t. But at least some people are not going to be cowered by others who don’t respect free speech, and not going to be hamstrung by unnecessary insensitivities.
Oh, let’s do break this nonsense down.
Are you cowered into not burning the flag when you disagree with government? I’ve certainly heard vets on talk radio talk about how they would kick a liberals ass if they saw them burning the flag. Is it not then your duty to defend the 1st amendment by burning a flag and not cowering before those who would react with violence?
Are you cowered into not using racial epithets when you disagree with people of different races? Lord knows racial epithets have provoked violence many times before. Do you go around calling black people n*ggers every time violence is used in response to such language?
I daresay you’d be using the “n” word all the time! …and yet you probably aren’t. You are PROBABLY being “unnecessarily insensitive” to minorities, vets, etc, etc, etc
But perhaps you are cowered. Perhaps you dont do those things because you are afraid. Personally, I suspect you’re just inconsistent and full of it. But maybe you really are afraid.
I don’t do those things, on the other hand, for the same reason most people dont do them, because I see that they are offensive, that taking offense at such things is reasonable, and because I understand that lashing out at all African Americans over the actions of a few would cause racial tension, be divisive, and make African Americans less likely to trust me, hear my ideas, believe me, want to cooperate or get along with me… a whole host of reasons that would make it harder for people who need to learn to get along in the world, to do so.
Which is precisely why EDMD is sheer, unadulterated stupidity.
And I do so love being intellectually consistent! Its a great feeling, you should try it!
I know you weren’t addressing it. I doubt you ever bothered to think about it. But the fact remains that you are advocating behavior that directly contradicts the hard won efforts of our troops in the field. They are going out of their way, many times putting themselves in increased danger, precisely to differentiate the United States attitude toward mainstream, moderate mulims from our attitude towards radical terrorists, at the very same time that you are advocating the whole country engage in behavior that establishes that not only do we NOT see any distinction, but hell, muslims arent even worthy of bothering to make a distinction in the first place.
The very DEFINITION of counter-productive.
AE, this is the best argument I have seen in defense of your position. However, it still doesn’t quite sway me to your position. So let me try to break it down.
Your flag example doesn’t work for me, because I am an American, and I am not going to do something that offends me (just as I’m not asking anyone who is offended by an image of Mohammed to draw one). However, I will still recognize someone else’s right to do so, as long as it doesn’t happen on my property, if someone else feels they have to make a point to do it. And although the vets you know say the might kick someone’s (liberal or otherwise) that burns the flag, who knows if they really would want to break the law while someone else is exercising their rights. Heck, they fought for freedoms just like that. And even if they would, say out of immediate anger, I doubt that they would start making threats against the nation and/or start bombing with the intent of killing innocents.
As for the “n” word, I believe that epithets against a group of people qualifies as something that I don’t believe is unnecessarily insensitive. And yet, when South Park had a whole episode that dealt with the “n” word, and in fact, it was said the whole time without any censorship, it did not lead to terrorist threats. Epithets against Moslems were not used in South Park, but even if they were, and it lead to terrorist threats, I would not advocate using epithets against Moslems. And if Blacks decided to get offended with images of Martin Luther King, Jr., or someone else, then again, well then we’ve reached an area of unnecessary insensitivity again.
To me, this is along the lines of Christians being offended when they are told “Happy Holidays” instead of “Marry Christmas” by strangers who don’t know the persons’ religion. Fine, be offended, if you need be. But that isn’t and shouldn’t change how people treat strangers. And should we be cowered by death threats should it lead to that?
And I do so love being intellectually consistent! Its a great feeling, you should try it!
And you are being consistent, for the most part at least. And I try it all the time. And I believe others who are doing a better job of making the argument for EDMD of being intellectually consistent. I just don’t believe the answers are black and white as you are making this argument. In fact, I see you hold and state opinions without worrying about whether it offends anyone else. And I’m glad you don’t feel hamstrung about doing so.
I know you weren’t addressing it. I doubt you ever bothered to think about it. But the fact remains that you are advocating behavior that directly contradicts the hard won efforts of our troops in the field.
Our troops were, and still are, dealing with Moslems in Iraq. We’re dealing with death threats in the U.S. We are not suggesting the military in Iraq join in on EDMD day. And if they want to have a law against drawing Mohammed in Iraq, just like they do in Egypt, and perhaps other nations, so be it. But if you want to be mainstream, don’t expect others to have to comply, especially in the U.S. We got free speech and religion here.
at the very same time that you are advocating the whole country engage in behavior that establishes that not only do we NOT see any distinction, but hell, muslims arent even worthy of bothering to make a distinction in the first place.
