Pharyngula

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 11:02 AM

Normally, I'm all for showing religious people how wrong they are about things, but I just can't really get behind this new "holiday."

I read a tweet yesterday that sums it up nicely:

"I was going to draw Mohammad today but then I remembered I am not a petulant jackass that offends people solely to prove my iconoclasm"

Posted by: johnlil#0a224 | May 21, 2010 11:04 AM

Food dye? You accommodationist! Buy a six-pack of beer, a can of asparagus, and go all the way!

Posted by: hannah's dad | May 21, 2010 11:07 AM

I presume people here are familiar with Jesus and Mo?

Just in case some are not:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Posted by: alysonmiers | May 21, 2010 11:08 AM

#3 Now that's just effing wrong! Asparagus should always be eaten fresh! Canned asparagus is disgusting.

PZ, that cartoon makes me LOL.

Posted by: Bob L | May 21, 2010 11:11 AM

Sven DiMilo @ "I'm all down with pointing and laughing, and even irking. But in this case it should have been clear from the outset that the actual targets of the pointing and laughing were not going to be irked so much as enraged by deliberate provocation"

We talking about Crackergate? I seem to recall death threats were expected and came from that to.

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 11:16 AM

I was going to write a tweet complaining about people drawing Mohammed, but then I remembered I'm not an oblivious condescending asshole.

Yes, and calling someone oblivious just for having a different opinion isn't condescending in the slightest.

It's amazing to me that no matter how clearly one spells out the point of this exercise (see original post), there are still people who don't get it in the slightest (see comments).

Oh, I get it, I just think it's pointless and juvenile, and won't really accomplish anything useful.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2010 11:20 AM

Truth is, it's more like the town (in Idaho, IIRC) where Jews were threatened with some kind of violence around Christmas time, and most everyone in town put a menorah on each door so that there'd be too many "potential Jews" for the thugs to attack.

That's what draw Muhammed day is about, too many "possible targets" for the thugs to attack.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkjEO0tz9L0LU9gHHdBjHWt3t_e7dDl8dE | May 21, 2010 11:23 AM

The necessity of Draw Muhammad Day becomes very clear, as only recently (11th of may) Lars Vilks (a Swedish artist who drew Muhammad in 2007) was attacked by muslim idiots in class at Uppsula University. There are videos of this on youtube.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 11:27 AM

#11

nope, you don't get it. Your other point is right though; you are definitely allowed to have stupid opinions. We just don't have to treat them as if they are well-reasoned.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | May 21, 2010 11:30 AM

I'm all for the drawing of mohammed pbuh - for the reasons explained ad nauseum - but I do have loved ones who've ended up on the other side of the discussion.

By the way, I see facebook have taken the original "Draw Mohammed Day" group down. Anyone hear why?

Posted by: Steve L | May 21, 2010 11:33 AM

I'm not big on offending people who haven't offended me. The problem is that the draw mohammed protest doesn't target the jackasses that offend me most -- the ones threatening violence. I don't know how to target them more efficiently, but I think I would put more energy into something if more of that energy was directed as showing those particular individuals what idiots they are.

Posted by: baldywilson | May 21, 2010 11:34 AM

I read a tweet yesterday that sums it up nicely: "I was going to draw Mohammad today but then I remembered I am not a petulant jackass that offends people solely to prove my iconoclasm"

Oh FFS, not the old "I will not insult muslims by doing something self-appointed 'muslim leaders' claim will insult muslims" schtick. Get a grip. Do you think all catholics are deeply offended by everything Bill O'Reilly finds offensive? Or, perhaps, you think all Christians are young-earth creationists because that's what some powerful American crack-pots think?

Islam is not a mono-culture. The nuts that condemn drawings are a fringe minority who deserve ridicule. Or perhaps you believe that, because the Taliban were a muslim organisation, and because the Taliban believed that any depiction of humans was idolitry, therefore all muslims are equally ignorant about art and aesthetics.

And you're worried about appearing condescending? Seriously?

Posted by: Q.E.D | May 21, 2010 11:38 AM

For the advocates of the "don't poke muslims with a sharp stick" argument:

That sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface, however, failure to assert a right is a good way to loose it.

It is a bad idea to, out of consideration or fear, allow muslims (or any religious people) to get even more comfortable assuming that they can impose their internal rules on to the rest of the world.

Deference to such expectations is a good way to cement those expectations. Backing down in the face of threats and real violence means their demand for censorship is succesful and our liberties have been eroded.

Posted by: Aaron Golas | May 21, 2010 11:39 AM

@tsg (#22): Completely true. I should have specified: it wasn't the biggest problem with his reasoning, it was just the part of the article that annoyed me the most. :-P

Posted by: CloneboyZA | May 21, 2010 11:42 AM

Just as an aside, nice to see Prof Myers using a Zapiro cartoon, one of the best local political cartoonists in South Africa. The newspaper that ran this cartoon today was threatened legally, but the Council of Muslim Theologians failed to obtain a court interdict to stop the publishing of the cartoon. Interestingly enough, the judge was Muslim and stated "as a judge and as a Muslim I am bound by our Constitution and the rules of our courts".

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 11:42 AM

@23

so you're not happy unless we call up the taliban personally and let them know how we feel?

C'mon people, don't be dense! This is an event that attacks the idea that someone's religious belief trumps our autonomy. It laughs in the face of those that would threaten violence and shows them to be impotent. How are people missing this?

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 11:44 AM

I'm going to guess that people who miss the main point of Draw Mohammed Day also missed the main point of Crackergate. They frame such actions as being gratuitous, unprovoked insults, instead of considering them as being in the same category as burning an American flag to protest a proposed Flag Burning Amendment -- and to protest the sort of mindset from which the idea of a Flag Burning Amendment springs.

There's something else that niggles me about Epstein's criticism, as well as similar criticisms from other religious liberals. They often bring up the way fundamentalists try to spread their ideas, and act as if this is the main problem with fundamentalism. It tries to "take over" not just by force and law, but by proselytizing. Debate, argument, and trying to convince other people is translated into being a form of bullying, an aggressive show of force and even violence -- but only, apparently, in religion.

Why? Because people have the RIGHT to BELIEVE whatever they WANT when it comes to religion. That's a sacred, private area. Bad religions are the ones which tell other people they're wrong, and that they've got the only truth No. Nobody is ever wrong, in religion. And we're apparently supposed to agree.

The main problem the so-called new atheists have with fundamentalism is not the fact that fundamentalists tell other people that they're wrong. It's that the fundamentalists are wrong.

So bringing up the horrible specter of being "the atheist equivalent of the campus sidewalk preachers" is not that daunting, frankly. The social, environmental, or political activist who stands on a soap box is also the equivalent of the campus sidewalk preachers. But somehow, nobody brings up that example in horror. Nobody says "you're just like those women who used to stand on street corners arguing for female suffrage, and telling people that they had to give women the vote." So pushy.

It's because religion is once again getting the "we should all just agree to disagree rather than risk discussing it" white glove treatment. I suspect this special consideration is derived from the unspoken acknowledgment that faith beliefs need protection from rational dispute. They need forbearance (don't call it 'respect') -- because they simply don't stand up to scrutiny. And if we can't believe in God, then surely we can believe in the value of believing in God, can't we?

No.

Posted by: mmelliott01 | May 21, 2010 11:45 AM

I was going to wear a yellow, six-sided star on my chest in Denmark in 1942, but then I realized that it might be misinterpreted by assholes with no sense of history or of the value of organized protest.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 11:48 AM

@31

it's almost as if provocation inspired progress!

but.. that's impossible!

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 11:50 AM

If you can offer an explanation, I'd love to hear it.

No you wouldn't, because if you did, you'd have made an effort to find out.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 21, 2010 11:53 AM

I have had occasional hesitations on the concept and I opted out of it myself mostly because it was pretty much taking place far outside the nexus of power of middle eastern violence and a number of the more right-wing participants seemed to be using it as more of an excuse to continue their religious war pissing contest on an ethnic minority rather than out of genuine beliefs in the value of free speech and freedom from religious violence.

That said, these people need to grow the fuck up and by continuing this bullshit they are actively trying to make their religion look more petty, inane, and stupid than the catholics.

And I fully support those who participated because Denmark is still the number one terrorism target after 5 fucking years over a cartoon.

Bombs going off over the heads, indefinite detention and torture, religion-based persecution, meh, let bygones be bygones, but let slip the dogs of war over a fucking racist sketch done 5 years ago?!?

That's reality detachment and slamming that might help many shake off the radical conservative mullahs trying to drag them down and sully their name globally (as an ethnic and cultural group) and more able to rally for positive change in wherever their home country may happen to be.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 11:54 AM

@38

perhaps you can explain to me how giving in to extremist demands helps to fight extremism first. I mean, if avoidance of causing offense takes precedence over your and others' autonomy, what methods do you have for standing up for your autonomy? Was it right for people to kill and threaten violence over cartoons? Do you condone that? If you don't condone it, how do you make that known?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 21, 2010 11:55 AM

I wouldn't want to draw Mohammed unless someone had threatened those who did so with death. I don't go around routinely violating social norms so as to give maximal offense, but I expect that those whom I avoid offending with cut those who do offend some slack. This seems to be a problem for some religious people who aren't content with using words to solve their problems.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 21, 2010 11:55 AM

peaceful people will be offended too and I don't see why it's necessary

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 11:58 AM

Glen Davidson #15 wrote:

Truth is, it's more like the town (in Idaho, IIRC) where Jews were threatened with some kind of violence around Christmas time, and most everyone in town put a menorah on each door so that there'd be too many "potential Jews" for the thugs to attack.
That's what draw Muhammed day is about, too many "possible targets" for the thugs to attack.

