I did a search on A2K for this topic, and came up with nothing.
Personally, I feel that in the US, free speech is fundamental to our way of life, and this freedom should NOT be silenced by death threats. Especially ones related to a cartoon.
One rather odd thing about this whole story (Google, anyone?) is that South Park, the cartoon, depicted Muhammad in 2001, with no death threats.
In 2010, their producers censored their cartoon, due to death threats from Muslims (in the US).
Here's the latest YouTube video from "Thunderf00t" (those are zeros), to whom I've subscribed for a couple of years now:
I very much enjoy "Thunderf00t's" videos, esp his rather long series on "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" He has tons of videos: Click on his username to see more; this is just the latest one.
I DO, in fact, plan to draw Muhammad (stick figure, just standing there) on May 20th, and post it to my Facebook account. Do you?
Edit: Shouldn't we in the US be talking about this? Or do we have too many other problems right now to care?
I DO, in fact, plan to draw Muhammad (stick figure, just standing there) on May 20th, and post it to my Facebook account. Do you?
No. I may not be religious in my worship of a figurehead, symbol or idol, but that doesn't mean I don't have some respect for the figureheads, symbols or idols that others choose to worship religiously. I may have the freedom to denigrate their symbols, but I also have the freedom to choose not to do so. I choose not to.
By the way, it has been talked about in at least one other thread.
0 Replies
sozobe
4
Reply
Mon 10 May, 2010 03:44 pm
@BorisKitten,
We did talk about it -- Lusatian's topic on the subject, forget what it's called. (Something about "South Park" and "death.")
I posted a link to this ("Draw Mohammed Day"), and I like the idea behind it -- something goofy and benign to show solidarity with the South Park dudes.
But -- and yes, there's a but -- I dislike how it thumbs its nose at Islam in general, rather than just extremists. It IS part of Islam to not make representations of Mohammed. We might think that's silly, but it's part of the religion. It's not just benign to Muslims. I would have similar qualms about serving observant Jews pork and pretending it's chicken ("oops! *snicker*"), or the equivalent in any other religion.
I've spoken before about a professor I had for an "Introduction to Islam" class who was an incredibly nice man. He was really distressed at what a bad name Islam was getting, and so sad about the extremists that were helping to give it that bad name. But he was a very pious Muslim. I imagine how much this would distress him and it kinda takes the wind out of my sails.
Hi Friends, I wonder why the search I did (with many spellings of "Mohammed") didn't bring up this previous thread?
Quote:
I've spoken before about a professor I had for an "Introduction to Islam" class who was an incredibly nice man. He was really distressed at what a bad name Islam was getting, and so sad about the extremists that were helping to give it that bad name. But he was a very pious Muslim. I imagine how much this would distress him and it kinda takes the wind out of my sails.
Frankly, Soz, I've never met a Muslim I didn't like... but we have very few Muslims here in Rural Florida. Er, TWO, that I can think of offhand. Nice and good folk, to me.
I've no problem with people practicing whatever religion they prefer (or no religion at all).
I do have a problem with people threatening to kill other people over cartoons in the US.
Yes, I think there should be something we can do that shows we are not going to be intimidated.
9-11 was an object lesson that there are others who are not going to be intimidated.
While this issue certainly has some validity, it pales into insignificance when measured, say against,
Quote:
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1986 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1991, following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation, thus settling the matter.[3]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."
The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]
Yaknow, when people treat hotheads in this fashion, it paradoxically adds to their power.
It seems to work the same way for those who make apologies for terrorists, Cy, but it's really just illusory.
0 Replies
failures art
2
Reply
Mon 10 May, 2010 04:54 pm
I'm torn. I have no reason to draw Muhammad, so doing so would only be a provocation on my part. If I did have a reason to draw him (like it was a part of some greater artistic endeavor), I'd defend my right to draw it. I certainly think that people who do participate have the right to do so.
If I'm impassioned to say something about Christianity, I do so. I rarely do so when I'm told to do so however. I think doing this because someone else says so might be a bit forced. If I draw Muhammad, I'll do it on whatever day I please. Who gives a damn about May 20th?
I DO have defiance-against-death-threats-for-cartoons in mind... at least here in the United States.
Maybe, but nobody is threatening you with death for drawing a cartoon.
Yaknow, when people treat hotheads in this fashion, it paradoxically adds to their power.
Cycloptichorn
Now HERE is the issue at its heart, at least to me. The woman (cartoonist) who suggested this response was threatened with death and later retracted her call to "Draw Mohammed" on May 20. Had it not been for this fearful withdrawal on her part, the whole issue would have passed me by.
[From Article Above] This story was updated from a prior version to clarify that Ms. Norris was not directly responsible for creating any Facebook groups related to the May 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".
0 Replies
BorisKitten
0
Reply
Mon 10 May, 2010 05:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Maybe, but nobody is threatening you with death for drawing a cartoon.
They certainly could, on May 20th. And perhaps they will. They might actually succeed.
My point is: Can they possibly kill ALL of us, on or after after May 20th?
Does our collective US voice mean nothing these days?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace