Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Many of last years number just drew stick figures and called it Muhammad. Surely you could pull that off.

Posted by: Gabby | May 7, 2011 10:39 AM

What a juvenile, petty idea. We are better than this.

Posted by: mel b | May 7, 2011 10:44 AM

Committing a great blasphemy one day before Judgment Day! What are you guys thinking?

Or does blaspheming Muhammad actually secure your place in Christian Heaven? I'm so confused by sophisticated theology.

Posted by: Emily | May 7, 2011 11:11 AM

Actually, mel, it's not juvenile and petty to push back against attempts to curb your actions. Especially when those attempts are backed with the threat of violence. But I'm sure there's always someone at every protest, standing at a safe distance, saying "tut-tut, how immature!"

How juvenile and petty to make a statement for free speech, mel. PS - fuck you.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 7, 2011 11:14 AM

Is it just a coincidence that May 20 is the day before the rapture?

Posted by: Digitus Impudicus | May 7, 2011 11:19 AM

@Marcus - You have provided a wonderful demonstration of the childish mind in action. You are of course free to be as simple and childish as you like. I did not suggest you should be barred from being immature; I did, however, say it was juvenile behaviour. Your response is delicious in its oblivious irony. Mmmmmm tasty.

Posted by: mel b | May 7, 2011 11:21 AM

All you budding artists beware though; if anyone riots and commits violence clear on the other side of the world 'because' of your cartoons, you'll have 'blood on your hands'.
/sarcastic illogic

Posted by: Spartan | May 7, 2011 11:23 AM

Juvenile or not?

There is no absolute purity to motives, but if the purpose is primarily to belittle an entire people, and principle is merely used as moral cover, I think the scales tip toward juvenile. If the purpose is to genuinely stand up for the principle of free expression, I don't think it's juvenile at all.

Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Ed is a consistent defender of freedom of expression. He would similarly defend the rights of Muslims or anyone else, regardless of how he felt about them personally. IMO, Draw Muhammad Day is not been about hatred and puerile insult for it's own sake; it's about standing up for the hard-won right of free expression and refusing to give up that right to avoid making very bad people angry. The day wasn't conceived as gratuitous way to denigrate Muslims; it was a reaction to censorship of South Park and the subsequent shocking death threats against the writers who satirize everyone and everything.

Posted by: Dr X | May 7, 2011 11:50 AM

Is draw mohammad day the real life equivalent of people trolling blogs? :p

Posted by: JohnV | May 7, 2011 11:55 AM

This is almost as good an idea as "walk up to a stranger and call their mother a whore" day.
people are always trying to silence my freedom of speech when I say things like that. I don't get it!

Posted by: ummm.... | May 7, 2011 12:28 PM

On other fronts, draw jesus day and draw buddha day had to be cancelled due to lack of religious fanatics willing to kill, loot and burn when their imaginary friend was insulted.

Posted by: steve oberski | May 7, 2011 12:35 PM

This is almost as good an idea as "walk up to a stranger and call their mother a whore" day. people are always trying to silence my freedom of speech when I say things like that. I don't get it!

Uh... no. This is more like the stranger's mother is a major public figure and she has a huge religious-political following. One day, political satirists make some jokes about said mother, just as they make jokes about any other public figure. The reaction by mother's family is to threaten the murder of the satirists.

Draw Mama Day says we won't be bullied by Mama's criminal children into having one set of rules that pertain to every public figure except for Mama who gets to be as mean and stupid as she wants to be without ever being called on it.

Posted by: Dr X | May 7, 2011 12:40 PM

Uh, how's this? @-

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 7, 2011 12:49 PM

Ed,

Just drawing a stick figure is one of the best ways of participating. It doesn't require skill and since Muslims have gotten offended all the same, it shows just how insane this rule really is. Some multicultualist liberals think it's inappropriate to draw Muhammed holding bombs, having sex or doing debasing things but a smiling stick figure that's only identified as Muhammed because of a label? Only a Muslim could think *that* was offensive.

Posted by: Tyro | May 7, 2011 12:52 PM

draw jesus day and draw buddha day had to be cancelled due to lack of religious fanatics willing to kill, loot and burn when their imaginary friend was insulted.

Actually, it was held all the time, but we just stopped celebrating it after the reformation, the 100 years' war and the 30 years' war. It turned out not to be very funny.

Remember - the christians used to burn eachother for important faux pas like translating the bible into English (god forbid!) It took a lot of heartsickness at stupidity and slaughter to get sick enough of christian exceptionalism to pull its fangs enough that Andres Serrano can survive putting a crucifix in piss and photographing it. If it seems that islam is being unfairly picked upon, it's because islam is overreaching in its claims of authority on nonbelievers Humor - even if it's juvenile humor - is a relatively civil weapon compared to the beheading, racking, or staking. Man up, creos!

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 7, 2011 1:00 PM

D. C. Sessions

Insults aren't required on the "Mohammed" part.

I agree completely.

The insults are not necessarily implied but they certainly are inferred.

I argue that not only is it not inappropriate to draw Muhammed, it is our duty to bring Muhammed/Islam into the marketplace of ideas, subject to all forms of criticism.

There will be tipping point where public criticism (and not just in a negative manner) of Islam becomes so wide spread that there will be no clearly defined target for religious fanatics.

At that point it will not be the feelings of the followers of the prophet that control the conversation and rational discourse will be possible.

Posted by: steve oberski | May 7, 2011 2:09 PM

You all do understand, I hope, that many many Muslims who wouldn't dream of threatening anybody are still going to be offended by this.

If you look back at what happened last year, University students drew stick figures with chalk and labeled them "Muhammed" and even this drew a big reaction from the Muslim students association. That's exactly why it's important!

When only a few people "offend" Muslims by drawing Muhammed, then these people can be targeted, Muslims can huff themselves up and claim offense and some will even threaten violence. When thousands of people do this then all of that becomes laughable. What's one more drawing?

If there really are this sane, moderate group of Muslims, then let them come out and support this initiative. Let them say that they don't approve but that freedom of speech is more important, and that non-Muslims should not feel obliged to follow Muslim religious beliefs, just as they don't feel obliged to follow Jewish or Christian religious beliefs.

