Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

With recent and not so recent instances where Muslims have taken action against people for depicting Mohammed and therefore, violating Islamic custom, and finally the censorship of the South Park episode "201" due to apparent radical Islamic threats, efforts have mounted in protest of the blockage of free speech rights and so an organized counter movement has formed where everyone involved draws a depiction of Mohammed for the intent to exercise freedom of speech. Whether the stated intent is the actual purpose of everyone drawing Mohammed is unlikely, but either way, this is making a huge statement.

Quick reference:

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

This is of course, very controversial, but what do you think of it? Will you be joining in?

The event is set for May 20th.

Edited May 17, 2010 by WeaponsofMassConstruction

[Snowy_One]

I will not be joining in. Mainly because I can't draw for ****.

With that said, I have two different opinions on the matter. Firstly, I believe in America and I believe in the freedoms it stands for. I believe that the freedom to express ones opinion via 'art' is a valued freedom and fairly key to what makes our nation our nation. I value the freedom that our people have to be able to draw anyone in any given medium, even if it is disgusting and revolting. I may desire to slug the person for certain ones, and I support that not all opinions are meant for public eye (such as certain erotic art in children's T.V. shows)... However I believe that the government should not outright prohibit access to certain things and, at worst, should enforce a rating system. In that sense, I support the day in so as far as I support the right of Americans to be able to draw Mohammed without fear of being jailed or persecuted for it.

However, I also understand that Muslims do not desire to have pictures of Mohammed for whatever reason. While I believe I do not know all the details, I do know that having people draw pictures of Mohammed simply to spite Muslims for what radicals did, and not as a statement of opinion, is akin to taunting some kid while surrounded by burly bodyguards and shaking your rear in his face. It's childish and there are almost certainly better ways to go about the situation for everyone.

[Fayt Zelpher]

I largely agree with Snowy_One here. (And yes, that means that I too will not be joining in because my art is... well, not art.)

I'm of the opinion that comedy is (or, at least, should be) an equal opportunity offender. Yes, I understand that some people will get offended, but last time I checked, South Park is not in it for political correctness - they're in it for money, entertainment, and a good laugh. So, as long as they take time to make fun of Christians, Jews, whites, blacks, Hindus, immigrants, natives, and every other group, I see no reason why Muslims have to (or should) get up in arms over the same basic things. Learn to laugh a little, people... :P

And to that extent, I do believe that, within reason and appropriateness, in America, as it probably should be in the rest of the world, artists and non-artists alike should have the right to express themselves without fear of either persecution or prosecution.

However, to some extent, I support this movement. While it might be offensive to some, this is also a way for all people to stand up and say that persecution and violence in the name of murder will not be tolerated. Is there a better way? Possibly. But I think still think that the idea of all people banding together to stamp out intolerance and prejudice is a good start.

[Crysta]

I cannot be sympathetic to people who are willing to murder over a silly cartoon, so go for it, I'd say. It's a protest against that sort of stupidity.

Maybe I'll actually draw something for this.

EDIT: lol already posted it.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Crysta

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

I honestly think the whole Muhammad thing has gotten totally out of hand. It's okay to have parodies of other religions on television but when it comes to even showing Muhammad and saying his name, a whole community threatens to murder the creators of South Park?

Pathetic.

[Mikethfc]

My only qualm with this is it targets all of Islam rather than the loud-mouhted minority who claim to speak for the majority.

[CrashGordon94]

I have to say, while I wouldn't draw for it (because I can't draw more than anything else) and it seems kinda spiteful, I support this.

They've been acting way outta hand, and I think it is the right thing to do quite frankly.

[Crysta]

My only qualm with this is it targets all of Islam rather than the loud-mouhted minority who claim to speak for the majority.

Simply by depicting Muhammad?

[Crystal Shards]

Simply by depicting Muhammad?

Considering that he is a central figure in their religion, yes.

[Mikethfc]

Simply by depicting Muhammad?

Just because only the radicals think it warrants a violent response it doesn't mean they're the only ones offended by it but then again I see your point as my last post implied that all muslims can't take a joke, which isn't true in the slightest.

[Snowy_One]

Disclaimer: The following is only my understanding of the situation. It does not reflect on Muslim society, religion, or any other facet of their culture and is only the personal knowledge of the poster.

