26
   

Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

 
 
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 05:44 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
These eye for an eye attitudes over religions are why the world has been at war with each other for eons.

And that is why, partly, we have passed the Age of Religion, and entered (several hundred years ago) the Age of Reason.

Here in the US, let me say it again, and clearly enough for everyone to hear, we DO NOT KILL PEOPLE OVER CARTOONS.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 05:46 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
Will you take responsibility for your actions when someone's loved one is killed by a car bomb because you thought it would be keen to poke a stick at one of Islam's religious idols?

YES. I will always take responsibility for my actions.

I do not respect people who kill other people with car bombs, nor do I fear such people.

Do you?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 05:58 pm
@BorisKitten,
BorisKitten wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Worth re-stating.


No, it really isn't. You are trying to avoid taking responsibility for a childish decision by refusing to discuss the heart of the matter. You can substitute (x) for whatever group you like; discussions of what real-world groups actually do has no bearing on a judgment of your decision at all, and really is an attempt to change the subject.

Cycloptichorn

I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for my Childish Decision. What IS, exactly, the "heart of the matter," in your opinion?


The heart of the matter is that your response to those who would threaten others is in itself inappropriate.

Drawing a picture of Mohamed is offensive, not only to extremists but to regular followers of Islam. You are going out of your way to thumb your nose at one or two assholes and end up doing it at a billion people instead. This doesn't prove a point or teach a lesson to anyone.

Take some personal responsibility; denounce death threats without further engaging in behaviors which offend. You don't have anything to prove to anyone, because nobody questions your right to draw a picture in America.

Cycloptichorn
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 05:59 pm
@BorisKitten,
Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution

Quote:
Letters from a Christian extremist last week threatened the lives of evolution biology professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The letters claimed to be on behalf of a group, but newspapers and at least one blog have reported that an individual, Michael Korn, a Jew-turned-Christian extremist, is likely behind the threats (an image from his web site is at right).

...

The Colorado Daily describes some of the perpetrator’s escapades:

Last weekend more than a dozen envelopes bearing the image of skull and crossbones and containing letters threatening the lives of
CU-Boulder evolutionary biology professors were slipped under the doors of CU-Boulder buildings….

Several sources say Korn has distributed flyers on campus and has barged into offices of biology professors and administrators in the past year.

But in recent days the threatening e-mails and letters have occurred with increasing frequency and intensity.

On Friday an e-mail sent to CU-Boulder’s evolutionary biology department bore the subject line "a final CU Boulder EBIO appeal” and repeated the line "every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society."

That line, as well as “they must go,” have been repeated in a number of communiqués, said a source.



Level of violence and harassment at abortion clinics

Please view the chart detailing the violence, threats and real bombings at abortion clinics.

Here are the details from just one city in Florida:

Quote:
Pensacola, FL: This city was a focal point for anti-abortion crime from mid 1984 to mid 1994:

1984-JUN: An abortion clinic was bombed.

1984-DEC: The same clinic was bombed again.

1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK, and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.

1993-MAR: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, assassinated Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic. Griffin's lawyers claimed that Burt had brainwashed Griffin into committing the killing. (There is a consensus among mental health professionals that this sort of "Manchurian Candidate" programming is impossible). Griffin was convicted and given a life sentence.


1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action assassinated a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he also wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges.

1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.


This would also be a good article for you to read:

Media ignore Christian terrorism

Then there's the recent case of Dr. George Tiller being killed by an Operation Rescue member after years of threats and harrassment.
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
... nobody questions your right to draw a picture in America.

Well here's my point exactly:

Not only do Islamic extremists "question my right," they deny my right, and go many steps further, threatening my "right" with DEATH.

D0 you actually think this is the right thing for human beings to do? I DO NOT.

Here in the US, we DO NOT kill other human beings because of the religious beliefs, or their cartoons. We do not.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:08 pm
@Butrflynet,
I do not think anyone should kill anyone else because of their religious beliefs.

EVER.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's the thing that gets me - there's no persuasive reason to make a drawing of Mohamed. The only motivation for doing so is pissing people off.
This depends on how much you value free speech. Death Threats literally took an episode of South Park off the air. Personally, I find the idea of government censoring what I watch unacceptable; so I'll be damned if I'll let some religious extremist make up my mind for me. Just think for a minute how slippery that slope could become and I think you'll see the point.

It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.

So let's all draw Mohammad!
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:17 pm
@BorisKitten,
I do not live in fear of them. I do understand what is provoking both sides and think that it is futile to continue the intentional cycle of poking one another in the belief that if the cycle continues long enough, the other will see the light.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:20 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
Just this month Comedy Central announced their plans to create a cartoon show, and there are already threats of boycott of the network and advertisers in reaction to one of the episode descriptions:
Boycotting the network is a perfectly appropriate response and one I wouldn't quibble with if that's what had happened here. It isn't. Threatening to kill the artist is a little bit different... and that is not a threat I want to see become an effective tool of censorship from government, extremists, or any other crackpot that thinks his threat of might will help me choose what's right. Look at the bigger picture.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@BorisKitten,
Lusatian did a topic that I posted about it in...but it (the draw Mohammed Day) was withdrawn by its progenitor.

On Lusatian's thread i have posted links to actions I believe are more useful.


http://able2know.org/topic/144132-1
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:

So let's all draw Mohammad!


There is no productive reason to do so.

Quote:
I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist.


Me neither. But, I refrain from drawing Mohamed not because some religious extremist threatens me, but instead because some very nice and regular Islamic folk politely ask that we do not do this. And they mean something to me, whereas the other guy does not.

Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:28 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Lusatian did a topic that I posted about it in...but it was withdrawn by its progenitor.

On Lusatian's thread i have posted links to actions I believe are more useful.
Saw that thanks. I signed the petition and linked it on FaceBook... and I'm considering buying her book. I've seen her on the tube a few times and it's always a pleasure.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:29 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's the thing that gets me - there's no persuasive reason to make a drawing of Mohamed. The only motivation for doing so is pissing people off.
This depends on how much you value free speech. Death Threats literally took an episode of South Park off the air. Personally, I find the idea of government censoring what I watch unacceptable; so I'll be damned if I'll let some religious extremist make up my mind for me. Just think for a minute how slippery that slope could become and I think you'll see the point.

It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.

So let's all draw Mohammad!


SO AGREE, OCCOM BILL!

We WILL NOT, in the United States, be stymied in our right of Free Speech by Religious Extremists! Will NOT!
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
So let's all draw Mohammad!

There is no productive reason to do so.

The productive reason is to protect our right, as US citizens, to express whatever we want, regardless of what religious people think about that expression.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Me neither. But, I refrain from drawing Mohamed not because some religious extremist threatens me, but instead because some very nice and regular Islamic folk politely ask that we do not do this. And they mean something to me, whereas the other guy does not.
That's a perfectly reasonable reason for you to refrain from standing up for the artists; but offers no liscense for you to attack others for doing so. When Larry Flint bashed religion in his "smut mag", the Supreme Court of our land found there is an important public interest in defending unpopular speech. There is.

P.s. You’d probably enjoy watching The people vs. Larry Flint.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:43 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Me neither. But, I refrain from drawing Mohamed not because some religious extremist threatens me, but instead because some very nice and regular Islamic folk politely ask that we do not do this. And they mean something to me, whereas the other guy does not.
That's a perfectly reasonable reason for you to refrain from standing up for the artists; but offers no liscense for you to attack others for doing so.


I just think that without a compelling reason to do so, it's in poor taste. It's the same way I would feel about 'Let's all take a **** on a Cross and post in on Youtube day!' or 'Let's secretly feed pork to Jews day!' It isn't that I give two shits about what are in essence arbitrary and illogical belief systems and the crazy rituals and taboos which grow up around them. But most of the people who follow those systems are sorta okay people. And I do give two shits about them.

When things are worth defending, they are so because the actions or items are themselves inherently valuable. I don't understand what the inherent value of cartoons of a religious figure are, especially when they are weighed down by a huge amount of significance for so much of the world's population. So this whole idea of doing this mystifies me. It's like responding to a problem by consciously trying to inflame the problem just to prove you don't give a **** what the other side thinks.

It's your right to do so but it a) is in poor taste, and more importantly b) may not have the effects that you desire - I actually would caution against this second one.

But, hey. I've done things in poor taste because they felt right to me at the time, or I was focusing on some other aspect of the situation. So who am I to talk? Spin yer wheels.

Quote:
When Larry Flint bashed religion in his "smut mag", the Supreme Court of our land found there is an important public interest in defending unpopular speech. There is.

P.s. You’d probably enjoy watching The people vs. Larry Flint.


I do like that movie, actually. And it brings up a good point - there were a lot of people who supported Flint and his right to free speech, for both specific and general reasons - but the vast, vast majority of them didn't go around publishing nude pictures in order to show support. They just - as I am here, re: the cartoonists - quietly affirmed his right to do so.

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:46 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

I think that the real test for how strongly you believe in the right of free speech, BK, is to set up a street stand in Iraq, Afghanistan or other similar country and sell images of Mohammed.


She would either be dead or in prison for many long years. I prefer to not see their values become our values.

Good example, by the way.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 06:50 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Lusatian did a topic that I posted about it in...but it (the draw Mohammed Day) was withdrawn by its progenitor.

On Lusatian's thread i have posted links to actions I believe are more useful.

http://able2know.org/topic/144132-1

And here are those links. I re-posted them on page 1 of this thread:

Quote:
:
Hey!!! I found a venue for action:

Sign this petition here:

http://www.irshadmanji.com/petition

The woman sponsoring it has fascinated me for ages, anyway, and her site is worth a look!

She is publicising a new manifesto against totalitarianism,

http://www.irshadmanji.com/im-muslim-refusenik-letters-archive-part-105

She is a Muslim woman who speaks out against repression in the name of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji


These links from Dlowan are worth a re-post, though I've already signed her (Ayaan Hirsi Ali's) petition.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 07:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


Cycloptichorn wrote:
When things are worth defending, they are so because the actions or items are themselves inherently valuable.
Cyclo, this is utter nonsense and you know it. Defending Nazi asshole's right to assemble is worth defending. Defending a hippie’s right to burn the flag is worth defending. And yes, defending Larry Flint's right to make dirty jokes about prominent religious figures was worth defending. You're so accustomed to taking this freedom for granted; you've forgotten how many times Larry Flint volunteered to get arrested to defend this freedom. Unpopular speech is unpopular and the vast majority of people will always find that it has no inherent value. That is precisely why it requires protection.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I do like that movie, actually. And it brings up a good point - there were a lot of people who supported Flint and his right to free speech, for both specific and general reasons - but the vast, vast majority of them didn't go around publishing nude pictures in order to show support. They just - as I am here, re: the cartoonists - quietly affirmed his right to do so.
Were I around then, and they had just stopped circulating his smut-mag because some lunatic threatened to behead him; you'd soon see a LOT of people peddling the same garbage for the same reason I'll be drawing Muhammad on May 20, 2010. Btw, it wasn't the smut that got him in trouble; it was the dirty cartoons involving a popular tv evangelist, remember? If you think his cartoons shouldn't be censured by government; then surely you can understand why some will protest censure-by-death-threat from religious extremists. Think it through. Then draw! Wink
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 07:35 pm
@BorisKitten,
BorisKitten wrote:

Quote:
@BorisKitten,
I think that the real test for how strongly you believe in the right of free speech, BK, is to set up a street stand in Iraq, Afghanistan or other similar country and sell images of Mohammed.

I'm sorry to say I don't live in those countries. If I had been born and raised in those countries, Free Speech might be meaningless to me.

In other words, I would not have the right to free speech in those countries. Especially as a female.

In THIS country, however, the US, I do have that right. I have that right whether people make death threats against me or not.
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 01:44:45