Which is absolutely not the case. We are, in fact, making a point of making that distinction. That we don’t believe mainstream Moslems in this country are fragile creatures that don’t believe in free speech. That they recognize that we all have different beliefs that don’t require us to adhere to others’ beliefs. That they aren’t going to hamstring the rest of us who don’t follow their tenets. Just as we don’t require them to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and have no problem with Moslems or others saying such. That, as a price of free speech, people will get offended. That people will sometimes react to abridgment of rights in a misguided fashion (perhaps mainstream Moslems agree with you that this is misguided) and brush it off and understand that people will approach things differently than they would, and no need to get bent out of shape because of it.
And remember what else, Pat: if our military posture and troops are going to be dragged into this, then let’s hear from them. I believe we have one on this blog. What does he think?
There it is, for all with eyes to see. The argument from one of our troops.
Ok,
1. There was never any actual threat. The website, Revolutionmuslim.com said, and I quote, “what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh”
2. EDMD idiots did NOT protest the people who made the comment on their blog where the owners could trace their IP address, they made their ANONYMOUS little drawings on safe sites under pseudonyms, where they would be seen by other EDMD idiots…..so the idea that this was ever an act of solidarity in the face of danger is a pathetic joke.
3. I guess you missed the news stories about Muslims protesting EDMD in the middle east where our troops ARE, missed the news coverage given the issue by al Jazeera and other arab news, and missed that Pakistan courts blocked both facebook AND youtube because of EDMD
Did you honestly think that such asinine behavior in the country that went to war in two Arab countries would NOT be headline news throughout the Muslim world?
Well, that explains much of your misunderstanding right there. Thats a very poor comparison. But unlike others who shall not be named yet cant seem to stop trying to have the last word, even when nobody is talking to them (a sure sign they are getting their ass kicked yet again), I’ll actually let Muslims speak for themselves — hey, there’s a novel idea! — they think it is blasphemous and sacreligious:
Yes, some Muslims have portrayed Muhammad themselves at different times in the past. Puritans fervently opposed celebrating Christmas. The point is that religions change, and outsiders dont get to tell religious believers what their understanding of their own religion should be. If believers tell you they believe something is blasphemous, you take them at their word.
So no, your comparison to “Merry Christmas” is WAY off the mark. Probably a more apt comparison would be Charlton Heston coming off the mountain to discover the Israelites worshiping a golden calf. Graven images and suck…Blasphemy is a big deal.
You just proved Taranto and my point….Perhaps you should read what he said again:
By not addressing your protest to the site or the people that made the comments that were interpreted as threats of violence, and instead addressing your pretest to the world at large you are by definition addressing ALL muslims, and you are saying to them, you are not worthy of the respect I show to vets, to ethnic minorities, and I would wager the respect you show to other religions. And you are by definition saying you DONT distinguish between terrorists and muslims in general — directly REFUTING the distinction our troops have risked their lives to make in the first place and in so doing undermining their work.
The “hand grenade” as Colorado Patriot put it, was thrown specifically at RevolutionMuslim.com. But EDMD protesters did NOT jump where the grenade was thrown — they carpet bombed the entire Muslim world sparking protests in muslim countries, coverage by the arab press and even prompted muslim governments to get involved.
That’s carpet bombing, not jumping on a grenade.
1. There was never any actual threat. The website, Revolutionmuslim.com said, and I quote, “what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh”
AE, while it is possible that they are referring to van Gogh, they may be referring to his career as a film maker, enjoying the scenery of the Netherlands, or his relation to a famous artist, but I’m pretty sure they are referring to his murder by a Moslem for van Gogh having the audacity of criticizing Islam. So that’s a death threat in my book.
Also, there were threats made to Parker, Stone, and Comedy Central, who thought them serious enough to actually censor one of their shows.
2. EDMD idiots did NOT protest the people who made the comment on their blog where the owners could trace their IP address, they made their ANONYMOUS little drawings on safe sites under pseudonyms, where they would be seen by other EDMD idiots…..so the idea that this was ever an act of solidarity in the face of danger is a pathetic joke.
I don’t propose to read the minds of each individual person who participated in the protest. I imagine that some only did this to deliberately and gratuitously insult Muslims. For those cases, we probably agree that it was not a good idea although we support their right to do so. But many did this out of the death threats from Muslim groups who deigned to abridge our free speech rights. And what difference does it make that some did this anonymously? People were threatened as you pointed out (although you did not believe it to be a threat).
Did you honestly think that such asinine behavior in the country that went to war in two Arab countries would NOT be headline news throughout the Muslim world?
No, just like there are plenty of other things we do that Muslims in Islamic countries don’t like. Like free speech, freedom of religion, and plenty of other Western ideals we take for granted. They don’t get to decide how we react to threats for our freedom.
I’ll actually let Muslims speak for themselves — hey, there’s a novel idea! — they think it is blasphemous and sacreligious:
That’s great. Free speech and all. Oops. Just read your snippet. So much for free speech. Thanks for pointing out the irony.
and outsiders dont get to tell religious believers what their understanding of their own religion should be.
But outsiders can hamstring us as to how to behave. And how to react to threats. That sounds fair.
If believers tell you they believe something is blasphemous, you take them at their word.
If Muslims believes drawing a picture of Mohammed is blasphemous, then I strongly advise them to not make such depictions. I also advise them that they, in no way are entitled to hold others, nonMuslims (or even Muslims) to this.
and you are saying to them, you are not worthy of the respect I show to vets, to ethnic minorities, and I would wager the respect you show to other religions.
Quite the opposite. You are the one that is showing disrespect. You are the one who believe Muslims should be coddled. Others get offended all the time, because of their religion, politics, etc. Anyone living in this country should understand that.
And you are by definition saying you DONT distinguish between terrorists and muslims in general
Only your definition. The distinction is clear to me. Terrorists may kill for feigning to be offended by depictions of Mohammed. Mainstream Muslims will either 1) not be offended, because it’s no big deal to them or 2) be offended, but understand others’ rights to do so, and understand that people look at things differently.
Anyway, at this point, I’m not sure what else we can do to convince the other. And now this thread made it to the second page. When there are differences like this, I try to find out where the actual difference is, because I think we do agree on some elements here.
Here is one source of difference. You hold offenses against religion in higher regard than other offenses. I don’t. But even those, like you, who do, understand that this should not trump free speech. And as such, can easily shrug off offenses, such as in South Park, when Catholic, Mormon, or other religions’ beliefs are portrayed in a negative light, in a manner much more offensive than a depiction of Mohammed. Somehow, it didn’t upset mainstream persons of those religions to a storm of international protests, governments getting involved, undermining democracies, shutting down facebook, etc.
We also disagree with how we should behave in terms of how it affects Muslims in Islamic countries. It seems like you worry too much on how it affects others. Even agreeing with you for the moment that EDMD is a bad idea. If this really does undermine what is happening in Iraq and elsewhere, then there really is little hope in dealing with the International Muslim community.
It is??
Is it true that someone might kill them for depicting Muhammad? Obviously you and all the other EDMD people think so or you wouldnt bother. So any one of you could say the same exact thing. That they better watch out or they’ll end up like theo.
Perhaps he meant it as a veiled threat, but death threats are illegal, and this wouldnt stand up in any court in the land. nor does the person who made it have any history of terrorist violence.
WHich is why he wasnt even arrested, let along prosecuted.
So the idea that it was a threat doesn’t stand up to even mild scrutiny.
which threats? the only “threat” I ever saw reported was the non-threat threat made on the Revolutionislam site. Links to the reports please!
Ugh, youve got 20 paragraphs….sorry, Im not going to keep going on this.
I’ll just leave on this note. One AMERICAN Islamic convert said trey and matt might end up like van gogh, and you guys all go apeshit insulting every Muslim in the world with a highly publicized draw mohammad as a big hairy vagina day.
But now we have the Mexican government publishing an ad that says “were looking for you, Arizonans” and shows a man in military gear looking through binoculars.
So how come you aren’t all out insulting all spics and wetbacks?
It would certainly be more justified since this was an official government run ad.
And I’ll be brief as well, AE. We obviously have a different definition of death threats. And as I said, enough people, including a broadcast company took it seriously enough. And we do have some examples of such death threats being carried out.
sorry, Im not going to keep going on this.
No problem. I was responding to your points. But I don’t see any value just repeating the same arguments either.
So how come you aren’t all out insulting all spics and wetbacks?
No need to. You just insulted all Mexicans with that statement. And at the same time made a good point. A lot of Hispanic and other citizens, who live here legally were offended by this legislation. So, I suppose that based on that, the law should be immediately repealed. Further, no one should even state that they support such a law, because it offends a lot of people.
Pat, good fight. It takes a lot – of what, I shall NOT presume to say – to pretend that there were no implied death threats, or no reasonable and justified fear of deathly attacks, in the Comedy Central case.