Re: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

[Logikos]

Okay, but why is it you're arguing so hard for those who might be offended if you claim you're opposed to visceral reactions on ALL sides?  Your bias very obviously seems to be leaning on the side of protecting the sensibilities of the religious from being offended.  Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but it definitely reads that way.

(I don't think I've been arguing "hard" - to be honest I've been surprised that people have objected to what I've said.)  I think EDMD is stupid because it is a visceral reaction by those who thought of the idea, and the bandwagon-jumpers seem to be mostly in for the fun of offending some Muslims.  No good reason to support EDMD has been given, it seems all it will do is up the anti among Muslims of all flavours and it will do nothing to sway Muslims in favour of free speech.  I am against doing pointless things that ruffle people who would be better unruffled (whether their feathers are religious or otherwise).

[philosoraptor]

Okay, but why is it you're arguing so hard for those who might be offended if you claim you're opposed to visceral reactions on ALL sides?  Your bias very obviously seems to be leaning on the side of protecting the sensibilities of the religious from being offended.  Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but it definitely reads that way.

(I don't think I've been arguing "hard" - to be honest I've been surprised that people have objected to what I've said.)  I think EDMD is stupid because it is a visceral reaction by those who thought of the idea, and the bandwagon-jumpers seem to be mostly in for the fun of offending some Muslims.  No good reason to support EDMD has been given, it seems all it will do is up the anti among Muslims of all flavours and it will do nothing to sway Muslims in favour of free speech.  I am against doing pointless things that ruffle people who would be better unruffled (whether their feathers are religious or otherwise).

Nothing you've said here is new.  You're repeating yourself without actually saying anything.  Obviously, YOU don't think you're arguing hard for one side of the other, but more than one of us has told you it is coming off that way.

[Logikos]

As I have said before, no one has the right to not be offended and you are making a clear concession for that.

Please enlighten me as to where I've implied anything of the sort.

Religion does not have right to be free of criticism, out of naive respect.

I agree, as made clear in previous post.

Drawing Muhammad makes the distinction clear - other laws, based on irrational belief, will not be imposed upon you. Make the distinction now, or a greater challenge may be next.

How exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

[philosoraptor]

Drawing Muhammad makes the distinction clear - other laws, based on irrational belief, will not be imposed upon you. Make the distinction now, or a greater challenge may be next.

How exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

FFS, really?  I think it has been made clear, more than once, the threats that have been made by Muslims regarding the depiction of Mohammed in the media.  THAT is their attempt to impose their own laws on the rest of us by threatening terrorism if we go against their wishes.

[Logikos]

Nothing you've said here is new.  You're repeating yourself without actually saying anything.  Obviously, YOU don't think you're arguing hard for one side of the other, but more than one of us has told you it is coming off that way.

I repeat myself because those are the only claims I've made in the whole thread, and yet despite clarifying time and time again I am being constantly interpreted as being on the side of the Muslims.  I think that Muslim reactions to pictures of Muhammad are as ridiculous as you think they are.  I am simply against doing pointless things that are more likely to get on people's tits than to actually make matters any better, and that is all.  Here endeth my thoughts on the matter - there are more interesting and important things to discuss.

[Dretlin]

Please enlighten me as to where I've implied anything of the sort.

I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se

You are either with or without. There is no "per se", their is no sort of, maybe, kinda of - your ambiguous tone leaves much to be desired. The issue is not the subject matter, the issue is the freedoms that are at stake. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing. If it is not total then, it is not free speech. This drawing of Muhammad subject flies in the face of free speech.

exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

Free of speech, as I said, as either absolute or not - meaning it is universal. The imposed idea that drawing Muhammad applies anywhere on Earth, is immoral, as it is a law that should only be followed and practised by those who are in that religion or organization. One law may make way for another, from ANY belief system. I hold dear very much that all government should be completely secular, freedom of and freedom from religion. This simple issue must be made light of, otherwise it could lead to appeasement.

On a side note, I get the feeling in person me and you would actually get on rather well Logikos. I hope this issue and the impersonal way it is discussed on a forum does not cloud that possibility. Disagreement is all too important for development!  

[Logikos]

You are either with or without. There is no "per se", their is no sort of, maybe, kinda of - your ambiguous tone leaves much to be desired. The issue is not the subject matter, the issue is the freedoms that are at stake. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing. If it is not total then, it is not free speech. This drawing of Muhammad subject flies in the face of free speech.