That seems mild enough but what actually happens is even the mild, moderates say that everyone should obey their laws and follow their beliefs. I think this says that even these so-called moderates are every bit as much a target of this gentle disrespect as the fundamentalists.

Posted by: Tyro | May 7, 2011 4:23 PM

Mel B, whem you wrote "We are better than this," I have the sneaking suspicion that you meant to write "I am better than this" or, rather "...better than you." You seemed to miss the obvious "lighten up" message.

Posted by: Lalita | May 7, 2011 5:07 PM

"If you look back at what happened last year, University students drew stick figures with chalk and labeled them "Muhammed" and even this drew a big reaction from the Muslim students association."

Draw a stick figure eating watermelon, label it "Martin Luther King, Jr.", and I'm sure you'll get a "big reaction" from the black students association. Are they wrong to react that way, I don't think so.

Draw a stick figure of a woman being gang-raped by fraternity brothers, and I expect you'd get a 'big reaction'.

Draw a stick figure with its head in a toilet. Label it "Computer Science major". And you'll probably at least get the stink-eye, and probably complaints to campus authorities.

There's nothing wrong with "big reactions", as long as they aren't violent. Muslims are as free as anyone else to get mad at people acting like assholes.

Posted by: Jon H | May 7, 2011 5:28 PM

I think a "draw a chastity belt on the Madonna" day would be just as relevant, given the attack on women's rights by the American Taliban. But I would probably start with something a little fresher. Lady Gaga perhaps, given she took her cues from Madonna.

Posted by: Chasbo | May 7, 2011 6:50 PM

Most ironic is that May 20 is also the date for elections to the UN Human Rights Council, which has recently adopted for the first time a resolution to combat hate that did NOT include anti-blasphemy prohibitions. So let's celebrate the Council's decision and participate in our right to blaspheme.

Posted by: Tony | May 7, 2011 7:07 PM

http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/files/2010/05/makism-mo-stop-behaving-like-a-psychopath-draw_mohammed_day_680.jpg

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2011 8:22 PM

Mine is going to have the caption "Ceci n'est pas le prophéte"

Posted by: Platypus | May 7, 2011 10:24 PM

It's pretty difficult to recognize that the rules of their religion do not apply to those who do not share that religion, when the rules of their religion apply to those who do not share that religion. I have to give them a lot of credit for that. Lol, I'm kidding, people make their religion say whatever they want it to say, or not say.

I'm going to watch the Bin Laden bloopers reel now. Lol, I'm kidding again. There isn't any audio. I wonder who the genius was who made that call.

Posted by: 386sx | May 7, 2011 11:33 PM

I am not going to have time to draw a Mohammed portrait on the 20th. I will be too busy going around collecting all the shit that the KKKrisitianists won't be needing after the 21st.

Posted by: democommie | May 8, 2011 12:46 AM

@Marcus - You have provided a wonderful demonstration of the childish mind in action. You are of course free to be as simple and childish as you like. I did not suggest you should be barred from being immature; I did, however, say it was juvenile behaviour. Your response is delicious in its oblivious irony. Mmmmmm tasty.

What's childish about either the protest or Marcus' response?

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 8, 2011 2:17 AM

Steve (#40) - Boy that Khomeni fellow would have loved that bunch of fundie arse-holes who landed at Plymouth Rock!
I vaguely remember a story about a Quaker woman who walked from Pittsburg to Salem to tell them they were doing it wrong, not once, but four times! The Puritans eventually decided to stone her to death.
Bearing in mind that was about 330 years ago, and that Islam is some 600 years younger than Christianity (and that relgions have a linear development path*), we can look forward to a couple of centuries of idiocy from Islam yet.
:( Dingo
----
* a fairly unlikely posibility I grant you. Still, imagine what 'civilised' Europe was like during the early 15th century (about 600 years ago)?

Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2011 4:34 AM

Jon H at 39- You do realize that you negated your own point by having to add things to the drawing in order to make them offensive to other groups. When all one has to do to offend another group is simply draw a stick figure and attach a name to it, chances are very good that we are not dealing with a rational population.

Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | May 8, 2011 8:12 AM

Irony, eh? You guys furiously jabber about your rights to draw Mohammed and to insult whoever you wish (while dressing it up in faux concern for the rights of others). You carefully delineate how it's always correct for you to insult others, but never not for them to insult you or what you care for.

You don't like it when your precious First Amendement, your own sacred text that you worship as the Giver of All Freedom, is mocked, do you?

The First Amendment is a juvenile crap. It hasn't stopped the USA and its citizens from behaving disgracefully in both their own country and all over the world. As the old proverb says, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Your hammer is free speech.

Draw Mohammed Day is an aggressive, insensitive and childish idea. It stinks.

Posted by: Sam | May 8, 2011 9:02 AM

Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam...

tsk tsk. I'd have to give you a -2/10 for that trolljob.

The first paragraph does describe (IMO) the Danish reasoning behind JP and Fleming doing the drawings in the first place. That is one (of many) reasons I left there...

However, in the Mooseocracy I'm setting up, all speech you give is deemed offensive, and therefore banned.

*listens to Sam's silence*

ahhhh. much worse.

it's better when all voices are allowed to be heard. including yours.

that's the beauty of it. It is disagreeing with someone and celebrating their right to say whatever.

Posted by: VikingMoose | May 8, 2011 9:52 AM

This seems to have been pretty much a replica of the conversation that went on before last year's Draw Muhammad Day-- the same concerns voiced, the same complaints made, the same defenses given.

Seems to me that the only objections that people can manage to raise aside from "I'm a Muslim and this bothers me" are straw men, based on deliberate misunderstandings of the purpose of the event. The intent is not to insult Muslims. It is not to insult anyone. It is not to break someone's religious custom just for the fun of it. It is a very specific act done for a very specific purpose in response to a very specific threat, one which has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims in the world.

So why protest by doing something that appears to fly in the face of Islam in general? Because that was the focus of the original threat. There could be no more appropriate way to protest, no clearer way to get the message across that depicting Muhammad is something that should not be punished in any civilized society. If people insist on being offended by this, when the purpose has been clearly explained and it has been articulated that insulting religious sensibilities is not the point, then I have to conclude that they are being irrational and their offense should not be considered more important than the motives of the Muhammad-drawers.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 8, 2011 11:09 AM

Here is a test: If Ian Gould is so certain that only 1% of Muslims take offense to Draw Mohamed Day, then I will pay for a ticket and 7 day tour of Pakistan for him. The only catch is that he has to wear this t-shirt

http://amorphia-apparel.com/design/stick/

and pass a flier with this image

http://www.humanevents.com/images/islm_cartoon_7.jpg

eh Ian, up for an empirical test of your hypothesis?

Posted by: mote via a proxy server | May 8, 2011 11:44 AM

@Gretchen

So why protest by doing something that appears to fly in the face of Islam in general? Because that was the focus of the original threat. There could be no more appropriate way to protest, no clearer way to get the message across that depicting Muhammad is something that should not be punished in any civilized society.

This goes to the heart of the matter. I believe that DMD is first and foremost about protesting something extremely evil--the practice of issuing official death threats to people because they don't abide by certain idiosyncratic rules of Islam.

I see equivalence in civil rights lunch-counter protests and in the Rosa Parks protest. These were deliberate acts of defiance that were deeply offensive to most southerners. They were intended to challenge morally perverse, officially sanctioned rules that have no place in any just society.

Let's also remember that the people who issue death threats for these so-called offenses to Islam aren't all random Muslim fanatics. Some are religious leaders who significantly influence large numbers of their followers. What if an American Catholic bishop announced that it would be okay for Catholics to murder PZ Meyers after his cracker stunt? Destroy A Cracker Day would be a completely appropriate response--a firm, widespread rebuke of that bishop's uncivilized position.

Posted by: Dr X | May 8, 2011 12:13 PM

Thomas said:

Gratchen, try the same argument going around calling people "nigger", stating that it's not to insult them only to demonstrate the value of freedom of speech.

See, you're relying on one of the very straw men I mentioned in order to draw a false analogy. Of course the same argument won't work, because they're not remotely the same situation. The epithet "nigger" is not offensive because people representing all black people on the planet decided that it was. Nobody has declared that its use shall be punished by threat of death and attempted to follow through with those threats. And while I won't deny that it's possible to mention the word "nigger" without causing anyone harm, it can't be denied that the word exists to be a slur. The comparison just doesn't hold.

How many people have drawn Muhammad pictures in the West by now? How many have gotten into trouble? Are you bravely fighting against a serious threat to freedom of speech or just parading your perceived superiority?

I really fail to see the question of how many people have been threatened as relevant. Would it be a good thing if more were threatened? Are people only allowed to stand up for freedom of speech if they're in serious danger themselves? Or is doing it on behalf of people like Molly Norris invalid?

And what on earth does superiority have to do with anything?

Do you think people in the Muslim world who take real risks speaking up against abuses of their governments are going to thank you for vulgarizing the idea of freedom of speech, making it seem as if it is just about the right to pointlessly insult others?

Let me make this clear, if nothing else: You can reach your own conclusions about the effect of Draw Muhammad Day, but you do not get to determine what it is about for the people participating in it.

There is no conflict between people in the states drawing Muhammad and people in the Muslim world (where is that, exactly?) standing up for their rights. Those people, much as you wish to deny it, are on the same side. They're fighting for the same rights. All you're doing is denigrating the people fighting the easier fight, as if easier fights aren't worth fighting. People should only be concerned about their freedoms at the moment when guns are being held to their heads, I suppose.

Just as I said, the only arguments you can come up with stem from deliberately misunderstanding the point of the protest, and attributing that same misunderstanding to others in order to take offense on their behalf. I think you don't realize how much you insult Muslims in doing so, by assuming that they are all equally incapable of grasping the point. I give them more credit than that.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 8, 2011 12:18 PM

Here's a thought experiment: walk around Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or ay other major Jewish city wearign a Swastika T-shirt and see what happens.

There is, of course, nothing INNATELY offensive about the Swastika which is used to this day by hundreds of millions of Indians, Chinese and Japanese as a symbol of good luck and prosperity.

See here for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/RedSwastikaSchool.jpg/150px-RedSwastikaSchool.jpg

Or for that matter, just ask the inhabitants of Swastika, Ontario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika,_Ontario

Posted by: Ian Gould | May 8, 2011 1:12 PM

"Except Thomas, this is not like calling someone a nigger to their face. This is not a deeply personal, vicious attack."

Except, of course, that the peopel who it offends see it as exactly that.

"That's not a Swastika on my t-shirt, it's the Heart Seal of the Guatama Buddha. How could possibly find that offensive?"

Posted by: Ian Gould | May 8, 2011 1:25 PM

If something causes offense, it is offensive.

That's the definition of the word.

Do peopel have the riht to be offensive?

Absolutely.

Do people who are offended have an obligation to tolerate the offensive? Absolutely.

But let's not argue that calling someone's mother a whore isn't offensive because there's nothing morally wrong with being a sex worker

Posted by: Ian Gould | May 8, 2011 1:37 PM

Ian Gould "But let's not argue that calling someone's mother a whore isn't offensive because there's nothing morally wrong with being a sex worker"
To be fair, if you get offended when someone calls your mother a whor

Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 8, 2011 1:56 PM

Ian Gould at 58-

I'm sure you can provide examples of stick figures labeled Mohammed that have provoked a response from Muslims beyond "That's offensive please don't do it again." - which happens to be a perfectly valid exercise of free speech rights.

Fortunately, Gretchen saved me some trouble by providing a link about Molly Norris, the person who came up with "Draw Mohammed Day", who is in hiding due to the glut of very rational responses to the event. The link is in post 69. While some drawings will be derogatory those that have threatened violence, to the extent that Norris is now in hiding, have so far failed to make any distinction regarding content.

If you want more information you can read about it on wikipedia, including the lead up to "Eveybody Draw Mohammed Day": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

Bottom line: one billion plus Muslims on the planet, approximately 99& of them don't give a crap about Draw Mohammed Day, which kind of undercuts your whole "not ... a rational population" theory.

Even ~1% of a population is a population. As such, that hardly undercuts my theory, if that is what you want to call it. Further, if 99% of the Muslim population doesn't care about Draw Mohammed Day then they are hardly getting offened. So that demands the question- what's with all the fretting and hand- wringing?

which is kind of a pity, because you know if all Muslims are automatically "not rational" we don;t have to worry about stuff like them electing leaders the West doesn't approve of. I mean we don't let lunatics run asylums so why let irrational Muslims decide who controls the Suez Canal or a large part of the world's oil supply?

It's nice that you assume that every single Muslim is offended by people drawing pictures of Muhammad just as it's nice you assume that I think every Muslim is irrational. Maybe I should have said "violently offended" but I figured people would realize that I'm probably not calling Muslims that are simply saying "Oh, I wish you wouldn't" an irrational population. Instead it is the "Oh, I wish I brought a bigger hacksaw" variety that I view as the irrational population.

I'm sure many, if not most, Muslims are offended by this but I am also sure that a good majority of them probably understand the context it is done in. It is not being done to offend (though that is a regrettable result) but to make a point to those that apparently can be pretty thick in the head. If the offense ends with little more than, "I wish you wouldn't do that", fine. I have no problem with that. It is those who feel that threatening (more like promising) violence and driving cartoonists into hiding that are the irrational population I referred to.

Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | May 8, 2011 2:02 PM

You're absolutely right on target, Ian. I should expect to be violently assaulted for drawing (say) Muhammad calmly fishing at the end of a pier while the sun is setting. That's definitely an unforgivable offense, given that I am not now, nor have ever been, a Muslim. You are completely correct in asserting I deserve every bit of hatred and violence I incite for somehow blaspheming against a religion I don't practice by drawing a man fishing.

Or have I misunderstood?

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2011 2:05 PM

@Ed 68 ... Several comments.

First the "it's just Muslims who say this is offensive" could be reverse-analogized to people who get mad when others say "nigger," "faggot," "kike" or many other words.

The lawnmowing analogy isn't very good, not close. There's issues of sacralization and desacralization involved.

===

At the same time, I charge that Muslims get the issue wrong, per their own tenets, by the insistence on a prohibition against drawing **Muhammad.** If we were talking about drawing Allah, we'd have a different story.

Let's go back to the Danish editorial cartoons. Were they accompanied by the words of an op-ed column noting that issue? If not, they were contextless and, other than stirring Muslim rage, ineffectual.

====

And, that's the issue — the issue of purpose, of teleology. Beyond just being a red flag to Muslims, what do people hope to accomplish?

Again, it's like confrontationalists vs. connectionalistts in atheists dialoguing with the broader world. What purpose, and cui bono?

===

Beyond THAT, then, this issue is more complicated, and with more facets, than most people recognize, I think.

"There are never just two sides to an issue." — Idries Shah

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 8, 2011 2:50 PM

You cannot ignore the context here. At the time those original cartoons were published Denmark was at was in Afghanistan in a war that Bush had, with his usual brilliance, labeled a 'crusade'. The 'war on terror' was in full swing, primarily targeting Muslims. Is it strange if some Muslims saw the pictures as part of a Western war against Islam? Pictures of Muhammad had been published before now and then without anybody caring very much, it was as a political statement it became a torch, helped by a couple of Danish Imams who traveled around with not only the original pictures but a couple of ones they had made themselves intended to be even more inflammatory.

You may scream all you like that Muslims "ought" not be offended, but for the moment the meaning is as clear as is the meaning of 'nigger' or a swastika. To you it may be a symbol of freedom of expression, but to many Muslims its a symbol of Western contempt for Islam and for Muslims. They don't have our history of freedom of speech, and this is not a good way to force it down their throats.

Ed Brayton, your analogies are bad. I can mow my lawn on a Sunday because it needs to be mowed or eat pork just because I like pork with no intention of insulting anyone. These Muhammad drawings are made with the expressed purpose of provoking people. If someone wrote a book of the history of Islam and wanted to include pictures of Muhammad as drawn throughout history I'd defend it on the other hand.

Posted by: Thomas | May 8, 2011 4:05 PM

Ed Brayton, your analogies are bad. I can mow my lawn on a Sunday because it needs to be mowed or eat pork just because I like pork with no intention of insulting anyone.

Oh look, suddenly intent matters. It's possible to draw Muhammad just because you want to and resent people threatening violence for doing so with no intention of insulting anyone, too.

These Muhammad drawings are made with the expressed purpose of provoking people.

As much as deliberately mowing your lawn on the Sabbath is, when you could easily mow on some other day.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 8, 2011 4:37 PM

I actually knew a Christian family who, when they were traveling in Israel, were verbally-- and almost physically-- attacked because some of them were eating hamburgers and others a cheese pizza-- and they were all sitting at the same table!! They weren't Jewish, and they weren't even breaking the Jewish rule against mixing meat and dairy. They just looked like they *might* possibly break a Jewish rule.

So it's not just Muslims who expect everybody else to follow their tenets. (And don't even get me started on the draconian blue laws in South Carolina in the 1960's, thanks to our friends the evangelical Christians.)

So, yes, religion does make people irrational sometimes. But Muslims are acting no differently in this regard than any other religion I know.

(And, Ed, I'm sorry, but when my neighbor's power mower starts up at 6:00 am Sunday morning, I do sort of want to kill him!)

Posted by: hoary puccoon | May 8, 2011 6:20 PM

Ed Brayton, your analogies are bad. I can mow my lawn on a Sunday because it needs to be mowed or eat pork just because I like pork with no intention of insulting anyone. These Muhammad drawings are made with the expressed purpose of provoking people.

Then you didn't understand his analogy.

In his analogy, some mowed their lawn on a day which was convenient for them. (Plenty of people have drawn or would like to draw Muhammed for artistic, satirical, political or personal reasons. Same reasons millions of people have drawn pictures of Jesus.) Bullying Christians (Muslims) reacted by persecuting, attacking or killing these people because they weren't "respectful".