Ooh, good analogy. That's sharp.

I also thought of that famous quote by H L Mencken:

The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians--and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by such learned dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe--that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power, and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.

If we combine them, it's like responding to a threat of violence for burning a dead cat around Christmas time, by drawing pictures of it.

Ok, maybe not. I'll leave the analogies alone now.

Posted by: Q.E.D | May 21, 2010 12:10 PM

djstryfeo6

And it's not like the violent Muslims are the only ones who will take offense to this; the ones who are actually normal, peaceful people will be offended too and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can offer an explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Answer to why it's necessary to "offend" peaceful and violent muslims alike with pictures of Mo.

Both peaceful and violent muslims have no right or reasonable expectation that anyone else should submit to their rules.

Why are you so worried about offending peaceful muslims? There is no right to "not be offended"

Posted by: baldywilson | May 21, 2010 12:13 PM

And it's not like the violent Muslims are the only ones who will take offense to this; the ones who are actually normal, peaceful people will be offended too and I don't see why it's necessary.

Have you any idea how many normal, peaceful people you have just gratuitously offended with that comment? Once again this assumption that all muslims are "offended" by pictures of Mohamed.

Posted by: Colin | May 21, 2010 12:15 PM

@52 Yeah, I'd agree with that line of argument, obviously. Sorry, I was just thrilled that we DO get things right on occasion.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 21, 2010 12:16 PM

the ones who are actually normal, peaceful people will be offended too and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can offer an explanation, I'd love to hear it.

You have ZERO right not to be offended. You only have the right to rebut, or not--your choice.

Posted by: Colin | May 21, 2010 12:20 PM

Also from a BBC news article on the Pakistan -FB+Youtube ban.

The following is YouTube's idea of free speech. Anyone spot any problems?

A YouTube spokesperson said: "YouTube offers citizens the world over a vital window on cultures and societies and we believe people should not be denied access to information via video.

"Because YouTube is a platform for free expression of all sorts, we take great care when we enforce our policies. Content that violates our guidelines is removed as soon as we become aware of it."

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | May 21, 2010 12:25 PM

And it's not like the violent Muslims are the only ones who will take offense to this; the ones who are actually normal, peaceful people will be offended too and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can offer an explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Maybe it will put pressure on those normal peaceful Muslims to stop their more rabid co-religionists from threatening to kill people. And if they cannot see threatening to kill people is far more serious than drawing pictures of Mohammed, then they are not normal nor peaceful.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 12:28 PM

Okay, I'll bite.

This stuff is extremely stupid, and I'm very, very embarassed that last night I told some fellow atheists that this was the work of a few morons and a hell of a lot of outright trolls, and that I was confident PZ would have a nice post explaining this the next day.

First of all, I'm pretty sure everyone is well aware that Muslims are picky about people drawing nasty pictures of their Prophet. Everyone who was going to laugh, has. We do not need the point made again on a yearly basis.

We're also aware that the word "picky" here is not the most accurate for describing their reaction. In this case it was blocking access to several major websites, centers of free expression, to the population of a major country. Well done guys, good job defending (your) right to free speech there. I'm proud of you.

The continuing theme around here that because people have silly beliefs then you can say all kinds of offensive things is just pernicious. When I was a little boy I was told not to be nasty, even when what I had to say was true. Since then I've moderated a bit, but only so much so that I can see how say, writing an article about how mediums are fraudsters is perfectly ok no matter who complains, yet going to a seance and openly mocking a person's belief that they are talking to a dead relative, making ghost noises, butting in with insults in the voice of said relative everytime the medium talks and so on would be rightfully rewarded with a good slap. Yes people have very silly beliefs. But those are their beliefs all the same, and just as a matter of not being an unneccessary arse we should leave them alone. There's a right and wrong time for mocking them, a right and wrong way, a right and wrong cause.

Finally, not provoking muslims to do stupid things is not "giving in" or a "concession of our freedoms". We are clearly allowed to provoke muslims in such a way, and would be just as able if Mohammed day was tomorrow, next year, or never. But doing it is just foolish, it's offensive where it doesn't need to be, and clearly has had grossly negative consequences that really should be prompting a fair few mea culpas from the cheerleaders here.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | May 21, 2010 12:31 PM

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Pussies too afraid to stand up for themselves don't deserve the benefits available in free society. People better learn to defend what we have, or be prepared to lose it little by little.

I say fuck religion. I'm more afraid of being in a world ruled by it, than I am of death.

So I say, bring it on fundamentalist, theistic pussies. I'm ready for ya.

-Kemanorel

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 21, 2010 12:34 PM

GJames @ 65;

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | May 21, 2010 12:36 PM

I can't draw worth a damn, so I went the historical route.

The image of Muhammad being sacrosanct is mostly modern-day bullshit.

Posted by: pete d | May 21, 2010 12:38 PM

@65...concern trolls provoke those of us who believe that concern trolls are offensive.

Posted by: Steve L | May 21, 2010 12:40 PM

@33 -- I didn't complain about anybody else doing it; I just stated my own reasons for not being overly enthused by it. You're free not to share my sentiments. I think that some kind of protest is required and, unfortunately, I don't have a better suggestion for a protest.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/z7tGQscqtZgMnkzj6E99orcztrsnVYfjZgs-#3308a | May 21, 2010 12:47 PM

The silly thing to me is that, according to my understanding, the actual prohibition is supposed to apply to Muslim's only. (It is to prevent them from falling into worshipping Mohammad.) There is a similar Jewish prohibition against portraying G-d. (Even to the extent of not spelling his name in a non-liturgical context.) But one doesn't find Jews, as a rule, getting upset over Christian depictions.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 21, 2010 12:52 PM

@76
Good point. I think both beliefs should be mocked. My main reason for thinking that the prohibition of depictions of Mohammed should be mocked is the aforementioned historical myopia on that subject. But you are correct that the bigger concern is the idea that such a prohibition should apply to non-Muslims. That contemptible notion deserves frequent pubic flogging.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:06 PM

Ah, yes, the old "you're allowed to do that providing you don't actually do it" bit.

No, this is the old "there are some rights you sometimes shouldn't exercise" bit which seems pretty uncontroversial.

Great to see people with such concern about our intellectual integrity can only respond to somebody saying "sometimes we shouldn't be cunts, like when it results in censorship for 170 million people" with accusations about concern trolling.

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 1:07 PM

Answer to why it's necessary to "offend" peaceful and violent muslims alike with pictures of Mo.

Both peaceful and violent muslims have no right or reasonable expectation that anyone else should submit to their rules.

Why are you so worried about offending peaceful muslims? There is no right to "not be offended"

I'm not saying there is a right not to be offended, I'm just saying that it seems like instead of targeting the fringe crazies who actually commit atrocities, this campaign has been mired in its own smug attempts at pissing off everyone.

I know that the rule against depicting Mohammed is silly, and that the death threats about it are ridiculous, but this grandstanding attempt to offend a large group of people about it isn't really the best way to bridge the gaps in our societies (read: make everyone chill the fuck out), is it?

You guys are free to do/draw what you want (and at the very least I'm glad that people aren't just reacting to extremists with more violence, I guess), but the whole thing feels.....arrogant and trite towards an entire people and won't really accomplish anything.

Posted by: Agathodemon | May 21, 2010 1:09 PM

GJames @80

The citizens did not lose any freedom of thought or expression. It merely laid bare the fact that it was an illusion. How is it freedom if you compel or intimidate the rest of the world into self censorship to preserve your "freedom of expression." I think you still have entirely missed the point.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 21, 2010 1:12 PM

Curses! KOPD beat me to it @ 68...

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:13 PM

you fail to see what this is about and see it as simply provocation for no reason other than to provoke.

No I transparently don't. I have not expressed that belief.

Would you still call it unneccessarily provocative to protest this firebombing with a day of "Eat Pork This Saturday"?

Well yes, absolutely of course. Why the hell would I want to react to a small band of extremists by insulting an entire religion? And why the hell would I want to encourage them to commit another firebombing. I'll suggest that there's an alternative here, namely, let the police find them and sort them out, rather than make a stupid little display that will likely lead to more death and damage.

He sees someone elses ham and cheese sandwich, yells at him for insulting his faith and tosses the sandwich in the garbage. Do you think he is right to do that?

No.

Do you think it is unreasonable if the next time you go on a picnic with this group that everyone brings ham sandwiches to show him what an asshole he was for trying to impose the restrictions of his faith on everyone?

Actually, that seems acceptable. Assuming that the worst that could happen is that he throws a ham sandwich on the floor and has a hissy fit, rather than firebombs a supermarket or limits the rights of tens of millions of people. I'm a practical guy.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:22 PM

Wait, the people who use their freedom of speech are responsible for the governments who don't allow it taking it away? Really? Are you actually that fucking stupid or just playing at it?

I'm quite confident everyone involved knew about the Danish cartoon crisis, and what the effects of that little business were, and I'm confident they were smart enough to know that some pretty negative stuff would happen if they decided to pull off an encore. Yet they did it anyway, and though I doubt anyone guessed what the pakistani government would actually do, it's ludicrous to think that they can just wash their hands of this.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 1:26 PM

Yes they did lose freedom of thought and expression. Monday afternoon they could go on youtube and facebook. Now they can't. We're talking about ordinary pakistanis here, the victims of the kind of religious authoritarianism you guys are supposed to be against, not facilitating.

So free speech is anti-free speech.

