Draw Mohammad Day. Reason.com wants your drawings of Mohammad

[TalkingDog]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/17/the-deadline-is-nigh-for-every

And for inspiration, here is the full, uncut video of Vilks being attacked for showing a film, produced by a very brave Iranian woman, of Mohammed as a gay man. At about five minutes into the clip, a shrieking man, speaking in accented Swedish, shows that while he might have learned the language of his new country, he still doesn't quite get the culture: He asks, incredulously, why the police "didn't stop the film."

_____________________________
Look, I respect other cultures. I respect their right to their beliefs. But to hold someone outside a given culture to it's standards runs into the same problems that the Republicans have trying to hold gays, unwed mothers, Hispanic immigrants, non-Christians and etc. to their culture.

It has little to do with the cultural beliefs and everything to do with control.

So, if you need to attack someone for standing up for what is right; to borrow a phrase from a very good movie: I am Sparticus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. "Look, I respect other cultures."

Mmhmm.

[TalkingDog]

7. What I don't respect is bullying. If the culture in question bullies, then no.

I'm not religious. I find many Christians and their actions detestable. But I will defend them from people like Richard Dawkins because he is a hate filled bully.

I don't have a dog in the religious fight. I don't have a dog in the culture fight.

I DO have a dog in THIS fight:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906


If South Park wants to make ignorant stupid anti Christian/Jewish/Islamic cartoons, I probably would find most of it offensive. But should they be able to make them? Yes.

So look down your nose and make knowing noises...IDGAF.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Mmhmm.

You're just innocently wanting to draw Mohammed.

[Goblinmonger]

97. Why do they get to tell me what to do?

If they don't want to have drawings of Mohammed, fine. Don't. I won't force you. Promise. If I want to draw Mohammed, why can't I? Do I have to believe that Jesus is the son of man just because Christians do? Or am I OK to state that there is no historical evidence at all that there ever was a Jesus? I can respect their beliefs but I don't need to let them drive my daily activities.

[marshall]

99. And Rosa Parks innocently wanted a seat in the front of the bus

It's about resisting unethical authority.

[AmericaIsGreat]

49. Defend Christians against Richard Dawkins?

Defend them from what, exactly? His writing of books about evolution and calling for people to turn away from ancient mythology and turning to science and logic? Please. Those people need someone to bully them into reality. It would make the world a slightly better place.

[BuddhaGirl]

101. you forgot to add "IMO"

why should people be "bullied" into YOUR reality?

[AmericaIsGreat]

109. The evidence that shows organized religion's foundations to be man-made

is not my reality any more than the Earth being mostly spherical with a bulge at the equator is my reality.

Furthermore, if the activities of people who subscribe to organized religion did not affect anyone but them and their immediate environment, it wouldn't be a problem. But we don't say to people "think whatever you want, based on whatever you want or with no basis at all, and just go about your life." We set boundaries for people to be able to do things that affect others when their motivation has no basis in fact. We're just too scared to do it with religion because it's been around for a long time.

Fuck that. Religion bullied people for thousands of years without concern. Now it's going to be bullied back into the Stone Age where it should have never left.

IMO!

[BuddhaGirl]

110. well, you gave your opinion

good thing this "bullying" as you call it really isn't ever going to really to happen.

[GoneOffShore]

112. Dawkins is a hate filled bully? WTF?

I'm sorry, but you are full of shit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. Well, fuck, deadline's over. I should have known of that three days ago. -nt

[TalkingDog]

4. It's the 20th. Or at least that's what I read.

[Bucky]

5. Too bad for you. The winning prize was 72 virgins.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. I wonder what the other 16 are. -nt

[Clintonista2]

86. Here's one

She`s never been married before. Surely she hasnt defied the bible by having sex outside of marriage.

[Kolesar]

12. Bites heads off chickens? eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. OK, now that is scary.

Where did you get pictures of all my friends? Are you spying on me?