In response, we are standing in solidarity with the earlier victims and doing something which harms no one but which dilutes the unreasonably violent response. Instead of having so silence one person, they now have to silence hundreds of thousands. To do otherwise sends a clear message: violence wins. Threats win.

Yes Draw Muhammed Day is done *because* Muslims get offended, but not just because they're offended. It's because they have expressed their offense through violence!

In your responses you never seem to address this, it's like you think DMD is coming out of thin air, like we're trying to pick on some meek, undeserving underdog.

Posted by: Tyro | May 8, 2011 9:03 PM

@Thomas 85 - Bingo on the word "context."

@Gretchen 87 - True, it's possible to "just draw Muhammad," but, speaking of intent, I don't quite think that is the intent of "Draw Muhammad Day." Nice try but #fail.

@Hoary Puccoon 89 - Exactly that fundamentalists of many faiths can be snotty and even intrusive. And, while perhaps not issuing fatwas, the ultra-Orthodox in Israel can and do use at least threats of violence. So, are we going to have "draw a shellfish" day? Or, since squid are non-kosher, we can have PZ sponsor that.

And, speaking of fundies, Hitchens is the only Gnu to recognize they're not limited to Western monotheists. If the BJP gets back in power, somebody want to have a "Draw Krishna Day"?

@HP 92 - You've got a money quote:

And if "Draw Mohammed" Day is being used by people as "be snotty to a Muslim" day, then it is just as wrong as any other act of religious bigotry.

===

I get back to my "cui bono" of earlier comments here.

IMO, something like this benefits neither atheism, nor broader humanism, nor more-liberal minded Muslims, and it doesn't cause Muslim fundies to suddenly "repent" of violence, narrow-mindedness, misogyny or other actual or alleged defects.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 9, 2011 12:04 AM

October 2010
Where was the 'Where's Muhammad?' cartoon?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100804947.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2011 1:04 AM

Remo, maybe Mohammad being inspired from Judaism had read the second commandment, the one that says: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth".

To me this "Draw Mohammad day" is about as relevant as standing up against the supposed "war on Christmas". It isn't actually meant to accomplish anything except promote a "we against them" feeling.

Posted by: Thomas | May 9, 2011 2:35 AM

I would like to also say that this is a good idea simply because we have to show the fanatics that they can not silence us (although some are more than happy to silence themselves, anything to show respect for violent fanatics!).

Or should we silence ourselves EVERYTIME someone tells us to?

Defy the violent fanatics. Respect the moderates. Not the other way around!

Posted by: Think or GTFO | May 9, 2011 6:53 AM

Think or GTFO, I don't know where you live, maybe you have found a corner where there is no criticism of Islam, but in most of the Western world there's unlimited amounts of it. Far too often followed by complaints about how you aren't allowed to criticize Islam.

Do you have any particular reason to draw Muhammad, except to prove that you can? If not, perhaps you should focus on something more useful, such as about the discrimination of women in Islam. (Actually the Bible is more misogynistic, but Western countries have for the most part been better at forgetting those parts) Having a constructive dialog with Muslims about their faith works fine. Drawing a pointless picture just to insult, on the other hand, is a lousy way to "respect the moderates".

If you keep your eyes open you will also find plenty of cases where Christians or Jews silence the media. The year before the infamous Muhammad cartoons Jyllandsposten canceled a cartoon of Jesus fearing it would infuriate some of its readers. You don't need violence if you have enough power that a simple phone call works better. Not that violence isn't used as well. USA bombed Al Jazeera's offices both in Kabul and in Baghdad "by mistake" just before the cities were invaded. Now, that was a serious violation of freedom of speech, yet I didn't hear many cries of "We are all Al Jazaeera!"

Posted by: Thomas | May 9, 2011 8:14 AM

Dr. X:

Be careful. When you start talking about the majority of Cath-O-Licks being equivalent to the majority of muslims (and not even a mention of the fundigelitards!) you make Baby JESUS cry.

'sides, if the real ABRAHAMIC based religions hadn't spoken up the Nazis would have killed MILLIONZ of jewz!

Posted by: democommie | May 9, 2011 9:01 AM

"At what point does "we are better than this" turn into the hecklers' veto?"

And at what point does speech become violence? At what point does "what about the heckler's veto" become itself a heckler's veto?

You decide whether you ARE better than this.

Obviously, you aren't. That's your choice.

Posted by: Wow | May 9, 2011 9:09 AM

Um, hey - does anyone know why depicting Mohammed is forbidden in (some strains of) Islam?

The theological justification is preventing idolatry. The worry is that the image will become more important than what it represents.

People who don't follow Islam simply can't be guilty of idolatry in that way.

(BTW, the riots over the Danish cartoons? Deliberately stirred up by imams who falsified very-specifically-offensive images and added them to the 'portfolio' they were touring with.)

Posted by: Ray Ingles | May 9, 2011 9:20 AM

S DrX, please, don't complain about middle-aged-moralities being exported until you've cleaned up the farcial puritanism that ensures NO RELEASE for a movie that has a little bush and tit showing but A-OK at a 12A rating with people being blown to shit.

I can chew gum and dribble a basketball at the same time.

The idea that Americans have no standing to challenge wrongful conduct of people who aren't Americans until there is no longer wrongful conduct in America is absurd. And if you've spent any time on this site, you should know that probably about 90% of the criticisms are directed toward the American government, Christians of various kinds and fundie morality. And, by the way, as prudish as many Americans are, as a whole, we're doing a helluva a lot better than most Islamic nations on that count. But if Muslims want to criticize American prudery, I see no need to clean up prudery in Muslim nations first. I'll deal with the criticism as if it's offered in in good faith, and assume that the critics oppose prudery in Islamic nations as well. As far as I'm concerned, if the criticism is valid, it stands on its own.

Posted by: Dr X | May 9, 2011 9:30 AM

PS I note that the last post was referred to the blog owner. See assertion copied in #106.

Posted by: Wow | May 9, 2011 9:36 AM

does anyone know why depicting Mohammed is forbidden in (some strains of) Islam?