Got it.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:27 PM

Well, that stupid isn't that stupid apparently. People getting held accountable for making easily avoidable mistakes that they knew the likely consequences of is a done thing (see impeachment campaign, Bush, G.W)

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | May 21, 2010 1:30 PM

Thanks to "action" the Pakistani government got it's excuse to curb freedom of thought and expression. They won. People whose freespeech genuinely is in danger (that ain't you) have lost.

Bullshit. People will find away around that kind of thing. What it does show is how scared their government and religion are of free speech and what it could do to their religious fear hold they have over most people.

It is an access point to speak from. A point to question the government on. Maybe even a rallying point for people to speak out.

Pussies too afraid to stand up for themselves don't deserve the benefits available in free society. People better learn to defend what we have, or be prepared to lose it little by little.

And that's a perfect example.

Yes, it is a perfect example. That's how these things work. You think Islam could, in a single day, take over a country? Fuck no. It starts with small shit... like not showing how stupid religion is in the name of "tolerance" because it might hurt someone's feelings.

Fuck that. That's way beyond tolerance. You can believe whatever fucking thing you want. I don't care, but if you try to take away my right to tell you what a fuck-wit you are for trying to impose your religious morals on other people, we're going to have a problem.

And don't kid yourself. That's exactly what Islam wants. Go look at any country with a significant population of Muslims and look at what they're trying to do politically.

-Kemanorel

Posted by: moochava | May 21, 2010 1:31 PM

GJames reminds me of the sort of person who blames women for getting slapped--as if abusers, whether men with too much rage or fundamentalists with too much political authority--lack all agency and cannot possibly be responsible for what they do.

Blame deflection is always an ugly thing to watch.

Posted by: sqlrob | May 21, 2010 1:34 PM

@GJames:

Kindly explain why non-muslims are in any way bound by the strictures of the muslim faith.

Posted by: robinsrule | May 21, 2010 1:35 PM

Yes they did lose freedom of thought and expression. Monday afternoon they could go on youtube and facebook. Now they can't.

Pakistan has been censoring internet access for years.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:35 PM

So now I'm just listing you guys making up views for me. This is...fun.

So free speech is anti-free speech.

Got it.

No, evidently not. Free speech is free speech, grandstanding about how important free speech is grandstanding about how important free speech is. The latter has led to restrictions on the former, for people who really, really need a voice right now.

if you react to a small group of Christian fundamentalists by pointing out that there is no evidence to justify their faith in god, you are also insulting the entire religion of Christianity. So if you do that, please stop.

Again, not at all what I believe. I really don't want to do the analogy again, but I quite openly said that calling mediums as frauds is perfectly legitimate no matter who you may insult, and that extension applies to calling out christians on aspects of their belief, and indeed pointing out that the fundemental tenets of Islam are false. But there's a big difference between that and being a cunt about other people's beliefs in a completely unneccessary way that results in more harm and violence.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 1:36 PM

Maybe if we make all our women wear Burkas, the pakistani government will be so impressed with our tolerance that they will let people look at facebook again. This totally makes sense!

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | May 21, 2010 1:37 PM

MikeRattlesnake--I think you're confusing "always wrong" with "always unconstitutional." In the U.S., slavery was not always unconstitutional: in fact, the original constitution said that the federal government could do nothing to restrict slavery before a certain date. To outlaw slavery, our forebears had to amend the constitution.

Again, the constitution as written didn't say anything about whether women could vote. The first time the question was even touched on was in the 14th Amendment, which explicitly protected the right to vote of male citizens. In the decades after, some states and territories granted equal suffrage, but to make that a nationwide thing, for all elections, again took a constitutional amendment.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 21, 2010 1:38 PM

*sings to herself*

There's no troll quite like an accommodationist troll... no, none in the world wide web...

I can't believe this one really thinks it's our fault that fundamentalist dictatorships take free speech away from their own people.

Yeah, and it must be our fault that China censors the internet, too. Because err we're not Maoists.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 1:40 PM

It seems that GJames isn't satisfied with just being wrong, he has to be deeply and woefully entrenched in his wrongness to the point of absolute silliness.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 1:42 PM

So now I'm just listing you guys making up views for me. This is...fun.

Your words:

Thanks to "action" the Pakistani government got it's excuse to curb freedom of thought and expression. They won. People whose freespeech genuinely is in danger (that ain't you) have lost.

People exercising their rights cost the Pakistani's theirs. That's what you're saying.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 21, 2010 1:46 PM

What next? Will it be our fault when the Thai government shoots some more Red-shirts?

Probably because we're not, ourselves, Red-shirts.

I'm not very proud of you, GJames. Cause and effect- you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:46 PM

Fuck, I might as well teach you to read.

Thanks to "action" (that's you guys)

the Pakistani government (that's them)

got it's excuse (ah, so this is something it wanted to do, and you guys helped along, rather than outright carried out)

to curb freedom of thought and expression. (this is that ability to go on what websites you like thing, not so much that ability to draw pictures of mohammad fucking a pig thing)

They won.

(That's the pakistani government)

People whose freespeech genuinely is in danger (that ain't you) (ooh already did this one)

have lost. (still ain't you)

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 1:51 PM

@119

How is that any different than what I said?

Posted by: Screechy_Monkey | May 21, 2010 1:52 PM

By the way, I see facebook have taken the original "Draw Mohammed Day" group down. Anyone hear why?

If I recall correctly, the founder of the group changed her mind and decided it was a bad idea.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 1:52 PM

Thanks to "action" (that's you guys)

the Pakistani government (that's them)
got it's excuse (ah, so this is something it wanted to do, and you guys helped along, rather than outright carried out)
to curb freedom of thought and expression. (this is that ability to go on what websites you like thing, not so much that ability to draw pictures of mohammad fucking a pig thing)
They won.
(That's the pakistani government)
People whose freespeech genuinely is in danger (that ain't you) (ooh already did this one)
have lost. (still ain't you)

So, what other freedoms should we not exercise in fear of what a totalitarian government might do to its people?

So if say hello to a pretty lady in the street and her abusing boyfriend has been looking for an excuse to beat her ass, then its my fault?

Posted by: Timberwoof | May 21, 2010 1:52 PM

It's not Matthew Shepherd's fault that Fred Phelps showed up at his funeral and made an ass of himself. It's Fred's fault.

It's not that kid's fault in Florida who got expelled for not eating the communion wafer, it's the fault of the university and the church that got all offended over the incident.

It's not the cartoonist's fault that his house got set on fire, it's the arsonists' fault.

It's not our fault that the Pakistani government banned Internet access to YouTube and Facebook. It's the fault of the Pakistani government.

It's not our fault that radical Islamofascists are throwing tantrums over all the images of Mohammed on the Internet. It's their fault.

It's not our fault that they think their prophet has such a weak ego that he can't survive some provocative ass-hattery. You know the refrain ... it's their fault.

Have you read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Footfall? Some aliens descended of bovines can't figure out human psychology, so they totally botch the invasion, much like the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they throw a huge rock at the Pacific ocean and blame their action on us humans. A human witness to the event on board their ship mocks them, speaking in a childlike voice, "Look what you made me do!" It wasn't the humans' fault that the mother of all tsunamis destroyed all the cities on the Pacific Rim ... that was the aliens' fault. Kill 'em all, every last calf!

To any Muslim angered by those silly drawings and thinking of blowing something up, burning something down, or killing someone over it ... grow up or spend the rest of your life in hell.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 1:55 PM

@121

Well the whole thing is clearly true (including the annotations) and against like, the argument you're making, so I thought you must have misunderstood me. Then again, it's kinda hard to spot the argument in here, what with all the completely made up accusations that I'm just a troll, and the pretty explicit and dishonest mischaracterisations of what I'm saying. I kinda sat on this page for a bit and started writing without refreshing, so if there's been a whole host of new accusations about how my belief that we should try not to take action that everyone knows is going to have some pretty nasty consequences and how we should be held accountable if we do logically entails that I think all women should be made to wear the Burka. Would not surprise me.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 21, 2010 1:57 PM

So, because GJames asserts over and over that something "we" did turned a repressive, top-heavy regime into a slightly more repressive, top-heavy regime, we're supposed to just accept that this is true? What exactly was it that "we" did? What proof do you have that there's any relationship between cartoons in Western countries and what an oppressive fundamentalist regime does to its own people?

I've heard more convincing, logical, substantive arguments from 6-year-olds.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 1:58 PM

we're not making up things you believe, we're extrapolating your beliefs to show how silly they are. You are wrong, get over it.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 2:00 PM

@128 Okay, here's my bet. I bet £50 that some trolls drawing pictures of Mohammed on Facebook is not going to be the beginning of the end for decades of one dictatorship and pseudo-democracy after the next for the Pakistanis. In fact I think it will be entirely inconsequential, except for the immediate increase of censorship of the internet (which is itself part of a nothing-to-do-with-you-guys trend towards even more religious authoritarianism).

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 2:01 PM

Well the whole thing is clearly true (including the annotations) and against like, the argument you're making, so I thought you must have misunderstood me.

Really. You're blaming ("thanks to 'action'") the people who drew Mohammed for "giving the Pakistani government an excuse" to shut off access to Facebook, and that's what I'm saying you're doing. Sounds to me like we're in perfect agreement. Except for the part that what you're saying is wrong.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 2:02 PM

I kinda sat on this page for a bit and started writing without refreshing, so if there's been a whole host of new accusations about how my belief that we should try not to take action that everyone knows is going to have some pretty nasty consequences and how we should be held accountable if we do logically entails that I think all women should be made to wear the Burka. Would not surprise me.

Oh look you made your very own strawman.

Look how cute it is.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 2:04 PM

@139, meet @107

Posted by: Armand K. | May 21, 2010 2:05 PM

@GJames, #119
They were only looking for an excuse. If it weren't for the "draw Muhhamad", they'd have found something else... Like Iran, which didn't need this particular excuse to ban most relevant social networking sites and filter all Internet traffic.

It's exactly like communists banning Western magazines and literature in all the Warsaw Treaty block; or like communists banning many US and European sites in China.

Are we supposed to set freedom of expression standard to the levels demanded by Kim Ir Sen, the Komintern and the Ayatollah?

Posted by: naddyfive | May 21, 2010 2:05 PM

I guess it's Pamela Anderson's fault- probably my fault to, I'm wearing pretty tight jeans- that women in the middle East get stoned to death after they're raped.

We should all change our behaviors to accommodation fundamentalists fascists. That'll show em! That'll help! If we don't, it's certainly *our* fault when those same fundamentalist fascists oppress their own people.

Posted by: mfd512 | May 21, 2010 2:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

One thing I havent seen mentioned here today perhaps it was in the past, is in the aftermath of the cartoons some Imams went on an outrage-tour and showed at least 3 images that were never published in Denmark. Scroll down in the wiki link to 'Imams tour Middle East'

Ive read a few comments in this thread of folks who didnt participate (I didnt, laziness) because they didnt want to side with racist right wingers race baiters. Id like to hear from these folks what they think these particular Imams were doing.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 2:08 PM

Oh, thank god for this djstryfeo6 guy. I'm off. Have fun mate.

and ... Drama Queen Exit ... and scene! Cut! Print it. That's a wrap!

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 21, 2010 2:09 PM

@136

It's a show of solidarity with those who have been threatened, hurt, or killed. I'm glad I live in a place where I am unlikely to face that sort of oppression, but there's nothing wrong with standing next to those who do.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 2:12 PM

@128 Okay, here's my bet. I bet £50 that some trolls drawing pictures of Mohammed on Facebook is not going to be the beginning of the end for decades of one dictatorship and pseudo-democracy after the next for the Pakistanis. In fact I think it will be entirely inconsequential, except for the immediate increase of censorship of the internet (which is itself part of a nothing-to-do-with-you-guys trend towards even more religious authoritarianism).

You're all over the place GJames. Stay on target.

So, our actions are the cause of an already oppressive government acting out oppressively?

And in order to protest the denial of rights to the oppressed we should in turn limit the very right that is being oppressed.

Lets see. So the Civil Rights workers from the north in the 60's should have kept their mouths shut because in the short term it might have caused some increased crackdown on African Americans in the south?

Posted by: Timberwoof | May 21, 2010 2:16 PM

If you draw a picture of Mohammed, you'll end up worshipping it instead of the Real Thing.

This is the same sort of reason why Protestants have crosses instead of crucifixes and why their churches are generally so bare compared to Catholic ones: A crucifix (a cross with a statue of Jesus on it) is a prayer-magnet that prevents the prayers from reaching the actual target, Jesus himself.

And so a picture of Mohammed is also a prayer-magnet. Your prayers get trapped in it.

That's why the Taliban blew up all those giant Buddha statues in Afganistan. Apparently they wanted the prayers of the secret Buddhists to go directly to Buddha instead of to those statues. (The Dalai Lama laughed at them and called them idiots for doing that. He said they destroyed a lot of potential tourism income.)

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | May 21, 2010 2:17 PM

#155

Oh yes PZ, you see, every time someone draws a picture of Mohammed, it kills one of the Storm Troopers on the Allahstar.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 2:25 PM

Thinking about it, it seems to me that GJames is making an analogy between Draw Mohammed Day, and baiting a misogynistic wife-abuser with displays of female assertiveness. You may have fun taunting him with your short skirts, foul mouth, and aggressive insults -- but then he goes home, and beats his long-suffering wife out of frustration and fear that someday she, too, may become like you.

Think of the wife. Tone it down, or cut it out, because what you do in the safe, well-lit public bar, will have ugly repercussions behind closed doors, at the end of the day, for someone else who has no power.

Now, the argument itself makes sense, if this is a reasonable analogy. But I don't think it is.

Because the "abused wife" is spread out over too many people, and the closed door is not closed.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 2:29 PM

The Pakistani people did not lose their freedom of speech this week. They were just reminded by their government that they never had it to begin with.

QFT

My problem is that I don't see how any form of protest against religious censorship in the US could be considered a bad thing. We're talking about a whole bunch of people standing up and saying, you know what, you can threaten all the violence you like, but we aren't going to obey your bullshit rules.

And why the hell shouldn't we offend as many religious people as we can for believing stupid shit? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that saying we have the right to do something but being too cowardly to do it is in any way equivalent to actually going out and doing it.

Why the hell would I want to react to a small band of extremists by insulting an entire religion? And why the hell would I want to encourage them to commit another firebombing.

Because when you make the rest of the religion recognize that the extremists are fuck ups, more of the moderates will come out against them. Because when no one is afraid of the terrorism, their tactics no longer work. Because ridicule is the most effective way of destroying a group.

Did you ever read about what destroyed the KKK? Superman. Superman fought the KKK on his radio show and released all their secrets and then even little children were making fun of the KKK. When people's instinct is to laugh, not to be afraid, the bad guys lose.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 2:32 PM

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that saying we have the right to do something but being too cowardly to do it is in any way equivalent to actually going out and doing it.

This.

"We're not afraid of you, we just don't want to draw Mohammed right now. But we could if we wanted to," doesn't have the same impact.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 21, 2010 2:34 PM

GJames;

Yes they did lose freedom of thought...

Oh Noes! The Pakistani government has invented mind control! Run, run for your lives...

We're talking about ordinary pakistanis here, the victims of the kind of religious authoritarianism you guys are supposed to be against, not facilitating.

So, opposing restriction of free speach is facilitating... restriction of free speach? Back in the real world, self-censorship rarely achieves positive ends. It validates the idea of Islamist militants and other oppressive types that their religious laws apply to everyone.

Free speech is free speech, grandstanding about how important free speech is grandstanding about how important free speech is.

Where, exactly, did you establish that the Draw Mohammed Day event was an example of the latter, not the former? Simply stating that this is so is unsufficient, unless you are the benevolent spirit of teh intertoobs who is empowered to infallibly and unilaterally decide which forms of free expression are valid?

Could it be...? All hail GJames! Sole arbiter of legitimate argument. Final authority on when you should exercise your freedoms. Most benificent
Lord of teh Intertoobs!

Kneel before you (discursive) god! *Goa'ould eye-flash*

But there's a big difference between that and being a cunt about other people's beliefs in a completely unneccessary way that results in more harm and violence.

So, how exactly does using a term offensive to women help strengthen your argument, or is the misogyny a freebie? You get a free sample with your order or condescending babble.

I'm proud of you, rationalists.

The funny part is that you actually believe that any of us care about your approval, or its absence. You have quite the ego there, don't you buddy?

Posted by: robinsrule | May 21, 2010 2:48 PM

djstryfe06:

...I highly doubt they are being subjected to any real threat of having their rights taken away.

Not true. Civil rights are constantly under attack, in the US see the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, the misuse of National Security Letters, the list goes on and on.

Posted by: JJ | May 21, 2010 2:53 PM

Anyone know how this was perceived throughout the world?

Posted by: Zaphod | May 21, 2010 3:13 PM

Anyone else reminded of the cliche scene in movies? The one where the bad guy was trying to hold back an entire crowd with a gun and the little old lady in front said "it'll take more than one bullet to stop me, buster."

We are the crowd.

The bad guy is the violent Islamic group.

The cartoons are us stating in unison to the lone maniac "you don't have enough bullets to stop all of us."

...and I suppose to fill out the analogy completely, Jyllands-Posten is the little old lady in front saying it'll take two bullets to bring me down.

Posted by: MarkL | May 21, 2010 3:21 PM

I cannot believe the accomodationist rhetoric I'm seeing, especially at CNN.
Several people at CNN commented, to paraphrase, that people drawing these figures deserve whatever response they get.
Ugh

Posted by: Galahad Threepwood | May 21, 2010 3:32 PM

I think the people who warn against provoking Muslim fundamentalists fail to understand the implications of their warning. They're essentially saying that fundamentalists can't control themselves, that their only choice is to respond violently to these pictures. According to this line of thinking, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians are capable of responding to slights against their religions calmly and rationally, but Muslims can't help but fly off the handle. For all our sakes, I hope they're wrong. In any event, we don't do ourselves any favors by submitting to violence and coercion--we only ensure that those methods will be used again. If we really support freedom of speech and expression, and want them to continue to flourish, we have to show these religious fanatics, clearly and unmistakably, that they cannot compel the rest of the world to follow their rules.

Posted by: Numad | May 21, 2010 3:37 PM

Rey Fox, 64:

"I know, that's why I tried to make mine as inoffensive as possible."

I've said it before, but I thought that was essential to the exercise. That a muslim would get offended by Mohammed being drawn as a coprophiliac necromancer with a compulse longing for sheep doesn't mean the same thing than a muslim getting offended by a random neutral representation of Mohammed.

I'm not saying that muslims threatening or performing violence in reaction to the former wouldn't also be 100% reprehensible, but I felt that the opportunity there was to surgically target intolerance and disrespect for other people's rights by rejecting a demand that would have been unreasonable even without the violence.

Posted by: Numad | May 21, 2010 3:40 PM

That should be "compulsive." I'm not sure what a "compulse" would be. Some kind of acolyte?

Posted by: Zaphod | May 21, 2010 3:45 PM

Thought this might get the point across to those in the audience who still don't get the point.

We're not going to take it anymore.

Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto | May 21, 2010 3:48 PM

A Facebook post by SSA quotes Greg Epstein as saying "two wrongs don't make a right", although Epstein fails to even attempt to make a case for how "drawing a picture" somehow could be [morally] "wrong". While it is good that he at least admits that Islamofascist censorship is wrong, I hope that someday soon he can muster the brainpower to comprehend that of the two claims "it is okay to draw Muhammed", and "it is not okay to draw Muhammed", one of them must be false and one of them must be true, meaning that his claim about "two wrongs" must itself be false.

Re: several comments pointing out how futile Internet censorship is, reminds me of the quote "The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it" (John Perry Barlow).

#127: Excellent, poignant Footfall reference.

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 3:59 PM

Anri @ #178:

Please Google "Texas State Board of Education".

And not to make too fine a point here, but why do you think our rights are more secure in 'positions of Western privilige'? Because we insisted on exercising them? Or because we avoided doing so?

I understand all of this, hence my correction at post #174.

Posted by: Leon | May 21, 2010 4:13 PM

Unbelievable, isn't it? First Christians try to taunt us by claiming we only make fun of them because we're afraid to ridicule Islam, then they get all huffy when we do just that.

I suppose, given their frequent outbursts of such fatwa envy, I should have expected they'd find they have more in common with extremist Islam than they wanted anyone to know.

Posted by: Zaphod | May 21, 2010 4:27 PM

tsg

Not for nothing, but the two responses I've seen in movies to defeat this tactic have been "No, I don't, so who wants to be first?" and [bad guy singling out leader] "If anybody moves, I'm shooting you."

But, like all analogies, this is where it falls apart.

But those aren't analogous situations: the mob isn't threatening violence on anyone, only the bad guy. However, in the counteractions to the tactic tsg noted involved shifting the victim of the violence from the instigator to the innocent.

In the case of the cartoons, the religious zealots have, to their... I hate to say 'credit' but... at least they are only threatening violence on those that commit the offense, and NOT some innocent party.

But apparently we have people in here saying we should just do as the mad man with the gun says because he might hurt the hostage, the hostage being.... who exactly? The Pakistani people?

So the nutjobs are threatening to kill those who break their rules, nut threatening to kill innocent people BECAUSE someone else broke them.

So how many times has it got to be repeated?!

WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO YOUR RULES!!!

Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 21, 2010 4:33 PM

Thanks to "action" the Pakistani government got it's excuse to curb freedom of thought and expression. They won.

no, the government won a short battle but will lose in the long run. It is my understanding that plenty of Pakistanis are annoyed at their government. Pakistan does, more or less, have elections. This is the kind of action that may stir moderates to act, and perhaps become part of the government.

Maybe it won't, but it's still worth the try.

And a few million Farmville farms will suffer for free speech.

Minnesota professor are doing so from a position of Western privilege where I highly doubt they are being subjected to any real threat of having their rights taken away.

That's what Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie thought too.

Posted by: Dahan | May 21, 2010 4:44 PM

All I see in my head when I read the bullshit about how drawing Mohammed incites radical and violent behavior is a man shouting at his wife who's cowering in the corner "Why do you keep making me hit you!!!"

Well fuck off! Your fucking ignorant bullshit ideas about being PC do nothing but help continue the problems of intolerance. Stand up and act like a god-damned intelligent lover of freedom and rationality instead of a weak-kneed quivering mouse who's afraid to take a stance for what's so obviously right. I joined the Marines years ago so people like you could feel safe exercising your rights, now fucking use them!

If you don't like having rights, by all means, keep not using them. They tend to go away after a while if you do that.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 21, 2010 4:48 PM

Yes, they really think of themselves as robots who can't help but resort to assaults when their set rules are violated.

Posted by: Zaphod | May 21, 2010 4:55 PM

What is astounding to me is GJames is wringing his/her hands over the Pakistani people losing what they never EVER had.

GJames, violent fanatics are threatening EVERYONE'S LIVES here. Including you and me.

EVERYONE is being threatened with DEATH, if they so much as doodle a Mo on their trapper-keeper.

EVERYONE!

And when people have the courage to defy that kind of threat by doing the very thing they are saying they will KILL us for doing, you bitch and moan about a completely independent third party totalitarian regime acting like... a totalitarian regime.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 4:55 PM

GJames #192 wrote:

3. Making a point about how in the west we're allowed to draw muhammed copulating with barnyard animals was really not worth these repercussions, which have now actually meant more religious authoritarianism and less free speech for precisely those who really are at risk.

A question: I made an analogy at #161, and suggested that you would find it an appropriate comparison -- do you?

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 4:59 PM

Re: #195 -

Oh no guys, a Marine "defended our freedoms," everything he says must be taken for truth and we oughta start drawing more bearded stick figures from the comfort of our homes. That is literally the ONLY way to take a stance on this issue because otherwise, you're just a shaking coward!

Posted by: paulb1257 | May 21, 2010 5:09 PM

If we could all just respect Islam and strive hard not cause offense we would soon end up like this.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Assets/islam_taleban_beat_women.jpg

I guess those disrespectful women should have dressed more modestly so as not to offend the poor "man" with the stick.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 5:16 PM

The Pakistani Government has used this incident to justify increased and very real censorship on the pakistani people.

you're an idiot.

If it wasn't the excuse of the drawings, it would have been some other excuse.

all this did was highlight the underlying problem.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:18 PM

There's a really good post by Daniel Davies which he made about the Danish Cartoons thing. I think if anything the Danish Cartoonists had a little more going for them, given that they it would have been (marginally) harder to guess what happened next. http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2006/02/anglo-saxon-death-cult-assuming-that.html

Oh, @201, no. Sorry, not that I think it wouldn't be worthwhile. It's pretty late and I think that writing a response to you would mean a few more responses after that to some really banal comments, and frankly I've had a lot to do today and I'm not really up for a a 1400 word essay or experimental proof or whatever is needed to establish that the things I have stated as clearly as possible do not in fact entail that segregation should still be around (or w/e @198s on about.) Though for the record, I would note that it was civil rights workers who suffered in their own struggle, not some poor people a thousand miles away, and that they did it with concrete aims and made concrete gains, which weren't at odds with their rhetoric.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:27 PM

I think that writing a response to you would mean a few more responses after that to some really banal comments,

There is only one sick fuck here and that is you. Why don't you respect our beliefs?

Well QED and goodnight.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 21, 2010 5:31 PM

RE: #15

This page gives a breakdown of the menorah story -

http://www.religioustolerance.org/menorah.htm

Margaret McDonald, executive director of the Montana Association of Churches, read of the incident in the local newspaper. She imagined what it would be like to have to tell her own children that they could not have a Christmas tree or a Christmas wreath because it might cause an attack on their home. She recalled an event in Denmark during World War II when the Nazis ordered all of the Jews in the country to wear a yellow Star of David so that they could be easily identified. The King of Denmark and many of its non-Jewish citizens took the initiative of wearing a yellow star themselves. The Nazis were unable to easily identify the Jews.

Posted by: Zaphod | May 21, 2010 5:33 PM

Wait a second... isn't this whole Pakistan censorship a GOOD thing? I mean, you keep telling us that innocent muslims are being offended by these cartoons, so since pakistan is our ally and all (and if they're our allies then they MUST be the good non-violent kind of muslims, right?) shouldn't the fact that they are shielding the eyes of their populace from these wicked, offensive images be just what these accomidationalists want to happen?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 21, 2010 5:37 PM

Well QED and goodnight.

Funny how concern trolls have no problem slagging others but when others slag them with their own words... OH NOES!!!

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:40 PM

And aratina, the big difference again obviously is I had that whole business about one of you guys claiming I was logically a rape apologist, where as you just threw out the "sick fuck" insult for god knows why, hence, banal.

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:46 PM

right, so you don't feel the need to defend with evidence your poorly thought-out statements.

Of course, you clip about the rest of the sentence, where it's revealed I'm making a comment about the most banal, mindless accusations made. I actually have responded at length to criticism made, even on a few occasions when did amount to more or less saying that if I were only a bit more consistent, I would want my girlfriend forced into a burka.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 5:47 PM

There's a moron here, but it's not me.

but I actually, get this, actually grasp that the cartoons weren't specifically directed against Pakistan.

Yet you still blame people drawing cartoons not directed in anyway what so ever at pakistan for what Pakistan does to its people.

It's like blaming Matt Groening for offending a parent who then beats the shit of of his kid who was watching the Simpsons.

Really, it's exactly that fucking ridiculous and exactly that devoid of logical thinking.

And you still can not grasp the fucking point that this

You guys on the other stand sit at home drawing nasty little cartoons, and then claim moral purity when millions of foreigners who had absolutely nothing to do with your petty squabbles have to suffer for it, despite warnings and the fact that it was absolutely obvious that something like this would be the result.

Has nothing to do with drawing cartoons. It has to do with a oppressive government doing what it does best. Oppressing people regardless of what the world does.

You incredible fucking dumbass.

Posted by: emujoe | May 21, 2010 5:49 PM

I couldn't draw to save my life, but I've enjoyed this project and all the banter it's caused. Maybe next year's Draw Mohammed Day will be much clearer.

By the way, I could never understand how so many muslims could call themselves Mohammed without offending someone, seeing that they are a bunch of dickheads.

Posted by: irenedelse | May 21, 2010 5:51 PM

There was at least one gloriously hilarious outcome of this Draw Muhammad Day. As Cory Doctorow tweeted this morning:

Someone asked me for a "Drama Hobbit" in his book at the signing. I obliged with a doodle, then discovered he'd said "Draw Mohammed."