[RandomThoughts]

46. I think the virgin idea is a metaphor for pure.

It seems that in spiritual translation it is not about many women for wives for the thoughts about some of wifely reason, but more the concept of women in metaphor, not gender.

And not owned, but with, it seems that for it to be translated to a worldly view seems a bit wrong. Although I do believe there is many joys in heaven but for both women and men, I somehow think the idea of virgins in heaven means something different then people think of as virgins here.


There are people that speak about people becoming virgins again, some right wing Christian groups have comments like that, but again I don't think it is about sex, and some of them speak of it in that context.

I think it is about the concept of not being someone that sells out to everyone before you meet them, or gives themselves to anyone without love or honor as part of the decision.

However in the same way, people that have had bad things in past, like selling out, again a metaphor, or many partners, again a metaphor, can have grace and be pure again.

That is how I think on that, but not sure if anyone else thinks that way. And many people use that term for other things also, so it could mean different things to different people, and it could even be used by some with different context also.

[Mojeoux]

113. I love the GEEKS!

kiss geek!

[Nye Bevan]

3. The problem with drawing Mohammed is that you may be beheaded.

Immersing Jesus Christ in urine is pretty safe as the Pope doesn't do fatwas. But nobody wants to be executed. And that includes the administrators of this website, which is why this thread will likely be locked.

[TalkingDog]

11. So be it. I respect their right as owners of DU But the 1st amendment is kinda important too. n/t

[Quantess]

14. This topic typically doesn't get locked.

It's a fully debatable topic. For me, it goes back to the idea of, should we let the terrorists win by cowering in fear to death threats?

[Nye Bevan]

15. Last time around it was locked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8208802&mesg_id=8210574

[stevenleser]

34. In that case, IBTL

;-)

[LeftinOH]

6. Show me the Virgin Mary in a three-way with Buddha *and* Mohammad-

I am a person of faith, and I know better than to get my undies in a twist over some images.

[TalkingDog]

8. Thank you, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

This all started over the South Park flap.

[Karenina]

18. And what it has SUCCEEDED in doing is getting Facebook SHUT DOWN

in Pakistan. All the young people there who rely on it for outside contact thank you. :eyes:

[Codeine]

30. Don't blame people using their freedoms

for the reactions of the religious fascists who would plunge the world into their private 14th century paradise.

[appal_jack]

50. Yes.

Nicely stated Codeine.

Freedom of expression is OUR collective national value. The Constitution is the bedrock upon which this country stands.

Drawings of Mohammed are FINE in the United States. Islamic folks offended by such are welcome to refrain from looking at them or supporting them, much as I have never watched "Big Brother" a 'reality' show that offends me (dumb name, dumber premise that it is 'reality').

I imagine from what I have heard about it that I would find "2 girls, 1 cup" offensive if I watched it (I find excreta to be distinctly un-sexy. Videos of "Two girls, and lots of other things" are fine by me). And yet here I sit, with the full power of the Internet open before me, and I DON'T NEED a censor to keep me from googling-up "2 girls, 1 cup". I just refrain, with my own puny willpower and inclination.

Amazing, huh?


-app

[Karenina]

107. :SIGH:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. fapfapfapfapfap

:hide:

[blondeatlast]

13. I respect other cultures too, so I will pass. nt

[BuddhaGirl]

103. +1

n/t

[Flaneur]

16. No thank you. The First Amendment gives me the right to be an ass.

I choose not to exercise that right for the cheap thrill of offending Muslims.

[blondeatlast]

17. +1, since you put it so much better than I did. nt

[readmoreoften]

23. +1

[closeupready]

93. +1 - another topic which demonstrates the average age of a typical DU member is 22.

Or seems like it sometimes, with some threads and comments.

[jberryhill]

21. Wake me when "promote progress and understanding" day rolls along

Oooh, we found out how to piss them off.

Can we figure out how to persuade them to advance their thinking instead?