The theological justification is preventing idolatry. The worry is that the image will become more important than what it represents.

Which pretty much guaranteed that the image would become more important than what it represents.

Posted by: steve oberski | May 9, 2011 10:22 AM

Dr X @ 67,

What if an American Catholic bishop announced that it would be okay for Catholics to murder PZ Meyers after his cracker stunt? Destroy A Cracker Day would be a completely appropriate response--a firm, widespread rebuke of that bishop's uncivilized position.

I'm of the opinion similar to Ed's that free expression is a GoodThing™. But I do want to point out the confounding issues:

• It isn't just "Muslims bad, Christians would never do that sort of thing" that some with agendas seem to make it out to be. Was it not just a week or so ago that we had fanatical christians threatening guards at an art museum for having a representation of a revered figure in what they felt was a disrespectful manner?
  
• People keep mixing in two levels of expression (just drawing Muhammad vs. insulting the religion by associating it with stereotypes, eg. the bomb above). While I think both should be allowed, pretending all the noise and fury come from the mere drawing of a representation without other context allows bigots to believe what I object to in my first point.
  

Posted by: Don't Panic | May 9, 2011 12:11 PM

Is it okay to draw Warren Zevon's "Mohammed's Radio"? Too bad he's not still around, he could do "Werewolves of Islam, again!".

Posted by: democommie | May 9, 2011 12:47 PM

Idiotic rules based on nothing more than religious superstition should be broken repeatedly and mocked incessantly.

Posted by: Taz | May 9, 2011 3:29 PM

'Draw Muhammad Day' is necessary to maintaining our 1st Amendment rights.

"Necessary?" NECESSARY?! Are you fucking kidding me? We're all gonna lose our rights unless we all jump to your dogwhistle and do whatever stupid juvenile thing you suggest?

Why is "Draw Mohammed Day" "necessary" to maintaining our 1st Amendment rights, when "Say Something Pointlessly Insulting About Black People Day" is not? Why is one act of indiscriminate disrespect toward a huge number of people "necessary" if another such act is not?

And who gets to decide which pointless act of infantile disrespect is "necessary" and which isn't? There are, after all, a LOT of such acts to choose from.

"Necessary?!" Get over yourselves, people. You're letting bigots and haters blow the "free speech" dogwhistle to get you to jump to their tune; and you actually think you're helping anyone? You ain't all that.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 9, 2011 4:23 PM

@Raging Bee:

Why is "Draw Mohammed Day" "necessary" to maintaining our 1st Amendment rights, when "Say Something Pointlessly Insulting About Black People Day" is not? Why is one act of indiscriminate disrespect toward a huge number of people "necessary" if another such act is not?

By that rationale, Monty Python should never have been allowed to make "Life of Brian." After all, the comedic lampooning of Christianity (and to an extent, Judaism) is just "indiscriminate disrespect." Graham Chapman, John Cleese, et al. were just jumping through the hoops of the "bigots and haters," right?

Perhaps you care to enlighten us as to the proper way to deal with a religion that commands it's followers to fly airliners into buildings or to execute "blasphemers" or "apostates."

Please enlighten us.

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | May 9, 2011 6:20 PM

Akira MacKenzie - Actually, Chapman himself pointed out, The Life of Brian wasn't blasphemy, it was heresy.
It in no way denied god, merely criticised the doctrine of idiots ardent for some desperate glory. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | May 9, 2011 7:20 PM

Here's a better idea: Draw a Gnu Atheist day. I'll start by Photoshopping PZ Myers' face onto a squid being eaten for dinner by Benedict XVI.

Or, anally sexed by Benedict XVI, or crucified by him.

Anybody else want in?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 9, 2011 11:24 PM

Thomas - define 'hate speech'. Is describing something in a substantially factual way 'hate speech'? = Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | May 10, 2011 3:21 AM

Personally, I feel that the best thing to do for DMD would be to draw an artistic and respectful picture, perhaps illustrating an important event from the story of M's life (e.g. recieving a revelation from the angel).

This would be a way of emphasising that you are merely exercising your rights not to be bound by (one particular interpretation of) someone else's religious taboo.

Drawing Mohammad needn't be any more juvenile, hateful or "trollish" than drawing Jesus (some Christian traditions considered this to be blasphemous), or an "everyone eat bacon day".

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | May 10, 2011 7:52 AM

@124: "When the act of speech directly causes physical harm."

How loud can YOU yell? You have to get well over 110dB to cause some physical harm by noise and I don't think there are any people able to operate that loudly.

Posted by: Wow | May 10, 2011 8:18 AM

Thomas - Are you familiar with 'No True Scotsman'?
Wow -
a) Peer-reviewed citation please.
b) You feel the need to blowup Barack Obama? If this were so, then motivation would, presumeably, be the critical point. Why do you feel this urge? Is it a problem with your mother? :)
c) Under the Copyright Act, it would depend on several factors. But even so, would it be 'hate speech' (whatever that is)?
d) Can't comment on this. But even so, would it be 'hate speech' (whatever that is)?
Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | May 10, 2011 8:27 AM

Buffoon's paltry plagirism @94 once again proves my point. Does anyone really believe his re-pasting of someone else's cheezy graphic is in any way "necessary" to "defend" free speech? Get over yourselves, folks.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 10:28 AM

@Thomas

Usama Bin Laden, leader for a terrorist group, commanded his followers to fly airliners into buildings. It was not "a religion", i.e. Islam, that did it.

Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

Osama bin Laden
Asked if he was trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons, Time Magazine, Dec 1998

In our religion, there is a special place in the hereafter for those who participate in jihad.

Osama bin Laden
In Time magazine May 6, 1996

To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Osama bin Laden
In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Osama bin Laden
February 1998

I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.

Osama bin Laden
Quoted by Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper.

Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.

Osama bin Laden

Time Magazine

We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God.

Osama bin Laden
Al-Jazeera June 1999

Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing.

Osama bin Laden
In video statement on Al-Jazeera October 2001

Posted by: steve oberski | May 10, 2011 10:48 AM

so he made a rule against the creation of images that either unfairly glorified or unfairly denigrated him. He probably also didn't want to risk being deified like Roman emperors were. And we're supposed to act like that's a BAD thing?