Who knows? Maybe GJames et al. are a bunch of drama hobbits?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 5:52 PM

Not to mention your outright strawman that #107 said that you personally favored women having to wear Burkas.

It did not in any way. And your little logical fail is a sure sign of your dishonest way of arguing.

I thought you were leaving?

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:54 PM

No ashley, that's not my argument. You named a number of cases where there are concrete gains either way. There it's really a matter of looking into the long terms, and thinking about the compromise we have to make. Here, we could make an entirely empty gesture and cost people completely unrelated to us their rights, or we could not. We did. I think it was the bad decision, and we should bear some responsibility. From, this, comes...

the proof that GJames is utterly clueless is that he can't accurately characterize our argument.

You, and your argument.

Maybe if we make all our women wear Burkas, the pakistani government will be so impressed with our tolerance that they will let people look at facebook again. This totally makes sense!

I don't think anyone can even remember where this shit was coming from.

Posted by: irenedelse | May 21, 2010 5:56 PM

@ moochava #99, @ Sastra #161, @ ashleyfmiller #220:

I don't know how many Internets you already have won, but boy, do you deserve to get one more, all new and sniny!

Posted by: GJames | May 21, 2010 5:57 PM

Yes Brownian, one bloke getting socked absolutely makes up for more authoritarianism in Pakistan. We westerners have really born this burden.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 5:58 PM

No ashley, that's not my argument.

your argument was that this did more harm than good, and that it was ill-thought out action by a bunch of people that wouldn't be affected by it.

both contentions are proven wrong, yet you still maintain it.

this about sums it up?

you have something to clarify?

no?

bye.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | May 21, 2010 6:00 PM

GJames: The counterpoint was transparently that the big difference between civil rights movement and whatever these idiots are calling themselves is that the people who took part in civil rights actually went out, fought the establishment and took the pounding for it.

It's not about them -- it's about YOU and the rationalization of the status quo.

As I pointed out, 70% of Americans felt the same way about the Riders -- that they shouldn't have "caused trouble", that "blacks were going to pay the price".

It's irrelevant that the Riders got killed for this case, because it's about YOU rationalizers who, without a price being paid by you one way or the other, go on crying about the price paid by the "poor suffering people of X".

That's fucking arrogant, elitist, and subtly racist. The Pakistani nation doesn't need YOU defending them. The question isn't whether YOU think the price is too high -- the only people who have an argument here would be Pakistanis requesting that folks in the West hold their tongues while they work.

So, G, what have YOU done to "free the Pakistani people"?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 21, 2010 6:00 PM

Oh Noes, our Pearl Clutcher Accommodationist™ is back. Still not saying anything cogent, but just expressing unwanted and will be unheeded concern about our tone. Maybe he needs to take a good look at his tone, and his failure to show us the proper respect before he condemns anything...

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 6:02 PM

You named a number of cases where there are concrete gains either way. There it's really a matter of looking into the long terms, and thinking about the compromise we have to make. Here, we could make an entirely empty gesture and cost people completely unrelated to us their rights, or we could not. We did. I think it was the bad decision, and we should bear some responsibility.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how exercising my freedom of speech and calling out for an end to censorship because of terrorism is an empty gesture. I don't think that there are any compromises that need to be made, some things are wrong, and murdering people for disagreeing with you is wrong. The gain here is a whole lot of people saying that freedom of speech is more important than being afraid.

And, as I said earlier, the KKK was defeated by ridicule, why not the Muslim extremists? Your opinion that there is no gain is just that, an opinion. One that is not, by the way, backed up with any proof. And again, it didn't cost Pakistan anything that it hadn't already lost. Your argument fails completely by not acknowledging that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 6:04 PM

I said, again and again and again that the the implication is that this is an entailment or rather a reductio of my view.

you missed the point, again, and not unexpectedly.

it was a deliberate reduction of your argument, because yours was an absurd reduction argument to begin with.

sorry, no, you fail.

Sastra nailed what was wrong with your argument way back at 161, and you have done nothing to correct that since.

all you've done is flail and wail.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 6:06 PM

@irenedelse #233

This is the first internet I've won. I'd like to thank the academy, and our dear host, and viewers like you ;)

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | May 21, 2010 6:11 PM

Anyway, I'll just have to take consolation in the fact that I'm not wrong. F**k it feels good.

I have heard tell that unfounded delusions of superiority often do "feel good", right up until reality rains on your self-obsessed parade.

You say that we are irresponsibly harming the interests of the citizens of Pakistan, by implication casting yourself as... what? The voice of the moral high ground? The only one concerned with the 'greater good'? And then we see this display of self-congratulatory back-patting.

Seems to me you care more about your own sense of moral superiority than the actual oppression of the people of Pakistan or anyone else.

Rationalism 101; it is always possible that you are wrong. If the evidence does not support your contention, then it is time to change your mind.

Posted by: Christopher | May 21, 2010 6:16 PM

There are still people who can't grasp what "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" was all about?

Please don't respond unless you clearly understand these three points:

1) No one has to respect anyone else's religious beliefs.
2) Because your religious beliefs dictate something shouldn't be done, does not mean that I cannot do that something if it harms no one.
3) You cannot threaten harm or death to keep me from doing that something.

The point of the day was to show that all three are correct. Drawing Muhammed harms no one. Being offended is not harm. Suck it up.

And the day proved its point. Muslim extremists could not threaten to kill or harm thousands of people. Instead they did what is typical of delusional religious zealots when they don't want to see something: they censored it. Just like evangelical nutters who don't like a book and get the school/library/etc. to ban it, make sure ISPs in your country do not allow people to view Facebook, Youtube, Wikipedia and hundreds of other sites.

Muslim extremists used to suppressing other people's rights by threatening harm or death found that their threats were no longer going to work on such a level. Too many people showed that intimidation just will not work in modern civilizations.

As a friend of mine clearly put it, you can either join the modern world and accept that others just don't accept your beliefs, or you can wall yourself off from the rest of us and pretend we don't exist.

There is just no option to make the rest of the world accept one interpretation of a religious belief.

If you still think EDMD was about offending people, either you have a severe handicap with comprehension, or you hold on to an invalid belief and facts be damned.

Posted by: speedweasel | May 21, 2010 6:22 PM

FWIW, I draw a picture of Muhammad every night before I go to bed and have done so for the past 10 years. I have a whole room full of images of the prophet. I've never told anyone and I keep the room locked but Allah must know and he's never punished me and obviously he's never told any Muslims so I figure he's not that fussed about it.

Posted by: Shala | May 21, 2010 6:29 PM

GJames, you seem really mad.

u mad?

I think you should just admit that you said something dumb. You're really letting your ego get in the way of things, and you're starting to break down.

I don't think people are going to think less of you if you just admit that drawing Moo-ham-ed really isn't that bad.

It's pretty rare for a concern troll to do that, too. Consider it for a bit, since you don't seem to be going to sleep anytime soon.

Join the dark side. We have cookies.

Posted by: Christopher | May 21, 2010 6:36 PM

@Ashley 254
I don't single out Muslims for that reason. *No one* is a special class who gets special censorship rights that no one else has. Someone commented on my Muhammed drawing elsewhere that it seemed unfair that people are trying to offend Muslims. I pointed out that if any other religious extremists tried to quell freedoms of others based on their religious beliefs, I would be doing something similar to show how wrong they were.

The moment Eastern Orthodox Christians threaten to crucify anyone who depicts Jesus as anything more than an abstraction, I'll be drawing Jesus and posting him on my gallery, too.

Posted by: Christopher | May 21, 2010 6:41 PM

@Sastra 256:
The government of Pakistan did not arbitrarily censor Facebook. Citizens of that country took their complaints to the courts, who ruled that the site had to be blocked. The government complied.

People who live in these countries that allow such censorship aren't innocent. They allow their government to give preference to vocal minorities. They can move, they can change their government, etc.

Or, as many people in China do, use proxies.

But you seem to be blaming the victims for the problems of the abusers. Why should anyone allow their freedoms to be suppressed because others will do irrational things? Blame the irrational, not the people who show that they're irrational.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 6:51 PM

@Christopher

Yes, but in this case Comedy Central, and others, are guilty of segregating Muslims as a special class. They've gotten threats from other groups and still aired things that offended them (Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists) but if there's a Muslim threat they pull it.

But yes, I agree that the principle is that offending someone's religion isn't something that should be censored. But the protest is also specifically about Muslims getting special treatment when they make a threat. In a weird way, it's about equality.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 6:53 PM

Religions can change due to outside pressure.

Used to be, Pastafarians insisted that you had to dress like a pirate, to talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be blessed by His noodly appendage.) Those who didn't, were going to be forbidden from eating meatballs with their pasta. This went for everyone.

Bullshit, we said. Bullshit. We went out and talked up a storm re the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and wore no pirate hats. No buccaneer pantaloons. Not even a damn eye patch. And we used whatever damn dialect we wanted. Pidgin, Inuit, High German -- hell, we even used the strange dialect of Darnassian -- and we ate meatballs. Buckets of them.

The threats stopped. Pastafarians don't even bring it up anymore. In fact, they erased the entire sacred and holy requirement from their records, and the records of the internet. Including the wayback machine. Pretend it never happened.

Such tales of victory are now spread only by word of mouth. I know this, because I was there. I saw. I also made it up. But that's not the important part.

The important part is, that it worked.

Aaaarrrr.

Posted by: Zoot Capri | May 21, 2010 6:56 PM

After reading every last post, I agree with the consensus that you can't let the bullies win! You also can't expect people to go along with your nut case religious beliefs. So I will NOT be wearing a burka (? what ever that thing is women wear on their head and bodies) any time soon, and bring on the cartoons of Mohamed, the one PZ posted was funny.

Posted by: Christopher | May 21, 2010 7:03 PM

@Ashley 261:
But that has nothing to do with anything I've said. What Comedy Central, a private company, does has no bearing on what EDMD is about, or why it's important for people to engage in its activities.

All beliefs which are used to suppress others should be shown to be what they are: ridiculously stupid. Stand up to the bullies. Make them cower in fear of how many more there are of rational people than them.

Religious beliefs. Cultural beliefs. Sexual beliefs. Whatever they are, no one else needs to respect them. Especially when they infringe the rights of others.

Posted by: llewelly | May 21, 2010 7:12 PM

Sastra | May 21, 2010 6:53 PM:

The threats stopped. Pastafarians don't even bring it up anymore. In fact, they erased the entire sacred and holy requirement from their records, and the records of the internet. Including the wayback machine. Pretend it never happened

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 7:21 PM

And now, with GJames' second drama queen exit, it becomes increasingly obvious his argument is just another "cracker is theft": having already decided to be pissed off about the denigration of another religion, he seeks to find some reason, any reason, to maintain that outrage. Surprised? I think not.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 7:32 PM

@AJ Milne OM

Your concern is noted :D

Posted by: kb | May 21, 2010 8:17 PM

#257: "The moment Eastern Orthodox Christians threaten to crucify anyone who depicts Jesus as anything more than an abstraction, I'll be drawing Jesus and posting him on my gallery, too."

Yes, yes, and yes! It is considered wrong to depict Jesus, but the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD is still allowed to do so. But moderate Muslims do not have the right to dictate everyone's actions any more than the extremists do.

The only reason we're probably allowed to depict Jesus is that there was a church split and the ability is protected by another religion that became powerful. Non-religious people are being told their opinions and actions are futile and useless simply because they don't have the force of a magical being dictating their actions. I think free speech is important enough to make its protection a moral imperative. An imperative equal to or greater than that of the zeal of believers.

Posted by: speedweasel | May 21, 2010 8:20 PM

Anyway, I'll just have to take consolation in the fact that I'm not wrong. Fuck it feels good.

I'd say that you are 'not manifestly wrong.'

Posted by: Lotharloo | May 21, 2010 8:25 PM

I see the point behind the draw Muhammad day and I laugh with others about it. However, I do not participate because that sort of thing is not my type. I am not an offensive person and I do not understand where does the dogma of "ridicule is the best weapon" comes from as it is certainly not something backed by any sort of evidence.

Furthermore, while I would strongly criticize the religious beliefs of my friends, I would not go out of my way to insult their beliefs. So I do not see why I should participate in this event. I get the free-speech point but I simply choose not to exercise it.

Posted by: speedweasel | May 21, 2010 8:29 PM

I do not understand where does the dogma of "ridicule is the best weapon" comes from as it is certainly not something backed by any sort of evidence

You sound certain about that...

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 8:36 PM

I see the point behind the draw Muhammad day

Apparently, you don't.

I am not an offensive person and I do not understand where does the dogma of "ridicule is the best weapon" comes from as it is certainly not something backed by any sort of evidence.

This, right here, is what leads me to believe you don't get it. I would say "scroll up if you're interested why," but if you were interested, you'd have read it already.

Furthermore, while I would strongly criticize the religious beliefs of my friends, I would not go out of my way to insult their beliefs.

When your friends are threatening to kill you for drawing a picture, the comparison might make sense. Until then, it's got fuck all to do with it.

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2010 8:40 PM

Lotharloo:

while I would strongly criticize the religious beliefs of my friends, I would not go out of my way to insult their beliefs.

For many, criticism of their beliefs is insulting their beliefs — i.e. they're the ones who decide whether they consider it insulting, not you.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 8:44 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought that.

a certain age bracket...

:)

"Look! Out in the audience.... PEOPLE!"

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 21, 2010 8:53 PM

@AJ Milne OM # 272:

Thank you for bolstering my simple philosophy. You seem to agree, I assume from your implications, that life is tough and there are few sure things, even fewer guarantees. I go a step further and say that life, with all its trappings of tech and sophistication (not to dis either one as some do when threatened by some goofball rumor that, say, Venter's spawn will eat the whole earth!) that life is still essentially a bare knuckle affair. There has been a lot of struggle and some intense battles between my mother's breast and today. Mixed with myriad things wonderful, don't you know? I'm not complaining, I'm explaining.

While I have been honored and increased by knowing many kind and wise people who count for much of my current state, I have known my share of assholes, too.

The first stage of resisting any kind of threat to life, liberty, the perffuit of happiness and the right to come and go and speak at will and all that follows is to name the threat.

If it is a bully, its name is Bully.
If it is an apologist for service to both a separate dogma and the Constitution then its name is Liar.
If it is both and involves religious confession and ritual then its name is Idiot.

To be reluctant to call something by the name it deserves is as irresponsible as creating a name for something that it does not deserve. As in peddling and politicking and preaching. The former requires a depth of character far deeper than any of the latter and involves an honest regard for reality (read: human nature and all that other stuff) and honest and original speech. Original in the sense that it is not identical with some separate dogma. Key point in the story of civilization. I think. ;^>

Hello. My name is Crudely Wrott.

Posted by: Anri | May 21, 2010 9:10 PM

I'm not sure at all how these entail that I think all women should be dressed in Burkas

Well, on the quite possible chance that GJames hasn't finished rubbing himself all over this thread...

Yes, I made that parallel waaaay back up at #116, where I asked you if you thought that women in the US were responsible for dress codes being enforced in Islamic countries.
And if so, how that was different from cartoons being drawn in the US being responsible for the shutting down of the internet in Pakistan.

As far as I can tell, you never actually bothered to, yannow, answer the freakin' question!

So, if that was too complex for you, I'll spell it out:
1) People somewhere do something utterly within their basic rights that fanatics dislike (wear short skirts/draw Mohammad cartoons).
2) These fanatics then do something nasty to some else near them with less power, and blame it on the people in point 1 (punish women for showing skin/shut down Facebook access).
Do you agree with the fanatics' assessment of the situation?
Are the people in point 1 responsible for what the people in point 2 did?
Or are the people in point 2 responsible for what the people in point 2 did?

Could the Pakistani government have 'restrained itself'?
Or are them dumb furrinerz all too stupid/childish/(insert adjective here) to do so?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 21, 2010 9:23 PM

proof reading fail again

"To be willing to call something by the name it deserves is responsible to the degree that creating a name for something that it does not deserve is irresponsible."

I apologize for the error which occurred while considering a previous error only peripherally related to the subject at hand. The problem has been addressed and will probably reoccur without warning.

maybe I need new glasses.
No. proofread slower!

Posted by: Kraid | May 21, 2010 9:34 PM

Large quantities of win detected in this sector, captain.

Not much to add that hasn't been said already. We draw Muhammads not to be jerks or to offend people needlessly. We draw them to show that freedom of expression trumps religious dogma. Period. If it doesn't then we are in big, BIG fucking trouble, and it's a feat of doublethink to say that such freedom exists only so long as it isn't exercised.

Hey Muhammad, welcome to the age of reason.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 21, 2010 9:44 PM

Hi Lotharloo, as I've mentioned a few times in this post, the KKK was destroyed by ridicule! The Mormons started allowing black members in their church because of ridicule.

Sometimes shaming people works because they should be embarrassed by their behavior. Yes, it's also important to have rational discussion and talk about things and try to get at the truth of things, but sometimes people need to have their "fundamental truths" shaken up a bit.

And the drawing a picture of mo isn't to de-convert people, it's just staking out rights that Muslims should be embarrassed they're trying to take away.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 9:51 PM

I'm curious now...

In this list, what do people here agree with/not, and why?

Ridicule is vital because:

* It sticks.
* The target can’t refute it.
* It is almost impossible to repress, even if driven underground.
* It spreads on its own and multiplies naturally.
* It gets better with each re-telling.
* It boosts morale at home.
* Our enemy shows far greater intolerance to ridicule than we.
* Ridicule divides the enemy, damages its morale, and makes it less attractive to supporters and prospective recruits.
* The ridicule-armed warrior need not fix a physical sight on the target. Ridicule will find its own way to the targeted individual. To the enemy, being ridiculed means losing respect. It means losing influence. It means losing followers and repelling potential new backers.
* To the enemy, ridicule can be worse than death. At least many enemies find death to be a supernatural martyrdom. Ridicule is much worse: destruction without martyrdom: A fate worse than death. And they have to live with it.

Posted by: mmelliott01 | May 21, 2010 10:33 PM

Sili@above: Okay, I guess that's just a myth. Thanks for graciously pointing it out. I really like the bit about "crap".

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 21, 2010 11:11 PM

You are awarded the point, Ichthyic.

Makes me feel kind of dizzy, out of balance, to realize that each of your points mirrors something I've learned along the way.

There are ways to hold up a mirror to claimants that need little commentary to be obvious but, as the lady said, "These things must be handled delicately." The delicacy comes from a sense of history that ranges from short term memory back to those ancient tomes, hopefully inclusive of the parts in between, and a good humored attitude concerning human weakness. The effect, as in the intent of pointing and laughing, can be more to instruct and encourage than to simply heap up scorn.

Heaping may be fun for a while only to be forgotten when the next joke is told. More fun, in the long run, is to include yourself and the claimant in that group that is the butt of the joke.

Something elemental (ask nematodes or zebra fish, I guess) happens when a deft punchline allows two antagonists to see each other, if only momentarily, from complementary points of view and, despite some vague threats they might have heard or some lack of understanding, just start to chuckle. At the thought of it all.

