Quote:Well it is against their beliefs, so why instigate trying to draw Mohammed in the first place? Everybody knows it's a douche move - disrespectful."
So I'm well withing my rights to want to kill somebody because I think they're being rude?
That's the point of free speech Grim - to have a right to say one's opinion without fear of violent backlashes of the pain of death. If these people simply called her a douche for enacting the event, that would have been fine. But literally wanting her dead for drawing a fucking stick figure? That is just insane.
And it's not just this event btw - there have been several cases of people being arrested, threatened, and beaten for even as much as talking about Muhammad wrongly, regardless of context.
People are free to want someone dead too.
The problem with free speech is people mistake it for freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they're ready to face the consequences. True, attempting to kill someone is bad. But doing something which you know is against someone's most hallowed beliefs in the first place? That's flat out bad too.
Quote:The problem with free speech is people mistake it for freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they're ready to face the consequences.
I don't see much a difference between this argument, and when a rapist says they committed their crime because said victim was wearing provocative clothes.
"Because they had it coming." is a good weak justification.
Quote:But doing something which you know is against someone's most hallowed beliefs in the first place? That's flat out bad too.
Rude, yes. Illegal, no. And last I checked, we don't arrest or shoot people for being jackasses, do we?
Furthermore why should religious institutions get a free pass at criticism, more so when they user their doctrine justify their willingess to subvert people?
Shall we arrest every researcher responsible for the blasphemous data they accumulated in the Murphy Report in Ireland, which documented all of the country's most recent sex abuse cases as committed by the RCC? Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself has received multiple death threats for her criticism of Islam's poor treatment of women. Then there's that fatwa against Salman Rushdie because of his writing of Satanic Verses. The problem with "blashpemy" is that it is used as a catch-all shield for any valid criticism against the religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murphy_Report
The threateners can be charged, can't they? It's a misdemeanor. If the cartoonist truly believes in her work, she should've just owned up to it. And then just have faith that the law will do its part.
(09-16-2010, 04:18 PM)Twin-Skies Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The problem with free speech is people mistake it for freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they're ready to face the consequences.
I don't see much a difference between this argument, and when a rapist says they committed their crime because said victim was wearing provocative clothes.
"Because they had it coming." is a good weak justification.
The difference is people who wear provocative clothing and then end up getting raped don't wear provocative clothing knowing they're probably going to get raped. Molly Norris probably knew she was going to stir up controversy knowing that it's illegal for Muslims to depict Mohammed, but it's
probably not for non-Muslims. That's why I'm averse to what she did. It was stirring up the hornet's nest under the guise of furthering the ideals of free speech.
One can argue that that's what many free thinkers have done in the past against an authority, particularly against the Catholic Church. What happened to them? They stood their ground. Some lived. Some died for their beliefs.
Like Nix has already said, if the artists truly believe in what they did, then they should stand by what they did. It's all anyone could ask for. History will be the judge.
Quote:Quote:But doing something which you know is against someone's most hallowed beliefs in the first place? That's flat out bad too.
Rude, yes. Illegal, no. And last I checked, we don't arrest or shoot people for being jackasses, do we?
Furthermore why should religious institutions get a free pass at criticism, more so when they user their doctrine justify their willingess to subvert people?
Shall we arrest every researcher responsible for the blasphemous data they accumulated in the Murphy Report in Ireland, which documented all of the country's most recent sex abuse cases as committed by the RCC? Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself has received multiple death threats for her criticism of Islam's poor treatment of women. Then there's that fatwa against Salman Rushdie because of his writing of Satanic Verses. The problem with "blashpemy" is that it is used as a catch-all shield for any valid criticism against the religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murphy_Report
I'm not defending the death threats, either. They're
both wrong, and that's what's ugly in this case. But the difference is sharing sex abuses committed by the Catholic Church or exposing the poor treatment of women in Islam (or wherever) is that is what
should be done. This is the kind of wrongdoing that should be brought to the fore.
But depicting Mohammed in image? That's immediately a gray area to begin with. Therefore "blasphemy" will be subjective to whoever's looking at the situation. As is the gravity of response that the people affected show. We think it grave, they think it just. And ultimately, that's where this situation starts to break down.
Quote:Like Nix has already said, if the artists truly believe in what they did, then they should stand by what they did. It's all anyone could ask for, and like all the others before them, history will be the judge.