Yes, it is a bad thing when he and some of his followers believe that his 'rule' applies to everyone, not just the followers of his religion. And for the zillionth time, you seem to not care when you denigrate and offend vast numbers of people that you dislike, so I don't know why anyone gives a rat's ass what you find juvenile and simple-minded. Your framing is very easy to turn-around; it's not that cartoonists are choosing to offend millions of Muslims, it's that millions of Muslims are choosing to take offense at this. Does it not matter to you at all whether it is actually justified (let alone, sane, rational, adult) for these millions to take offense in this situation? They take offense, so that's it, end of story, let's all tippy-toe around their 'sensibilities'?

Thomas:

Spartan, the extremists on both sides love stuff like "Draw Muhammad day". They want the polarization. Why are you such a willing patsy to these authoritarians?

Really now? People who are demonstrating that they can draw cartoons of whatever they like are authoritarians? Interesting definition you've got there.

My 'patsy' reference was directed at Bee, who has used that term to label people who stand up for free speech, that he finds 'objectively' juvenile and pointless of course, and accuse them of doing the work of the 'bigots' and 'haters'. Just pointing out that it works both ways.

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 11:27 AM

@Thomas

Bin Laden may have claimed that he was working for Islam, but that doesn't make it true.

From http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&survey=12&response=Confidence&mode=table

Posted by: steve oberski | May 10, 2011 11:38 AM

Uh, I'm 100% confident that Osama Bin Laden existed. Well, not statistically significantly different from 100%.

So what is it trying to say?

PS Nigeria is a country, not an Islam.

Posted by: Wow | May 10, 2011 11:46 AM

Your framing is very easy to turn-around; it's not that cartoonists are choosing to offend millions of Muslims, it's that millions of Muslims are choosing to take offense at this.

Really? So I guess black people are "choosing to take offense" when someone screams a certain epithet in their faces? Sorry, boy, people don't "choose" what offends them; and even if they did, that still doesn't justify going out of your way to do something you know is offensive, with the intent of causing offense. DMD is still pointless and juvenile, and so is your latest grade-school-level defense of it. "Sez you" and "I don't care?" That's the best you can do? Grow up.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 12:12 PM

Bee, you are more toolish than usual; don't know when you will clue in that 'grow up', 'juvenile', and 'grade-school' are pretty empty 'arguments' coming from such an established hypocrite as yourself. So it's your position apparently that people who are offended by cartoons, or apparently anything, are fully justified in that offense and we shall remain silent about whether they should be offended by it. Have you ever said things that have been offensive to people in your posts here? Do you give a shit? Then why should I?

You don't get to define what the 'intent' of DMD is and your simplistic 'it's only purpose is to offend' is a pretty dishonest frame, but your inability to think beyond certain simpleton labels and deal with situations that don't fit your idiotic stereotypes has already been noted numerous times here. Put on your big-boy pants and join us in the goddamned 21st Century and then get back to us.

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 12:37 PM

Wow Bee, it's like you looked at Spartan's comment and decided to respond to everything but his argument.

Since you obviously think you have the right to offend people with your opinion on this board, how can you claim other people do not have this same right you reserve for yourself?

Posted by: eric | May 10, 2011 1:10 PM

Your blatant misrepresentation of what I said proves -- AGAIN, as if we need further proof -- how childish this whole DMD thing is

Hey man, I'm just coming to conclusions based on what you've said, kinda like you bringing up that I think it's okay then to yell epithets in the face of black people, as if that's not a misrepresentation. If I misrepresented you, how about you just correct me and stop whining about it, since you are so 'grown up'. And since it's not sinking in at all, what I, nor you, say does not determine what 'this whole DMD thing is' and proves absolutely nothing.

I'm basing my criticisms on YOUR definition, which is nothing but infantile pretentious horseshit being hijacked by anti-Muslim bigots

How about you quote MY definition then, cuz I ain't seeing where I defined it in this thread. And again, your criticisms and tongue-clucking are just being hijacked by extremists who think it's okay to threaten and commit violence against people who are drawing fucking pictures.

Says the guy who thinks drawing (or copying) lame, unimaginitive cartoons is a significant and important activity? What a fucking joke.

Who died and made you arbiter of 'lame' and 'unimaginative'? And where did I say it was 'significant' or 'important'? If it's not significant or important, then why are you and the authoritarians you are bolstering here even concerned? You're arguing yourself in circles.

eric,

Wow Bee, it's like you looked at Spartan's comment and decided to respond to everything but his argument

I'm used to that, it's not unusual. Which is too bad because I'd like to hear the best arguments against DMD; I'm open to changing my mind. So far all the arguments though seem to based on what others deem childish or immature or pointless, all 100% objective measurements of course....

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 1:34 PM

"Hey man, I'm just coming to conclusions based on what you've said,"

They are, however, YOUR conclusions.

You have to sieve the words of another through your own brain to discern meaning and it is at this point that your bias throws out what is meant into what you want it to mean.

xians use this all the time, as do deniers and other wingnuts.

If someone is telling you in black and white "you have got it wrong", then you have it wrong.

This may engender some discomfort when realising you aren't the perfect god you perceive yourself to be. This too shall pass.

Posted by: Wow | May 10, 2011 1:36 PM

Since you obviously think you have the right to offend people with your opinion on this board, how can you claim other people do not have this same right you reserve for yourself?

I never made such a claim, dumbass. You folks really need to go to bed and try coming back to this in the morning.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 1:46 PM

I never made such a claim

And I actually agree with you, Bee; you are consistently silent when your hypocrisy is pointed out to you.

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 1:52 PM

...you are consistently silent when your hypocrisy is pointed out to you.

Translation: you're calling me a "hypocrite" with absolutely no evidence to prove it. Go to bed.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 2:07 PM

Translation: you're calling me a "hypocrite" with absolutely no evidence to prove it.