That people would really fight in defense of the indefensible. Would stand stoic on the one half of tradition that the others can't cover and argue for thousands of years about the proper concept of a teeter totter. Dammit. That's a long time. And come to think of it, that's pretty damned funny too. In a sad sort of way.

Not so sad, though a close call as to our children's children's futures because there is a cosmic analog. Recent work at FERMI indicates that our universe shows a small preference for particles of matte over particles of anti-matter. The result is that we live in a universe that is, at least around these parts, dominated by matter.

You've by now seen the obvious analogy between a slight bias in the basic nature of the universe and a hypothetical bias in the basic nature of humans. That we are made out of matter created by and being part of the universe proper it may be that there is a slight bias for rationality vs. anti-rationality.

If so, the human universe may very well evolve into one predominated by reason. Perhaps also graced with tolerance and cooperation and the advancement of science and the InnerTubes and all kinds of neat shit. Or not.

It won't just happen. It can be earned but it will be like hewing civilization from an untamed land. It's going to take a lot of effort. Then, there is a lot of experience of doing just that.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 11:37 PM

No, I do get the point:

Again, apparently not.

There was never the need to draw a picture of Muhammad and wave it in front of them because that's not an argument.

It is when they are threatening to kill anyone who does.

Posted by: itsgood2bchildfree | May 22, 2010 12:52 AM

I'll break it down in simple terms.

I'll draw Mohammad any way I want, for as long as I'm alive. I'm not any more intimidated by a murderous Muslim than I am by a militant fundamentalist Christian who threatens to kill me for being atheist or Darwinist.

I'd rather go down at 37 as a defender of freedom than die an old man who lives meekly in a religious police state. And I'll be as outspoken about the farce of religion as I want to as well.

Every day should be draw Muhammad day, until all Muslims calm the fuck down.

Posted by: Lotharloo | May 22, 2010 3:21 AM

@Ichthyic

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, personally used ridicule as a weapon of war early after he announced his prophethood.[3] Islamic poets were not mere literary artists; they were often warriors who wrote satire and ridicule of the enemy as an important weapon of offensive warfare. Muhammad banned the faithful from drawing human images, including his own, in large part to stamp out idolatry. Violent Muslim overreactions in early 2006 to some European cartoons depicting Muhammad appear to be less manifestations of offended sensitivities than of vulnerability to the power of ridicule

That's the kind of argument that makes me take your link less seriously. All of the details of Muhammad's life come from secondary sources and some of the details are not reliable. The article doesn't really go into that, it simply asserts that Muhammad used ridicule as a weapon and even the reference provided doesn't support the claim.

But regardless, if you are claiming that there has been attempts to have a controlled study of the effects of ridicule on religious matters then you are welcome to post a link. I can't find such a study.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 22, 2010 3:55 AM

Both the KKK and the LDS were changed positively by ridicule in the last century, and those are both religious organizations.

Since when were any of the 3 historical KKK flavors a religious organisation ???

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | May 22, 2010 4:18 AM

@Rorschach

The second klan was a Protestant Christian organization. Hence they were anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, and pro-lighting crosses -- lighting it as a symbol of their faith, not burning it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 22, 2010 5:33 AM

Accomodationist idiots like GJames provoke me into offending the religious, so if Pakistan shuts off the internet it's their fault.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 22, 2010 5:46 AM

At least judging from anecdotes .... that's not an argument.

Irony.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 22, 2010 7:43 AM

The second klan was a Protestant Christian organization.

I dont know, their members might have been mainly protestant, but this was a right-wing racist white supremacist anti-blacks club.The boy scouts are protestants, too.Not what you would call a religious organisation.I seem to remember lots of klan members back then were recruited from fraternities and the like.

Posted by: MosesZD | May 22, 2010 8:04 AM

Within the first fifty comments I see a lot of people rationalizing their personal cowardice behind "good manners." Pathetic, really.

Posted by: MosesZD | May 22, 2010 8:16 AM

Posted by: djstryfe06 | May 21, 2010 11:47 AM

Then maybe you could explain why, when so many people criticize certain Muslims for their hatred and un-peaceful ways, you think it's a good idea to piss them off even further? How is that helping?

Running like a coward certainly won't help. And while I'm not suggesting continuing a US style of "nuke'em until the glow/kill them all, let God sort them out" method of dealing with the problem is worthwhile, I am suggesting the capitulation style of "too much respect for barbaric beliefs and practices under the rubric of 'respecting cultural differences'" adopted by many European countries is dead wrong as well.

I'm all for cultural diversity. But that cultural diversity has to be on a 21st century understanding of he human condition, not the 12th century.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 22, 2010 8:33 AM

QED.

An organization can be religious without requiring members to be a specific denomination of a religion. They do however state that members must be Christian.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 22, 2010 8:40 AM

An organization can be religious without requiring members to be a specific denomination of a religion. They do however state that members must be Christian.

Yeah sorry, of course.My knowledge on this is rusty and mainly based on a book I read 10 years ago and some Wiki articles, happy to be corrected.To me a religious organisation isnt just made up of people who all believe in some kind of woo, but who adhere to one particular belief or cult.So I would argue that if a conditio sine qua non for klan membership is some sort of christian belief, that doesn't make it a religious organisation.Neccessary, but not sufficient and all that.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 22, 2010 10:21 AM

This is a debating society. Our host throws out topics he finds interesting. If nobody else does then there's few comments on those threads. If people do find the topic interesting then it's discussed. Often threads will morph but the discussion continues as long as there's some interest in either the original topic or the morphed topic.

In other news, water is still wet.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | May 22, 2010 11:21 AM

Frankly, I could give a rat's ass if religionists are offended by anything. My friends who are religious believe that my unbelief will earn me a place in hell, where I will suffer utter torment for the rest of eternity. Further, this post-life aptitude placement is the just verdict of a just God. I think anyone would be hard-put to think of a more offensive idea than the existence of hell.

I decided that for my own happiness, I won't take offense at this idea. Those who are offended my mockery of their ridiculous beliefs can stew in their juices, far as I'm concerned.

And this "but it doesn't help the situation" thing? Don't care.

Posted by: sandlin.john | May 22, 2010 3:51 PM

@242 posted by GJames (May 21, 2010 6:00 PM)

Yes I fucking know. I said, again and again and again that the the implication is that this is an entailment or rather a reductio of my view. But of course you have to keep not reading.
Anyway, I'll just have to take consolation in the fact that I'm not wrong. Fuck it feels good.

You know, the art of onanism can feel quite good when done well. But you still ain't makin' babies that way.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2010 8:07 PM

I'm all for cultural diversity. But that cultural diversity has to be on a 21st century understanding of he human condition, not the 12th century.

nicely put.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 25, 2010 7:06 AM

notdimjustthinking #336

The implication was that Muslims are rag headed terrorists. We have a cheek to talk. We have done absolutely unspeakable things in the Middle East all in the name of oil, and we think we can preach to Muslims about terrorism.

Does anyone think all Muslims are rag-headed terrorists? No. In this very thread is a discussion about how drawing Mohammad was offensive to moderate, i.e., non-terrorist, Muslims.

While it's quite true the West has done, and is still doing, nasty things in the Middle East and other Muslim-inhabited areas, so what? There are Muslim terrorists. The Taliban aren't Methodists. Jains did not fly aircraft into the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden isn't an Wisconsin Synod Lutheran.

Certain modern-day Muslims think it's a sin to draw Mohammad. Fine, we aren't compelling them to draw him. However non-Muslims are not required to obey their religious strictures, no matter how much they whine about it. Muslims aren't allowed to eat pork but somehow they don't seem to complain about non-Muslims doing so. Why should pictures of Mohammad be any different from having bacon for breakfast?

This whole campaign reminds me of the attitude towards the Irish in the 70s and 80s when the Troubles were at their height and the Irish were all being portrayed as terrorists. Noone actually asked what was going on in Northern Ireland and what was provoking it.

I certainly knew most Irish, even most people in Northern Ireland, weren't terrorists. I even had a good idea about why certain Catholics and Protestants were going after each other. Sorry, you'll have to find another brush to tar me with.

I accept that most of you are simply interested in freedom of expression.

How gracious of you to understand the fucking point of this whole thing.

I think however, that you've mistaken a political cartoon for a religious one and that you have completely missed the malice in it.

I think you've mistaken what this exercise is all about. It is political. There are Muslims who don't want people to exercise freedom of expression. The picture of Mohammad with the bomb in his turban is political. It also makes a point that you're trying to avoid.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 7:11 PM

He chose Mohammed and by choosing Mohammed implied that all Muslims are terrorists.

that appears to be a conclusion YOU reached.

perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2010 6:27 PM

Because Mohammed, unlike Osama Bin Laden, represents all Muslims.

it's the terrorist part, not the person part, that is telling.

are you sure you're "thinking"?

Posted by: notdimjustthinking | May 28, 2010 11:01 AM

Ok, I see I'm going to have to explain this very carefully.

1.) The cartoonist drew Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam.

2.) He drew Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, with a bomb in his turban.

3.) He drew Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, with a bomb in his turban, instead of choosing say, Abu Hamza or Osama Bin Laden,whom he could have done, if he wanted to keep it purely political and not insult every Muslim going.

4.) By doing so, he implied that all Muslims are terrorists, which, believe it or not, they aren't.

5.) This is a)racist b)sectarian.

6.)While I believe in freedom of expression, I believe there is malice behind this, just as I do with regard to the BNP and the EDL. I will defend their right to free speech, but I am not going to take part in Horst Woessels song competition or celebrate an Enoch Powell 'Rivers of Blood' speech day. As I say, watch your bedfellows.