They did. They enacted a public event, and used their full name, not hiding behind some anonymous pseudonym. And quite frankly I think you're being sanctimonious by saying the artist should stand her ground and let somebody actually try to kill her. I wouldn't call what she did cowardly. I would call it perfectly understandable.
Which is more than I can say for those sending death threats. They should be held responsible for their act of stupidity, and charged to the fullest extent of the law.
Quote:I'm not defending the death threats, either. They're both wrong, and that's what's ugly in this case. But the difference is sharing sex abuses committed by the Catholic Church or exposing the poor treatment of women in Islam (or wherever) is that is what should be done. This is the kind of wrongdoing that should be brought to the fore.
In the case of the Catholic Church, the Vatican and its corresponding parishes actively transferring offending priests from parish to parish to evade the authorities. In the latter, abuse of women, the sharia law as enforced by countries in the middle east, where even being suspected of flirting, not wearing a burkha with men can have you beaten. Saudi Arabia and Iran are solid examples of this, with the latter still deeming certain jobs outright illegal for women.
In short, both atrocities ARE supported by their corresponding religions, as justified by their laws, and criticizing said atrocity will get you getting accused of blasphemy, sacrilege, and other rubbish.
Quote:The problem is that depicting Mohammed is that it's a gray area to begin with. Therefore "blasphemy" will immediately be subjective to whoever's looking at the situation.
That's the problem, it's a gray area. Blasphemy is subjective to every religion, and I find it utterly ridiculous that we have to respect every bloody one just because it's a proverbial sacred cow. That is not how the principle of free speech works.
How would you feel if Hindus suddenly said that anybody eating burgers was blasphemous to their religion, and actively sent death threats to anybody who as much as draws a quarter-pounder? Or if Muslims started threatening you at gunpoint for eating bacon?
(09-16-2010, 05:56 PM)Twin-Skies Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The difference is people who wear provocative clothing and then end up getting raped don't wear provocative clothing knowing they're probably going to get raped. Molly Norris probably knew she were going to stir up controversy knowing that it's illegal for Muslims to depict Mohammed, but it's probably not for non-Muslims. That's why I'm averse to what she did. It was stirring up the hornet's nest under the guise of furthering the ideals of free speech.
Just because one does not agree with something does not necessarily make it wrong.
It doesn't make it automatically right, either.
Quote:Quote:Like Nix has already said, if the artists truly believe in what they did, then they should stand by what they did. It's all anyone could ask for, and like all the others before them, history will be the judge.
I would say the same of the ones making the death threats. They should be held responsible for their act of stupidity, and charged to the fullest extent of the law.
No arguments from me here. But I'll go on to say that
(09-16-2010, 05:37 PM)Grim Wrote: [ -> ]We think it grave, they think it just. And ultimately, that's where this situation starts to break down.
and where it gets, for lack of a better word, ugly.
Quote:Quote:The problem is that depicting Mohammed is that it's a gray area to begin with. Therefore "blasphemy" will immediately be subjective to whoever's looking at the situation.
That's the problem, it's a gray area. Blasphemy is subjective to every religion, and I find it utterly ridiculous that we have to respect every bloody one just because it's a proverbial sacred cow.
Under the laws of free speech, there is no such thing.
How would you feel if Hindus suddenly said that anybody eating burgers was blasphemous to their religion, and actively sent death threats to anybody who as much as draws a quarter-pounder?
Under the laws of free speech, there is no blasphemy? It's all black and white? There are no consequences? Or, we can say/write anything we want about anyone without thinking about libel, or slander? I refuse to believe in that. Free speech comes with responsibilities for wise usage, not a free reign to anything and everything.
The situation you are positing is different. Mohammed belongs only to the Muslim religion. Burgers and cows on the other hand encompass something outside Hinduism. Why attack something that doesn't concern you?
I think Westerners (Americans and Europeans, but Americans mostly) should stop trying to look at the entire world through their point of view exclusively. Yes, there's natural law and human rights are an intrinsically good thing because it promotes libertarianism which I'm a proponent of, but offending an entire religion just to try and get their more extremist components to adhere to a Western norm of society is bigoted.
Quote:[quote]
Just because one does not agree with something does not necessarily make it wrong.