Sorry, the way I wrote that was ambiguous.  The "per se" goes with "offending people" not "freedom of speech", i.e. I fully support freedom of speech, and I have no problem with offending people in certain conditions (namely if it is necessary for some good purpose).

Free of speech, as I said, as either absolute or not - meaning it is universal. The imposed idea that drawing Muhammad applies anywhere on Earth, is immoral, as it is a law that should only be followed and practised by those who are in that religion or organization. One law may make way for another, from ANY belief system. I hold dear very much that all government should be completely secular, freedom of and freedom from religion. This simple issue must be made light of, otherwise it could lead to appeasement.

But are Islamic laws actually being imposed on Western people?  Not at all.  Threats are made by extremists for sure, but that is a long way from imposing laws.  In as far as those threats are attempts to impose Islamic laws, they are as effective as our reactions to them: if any reaction is made at all, in my opinion, then the extremists are having an influence; if the threats are simply ignored, then they fade away to insignificance.  As far as I'm aware, there is no move for Western governments to start banning drawings of Muhammad - and of course if they ever do show signs of such, I will be among the first to protest.  But I will not allow violent nutjobs to influence my decisions.

On a side note, I get the feeling in person me and you would actually get on rather well Logikos. I hope this issue and the impersonal way it is discussed on a forum does not cloud that possibility. Disagreement is all too important for development!    I think we actually agree more about this than our discussion of the details suggests.

[Kylyssa]

Any relationship wherein one party must walk on eggshells and avoid saying things for fear of violence is called an abusive relationship.  Why should we accept a widespread, worldwide, abusive relationship when a private one is not deemed acceptable?

[Tom62]

I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

[pinkocommie]

I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

The reason it's being brought up again is because of the recent network censorship of a South Park episode after they received a death threat following an episode where they seemed to have depicted Mohammad in a bear suit.  For this reason I don't think the recent wave of protests can be classified as futile, silly or a too late jump on a bandwagon.  If people just started drawing Mohammad for no reason, if nothing had recently happened to inspire the protests, or even if there hadn't been any new death threats in a while and the protest was a response to something non-violent that occurred, I might agree with you.  However, the issue was reignited by a violent threat because of a cartoon, thus people are protesting by drawing cartoons.  Makes sense, I think.

[McQ]

I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

+1

[Tanker]

A favorite quote of mine is "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

For me this is an issue of letting others decree what we can and can't say. This doesn't seem to me to be a unilateral attempt to upset muslims but a response to some of those same muslims attempt to scare people into silence. It's a protest using our freedom of speach to protect that same freedom. If we cowed down every time some group decided we shouldn't be allowed to say what we want in whatever matter we want this forum wouldn't exist. Nobody is forcing anyone to draw Mohamed, I in fact did not, but I fully suport those who want to.

It just seems like it could become a slippery slope to me. Where should we draw the line esspecially when that line would be redrawn every time a group took offence to something. I support nearly anything that pushes back back when a minority tries to dictact (especialy through fear) what the majority can and can't do.

[karadan]

The drawing of Muhammed is not directed at moderate Muslims. The drawing of Muhammed is the key point to the entire craze.

I do not mind the practicing of religion - I do become alert when someone demands their relgious laws apply to me - drawing Muhammed is a clear and direct way of showing you are not part of that system of religious law nor will you have it impossed on you.

No one has the right to not be offended.

The problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them.  And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates.  And for what benefit?  How is offending the extremists going to change them?  It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

The apathy amongst the moderate muslim community when dealing with their own extreme minority offends me. I'll happily do my part to offend those who would cut off my head for the sake of words or images. The reason moderate muslims are called so is simply because they don't run into the streets crying for the heads of whoever offends them. They just sit at home muttering at the telly - as do i when I see stuff like Japan hunting whales to extinction.

To have a handful of people who think their rights should be more important than anyone else's need to see the tough leathery boot of free speech bearing down crunchingly on their thick skulls. If they so badly want to live in the dark ages then they should get the hell back to whichever shithole they came from.

I'm up for multiculturalism but those people can just fuck off.

[Dretlin]

Glad to hear it!    

I need further time to consider this issue, I had a conversation with someone today that has humbled me slightly.

So please forgive me that I do not reply to your post in detail.

[karadan]

Besides: