I'm a bit upset about this, mostly because now I'll probably never get to see episode 201 but also because of what this says to the rest of the world. If we are willing to give up free speech because some violent religious people want you dead for it, then we never really had free speech to begin with.
I'm mad at comedy central for not having any balls
I'm mad at anyone who agrees with what they did
I'm mad at the Muslims for being homicidal jerks
and i'm mad at the peaceful Muslims who haven't spoken out against the death threats
That pisses me off too. The more official bodies prescribe the English flag as being potentially racist or offensive, the more it gets taken to heart by the racists themselves and away from the everyday people who just want to show a bit of unity and support.
Seems the only time you can show an English flag is when the football's on.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman It didn't get pulled, it got altered, didn't it?
It only aired once and will probably never air again, every time they said the word Mohamed it was bleeped by comedy central, and kyles "i learned a lesson" speech was completely bleeped put even though it had nothing to do with Muhammad. see here at 2:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCPP5BZ3JCk
the episode was supposed to re-air twice already but hasn't. It also wan't uploaded to southparkstudios.com like every other episode normally is. Also episode 200 and the "SUPER BEST FRIEND" episode were pulled from the website. Instead, we get an apology from the creator that reads:
"In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it."
What did they say in it? People don't be homicidal jerks for no reason. Unless they're already established terrorists. Because a while ago, there were some very offensive comics about Muslims in certain parts of Europe. I don't know about this South Park episode, and you could be completely and absolutely right, Ricky, but sometimes freedom of speech needs to be abridged. You wouldn't allow some random guy to go out and rail about how all black people are evil or how all Jewish people must die or some bullsh** like that.
Awesomeness is Watermelon.
*／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、ﾞ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
This is Koji. Copy and paste Koji to your sig so he can acheive world domination.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 but sometimes freedom of speech needs to be abridged.
NO NO NO! ALL speech must be protected weather or not we like it. Your kind of thinking is disgusting to me. Free speech is the protection of unpopular speech, popular speech doesn't need any protection.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 What did they say in it? People don't be homicidal jerks for no reason.
They said nothing about islam, they were just criticizing the fact that we aren't allowed to criticize it. And to show the double standard, they showed Jesus viewing porn and Buda snorting drugs, neither of which stirred up any calls for censorship, nor should they have.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Because a while ago, there were some very offensive comics about Muslims in certain parts of Europe.
Yeah there were, and those people also received death threats! Why do you rather get upset at the people peacefully practicing speech and defend those who use violence to get their way? Is your morality? Making fun of people = EVIL but death threats = A OK (straw man fallacy i know, just proving a point)
@Ricky - your post above is right, right, and so right!
@Adam - i agree with you on something for once, that copper shows exactly what kind of people are ruining this country. It is due to these sorts of reasons why i do not support liberal or left wing political parties who pander to this kind of crap; making criminals of average joe-publics and protecting the people who want to blow us up for fear of offending their human rights. It's bloody crazy!
It's gonna come back and bite them in the ass. Those South Park episodes were fairly tame. Now people are bound to be pissed off about the death threats and make far worse depictions of Islam and Muhammed.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I never agreed with them, but I'm just trying to show you another point of view. Hitler was originally elected democratically. I really think that they shouldn't have allowed Jesus watching porn or Buddha with drugs either. THose are both very offensive.
Of course, It doesn't seem that offensive, so I really don't think that they should have censored it.
Edited by Watermelon876
Awesomeness is Watermelon.
*／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、ﾞ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
This is Koji. Copy and paste Koji to your sig so he can acheive world domination.
It's South Park. If you're easily offended you shouldn't watch it. If you are easily offended and still watch it then you're either an idiot, or you're just looking for something to bitch about (and still an idiot)
And what does Hitler has to do with this?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I don't understand why people are so uptight about their people's culture, beliefs and way of life. Is there a reason to make a noise about how great your people are? I get the feeling it works against race relations in the long run.
I'm fine with all of you guys so don't put up a wall of 'pride' ready to pounce on anyone and everyone. Actually get over yourselves, we are ALL different and we can all get along, don't make it an issue and then it wont be one.
It's not our pride we want to address, more the fact we have to tread on eggshells in our on country over stuff that some Muslims might find offensive. In my opinion, they need to get over themselves!
Originally Posted by AndyUK I don't understand why people are so uptight about their people's culture, beliefs and way of life. Is there a reason to make a noise about how great your people are? I get the feeling it works against race relations in the long run.
I'm fine with all of you guys so don't put up a wall of 'pride' ready to pounce on anyone and everyone. Actually get over yourselves, we are ALL different and we can all get along, don't make it an issue and then it wont be one.
You're completely missing the point.
It's to do with the fact that a foreign culture has moved to the country, and petty idiots have the power to change the traditional ways of that country, to suit a culture that primarily wasn't established in there in the first place. It shouldn't be like that...it should be the other way round.
It's common sense and should follow the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"
"Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims"
Now I'm really ticked off. I didn't realize how bad it is in the UK, and this will probably happen in the U.S. too. So we can't teach history becuase it offends people? That's ridiculous.
btw if any of you guys are ever in Washington D.C. , I recommend you go to the holocaust museum. It's really educational and how the Jews were treated and how the concentration camps worked.
Originally Posted by Ricky "Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims"
Now I'm really ticked off. I didn't realize how bad it is in the UK, and this will probably happen in the U.S. too. So we can't teach history becuase it offends people? That's ridiculous.
btw if any of you guys are ever in Washington D.C. , I recommend you go to the holocaust museum. It's really educational and how the Jews were treated and how the concentration camps worked.
That is really horrible. If we do not teach history, it will surely be repeated. Not all Muslims are homicidal jerks either. I have a close friend who's Muslim and he wouldn't hurt anybody. He was obviously also pissed off and sad when our class visited the Holocaust museum. About the Crusades differing from teachings at local mosques: Everybody involved in a historical event will see it differently. It would be helpful to those students if they learned it from a different point of view.
I think those teachers need to have some guts.
Awesomeness is Watermelon.
*／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、ﾞ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
This is Koji. Copy and paste Koji to your sig so he can acheive world domination.
I used to be quite the Muslim apologist a few years ago - but the more I see the more I begin to question. It's all okay saying 'most Muslim people are completely fine', but there is a definite element within their community (and yes, I know it's bad to class a religion as a community) that won't accept criticism, and there isn't enough being done by the 'mostly fine Muslim people' to stop it. Where is the outrage from Muslim people who thing that free speech and fair criticism rises above religious belief?
You hear some pretty raw stuff on TV today about Catholicism, mostly paedophile stuff, same as you hear pretty rough jokes about Jewish people, black people yada yada yada - I think most, while obviously not condoning it, can differentiate comedy from comment; imagine if the butts of these jokes were the Mosque leaders?
Ricky I agree with you... Just because some group of people is threatening us doesnt mean we should destroy freedom of speech... Also I'm curious... I saw the entire episodes a couple times and was Muhammad supposed to be censored? I know the word Muhammad wasn't but how bout him? Also "Sexual Harassment Pan-da"
I had no idea they were still making new episodes of South Park.
How come there haven't been any on UK terrestrial/freeview channels for years?
My personal opinion on all this stuff, is that almost anything can be seen as offensive if you choose to interpret it a particular way - you just have to look at how the person saying/doing something, meant for it to be interpreted.
South Park is obviously intended to be comedy, not some kind of anti-muslim propaganda, and should be viewed as such - ie. Not taken seriously.
What really annoys me, is the people who take offense at things, just because they feel they ought to be offended, without actually being able to explain why that is.
My roomate is a Muslim and he laughed out loud at all the controversial SP episodes. Personally, I don't think most Muslims really care about South Park doing it. They were pissed about the comics before, because of the mentality behind it. South Park annoys everyone, those comics did it purely to offend Muslims and then giving BS about "we love our freedom of speech, we can offend whoever the hell we like".
Anyway, that one about that Muslim kid being accused for terrorism got free. I find the whole issue a little funny, TBH. I take this as a big practical joke from the Muslim community on Comedy Central, and I'm finding the irony funnier than whatever the cartoons would've been about. I don't think the death threats are all that serious, no more than those death threats against Wikipedia.
I guess if it's southpark being crazily controversial like usual then there's a little bit of reasoning, but things like:
Heh, if you did that in Australia with the Australian flag, a lot of them don't get so pissed off. They just get a little disappointed.
I don't think Muslims really mind a lot of things, they just act like it too act good. Sort of like those drunk pedophiles who become priests. Depiction of Muhammad is a pretty damn horrible thing. There's a reason why Muslims invented a new form of architecture that only depicts shapes and symbols. It's possibly the most offensive thing you could ever draw, even more so than well.. building a statue of a giant penis and pointing it to a country. I'd expect it to go fine in something like South Park, but the people opposing it are the same conservative hypocrites who can't appreciate a rough joke.
Personally, I think if they had let the joke through without announcing in the media that they were worried about it, none of those conservatives would even know about it, and the more liberal Muslims would be laughing at it.
Edited by Muz
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Oh, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Muhhamud because that would be worshipping the man rather than God. Or something similar.
Sort of. The Qur'an doesn't mention it, but it's Muslim tradition that prophets, such as Muhammad, shouldn't be depicted for they might be worshipped instead of God. False idolatry is frowned upon in religions other than Islam too, so it's not a Muslim-specific thing. It should be pointed out that depictions of Muhammad do exist, like being sculpted on the U.S. Supreme Court, among other examples.
South Park was censored because when Muhammad was depicted a few years ago, there was rioting and violence. If you were Comedy Central, what would you do: Allow South Park to depict Muhammad and possibly incite riots; or censor it and take some flak about censoring it? It's a simple choice, really: Artistic freedom that puts people in danger, or censorship with no one getting hurt. Don't give Comedy Central shit about doing the responsible thing.
"Don't give Comedy Central shit about doing the responsible thing. "
Is it really the responsible thing though? It sets a president that if you don't want something to happen you can just threaten to kill the people doing it and it will stop. Also, this might cause hatred to peaceful Muslims who had no part in this.
Also
Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Here's the thing too: it's okay to be p*ssed off at something (like your national flag being destroyed or your religion being the butt of all jokes) but what i don't think is okay is to send death threats because of it! To me, that's something different altogether - why do you have to kill someone just because they displease you? How barbaric is that?? Humanity should have left that in the caves thousands of years ago.
Also, what is the difference between that and gang-wars where opposing gangs stab each other to death because they don't like each other? When that happens we arrest the culprits. When extreme Muslims threaten to kill others we pander to their threats rather than do something to prevent them carrying out their threats - crazy!
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories. There is one that says that the moderate Muslims who do not condemn the extremists are merely waiting for the day when Muslims take over the world (either via numbers or force) and this is why they do not speak out against them. I am not sure i buy this, though as more and more incidents happen and the moderates stay more and more silent, i can't help but think there must be a reason for all this...
...afterall, would we dare stay silent over white-supremist thugs? I think the Muslim world will find that we in fact don't!
Backing down to please Muslim extremists = appeasement.
1938 - Neville Chamberlain steps off a plane from Germany waiving a piece of paper, "Peace in our time!" he cries after following his policy of appeasement with discussions with German Head of State, Adolf Hitler
Originally Posted by Ricky "Don't give Comedy Central shit about doing the responsible thing. "
Is it really the responsible thing though? It sets a president that if you don't want something to happen you can just threaten to kill the people doing it and it will stop. Also, this might cause hatred to peaceful Muslims who had no part in this.
Also
Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
When America was just a bunch of untaxed colonists full of freeloaders, Ben Franklin was BFF with the royal crown. He was pro-Stamp Act, up to the point where his home was threatened to be burned down. You know what he did then? "Screw England, I hear Massachusetts wants independence and that sounds like a super idea!" So, he was threatened and he appeased the jack masses who were threatening him. That doesn't sound familiar at all!
Is it really the responsible thing to do? If you had the choice, what would you have done? Consider the effects of your decision. If you had aired it uncensored as Parker and Stone intended, here's what would have happened:
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
Even if you're some insensitive asshole who doesn't care about human lives, you're losing your company (Comedy Central/Viacom) a multimillion dollar property.
Originally Posted by aphant
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
No, it would be the fault of the people who killed them. It's the governments job to protect us from these people and we should not be at this point where we fear for other peoples lives and thus censor ourselves. I do see your point of view but it was a risk the creators were heroically willing to take, and we should not look down on them for doing it.
Originally Posted by Marko Backing down to please Muslim extremists = appeasement.
1938 - Neville Chamberlain steps off a plane from Germany waiving a piece of paper, "Peace in our time!" he cries after following his policy of appeasement with discussions with German Head of State, Adolf Hitler
1939 - World War 2
Hey, didn't Neville Chamberlain also improve factory conditions for England? I hear improved conditions helped pump out war machines. Oh, and didn't his popularity go UP after he gave Hitler more land? Pretty sure the idea was "we're doing this so Hitler won't go to war" because England didn't have the capability to go to war at the time. Not like it would have mattered, Hitler would have taken that territory sooner or later.
You're making an example out of him and he had higher approval ratings at the time than Bush did or Obama has now. Think about that for a second; Chamberlain, who you're trying to paint as an appeasing dumbass, had a higher approval rating than that of George Bush.
My point was that appeasement doesn't stop war or satisfy anyone long-term. At the time it was the right way to go (Britain wasn't geared up for war in 1938 ) though Chamberlain clearly didn't fully buy into his own appeasement policy - Britain, even though at peace with Germany after the Munich agreement, were still re-arming. Quote from Chamberlain;
"[I]t would be madness for the country to stop rearming until we were convinced that other countries would act in the same way. For the time being, therefore, we should relax no particle of effort until our deficiencies had been made good."
I wasn't trying to paint Chamberlain as an "appeasing dumbass" or make "an example out of him" - he was a great politician and a great man who realised his own limits and did everything he could to ensure Britain's freedom, even as far as recommending Churchill to the King once he stepped down as PM. His peace-time policies were fantastic and his popularity amongst the British public is something to be proud of.
However, none of this has anything to do with my point on appeasement. It was an example.
Originally Posted by aphant
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
No, it would be the fault of the people who killed them. It's the governments job to protect us from these people and we should not be at this point where we fear for other peoples lives and thus censor ourselves. I do see your point of view but it was a risk the creators were heroically willing to take, and we should not look down on them for doing it.
I'm not looking down on the creators for producing what they want to produce. Their standpoint is basically that taboos and censorship are stupid. Having a belief and standing up for it isn't heroic. I'm not trying to praise Comedy Central for what they did either. I'm just trying to get you to think about the situation with a more broad perspective than what can be boiled down to, "this is bullshit!"
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Oh, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Muhhamud because that would be worshipping the man rather than God. Or something similar.
True. Also jews are not allowed to eat pork. The difference is that jews aren't making death threats to the rest of the world for eating pork.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I think you guys have misunderstood my post, It's not a direct reply to Adams post. Which I totally agree with. How anyone can be offended by a country's culture, one they choose to live in is beyond me. Being offended by a flag! what the hell! get a life.
What I meant was I don't understand why minorities feel the need to indulge in their own separate cultures which does little to help them integrate with other groups.
How did this turn into a discussion of pre-War politics?!
I think Marko's point about the white-supremacist thugs is illuminating. When Britain (for example) acts as a collective that says 'white supremacy is wrong', by organising marches, political debate and, let's not forget, laughing at groups like the BNP and the EDL, this is also saying 'we accept other cultures, they are welcome here'. When the Muslim world is silent about its own extremist factions, this acts almost as acceptance.
And Muz - about the depictions of Mohammed - it's quite ironic there there that you say how offensive and horrible it is to draw a picture of Mohammed, and in the same paragraph suggest that 'drunk pedophiles become priests'; do you not think this is equally offensive to Catholics? Or are insults to Islam more insulting than insults to Catholicism? Is it okay for a Muslim to issue death threats because his religion is somehow more valid than Catholicism? Just imagine I'd said 'drunk pedophiles become imams' and imagine the fall-out.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Oh, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Muhhamud because that would be worshipping the man rather than God. Or something similar.
True. Also jews are not allowed to eat pork. The difference is that jews aren't making death threats to the rest of the world for eating pork.
Lol, awful comparison. Muslims are not allowed to eat pork either, and they don't even make death threats to people for not eating pork. Worst they did was killed a lot of pigs during the swine flu thing
Think of it more like someone tying up a Jew and then stuffing ham and feces into his mouth. This is worse. It's not so bad in cartoons like South Park where that kind of thing is common, but it's still a horrible insult.
If someone did it in the name of "free speech", when it's completely unnecessary, then it's even more of an insult. Really, I don't get the free speech argument. Free speech is good in fighting against dictators and spreading knowledge, but you draw the line when you're using free speech as a reason to be rude. It's not even that funny, it's just an attempt to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. You'd actually get away with it by making Muhammad invisible, and it'd be funnier.
And Muz - about the depictions of Mohammed - it's quite ironic there there that you say how offensive and horrible it is to draw a picture of Mohammed, and in the same paragraph suggest that 'drunk pedophiles become priests'; do you not think this is equally offensive to Catholics? Or are insults to Islam more insulting than insults to Catholicism? Is it okay for a Muslim to issue death threats because his religion is somehow more valid than Catholicism? Just imagine I'd said 'drunk pedophiles become imams' and imagine the fall-out.
That's it. Drunk pedophiles who become imams are not anywhere near as offensive. It's a dark stain, and they cover it by being louder about something else. Some of the most horrible people I know - the ones who are drunk/pedophiles/adulterers - are on those Facebook groups that oppose depiction of Muhammad.
The irony is that a depiction of Muhammad is even more offensive than being a drunk, pedophile imam. In fact, people love it when that happens, they plaster it all over the media and use it as a scapegoat. It's all very complicated.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Huh? I wasn't addressing anything you had said before. But...
Indulging in your own culture is actually really important for identifying who you are. It's likely that your parents had indulged in that culture, and they passed their values on to you. So you've got these cultural roots that compose your background. It's about individuality, and hanging on to values that are important to you. What makes those cultural values important can't be determined by anyone but yourself.
What's also important is not to impose your culture on others, as doing so says to them, "I don't care what your culture is, mine is better so adapt." So, you have to respect other people's cultures. A lot of people identify themselves based on the culture they grew up in, and to disrespect it is to disrespect them.
I do have to agree with the point about being offended by flags bit, though.
About those links Adam posted, I think it's not really people giving in to someone else's culture. It's this thing called tolerance. Which goes way too far. It starts of with hate, fear, then tolerance. Tolerance is possibly the worst stage... it's that stage when people avoid doing anything at all because they don't want to offend people.
Passport photos are fine. Muslims consider female hair as offensive/attractive as the Western world considers cleavage. It's inappropriate for religious situations, but a choice. And with kids, there's nothing wrong at all.
There's no rule that says you can't have toy pigs or stories using them as characters. I'm sure most Muslim countries don't ban them.
The holocaust should definitely be taught, though. Even the Crusades. I think racism has nothing to do with it, it's mostly the recent fighting in Israel.
The part about the game having a few lines from the Quran shouldn't be there though. Just like people would get offended if there were Bible lines in a song. It's not the Muslims who would mostly be offended about it (unless it depicted them badly). It's the non-Muslims and atheists who'd be more annoyed by it.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
You're really missing the point Muz. By saying that depictions of Muhammed are the most insulting thing ever, you are consequently saying that Islam has more validation to be insulted than any other religion (or indeed non-religion). You are saying "yeah, say whatever you want, just don't mention Muhammed - Muslims are special, you know".
This isn't just some simple 'clash of cultures' as I once thought it used to be; it is a non-acceptance of Western society by Western Muslims. Our right to free speech is as valid as the Islamic divine belief in Mohammed as the final prophet; when you suggest free speech should be toned down, should be compromised, that IS as offensive to me as an image of Mohammed would be to a Muslim (and nobody has the right to tell me it isn't).
There is a lot spoken about tolerance, but there is only one side of the world practising it.
Tolerance is exactly what you said. Making death threats, setting fire to embassies, and killing known critics of Islam is not tolerance. The extreme Islamic line is "I don't agree with your opinions and I will hurt you if you speak about them".
Political correctness has got nothing to do with this. Political correctness is apolitical and governmental policy designed to erradicate discrimination. Stewart Lee once called it "forced politeness". Jyllands Posten is a private Danish newspaper, and by Danish law does not have to subscribe to politically correct speech.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke It's gonna come back and bite them in the ass. Those South Park episodes were fairly tame. Now people are bound to be pissed off about the death threats and make far worse depictions of Islam and Muhammed.
Just as I suspected...
Today someone posted a drawing on 4chan of Mohammad giving Jesus a blow job... I wont link to it out of respect of Muz and other muslims on this site. I'm just trying to tell the true consequences of the death threats.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Lol, I don't take 4chan seriously. It's a site with guro, bestiality, and Rule 34, and little to no enforcement. I'm more offended at the sane people who don't see anything wrong with it.
Well, it's incredibly difficult to find a suitable metaphor, but I guess I should explain this once and copy and paste it whenever a similar discussion pops up later It's a difficult concept to grasp and explain.. if you try to find a flaw in my explanation, you will, but this is just for those who are really trying to understand why people would kill themselves over a comic.
First, I think the biggest mistake here is that people are comparing it to a religion. It doesn't work that way. Think of it as a culture. I think a lot of people have the sects, like Sunni and Shia' confused, even Muslims themselves. They compare it to sects of other religions like Catholic and Protestantism, etc. Not the same.. sects are different cultures. The core Islam stuff like prayer, beliefs, rituals are religious in aspects. The rest of Islam is a culture.
As any clerics would say, Islam is a way of life. It doesn't work at all with secularism (separation of church/mosque/temple and state) because of this. It's very hard to explain to a non-Muslim, but think of it as a culture.
A culture is basically like a collection of beliefs. Some cultures reward hard work, others reward stealing credit. Some respect women, others reward punishing them. Some respect braggers, others prefer humility. Some have a strong caste system, some preach equality. Some may respect handicaps and weakness, others may feel they get in the way and don't contribute to society.
Islam is sort of that way and all Muslims (of the same sect) think alike in that sense. They look down on sex before marriage, not in the same Christian way of seeing it as "a sin", but in the cultural way that one might disrespect a person who has sex with a hooker. They see female hair as a private thing, much like the Western world sees breasts as a private spot. It's not overall disrespect for women, or even a religious demand in most cases, but demand. Growing up with the Internet, most Muslim boys are used to bouncy, sleek hair, but they still have a preferance to see their female relatives covered up. And so on.
Now every culture has it's own symbols. Attack one and you attack everyone. For example, it could a flag. If someone burned or say, told you to take down your nation's flag, anyone with the slightest respect to his nation would be hurt. Tearing a flag can be considered a declaration of war or at least a sign of all-out hatred.
Muhammad and Allah are basically Islam's symbols. You might pay respect to your flag by flying it high and by not dipping it in alcohol. Islam pays respect to its representatives by NOT depicting them. The cultural background says that by depicting a picture of Muhammad, you are idolizing him. But today, it's seen as a sign of respect not to depict Muhammad or Allah's physical form. It's not the same as Christianity's respect towards Jesus, Mary, and God.. there is no tarnish involved in depicting any of them.
It's rude simply because the way to respect them is to NOT show a picture of Muhammad. It's a difficult concept to grasp because the Western world does not have an equivalent form. There is only one way to insult every member of Islam directly, and that's it. It's like taking a flag and downright mutilating it. You're not insulting the religious members of Islam... you're insulting the cultural ones, and that's why the bad people are angry. An American gangster might just laugh if you make fun of him for being short, but he'll be insulted if you drag the USA flag on the road, tear it to bits, burn it, then toss it in in a sewer, and worse.
Nobody really cares that much if you go against the spiritual aspects of Islam, like eating pigs or drinking in front of a Muslim, but this is a cultural issue.
Here's the best metaphor I can think of to explain the situation...
Let's say some nation, Artica, has a long history of dictatorship, where people aren't even allowed to stand without explicit permission from their dictator. After a revolution, they have a history of loving, even worshipping free movement and equality, just like European nations love free speech and the right to own arms. Being able to do anything in Artica is a right, just as treating everyone the same way.
Now the Queen (of whatever country) comes and pays a diplomatic visit. At the same time, some journalists who were eager to prove their point of free movement and equality comes and gropes the Queen. They know from TV and Wikipedia that it's wrong, but they do it to prove that they have the right to free movement and they're on equal terms with the Queen.
This is a horrible diplomatic gaffe. But instead of apologizing, they decide that the Queen is actually trying to restrict their freedom of movement and sees Artica as an underling. They instead escalate things by insisting that the Queen is being bigoted because they can grope anyone they want in Artica and that it is a right of everyone. Artican people go around writing books about how the Queen is a horrible person because she doesn't like being groped.
People under the Queen are even more pissed that they won't apologize. It's a valid reason for war. Some send death threats, others quietly disapprove, and any newspaper that approves of the Queen getting groped gets their license revoked by the Crown.
Artica absolutely refuses to apologize. They think that the Queen is being stupid and bigoted. Eventually, some people realize that they're just being mean and apologize. But one journalist decides that he'd rather live under death threats than apologize. The Artican secret agents actually go on and defend this journalist.
After a few years, things calm down, people forgive and forget, Artica becomes friends with the rest of the world again.
Comparing it to the South Park issue..
Thinking that things have cooled down, Comedy Central lets Borat walk into the palace and grope the Queen again. Borat has done a lot of very wrong things and people have only laughed. Surely this would make everyone laugh too. Well, some people are still buttsore over the last time someone groped the Queen and they put up a huge fuss. It's against her rights as a human (yet those rights never existed in Artica).
Some people will take it much more seriously than others, because it is Borat after all, but some take it very seriously and see it as an insult to their nationality. Comedy Central decides that if people are sending death threats, it's not very funny, so they apologize. The more peaceful nationalists think that Borat is an idiot for pulling the stunt in the first place, chuckled a bit, but are happy that Comedy Central apologized.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
A very long post there Muz. Not actually answering of the points I've raised though.
It's NOT very hard for me to understand Islamic culture, and why they are offended. The difference is that when a person offends this Islamic culture (I use the term 'culture' begrudgingly here) they are threatened with violence and bodily harm. You are continually defending the actions of Muslims who kill people because they are offended at the Western way of free speech.
And by saying 'it is not the same as Christianity's respect towards Jesus, Mary and God' you are again showing your hypocracy by placing Islamic views and Islamic sentiment before any other group of people. And the issue isn't simply about depictions of Muhammed. Salman Rushdie was issued with a fatwa for writing about Islamic spirituality, from a country where the book was neither published nor widely understood. Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamic faction for producing a documentary critical of Islam's conduct towards women. Muhammed isn't the only sore point for Islam, it is one of many.
If we turn the situation on its head, it will illustrate the differences between Islamic and Western culture. If somebody in an Islamic country burns an American flag, the American people may well feel upset, but they do not issue death warrants to those that did it. Similarly, if an Islamic scholar writes a text highly critical of Western culture, he is not killed nor even threatened; instead he is widely discredited.
Oh and by the way, your long metaphor is both pointless and misleading. I live in the real world along with most people and am continually dismayed by apologists for Islamic intolerance both from Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
I just saw a 60 minutes show talking about the controversy between muslims (extremists) and the US. Apparently some extremist guy believe that our CIA crashed into the world trade center on purpose so we could blame the muslims and go to Afghanistan. Whaat?
That was just written to explain the situation. You have to make people really angry for them to get homicidal, and I'm just trying to explain why for those who are wondering. If you wish to find a flaw or a reason to hate, you will, because it's an apples to pineapples comparison.
Unfortunately, it seems like death threats are the only way to respond. There are always a lot of peaceful demonstrations, but nobody listens. It doesn't make it on the news and is conveniently ignored. But when a few dumb kids send death threats (which is ironically something that South Park should be parodying), everyone makes a huge deal about it. The Ku Klux Klan regularly receives death threats, and some are even murdered, yet I don't see anyone feeling sorry for them. Why not?
There are almost 100 thousand civilian casualties in the Iraq war. That's more innocent deaths than the Americans had during World War 2. Yet, Americans are protesting the 2000 or so military deaths, the deaths of people who were paid to murder. Israel and the USA spends millions trying to develop weapons to kill Muslims. It's no surprise that violence is the only language they learn.
Iran and Pakistan are yelled at for using civilian nuclear power. Yet it's fine for non-Muslim civilizations to hold nuclear weapons. It's even fine for the USA to nuke Japan, but not fine for Japan to mourn the dead lost in the war. If that isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.
And me, personally, I'm annoyed that it's come to this level. C'mon.. 10 minutes of an episode pulled out of a series with over 200 episodes? Is it really that funny? Dirty jokes are only funny when everybody finds it funny. What happened to politeness? Why do people have to go to lengths to send death threats to get other people to be polite?
I'd say it's ridiculous that people are willing to get hated by a lot of people for the sake of comedy. But then, well, if the Western world values their entertainment more than their dignity, I don't understand it, and there's a clash of cultures right there.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Some interesting points there Muz. What I would pick up on though (and what I think is clearly evident from your post) is the tendency in Islamic countries to confuse (or possibly conveniently replace) Western military action with Western intellectual society. I don't know whether this is the case with the majority of Muslims in Islamic-controlled countries, but I suspect it is.
An example in case is when you jump from talking about South Park parodying Islam, and then in the very next paragraph start on about US war-mongering (which I am personally against). The wrong-doings you feel have happened towards Islamic countries are very real. But as a Westerner, I would automatically see no link between US/Israeli armies and the citizens of those countries. There is a constant ease by which extreme Islam equates all sections of Western society, as if they were acting in one against Islam. This phenomenon is well documented. For instance, when Jyllands-Posten published satirical images of Mohammed, signs were made saying "Kill all the Danes" and Danish exports to Islamic countries were stopped.
Why has this been? I think it may be to do with cultural differences and the way society is set up in the West and the East. Islamic countries are typically fascist; in that the state, in this case in the guise of religion, comes before the individual. When a picture of Mohammed is drawn, Muslims are offended on behalf of their nations and of Islam itself. In contrast, Western society on the whole promotes an individual's rights over the state, as is shown by the freedom of speech laws, freedom of religion laws and for the large part, secularism. The two are incompatible. However, our societies now overlap sufficiently for it to cause problems.
The solution? Well I'd suggest its up to Islamic society and Muslims in general to start to ignore any drawings, criticisms of Islam or any other things you don't like. There's is nothing a writer, a cartoonist, or a comedian hates more than being ignored. It's up to Islamic countries to educate itself about the West. However, I hold no hope of this happening, as Islamic countries, such as Iran, Pakistan etc, tend to be anti-education, anti-science and pro-ignorance. For such a scientific and mathematically successful religion, Muslims sure do find it easy to stick their heads in the sand.
The solution? Well I'd suggest its up to Islamic society and Muslims in general to start to ignore any drawings, criticisms of Islam or any other things you don't like. There's is nothing a writer, a cartoonist, or a comedian hates more than being ignored.
Exactly. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
Edited by Phredreeke
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I do not think Westerners will ever truly be able to fully understand an Asian/Eastern culture, like they cannot fully understand ours. I have been with my GF for four years (she is a Bhuddist and I am a C of E/Protestant) and although I can understand (and predict) how she is going react to certain things most of the time, she can still completely surprise me in her thinking.
I have quite a few Muslim friends (Western and from other countries in academia at a higher degree level - even one from Malaysia Muz ) and if it was not for Muslims I would probably not have my academic career nor my father today (it was a Muslim GP that finally found his illness after a long string of Dr's and Consultants). This Muslim Dr (our family Dr, and now a family friend) also attended my Grandfathers funeral, out of respect.
Why I have posted all this? Just to show that there is a LOT of good Muslims out there - but they sometimes get a bad image in the press which sticks to all of them.
On the other hand I could never agree to violence over a cartoon, especially south park and reacting in such a way only feeds such people more desire to make such cartoons. Freedom of Speech (of which I ardently am for) is a tricky thing; let's say for example someone made a cartoon purely out of ethnic slurs of all races & religions. Should this be allowed to be broadcast? Some people will say yes as long as it does all of them equally and others will say no, I think it will always be like this .
I shall keep my thoughts on UK social culture to myself for now (as they apply to other things, not religion) but I do think we are being socially engineered (i.e. those cops that let that kid drown, becuase of H&S).
In terms of Western Culture and off topic , I think the green situation is quite bad. The environmentalists can and have become very hostile even at me posing questions and even offered to refute any questions and or claims I have before I made any! Yet each year these people get more and more media attention even though some things I have heard them say is complete and utter drivel. Do you wish to sign my petition to ban Di Hydrogen Monoxide? It has been found in lakes and rivers now, and it is even making its way into your children's drinks!
Hagar, your point about good Muslims is well taken although not really necessary. No one here has really accused them of anything rather than sitting silently while others call for violence in their name. Silence to me feels a lot like support.
What's worse, in visiting RevolutionMuslim.com, all they want to talk about their is the wars in the middle east and use that as a justification for their attack on south park. The thing is, the 2 are completely unrelated. They even showed a picture of a child's severed head and said south park watchers are responsible! What they don't seem to understand is that they are attacking the very same free speech that allows them to criticize the American governments actions. Completely hypocritical!
1. Bin Laden ("Bin Liner", more like) decided that for all of the american military's sins, 3,000+ innocent people must die in 9/11 - utter crap! Like the U.S. or the U.K. would fly 4 airplanes into buildings and start crowing to the world about it - would they hell! We tend to attack the government/regime rather than the innocent people (deliberately, i might add - that's one of the biggest differences here!)
2. Since when does attacking America's foreign policy = Islam must rule the world!? Utter crap again.
Instead of trying to get us to understand why your extremists want to butcher us and our children, why don't they try and shame and shun those extremists into understanding that no innocent person should pay for extremist views.
(p.s. this isn't a rant about Muslims, i am not racist and i only want everyone to get along. This view conflicts with those in this world who don't want to get along with everyone else, like Bin Liner and his idiot mates)
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
The solution? Well I'd suggest its up to Islamic society and Muslims in general to start to ignore any drawings, criticisms of Islam or any other things you don't like. There's is nothing a writer, a cartoonist, or a comedian hates more than being ignored. It's up to Islamic countries to educate itself about the West. However, I hold no hope of this happening, as Islamic countries, such as Iran, Pakistan etc, tend to be anti-education, anti-science and pro-ignorance. For such a scientific and mathematically successful religion, Muslims sure do find it easy to stick their heads in the sand.
Good points, overall, but it looks like the box's already been opened. Had this been the pre-Gulf War era, I think the whole Muslim community would be happy to ignore them - a boycott or overall shunning would be more likely. But since the whole war thing started, they're taking it as a personal attack; it's considered an act of blatant racism. Once you throw the first punch, it's much easier to throw a whole flurry of punches. If someone who looks like them (terrorist/soldier) punches a guy who looks like you, you're going to assume all of them are hostile.
"Muslim" unfortunately covers a huge range of people. You've got the millions of ignorant people who still believe that raped women should be stoned to death. You also have have the millions of other Muslims who fight for women's rights and oppose those same people. But the good ones would never make it in the media of certain countries. Australia's been a little nice with this aspect recently, what with the "banning of the burqa" debates on TV actually taking both sides, instead of just showing it from a single angle. Iran is by far a very educated country, equal to many European ones (nuclear physics is not easy), but the media loves to portray them as barbarians, which really annoys me. They elected their president peacefully, yet the opposition loves going to Western media and scream "dictator".
Not educating themselves about the West goes both ways, though. Judging from the media, Americans don't even know where Iraq or Egypt is. How many can name a single Eastern philosopher/leader other than Mao/Confucious/Saladin? I'm definitely working on educating the East, but it's very difficult when the West loves to unapologetically insult them. Similarly, it's difficult to educate the West when the East keeps screaming for death to the west. Seriously, a few death threats for a cartoon gets drowned out when there's Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members making them all the time.
In the end, all you can do is just sit down and facepalm when you read things like this. Sometimes after too many hours of yelling at both sides, sitting silently seems to be the only smart thing to do.
Ah, and Marko, you'll find that the USA military killed a lot more innocents. Certainly CNN wouldn't report on it. Search up who exactly died in Middle East then tell me if I'm wrong. Is it any more wrong to kill two families to "liberate" their country than it is to kill a single person because one disapproves of their military? They both have their reasons, to win their own wars. Maybe in WW2, it was about who could kill the most combatants, but The War on Terror is about who can break the other's spirit more.
And I'd apologize to anyone I offended here, because I'm mostly pissed off about how the media here prefers to play both sides against each other. It's probably the same way you guys would feel if you see something like "Teenager steals car after playing GTA". It might as well be "Teenager steals car after eating lunch", but the media just loves to completely hide out all good things and twist the words.
If it was a white man and another white man fighting in a bar, it would be "Man kills other man over insult". 10 years ago, if there was a black man, it'd be "Black man kills white man over insult." Today, put in a brown man, and it becomes, "Muslim kills man over insult." Or even "Muslim insulted man, killed". It's still the same thing, stupid people, stupid death. Yet to sell more papers, the media prefers to build up an image of violent extremists, and I'm not happy with that.
In this case, you've just lost 10 minutes of South Park. Or an episode at worst. But Western media preferred to focus on the fact that someone was sending death threats over a comic. Muslims preferred to focus on the issue as a hate crime, and portrayed South Park as the KKK. It does nothing to get rid of the racist/genocidal stigma if you refuse to apologize.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
@Muz - I've never had the urge or need/want to kill a Muslim, or indeed ever have killed a Muslim, yet there are those extremist Muslims who tell the world (often from the comfort of my own country) that as a westerner/Brit/infidel/non-Muslim i should die. That's what i have a problem with and in my eyes it is completely unreasonable to want this and those who do want it are unreasonable people.
With unreasonable people you cannot talk to them, explain your side of the story, use diplomacy, etc. as this is only effective if both sides are reasonable parties - as i said above, how can people like that be reasonable people? How can you reason with unreasonable people? I didn't invade their country; i've been sat here making MMF2 games!!
That is why i have no doubt in my mind that the world is in the middle of a "war on terror", and the Muslim Extremists are our enemy. When we defeat them in combat or when they come to their senses and decide not to try and blow us up all the time, then the war will be over.
Muz, i'm pissed off that you think south park shouldn't criticize islam, when i laughed when they criticize my beliefs. Also, Muhammad in a bear costume somehow justifies death threats. BS
Absolutely nothing should be off limits for South Park to make fun of. Nothing.
No one is better than anyone else. I'm an atheist and quite frankly, I think all of this religious bullshit is just that, hilarious and pointless. I mean really? Death threats? Jesus, I try not to be ignorant but this whole thing is just ridiculous.
First, I feel that it is a lot easier to get inot the news with death threats than peace threats. Also, this is going nowhere. Whatever happened happened. It's over now. I personally feel we should lock this topic. Now you know everyone's point of view. But who cares? It's not like comedy central is actually listening... This is just a topic of argument, so I believe it should be locked. In fact, I don't think anybody should start a topic about something that pisses them off. It's just far too polarizing.
Awesomeness is Watermelon.
*／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、ﾞ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
This is Koji. Copy and paste Koji to your sig so he can acheive world domination.
In this case, you've just lost 10 minutes of South Park. Or an episode at worst. But Western media preferred to focus on the fact that someone was sending death threats over a comic. Muslims preferred to focus on the issue as a hate crime, and portrayed South Park as the KKK. It does nothing to get rid of the racist/genocidal stigma if you refuse to apologize.
That's not the point. It's not 10 minutes of a cartoon, it is symptomatic of a larger hatred of free speech. If you concede ten minutes of a cartoon, next it will be conceding other people's opinions, other debate. Where would it end? Would we be able to say anything about Islam? Westerners live in a society that puts personal liberty above religious monopoly, and the East needs to recognise this. After all - these cartoons were made in the West, by Westerners, for Westerners. Some sections of Islam try to assert its own values on people that aren't Islamic and do not live in Islamic countries. This is wrong.
I do agree that the media does play up to the extremist Muslim jihadist stereotype; it does nothing to help at all. But the media has always done that.
Iran is an educated country in some terms, but socially it is backward (or rather, its government is). Ask a follower of the Baha'i faith for confirmation. You say its government was 'peacefully elected'? I'm sorry but you need to educate yourself a bit there, look it up; there were deaths, corruption, dissidents arrested, tortured and killed. Iran is a country that has been portrayed as being barbaric, largely because its government is! I do not confuse the citizens of Iran with its backward leaders though.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 First, I feel that it is a lot easier to get inot the news with death threats than peace threats. Also, this is going nowhere. Whatever happened happened. It's over now. I personally feel we should lock this topic. Now you know everyone's point of view. But who cares? It's not like comedy central is actually listening... This is just a topic of argument, so I believe it should be locked. In fact, I don't think anybody should start a topic about something that pisses them off. It's just far too polarizing.
Originally Posted by Hayo Arguments are good for the community.
Personally I am with SiLVERFIRE here. Religion is a complete waste of time and so are people who get upset when their religion is made fun of.
The irony is (and this backs up why i am against those who threaten to kill over their beliefs) i agree with this and at the same time i respect and leave alone those who disagree with me and my opinion...
...unless of course if they want to kill me because i have this opinion (such as Muslim extremists!)
I actually get easily pissed off with religious people, even when they don't want me dead. I keep running into the kind of people that go "Hey, God would really be something for you" or "I pray for you every night even though you don't believe in anything". And then in the following argument it turns out I read the Bible and they didn't.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Whatever happened happened. It's over now. I personally feel we should lock this topic.
It's not over. The episode is still banned. Therefore it's still going on and it's only going to get worse unless something is done about it.
This is the number to the website that made the threats, and endorsed the death of theo van go.
(212)203-7606
Until people aren't afraid, i'm going to keep calling them, and i encourage you to do it too.
Amen Boothman. Freedom of speech. South Park can say or show whatever they want, unless it upsets one specific group of people? This just frustrates me to no end. They can show Jesus watching porn and people will of course be offended, but none of those people will threaten violence. But the people who do threaten violence get their way? How is this acceptable?! This is the example that is being set for people. Use violence to promote your views and people will give in to them.
I have heard that areas in europe have been going to shit due to people giving in to this sort of mentality. Muslims living by their own rules and nobody says or does anything to stand up to it.
So are anyone planning something for "draw muhammad day" on may20? i already got a special update ready for my game starcraft goliath, and i might be creating a new game as well, if i got time.
I am not creating this to insult anyone personally.
It is, however, a moral and political opposition to censorship, islam, the koran, religion and irrational belief's in general.
I hope to see more games as well and it could be a very interesting discussion indeed if TDC actually censors and deletes any of them.
The idea of this intrigues me - on one hand i applaude the peaceful demonstration for free speech (which i always support the idea of) aimed at the Islamic extremist terror we face at the moment. On the other hand though, i won't be partaking due to the following reasons;
1. It is my girlfriends birthday that day, so i doubt i'll be online.
2. It may offend some non-extremist Muslims, which will do relations between them and non-Muslims no good at all. I may not agree with the rule of not depicting their Prophet, on the other hand while i do not directly suffer as a result of it i feel no need to condemn it.
3. The real threat of terrorist activity on our shores will not go away by drawing some pictures.
That said, it could be one hell of a demonstration!
Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf So are anyone planning something for "draw muhammad day" on may20? i already got a special update ready for my game starcraft goliath, and i might be creating a new game as well, if i got time.
I am not creating this to insult anyone personally.
It is, however, a moral and political opposition to censorship, islam, the koran, religion and irrational belief's in general.
I hope to see more games as well and it could be a very interesting discussion indeed if TDC actually censors and deletes any of them.
That is just mean... You're offending an entire religion...
Edited by Watermelon876
Awesomeness is Watermelon.
*／l、
ﾞ（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、ﾞ ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
This is Koji. Copy and paste Koji to your sig so he can acheive world domination.
Not to mention the talibans (you know, the guys who used to rule in afghanistan before those horrible americans took it over) destroying 6th century Buddha statues
Yeh. Well I was very small, but I've heard about it. Virtually all the governments the USA now claim as dangerous were installed with help by the Americans.
That is also true and i was also very small (i think - i can't remember the exact date now!). As much as i love being a Brit, i do feel ashamed at the way our different governments have switched sides with so many different a$$holes throughout this world (Colonel Gadaffi comes to mind too).
I must add that I have nothing against muslims. Just that free speech is more important than keeping people from gettting offended. Once you start restricting free speech it's very easy to keep adding to the restrictions and you're on a slippery slope to total censorship and dictatorship.
This is how it really works. There's a small muslim minority that is very hostile against the western world, that actively SEARCH for material that would be found offensive by muslims (like the danish Muhammed caricatures or the South Park episode) and then display them to the moderate muslims, to rally support against the west. Which of course spurs the west to create more "offensive" content, to show that they won't bow down to death threats.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
People kill for religion as a form of control. Muslim extremists are willing to kill non-Muslims for showing Muhammad because they don't want people to think that he can ever be perceived as any physical form or being. They are afraid that people will begin mis-interpreting one of their holiest symbols or figures. Now that I respect. However what I do not respect is their actions against it. The problem I'm having with accepting this however is that the conclusion I come to, is no answer, but actually a question.
These people clearly feel extremely strong about what they believe and while we don't understand it nor believe we should care... how exactly do we adapt ourselves as a whole, to respect these people and allow them their right to happiness like the rest of us.
Really, what it comes down to is a matter of pathetic high-school bullying, just within the confines of the rules. Yeah, we have free speech and something we should never ever have to worry about losing, but to what excuse do we truly have... to exploit it like this?
I defend the man who teases the victim because he does have his rights. But I attack his actions, not because they were wrong by law, but wrong by moral nature.
Now in the case of South Park and other forms of social satire - I do not believe anything should have been taken seriously here. There is absolutely no reason why nothing should be free game in a show that grants ill-respect to any and everything that fall in it's sights.
What do you think? I feel very strongly about every word I said here and I'd like to see where the discussion heads with it.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE People kill for religion as a form of control. Muslim extremists are willing to kill non-Muslims for showing Muhammad because they don't want people to think that he can ever be perceived as any physical form or being. They are afraid that people will begin mis-interpreting one of their holiest symbols or figures. Now that I respect. However what I do not respect is their actions against it. The problem I'm having with accepting this however is that the conclusion I come to, is no answer, but actually a question.
I would disagree with the point that Muslim extremists really believe that they must kill people who draw Muhammed in case the idea of perceiving Muhammed in a physical form somehow 'spreads'. Is that what you're saying? I think it's more symptomatic of a general hatred/intolerance of Western principles; and I suppose you could say on the other side that it's a Western hatred/intolerance of Islamic principles. They are like oil and water. However much you mix them, they will always stay apart. Islamic ideas are not compatible with Western ideas. You cannot have an Islamic society which allows for criticism of Islam; and you cannot have a Western society in which free speech is universal allowing certain people and religions to go un-criticised.
I wouldn't say the South Park stuff equates to high-school bullying; bullying would be saying "There's a Muslim, I hate him" whereas SP is more akin to saying "There's a Muslim, isn't it fucked up we can't say anything about him?".
This argument, religious conservatism vs free-speech isn't new though, think about Galileo and the Roman Inquisition; the result though is that neither party gives way. But it's an argument we must have, even though we know it's never to be resolved. That way, both viewpoints can progress. Maybe one day, all Islamic societies will treat criticism with silent respect, as progressive Christianity has done (they recently made a statue of Galileo in the Vatican as an apology for his oppression) - and then maybe the West will not treat Islam with the suspicion and degradation it gets.
Slippery slope argument doesn't work, lol. USA has been censoring a lot of things in their entertainment, including nudity and some swearing and I don't see them slipping into dictatorship. They've been doing it for decades.
There's a small muslim minority that is very hostile against the western world, that actively SEARCH for material that would be found offensive by muslims (like the danish Muhammed caricatures or the South Park episode) and then display them to the moderate muslims, to rally support against the west. Which of course spurs the west to create more "offensive" content, to show that they won't bow down to death threats.
I think this has it as accurate as possible, though. The caricatures were a horrible faux pas, but since then, they've been actively searching. I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of other Muhammad pictures around, but since nobody can tie them to anything, they've gotten off.
Islamic society does allow criticism. With this little controversy, among others, there's been an anecdote going around about how the Prophet Muhammad himself was bullied and he would instead help the people who bullied him instead of fighting back. And stuff about that being the true meaning of jihad. I think that indicates the attitude of around 70% of the community. But there's always going to be fanatics fighting to the death, and the voice of 1 fanatic is louder than the voices of 100 silent people.
Going from a strictly theological point of view, it's not even explicitly forbidden. It's something done out of respect. I think the anger is mostly about the effort Muslims take to avoid depiction, and someone else just does some sloppy depiction. It's seen as a blatant disrespect for all that work and even a direct racist attack.
I wouldn't say the South Park stuff equates to high-school bullying; bullying would be saying "There's a Muslim, I hate him" whereas SP is more akin to saying "There's a Muslim, isn't it messed up we can't say anything about him?".
I think this hits another point. What South Park does is insult everyone and everything, but it's a sign of friendship.
Take for example, your best friends. You'll insult each other all the time, call them racist names (if they're of a different race), you'll pull pranks on them, slap them around, stuff a cockroach in their pants while they're asleep, etc. It's all a sign of friendship. But if you do this to someone who is weaker and not your real friend, it's bullying.
Here, I think South Park wanted to do it as a sign of friendship, like how they made fun of everything else. But some people seriously took it as a racist insult and they pulled out. They're just not good enough friends right now. The media then blew it right out of proportion, especially since it wasn't even a "we will kill you" death threat, it's a "someone else with more guts will kill you".
The Western world sees it as a blow to free speech and giving in to wannabe terrorists. They argue that censoring a cartoon is a first step towards letting terrorists take over the world and the first step towards the death of free speech.
The Islamic world saw it as a bullying act and hate speech. They argue that allowing them to get away with insults is a first step towards giving in to the Western invaders and one day we'll be powerless to stop Americans and Israelis from genociding the Muslim world.
Western world thinks it's ridiculous for people to get upset over a picture. Islamic world thinks it's ridiculous for people to insult others for the sake of comedy.
It's all rather absurd, really. But if I had to make a choice, I'm sorry, I'd rather choose the death of free speech than genocide. I really don't want my friends to get genocided. You guys will have to deal with being the slaves of terrorists.
Heh, South Park itself gives a funny opinion in episode 143, among others.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I would rather die for freedom of speech than live under laws without it. Just as i know my granddad felt the same when he fought the Germans in WW2 and i'm proud of him for that (and also coz he survived too!). It doesn't mean we're slaves of terrorists but the opposite really (though i could sense in your tone Muz you weren't trying to be offensive).
I gladly die to protect "hate speech" Muz if it really has to come down to that choice, which it shouldn't. And don't belittle the threat, condoning a murder is just a bad as committing it.
Basic law of western society is:
I can do whatever I want with my speech and my own property as long as long as I don't infringe on other peoples right to do whatever they want
The fact of the matter is, the Muslims scared comedy central into censoring themselves. The Muslims are entirely in the wrong in my above set of morals. It's stupid to try to equivocate the two sides. They are not equal.
If you don't want to participate in civilized society, then leave.
South Park did NOT insult Mohammed, or Islam. Saying that is a weak excuse. South Park barely mentioned Mohammed, and they would not dare shed him or Islam in a negative light. To earn the lifelong hatred of an extremist Muslim, all you have to do is merely depict Mohammed. That's not an insult. This is criticism. Those two things are not the same, and your attempts to equate that Muz are obscuring the real argument; which is "Why can't our two societies co-exist?". If South Park had been drawing pictures of Mohammed having sex with children, or made cartoons suggesting that Americans should kill Muslims; that's insulting, that's hate speech, and I wouldn't be defending South Park's right to say those things (free speech does come with a journalistic responsibility). However, what South Park said, and what many writers are saying, and what the writers at Jyllands-Posten are voicing are legitimate criticisms of Islam. This is why the two societies are finding it hard to co-exist.
Originally Posted by Muz Slippery slope argument doesn't work, lol. USA has been censoring a lot of things in their entertainment, including nudity and some swearing and I don't see them slipping into dictatorship. They've been doing it for decades.
These two things are unrelated. You are comparing censoring things to make them more appropriate for viewers in the earlier hours, when more children are watching tv. Cable channels are pretty much allowed to say and show whatever they want. At any given time I can flip to certain channels and see as much profanity, violence, and hardcore porn as I want. Comedy central is a cable channel, and southpark is typically bleeped out for effect. They had an episode where they tracked how many times they said "shit" unbleeped. There is a difference between regulating extreme images and language that might not be appropriate for children, and removing references and cartoon depictions of a man due to death threats. I can't run through the streets naked, but I can sure as hell hold up a sign that says I think I should have the right to.
Originally Posted by Muz The Western world sees it as a blow to free speech and giving in to wannabe terrorists. They argue that censoring a cartoon is a first step towards letting terrorists take over the world and the first step towards the death of free speech.
The Islamic world saw it as a bullying act and hate speech. They argue that allowing them to get away with insults is a first step towards giving in to the Western invaders and one day we'll be powerless to stop Americans and Israelis from genociding the Muslim world. "
The difference is that the first thing is actually happening in many places in the world, whereas the second is due to irrational fear mongering. The U.S. has no plans of "genociding" anyone. We don't care what you think or believe so long as those thoughts and beliefs don't turn into violent actions against us, which is exactly what has been happening.
You see, this is exactly the same sentiment as me - all people who are murderers or who threaten with murder are not Muslims, Christians, Catholics - even civilised people - and should be condemned!
i have talked to a muslim yesterday about this and he said its the same as pissing on a priest and saying its freedom of acting (WTF? i only know freedom of speech)
and i said you cant piss on ANY person so it doesnt matter if it has anything to do with religion or not. pissing on people is ALWAYS wrong
and he said that showing Muhammad is wrong and its a sin and EVERYBODY should know that because its COMMON SENSE just like not pissing on a priest was common sense
Originally Posted by MasterM i have talked to a muslim yesterday about this and he said its the same as pissing on a priest and saying its freedom of acting (WTF? i only know freedom of speech)
and i said you cant piss on ANY person so it doesnt matter if it has anything to do with religion or not. pissing on people is ALWAYS wrong
and he said that showing Muhammad is wrong and its a sin and EVERYBODY should know that because its COMMON SENSE just like not pissing on a priest was common sense
Of all people, Boris Johnson made some very insightful, and at the time, very controversial comments about extremist Islam. These were just after the 7/7 bombings in London:
"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. [...]
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension [of Theo Van Gogh's killer] is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?
....We — non-Muslims — cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them (the suicide bombers) out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations. It will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem."
islam is a problem and a belief system i massively disagree with but i've come to the conclusion that if i am to disagree with that, i must also massively disagree with judaism and evangelical Christianity etc. They are all sick horrible racist ideologies that are against rationality and most things i stand for. The important thing is not to associate beliefs to ethnicity. As long as i stick to absolute hatred of: islamic beliefs; jewish beliefs and christian beliefs, i am ok so long as i do not hate jews arabs/turks/persians etc based on ethnicity. In our society it is also hard to say 'i hate judaism' without massive controversy but if i am to disagree with islam as a religion then judiasm must also be included for sure.
Here is a thought.. if its wrong to depict 'muhammed' why are so many people called muhammed? Is not naming your son 'muhammed' depicting him in the same way as calling your teddy bear muhammed? or drawing a picture called 'muhammed' As far as i understand the whole point was that muhammed didnt want any images of himself created and taught that people should not worship him but should worship allah. i.e no false idols like catholicism has. depicting muhammed by western people should really be fine since no images of muhammed were ever truly created. any image we do make will almost certainly NOT be of muhammed (since he made sure no one ever made one while he was around) and we are not doing it for the purpose of worshipping him instead of allah which was the reason he taught not to do it. The only valid complaint under islamic belief is if we tried to make images of Muhammed and worship them as our god instead of allah. I personally don't plan on doing that.
In that southpark episode it reminded me.. Muhammed DID show up in a previous Southpark episode and was not censored.. he was right there! he had the power of flame or something as a member of the super best friends and it WAS totally fine no one complained.
The difference is that the first thing is actually happening in many places in the world, whereas the second is due to irrational fear mongering.
No, both of them are due to irrational fear mongering. Israel walls up a lot of Muslims and shoots them regularly, playing the "terrorist" card as an excuse to shoot civilians. The USA hands them weapons and technology to do it. It's far from nuking the entire Muslim world, which is why I called it ridiculous, but it's not completely illogal. It's just unsound logic. Now imagine if someone posts a swastika on a cartoon well before the Nazi concentration camps have been taken down. That's considered hate speech. If they did it 50 years after the war in the Middle East is over, there'd be far less flak over it.
BTW, no, I doubt terrorists will be taking over the world. They're poorly funded with few weapons or plans. If free speech dies, it's only because people have shown what's wrong with it.. after all, groups like Revolution Muslim play the "free speech" card to spread hateful propaganda all the time.
Originally Posted by Mr_Tom
Here is a thought.. if its wrong to depict 'muhammed' why are so many people called muhammed? Is not naming your son 'muhammed' depicting him in the same way as calling your teddy bear muhammed? or drawing a picture called 'muhammed' As far as i understand the whole point was that muhammed didnt want any images of himself created and taught that people should not worship him but should worship allah. i.e no false idols like catholicism has. depicting muhammed by western people should really be fine since no images of muhammed were ever truly created. any image we do make will almost certainly NOT be of muhammed (since he made sure no one ever made one while he was around) and we are not doing it for the purpose of worshipping him instead of allah which was the reason he taught not to do it. The only valid complaint under islamic belief is if we tried to make images of Muhammed and worship them as our god instead of allah. I personally don't plan on doing that.
Heh, this actually makes a great deal of sense, even to a guy who's taken some Islamic theology. A lot of the taboo around Muhammad pictures lies around their fear of idolizing him like the Christians idolized Jesus. But from a lot of the reactions (Holocaust pictures, Facebook bans, more terrorist propaganda), they're actually putting the Muhammad 'picture' as a higher priority than the religion itself.
Furthermore, Islam places a huge amount of emphasis on "motivations". If your motivation was to draw Muhammad for the sake of free speech, friendship, and not worshipping him in any way (like South Park did), then it's a good thing. If your motivation to draw Muhammad is for pure insult (Draw Muhammad Day, as with most of the protests), then it's a bad thing.
I'm against the whole "we can do whatever we want because it's just plain morally right" argument, but that one makes full sense.
I'd disagree with Islam not being able to mix with Western civilization. Islamic values tend to be extremist moderate. Extreme liberty doesn't work, hence the clash with "the right to use free speech as an insult" but not with "the right to criticize" itself. But it also clashes with extreme authoritarianism. They'd actually mix well with Republicans. If you look back in history, they've violently opposed communism because it gave too much power to authority, which was why Osama bin Laden was a close ally with the USA during the Cold War. Dictatorships are simply democracies with rigged elections, like what happens in Iraq. They'll be strongly opposed to full control of the government, like with the USSR and China.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Muslim countries didn't oppose the USSR for those reasons, they opposed them because the Communist doctrine was to ban all religions, and thus religious councils and law. Islamic countries are not per se against extreme authoritarianism, as the Taliban government in Afghanistan testified. The rigour of public control actually increased going from the USSR government to the Taliban. Opportunists like Osama bin Laden will cosy up to whoever can give him the most power, and not who has the most compatible ideals.
I also don't think anyone's advocating pure liberty regardless of consequence. That's not liberty, that's just complete anarchy. But there's a huge difference between drawing things and killing people. Who says the motivation for Draw Mohammed Day was pure insult? I thought the whole point was to prove that enough people are willing to place themselves on the side of South Park, Jyllands-Posten, Theo van Gogh et al that death threats become ridiculous. I thought the point was to say "There are enough of us free speakers that we will rise above your threats." Whether it accomplished that is debatable. Of course, some people took EDMD as an excuse to draw purile, offensive stuff without thought. Personally I was against the Day. It was just a publicity stunt, and the word "Everybody" made it sound like a threat, an attack, which is what nobody wants.
my mum said that you should respect them because otherwise they will hert you and your family. i dont want death threts
sorry if my post has offended the religion of muslim
when you look around you be very happy that you are alife and that peple love you because you dont know when their going to die and there are lots of peple less fortunite than you who are ding every day in the world and be lucky that you are quiet cleaver so you understand whats going on - James Luke, 2010
but if it was a desison between living and agreeing with them and ding and defying them, what would you choose?
when you look around you be very happy that you are alife and that peple love you because you dont know when their going to die and there are lots of peple less fortunite than you who are ding every day in the world and be lucky that you are quiet cleaver so you understand whats going on - James Luke, 2010
when you look around you be very happy that you are alife and that peple love you because you dont know when their going to die and there are lots of peple less fortunite than you who are ding every day in the world and be lucky that you are quiet cleaver so you understand whats going on - James Luke, 2010
As far as i can see it already is a decision between agreeing and living or disagreeing and being threatened with death - they've been quite clear about wanting to blow the people of our island up on numerous occasions - and had some success with the London bombings and all, but as Churchill said...
"...we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."
I respect whoever believes in whatever they feel like. It's part of the human nature to justify everything that cannot be explained to the action of some superior entity. It has been like this since the very beginning of Humanity, and it's still like this today. But if there is one thing that I just can't stand, is the concept of religion itself and whatever doctrines and dogmas that come with it.
What has religion ever done that could be deemed "good" ? And I mean something real, not something that could be justified with "the action of god", like it happens so many times.
Religion is society and the world's biggest cancer.
I won't even talk about all the discriminatory nonsense and the massacres and wars started in the name of religion, but the thought of an individual living his entire life imprisoned by the dogmas of whatever religion he follows is frightening to me. Now multiply this by millions and you get the picture: that's the modern world. Still so backwards in many aspects, it's ridiculous.
People give stuff away to charity and go to church so they could book their ticket to heaven and avoid hell; people believe out of fear, of what they don't understand, of what might happen after death, or of what might happen to them if they don't believe.
Religion has always been all about fear, not only for the outsiders, but specially those who believe.
Originally Posted by Marko As far as i can see it already is a decision between agreeing and living or disagreeing and being threatened with death - they've been quite clear about wanting to blow the people of our island up on numerous occasions - and had some success with the London bombings and all, but as Churchill said...
"...we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."
Lol, I still don't see who the enemy is. Revolution Muslim is like... 10 people? They've even said that there was no threat. And I'm sure that if there were, Comedy Central could just well, call the police or something? Unless it's not a crime to threaten people in the USA. Oh, wait, hate speech and telling people to kill other people is protected by the First Amendment.
Outside that tiny radical group, there's no real death threats, aside from the usual stuff going to and from Iran. There's nobody to really attack or defend from otherwise. The enemies are few, but they make themselves look like they're everywhere, and you end up blowing up anyone who looks similar to them.
What has religion ever done that could be deemed "good" ? And I mean something real, not something that could be justified with "the action of god", like it happens so many times.
I'm pretty sure that a mosque that grants degrees counts as one. And even a modern educational institute which uses "Because of God, for Humanity" as its motto. Even if you ignore all the middle eastern propaganda about claiming to invent the university, in Europe, modern universities evolved out of cathedral schools and monestaries.
For every person killing to go to heaven, there's another one following an academic path to get there. The whole "man was made as a Khulifa (protector/defender) of Earth" argument.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Education was not borne of religion, education was borne of wealth. And religious hierarchies tend to be VERY wealthy. The whole point of (Abrahamic) religion is to abandon reason, education, knowledge, and accept that of a book written by people hundreds of years ago. The most stupid people make the best disciples.
But religion itself is not stupid. Because there's so much scope to what you call religion. Buddhism is a religion, but it is a religion of constant learning and endeavour. Christianity is a religion, but constantly tells people to stop reasonable doubting for the sake of fierce loyalty.
In answer Johnny, religion has never created anything 'good'. But that doesn't mean its followers, individually, can't be good. I don't really believe that most people are religious due to fear, after all, we all fear. I fear what happens after death, or if my actions really have consequences, but I'm not religious. The argument doesn't follow.
He wasn't really saying that people have religion because they're fearful, he was saying people who are religious follow their religion because of the fear it has created in them.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Ricky
I had no idea they were still making new episodes of South Park.
and it could be a very interesting discussion indeed if TDC actually censors and deletes any of them.
if it really has to come down to that choice, which it shouldn't. And don't belittle the threat, condoning a murder is just a bad as committing it.