It's sad that I feel I have to post that disclaimer... Anyways, as I understand it, within Muslim culture it is considered to be a sin to make any image or likeness of Mohammed. They see doing such a thing as making something which can potentially be worshiped as a idol in place of worshiping Allah. A Christian equivalent would be someone who worships the cross instead of worshiping God/Jesus or who only worships the image of God/Jesus he chooses/only worships because they look like he would look instead of what he actually is. This is why, in Muslim culture, it is viewed as such a great sin to make any image of Allah or Mohammed his prophet. It's easy to say that it seems stupid, but keep in mind that there are plenty of people in every religion and faith (yes, including Atheism) who choose to worship a idol in place of the deity (worshiping the cross instead of Jesus) or choose to follow a religion because of what is agreeable to them in it (being a Atheist because you see it as freedom from morality; or voting for a president because he is more attractive then his opponent). So in one sense, I do understand where they are coming from.

Now knowing my luck, I got one key element there wrong which every part of my opinion hinged on.

Anyways, I think that, so long as we are in this world, it is more important we be free than anything else. If Islam is the true religion, and what the people in South Park did is wrong, better to have people confront them PEACEFULLY about it and try to get them to repent rather then threaten them with violence for it. The fate of their souls should be in Allah's hand (I would think) and if they are damned, then they are damned. Course, I've probably just presented myself as a idiot for saying that.

[Mikethfc]

Nah most of your points are good besides athiesm being an escape from morality as for most its just that they can't scientifically justify leaping to the conclusion that God did it with no evidence.

[Crysta]

Considering that he is a central figure in their religion, yes.

Oh noes.

Idolatry is the problem, which is forbidden in just about every religion I have cared to notice, and no sane person is going to worship ink and paper. Everyone seems to be forgetting this important fact, and instead are concerned about offending a sect of people who have little to actually be offended about.

It's not an assault on Islam, it's an assault on a stupid idea.

If you're okay with stupid ideas espoused by religion, fine, I doubt that's uncommon... it doesn't make it any less absurd.

[dondon151]

Just because only the radicals think it warrants a violent response it doesn't mean they're the only ones offended by it but then again I see your point as my last post implied that all muslims can't take a joke, which isn't true in the slightest.

It's not simply a matter of "taking a joke." I was about as puzzled as you are before a friend explained to me that visual depictions of Mohammed are strictly forbidden in Islam.

It seems, at least to me, that people are using "free speech" as a copout to rub people the wrong way. How many people actually care about being able to visually depict Mohammed?

Edited May 17, 2010 by dondon151

[Strawman]

This type of situation is where American values really come to contradict eachother. On the one hand you have the idea of Free Speech and that art should not be censored no matter what it may be (theoretically).

On the other hand though, there is freedom of religion. Just as no one should censor art, no one should be able to force Muslims to forfeit a traditional cultural or religious idea.

This would hold true for a situation where someone painted/drew/animated an image of Jesus(and I only use this example because I am christian so it is what I have the most familiarity wth) that christians thought were offensive. "But these pictures of Mohammed don't have to be offensive or bad" you might say. However, according their beliefs they could be (and obviously are) seen as disrespectful.

The solution? I'm not even going to try to come up with one. I just felt like stating that certain idealology makes situations like these difficult to deal with.

[Defeatist Elitist]

If you want to tell me I cannot say or do something that doesn't harm you in any way, especially such a fundamentally simple freedom of speech issue, then you can go fuck yourself. (Not directed at anyone here necessarily, just at this shit in general.)

I will gladly draw Mohammed. Threatening to kill or injure someone for doing anything, even if it is to willfully spite you, when it doesn't really harm you or your reputation is absolutely ridiculous and I find it reprehensible. Even arguing that someone shouldn't be allowed to do it is absurd. People lie about, manipulate, or mock things important to me, things I like, or hell, scientific facts that improve everyone's lives, and I don't argue they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Basically, I don't care what the fuck your ridiculous religious texts demand you do, if that's going to interfere with my freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech that in many ways enabled our civilization to reach the point it has, then you can go back to where you came from, the Dark Ages. This applies to any religion trying to oppress freedom of speech, and even non-religious organizations attempting to do so.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Aquilae]

This is not going to solve the problem of radicalism in Islam at all. It will only anger the Muslim population and of course provide more fuel for radical preachers to convince more people to be terrorists. By violating Islamic custom and defiling the image of Prophet Muhammad, Muslims will be less open to free speech, and will feel that they have no freedom of religion. It would be akin to organising a "National Non-Prayer Day" because of "honesty", it doesn't encourage your notion of "honesty" in any way, but instead you would come under fire from various religions because they feel threatened, and ultimately this notion of "honesty" is lost on them.

Also, it is dumb to make the assumption that the majority of Muslims are radicals that would willingly threaten others with death because of a religious custom. This spiteful behaviour wrongly prejudices Muslims for the things terrorist organisations have done, and will increase their resistance to whatever you may preach.

[Snowy_One]

Not to be nitpicky, but the Dark Ages were called the Dark ages mainly because bandits and barbarians mainly controlled the lands and the only reading that could be done was by monks. Ironically, there was not all that much limitation on free speech, because the government was far from solid enough to do that, just no one could read or cared enough about it to do anything that encouraged it.

Anyways... nitpick aside, there is a difference between expressing one's opinion and threatening someone else. If I were to write a short story and, say, smash fanatic, said he disliked it, that would be well and fine. However, if smash threatened to come after me, hunt down my family, kill the mayor, the sheriff, and my wee little doggie too; that... would be a different matter all together.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Snowy_One

[Crystal Shards]

Oh noes.

Idolatry is the problem, which is forbidden in just about every religion I have cared to notice, and no sane person is going to worship ink and paper. Everyone seems to be forgetting this important fact, and instead are concerned about offending a sect of people who have little to actually be offended about.

It's not an assault on Islam, it's an assault on a stupid idea.

If you're okay with stupid ideas espoused by religion, fine, I doubt that's uncommon... it doesn't make it any less absurd.

I'm pretty sure it's an assault on Islam. I haven't seen very many people at all say, "We're doing this because it pisses the terrorists off," or, "We're doing it because the idea is stupid," it's about "getting back" at the Muslims they've lumped together in one group--radicals. So while yeah, I think it's a stupid idea (I think religion in general is pretty stupid to be honest), I would say this is an attack on Islam more than a stupid idea. And to me there's a difference between thinking something is stupid and trying to humiliate someone.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[dondon151]

I think that the individuals in this thread with the intent to spite radical Muslims are unaware that even in moderate Islam, visual depictions of Mohammed are forbidden. There is a relatively silent majority that will be equally offended, but they don't seem to be considered at all.

You cannot use free speech as an excuse to rub people the wrong way. I highly doubt that anyone who intends to "draw Mohammed" is actually doing so without the motive of attempting to verbally harm, or at least to spite, Muslims.

[Defeatist Elitist]

This is not going to solve the problem of radicalism in Islam at all. It will only anger the Muslim population and of course provide more fuel for radical preachers to convince more people to be terrorists. By violating Islamic custom and defiling the image of Prophet Muhammad, Muslims will be less open to free speech, and will feel that they have no freedom of religion. It would be akin to organising a "National Non-Prayer Day" because of "honesty", it doesn't encourage your notion of "honesty" in any way, but instead you would come under fire from various religions because they feel threatened, and ultimately this notion of "honesty" is lost on them.

Also, it is dumb to make the assumption that the majority of Muslims are radicals that would willingly threaten others with death because of a religious custom. This spiteful behaviour wrongly prejudices Muslims for the things terrorist organisations have done, and will increase their resistance to whatever you may preach.

The point isn't to solve the problem of radicalism. The point is to take away its fangs. The point is that radicals cannot really hurt us. By drawing Mohammed, we can make their death threats laughable, because there is no way they will kill anyone.

I think that the individuals in this thread with the intent to spite radical Muslims are unaware that even in moderate Islam, visual depictions of Mohammed are forbidden. There is a relatively silent majority that will be equally offended, but they don't seem to be considered at all.

You cannot use free speech as an excuse to rub people the wrong way. I highly doubt that anyone who intends to "draw Mohammed" is actually doing so without the motive of attempting to verbally harm, or at least to spite, Muslims.