Quote:Under the laws of free speech, there is no blasphemy? It's all black and white? There are no consequences? Or, we can say/write anything we want about anyone without thinking about libel, or slander? I refuse to believe in that. Free speech comes with responsibilities for wise usage, not a free reign to anything and everything.
Free speech doesn't equal lying. And furthermore, the principle of free speech means that if somebody is lying to you, you have every right to call them out. But that right does not extend to resorting to threat of physical violence. If somebody makes up bullshit, shoot it down with facts.
Quote:The situation you are positing is different. Mohammed belongs only to the Muslim religion. Burgers and cows on the other hand encompass something outside Hinduism. Why attack something that doesn't concern you?
The concept of the prophet may belong to Muslims, but that does not mean that it's not a valid target for ANY sort of criticism. it's an idea, and just like any idea or belief, the reality is that it will be criticized.
The point of the Draw a Muhammad Day event was to point out that fact. And if the Muslim community decided to retaliate with criticism, petitions, and other more civil means of protest, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that they resorted to the cowardly tactic of trying to threaten somebody with death.
The worst enemy of any form of free speech isn't angry rhetoric or a rebutal. It's censorship, and that's exactly why this story pisses me off.
Quote:I think Westerners (Americans and Europeans, but Americans mostly) should stop trying to look at the entire world through their point of view exclusively. Yes, there's natural law and human rights are an intrinsically good thing because it promotes libertarianism which I'm a proponent of, but offending an entire religion just to try and get their more extremist components to adhere to a Western norm of society is bigoted.
And I think that a religion that does nothing about - if not outright supports - death threats from its constituents against anybody they don't like is atrocious and should be criticized for its draconic policies, regardless of where one is from.
^My Bad.
That was me.
And just to be clear, I'm not angry at anybody in the forums. I jut tend to have a rather confrontational tone when I get drawn into discussions such as the one above.
(09-16-2010, 10:16 PM)Twin-Skies Wrote: [ -> ]And just to be clear, I'm not angry at anybody in the forums. I jut tend to have a rather confrontational tone when I get drawn into discussions such as the one above.
We know. And we appreciate you for that. And it really does promote good discussion... something that's been lacking on this message board as of late.
But yeah, for people who don't know you well enough, they will indeed take offense.
(09-16-2010, 10:14 PM)Twin-Skies Wrote: [ -> ]And I think that a religion that does nothing about - if not outright supports - death threats from its constituents against anybody they don't like is atrocious and should be criticized for its draconic policies, regardless of where one is from.
From an argumentative standpoint, you're making the mistake of lumping all Muslims into the terrorist stereotype, which is exactly what makes so many hate America. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population. You seem to be arguing that 1/5 of the global population are closet terrorists. I know you're not doing it on purpose and it should seem obvious to people, but to most, it won't. This distinction is important.
What the cartoonist woman did just added up to the daily bias and misconceptions Muslims get about their faith. Even the most moderate people have their boiling points, and actions like this do nothing to help it. If anything, it only preaches to the crowd and gives fuel to actual terrorists to initiate the less educated into their brand of Islam. I get your line of reasoning, I see it repeated by mass media pundits on a daily basis and to date, no one's ever given a clear plan towards how to actually resolve this issue with the Muslim world.
On free speech, try to see it as a normative structure, separate from very human and real world considerations. All ideas seem noble at first but turn ugly when put into practice. It's quite easy for someone sitting behind a keyboard to argue on the importance of the principle of free speech, but in practice it's extremely difficult to draw workable guidelines without offending anyone because occasionally, there are idiots like this woman that abuse the principle and then hide behind the law as if she did nothing wrong. To put it in a more extreme context; the Muslims who called for her death could argue in court that they were simply exercising their right to free speech as well, at least until someone actually kills her.
You need to see the bigger picture and realize that some people will never be able to think the same as you, and make considerations for that. Intellectual criticism/Logically destroying their arguments might make you satisfied for a little while but it won't change the way they think. It's simply not the best way to engage others.
It's quite simple, really.
The angry Muslims need to realize that these other people aren't Muslim, and therefore aren't bound by their Muslim standards. And in the same way, non-Muslims should just realize that unless they fully understand it, they should just shut the fuck up.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Hey cartoonist person: Listen to old Ben and be an American. Man up.