See eric @160. It's been pointed out to you here by me and others on previous threads, as well as on other blogs I've seen you posting on. I have no misconception though that you don't see exactly what you want to see, like the true mature adult you are. Seriously, I think you should go back to smoking pot nearly every day; might do the 'raging' part of your online persona some good.

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 2:28 PM

"See eric @160?" That's the best you got? All eric did was quote himself, quote me, and then stick a "QED" at the end. How does that prove anything? He lied about what I said, I called him a liar; how does that prove I'm a hypocrite? You really can't handle grownup dialogue, can you?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 2:35 PM

You're telling us what we should say, after deliberately misrepresenting what we already said? Who do you think you're fooling?

Holy crap you're obtuse. Should cartoonists have the broad freedom to offend their audience that you have to offend yours, or not? If not, why not?

Posted by: eric | May 10, 2011 2:55 PM

Bee,

Uh, I didn't answer your questions @121 as you weren't responding to me and I don't agree with the statement that you quoted; I don't think DMD is 'necessary' for the 1st amendment. Regardless, why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? There are two @122 where I directly responded to your quotes. Here they are again:

how about you provide some suggestions on how to acceptably express to people who get upset at cartoons that it's moronic to get upset at cartoons, that has not already been tried?

Your shushing of people expressing themselves is exactly what they (the extremists) want you to do; who are you helping?

Posted by: Spartan | May 10, 2011 3:36 PM

how about you provide some suggestions on how to acceptably express to people who get upset at cartoons that it's moronic to get upset at cartoons, that has not already been tried?

Why is it so important to belittle people for not liking this or that cartoon? The overwhelming majority of those who would be offended in this instance aren't a threat to anyone, and we don't even KNOW them; so why go out of our way to offend them?

Besides, the original rule in itself is (as a guideline for personal conduct) a perfectly reasonable and harmless act of modesty: don't use images to depict (and possibly misrepresent) Mohammed, because his image is not as important as his message. Is that really more worthy of derision than a televangelist spending millions to get his phony smile on TVs all over the world? Instead of drawing (or just re-pasting) a bunch of stupid-assed cartoons and pretending you're saying something, why not talk about something more important? You might actually get respect and support from sensible Muslims, which might, in turn, help us with other battles with other extremists.

Your shushing of people expressing themselves is exactly what they (the extremists) want you to do; who are you helping?

I'm not "shushing" anyone, I'm pointing out that some actions are idiotic, pointless, and needlessly offensive to people who have done no wrong, while accomplishing nothing. And once again, you show your emotional immaturity by (deliberately?) confusing criticism with attempted censorship. Did you call your parents "Nazis" when they told you not to cuss?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 4:48 PM

At what point does the intent of the cartoonists matter to the offended?

When causing offense is the explicitly stated objective; when the anticipated feelings of others are loudly and publicly belittled; and when the actual content of the material to be created -- true or false, positive or negative -- doesn't matter.

I'll point out that these actions are bold and powerful statements to people who think their religious rules apply to anyone but themselves and their co-believers...

Get over yourselves. There's nothing "bold" or "powerful" about drawing -- let alone copying -- a juvenile cartoon from a location where you know damn well you won't be in any danger of punishment. Oh well, I guess the Muslim-bashers and mosquephobes will appreciate the opportunity to pretend their bathroom humor is "bold" and "powerful."

Your statement above can apply to so many people; you can swap Mohammed with Jesus, MLK, Obama, Reagan, the Beatles and it's equally true, but none of them are beyond reproach and criticism.

I never said anyone was "beyond reproach and criticism;" I do say, however, that they deserve, and we need, a more mature and useful form of "criticism" than stupid-assed cartoons.

Besides, Mohammed cartoons are just plain old. So old, in fact, that the extremists and rabble-rousers have had to make up their own defamatory cartoons just to get their rabbles roused. This is America, the land of innovation -- can't you guys come up with a fresher publicity-stunt?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 10, 2011 10:13 PM

@Raging Bee

There's nothing "bold" or "powerful" about drawing -- let alone copying -- a juvenile cartoon from a location where you know damn well you won't be in any danger of punishment.

So if I was in danger of "punishment" would it be OK then ?

And what is the punishment for a victim less crime ? In your opinion ?

can't you guys come up with a fresher publicity-stunt?

So it would be OK if a new and improved protest to Muslim intimidation was devised ?

I'm not seeing a lot of internal consistency in your arguments, such as thy are.

Posted by: steve oberski | May 11, 2011 8:38 AM

I just cann't understand why few non-muslims making such a non-sense steps like draw muhammad day. And they call it freedom of speech and sometimes reason it a response against violence on part of muslims. Why do they never try to understand the level of respect and love that the Muslims have for their religious head. The respect that even does not bother them in putting their life on stake in teaching lesson to the one who has committed blasphemous act.
Actually the fault is not at muslims' part, but it is on part of those who just have hearsay about muhammad. i fully believe that they would never had studied about muhammad from the authentic sources like Quran. And fault is as well on part of those who have no affection to their religion and religious personalities and books.
For those who are taking part in blasphemous act, i would urge them to think just once "WHAT IF MUHAMMAD HAD BEEN A TRUE PROPHET".

Posted by: Qaiser | May 14, 2011 3:57 PM

Qaiser - I know you'll never see this, but here goes:
"WHAT IF MUHAMMAD HAD BEEN A TRUE PROPHET"?
So what if he were?
The issue is not about the prophethood of one person or another, it's about free speech.
You don't get to decide what I can say, draw, compose or write, and I don't get to decide what you can say, draw, compose or write.
But there is a caveat. Your free speech rights cannot be curtailed (or mine, or anyone's) by anyone else, as long as such free speech does no actual harm.
Does drawing Muhammad actually harm anyone? What kind of harm does it do, if any, precisely?
Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | August 2, 2011 1:31 PM

Draw Mohammed Day seems to have come and gone without even being noticed, let alone making any noteworthy contribution to any public debate -- and y'all are suddenly trying to reactivate this thread more than two months later? That might just be funnier than any of the actual cartoons.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 2, 2011 1:46 PM

Santa, #182:

It's sad when a nut needs to resurrect a dead thread in order to vent.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 2, 2011 1:58 PM