Gee, so if I start a religion and make a bunch of neat rules am I allowed to infringe on free speech too?

It doesn't matter what you believe, Freedom of Religion doesn't give you ANY ability to limit Free Speech. Rubbing someone the wrong way should not be frowned upon or illegal. There are many times when it is necessary. You can't say that people shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech because other people might get their feelings hurt. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, because fuck, people do shit that rubs me the wrong way all the time. Every damn day. The difference is, I don't even try to argue they shouldn't be able to say it, let alone threaten to kill them.

[Strawman]

If you want to tell me I cannot say or do something that doesn't harm you in any way, especially such a fundamentally simple freedom of speech issue, then you can go fuck yourself. (Not directed at anyone here necessarily, just at this shit in general.)

I will gladly draw Mohammed. Threatening to kill or injure someone for doing anything, even if it is to willfully spite you, when it doesn't really harm you or your reputation is absolutely ridiculous and I find it reprehensible. Even arguing that someone shouldn't be allowed to do it is absurd. People lie about, manipulate, or mock things important to me, things I like, or hell, scientific facts that improve everyone's lives, and I don't argue they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Basically, I don't care what the fuck your ridiculous religious texts demand you do, if that's going to interfere with my freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech that in many ways enabled our civilization to reach the point it has, then you can go back to where you came from, the Dark Ages. This applies to any religion trying to oppress freedom of speech, and even non-religious organizations attempting to do so.

So you would say you are going to offend someone's religion - therein undermining the freedom of religion this nation(the U.S.) holds so dear - because they happen to prohibit a certain form of expression? Is your freedom of speech - or not even YOUR freedom of speech but the freedom of speech of the show South Park - important enough to compromise anothers freedoms? One freedom promised by the First Ammendment or any other part of the constitution is any more important than another. Each must be upheld not only by law but also by how the citizens act. These things need to be thought about. One act of violence or anger should not be retalliated against with another act of hate or rash offensiveness.

Also, why does anyone really NEED to make a representation of Mohammed anyways? Let alone Southpark, which I consider a pretty offensive television show that basically makes fun of everything.

You don't always have to agree with ideas different than your own. But it would be nice if people could try and understand other religions/cultures and not try to force others to change their beliefs. Especially not for something like a comedy Television show.

It doesn't matter what you believe, Freedom of Religion doesn't give you ANY ability to limit Free Speech. Rubbing someone the wrong way should not be frowned upon or illegal. There are many times when it is necessary. You can't say that people shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech because other people might get their feelings hurt. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, because fuck, people do shit that rubs me the wrong way all the time. Every damn day. The difference is, I don't even try to argue they shouldn't be able to say it, let alone threaten to kill them.

But what you seem to be implying is that people should be allowed to completely disregard the beliefs of others and "rub them the wrong way" but when someone does this to an idea or belief you value it is okay to retaliate. And while I appluad you for not treatening to kill anyone, whatever happened to religious tolerance? Your retaleation could be seen as being just as radical as theirs.

[BK-201]

I will not be participating in this.

So you would say you are going to offend someone's religion - therein undermining the freedom of religion this nation(the U.S.) holds so dear - because they happen to prohibit a certain form of expression? Is your freedom of speech - or not even YOUR freedom of speech but the freedom of speech of the show South Park - important enough to compromise anothers freedoms? One freedom promised by the First Ammendment or any other part of the constitution is any more important than another. Each must be upheld not only by law but also by how the citizens act. These things need to be thought about. One act of violence or anger should not be retalliated against with another act of hate or rash offensiveness.

Also, why does anyone really NEED to make a representation of Mohammed anyways? Let alone Southpark, which I consider a pretty offensive television show that basically makes fun of everything.

You don't always have to agree with ideas different than your own. But it would be nice if people could try and understand other religions/cultures and not try to force others to change their beliefs. Especially not for something like a comedy Television show.

But what you seem to be implying is that people should be allowed to completely disregard the beliefs of others and "rub them the wrong way" but when someone does this to an idea or belief you value it is okay to retaliate. And while I appluad you for not treatening to kill anyone, whatever happened to religious tolerance? Your retaleation could be seen as being just as radical as theirs.