[jimlup]

22. I'm like strongly neutral on this one!???

On one hand I'm strongly in favor of Free Speech. On the other, I strongly respect other cultures. Free Speech probably wins here but still I find it hard to consider as an action for myself.

[okie]

24. I can't understand the fascination

...with Mohammad cartoons. Our country has been making Muslim people's lives miserable through colonialism and outright slaughter for decades and people choose to get indignant over the fact that they don't like us drawing their prophet. Why is this important?

[Ex Lurker]

28. it's not that they don't like it. it's that they murder people who do things they don't like

and that they immigrate to other countries, then expect the other citizens of those countries to abide by THEIR customs. That's what it's about. Fuck them.

[okie]

32. I am aware of one murder

Theo van Gogh, for something unrelated to the cartoon controversy. Most of those killed in the protests around the world were killed as a result of police firing into crowds. The veiled death threat to the South Park guys came from an insignificant blog. Offended Muslims are not out to kill anyone.

Muslim's emigrating to Western European nations are actually the ones being chastised for not conforming to European culture (as if there were such a thing). Meanwhile more than a million have been killed in Iraq at the hands of American and European armies. A similar slaughter is taking place in Afghanistan, and we worry about cartoons. Fuck us.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Van Gogh's murder was distantly related to the cartoon controversy...

He was murdered for making a film critical of the treatment of Muslim women by Muslim men. He "offended" Islam with his movie, and got murdered for it. So, your comment about offended Muslims not being out to kill rings kind of hollow.

[okie]

38. I am aware of that.

His death is tragedy. But does it represent a move on the part of Muslims to impose their will and way of life on Western people? I don't think it does. I think the views of Van Gogh's killer are not widely held, and focusing on them is not helpful when talking about the relationship between Muslim immigrants and European governments.

[Kurska]

63. I'd say taking someones life is very much "Imposing your will" on someone.

"I think the views of Van Gogh's killer are not widely held", that doesn't make them any less dangerous or any less worth confronting, which is exactly what this day is doing.

[okie]

66. That's not what I was going for with that question

Is one murder representative of a threatening movement to impose Islam on 'the West'? I'm saying no. I'm also saying that murder (which is of course shameful and sad) has to be seen within a larger context of Western bullying and domination of a far weaker group of people. THAT should be the concern, in my view. Not beating our chests and iterating our right to offend. Sure we do, but what's the point?

[Kurska]

72. No it is about the conflict between fundamental Islam and sanity, not Muslims and the West.

And that conflict has CERTAINLY claimed more lives then just one.

"I'm also saying that murder (which is of course shameful and sad) has to be seen within a larger context of Western bullying and domination of a far weaker group of people.". Thats beautiful man, maybe you should have written the eulogy. "You know, sorry your friend, family member or fellow human being had to be killed, but this murder really needs to be viewed in the greater social context of western bullying of defenseless Muslims." Shine on you crazy diamond.

If you can't practice a right you don't have it, we're certainly allowed to offend, Christians, Jews and yes MUSLIMS too manage to swallow criticism of their religion every single day somewhere, without murdering someone. Why do these assholes deserve a pass? They are no better then fundamental Christians and deserve to be approached the same way.

[okie]

74. But how is that an argument against what I said?

In Algeria, those fighting for freedom from French rule killed civilians. That's just a fact. But don't we have to look at those deaths within the context of the political struggle? Does that diminish how sad those deaths are for the people who lost loved ones? Of course not (and I freely admit, though I think the Algerians were correct to fight for their freedom, I would have a difficult time talking about this with the mother of a child killed on the street). We're talking about political realities. Muslims immigrants in Europe are part of an oppressed group. They are attacked in their home countries, and when they emigrate they are treated like an invading horde. How can we not look at Theo Van Gogh's death in light of this? If we can't ask the hard questions, we don't get anywhere. No one is saying it's alright that he was killed, we're saying don't the conditions that made his death possible really suck? Why can't we work on changing them?