This is not in any way, restricting their freedom of religion. All it this does is express one's opinions. I disagree with this idea but I support the freedom of expression.

South Park makes fun of everything? Ok, now tell me how many of those groups made a death threat?

Again, they aren't forcing their beliefs on them. Just disagreeing with the way they handled a joke.

There's tolerance for the religion, just no tolerance for the actions done by the radicals.

[Defeatist Elitist]

So you would say you are going to offend someone's religion - therein undermining the freedom of religion this nation(the U.S.) holds so dear - because they happen to prohibit a certain form of expression? Is your freedom of speech - or not even YOUR freedom of speech but the freedom of speech of the show South Park - important enough to compromise anothers freedoms? One freedom promised by the First Ammendment or any other part of the constitution is any more important than another. Each must be upheld not only by law but also by how the citizens act. These things need to be thought about. One act of violence or anger should not be retalliated against with another act of hate or rash offensiveness.

Also, why does anyone really NEED to make a representation of Mohammed anyways? Let alone Southpark, which I consider a pretty offensive television show that basically makes fun of everything.

You don't always have to agree with ideas different than your own. But it would be nice if people could try and understand other religions/cultures and not try to force others to change their beliefs. Especially not for something like a comedy Television show.

But what you seem to be implying is that people should be allowed to completely disregard the beliefs of others and "rub them the wrong way" but when someone does this to an idea or belief you value it is okay to retaliate. And while I appluad you for not treatening to kill anyone, whatever happened to religious tolerance? Your retaleation could be seen as being just as radical as theirs.

Except it has NOTHING to do with their Freedom of Religion. If shit like this did, then Freedom of Religion would not exist, because a lot of religions technically demand some pretty damn headfucked things. Freedom of Religion is simply the ability to practice your religion without being discriminated against for it, it doesn't mean people aren't allowed to offend you, or that other people aren't allowed to break the rules of your religion. If that was the case fucking alcohol would be illegal, among many other things.

No one necessarily needs to depict Mohammed, but it's a matter of having freedoms. For example, I don't really care about having sex with other men, but I do care about people being ALLOWED to have sex with other men if they so please. I don't really care about smoking marijuana, but I care about people being allowed to smoke marijuana if they believe.

As for the last part, you misinterpreted me terribly. That was my whole point. I DON'T retaliate violently, or say people shouldn't be allowed to do those things. If I do retaliate, I do it in a reasonable and logical manner, and I have no qualms with others responding in such a manner. My whole POINT is that I think people SHOULD be allowed to do things that I personally disagree with or that rub me the wrong way, because it is their RIGHT to do those things. It doesn't matter if they offend me, they should still be allowed to do those things.

[dondon151]

The point isn't to solve the problem of radicalism. The point is to take away its fangs. The point is that radicals cannot really hurt us. By drawing Mohammed, we can make their death threats laughable, because there is no way they will kill anyone.

Muslims, radical or not, still take offense to visual depictions of Mohammed. This is not just about radical Muslims, and implying that it is only furthers your ignorance.

Gee, so if I start a religion and make a bunch of neat rules am I allowed to infringe on free speech too?

It doesn't matter what you believe, Freedom of Religion doesn't give you ANY ability to limit Free Speech. Rubbing someone the wrong way should not be frowned upon or illegal. There are many times when it is necessary. You can't say that people shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech because other people might get their feelings hurt. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, because fuck, people do shit that rubs me the wrong way all the time. Every damn day. The difference is, I don't even try to argue they shouldn't be able to say it, let alone threaten to kill them.

I can easily state the converse, that freedom of speech doesn't give you ANY ability to limit freedom of religion. Respect the religion of Islam and don't make visual depictions of Mohammed (especially if your only purpose in doing so is to incite Muslims). By doing so simply under the pretense of free speech, you're implicitly expressing intolerance to Islam.

You are going about this the wrong way. Hardly any law, or right, for that matter, is objectively fixed. Every statement is open to some form of interpretation and is subject under certain circumstances to being foregone. To compound this, certain statements will contradict each other; what determines if either should prevail? Adhering steadfastedly to a rule will result in absurdity when it is taken to the logical extreme. Use your common sense to think about what should and shouldn't be done.

Edited May 19, 2010 by dondon151