Worrying about offending Muslims with cartoons is a distraction from this task, as I said before. And you're right, most Muslims do swallow their outrage over these things. That's why it's so silly we act as if our rights are being trampled by an incredibly marginalized group.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okie]

77. One of the ones destroyed by American missiles?

One of the ones with a repressive regime backed by Western powers? One of the one subject to a drone attack if you're at family member's wedding? What a thoughtless response.

Maybe the immigrants who feel oppressed should struggle against their oppression. Maybe people on the left in these countries should listen to their concerns, not tell them to go home.

[Kurska]

79. Knew it was only a matter of time before you tried to outright justify murder.

Not to say I'm surprised. You clearly think it is better for Muslims living in Europe to "struggle" against the "oppression" that has allowed millions of them to come live and work in first world countries, that provides them with Healthcare, law, order and a chance at a better life. Muslims have problems in Europe yes and I'm not telling them to shut up and be grateful, Muslims need to come to same conclusion every other minority group that has struggled with oppression has come to.

Violence gets us nowhere.

You're transparent.

[okie]

82. What do you mean by that?

I justified murder in what way? Support your argument. I'm not flinging wild accusations against you.

I'm not telling anyone to act out violently. That's not what I meant by 'struggle'. It's not enough to just say to immigrants, 'you have healthcare, decent wages, and democracy!'. These people are still living in ghettos. They are still being blamed for Europe's plights, and they are still treated as unwanted invaders, as the poster for minaret bans in Switzerland clearly shows.

[Kurska]

84. 1. Define struggle 2. What the hell does any of that have to do with Murder in cold blood?

Excuse me if your desperate attempts to excuse barbarity in the face of more barbarity are getting on my nerves. Will you take a principled stand and call murder WRONG without immediately having to point out something else and say "BUT WAIT THIS IS WORSE LOOK AT THIS"?

I am not downplaying the problems Muslims face in Europe or any minority group anywhere. I'm saying violence isn't the answer and violence can't be excused away with more violence, why can't you do that?

[okie]

111. What is unprincipled about my stance?

I said the murder was sad and shameful, didn't I? I think I qualified my statements about the murder every time I've discussed it. What more can I say? If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

But isn't there more we can say about the murder? Didn't it happen within a certain political environment? Why should that subject not be up for discussion? It's crucial.

As for struggle, I am talking about political struggle. I don't believe the views of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe are very well represented. I believe they are being scapegoated for problems they plainly did not create. And I see a lot of patronizing liberals shouting at them about burqas instead of taking their concerns seriously.

[Quantess]

83. Self edit

[Kurska]

85. Oh lord, it is almost as if asking people not to murder those who offend is rightwing.

Thats a concept the rightwing actually find difficult themselves.

[Quantess]

87. I still have no idea what you mean.

[Kurska]

88. It would be wonderful if you would contribute. n/t

[Ex Lurker]

42. there have been at least two murders, and other attempts

Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live under 24 hour police guard. And of course Salman Rushdie started it all off. I will go the extra mile to avoid giving offense to anyone. But when someone resorts to threats and intimidation, that's an immediate dealbreaker. Like I said, fuck them.

[okie]

53. But what if we are the ones intimidating and acting out violently?

That's the point! Would Van Gogh, or Fortuyn be dead if Western policies in the Middle East did not incite so many passionate people? Would we even see this 'culture clash' in Western Europe if the actions of our governments did not force so many people to pick up and leave their homes? I'm reading over some of the things Pim Fortuyn said right now. They're very inflammatory, and also ignorant. Would he have been trying to close the borders to Muslims if they were able to live in peace in the Middle East and in North Africa? Our policies can affect that, yet we get fired up over cartoons.

[Ex Lurker]

58. that sounda an awful lot like blaming the victim

at any rate, Ali and Rushdie are Muslim. It's difficult for me to see how we're at fault for Muslim radicals turning on fellow Muslims.

[okie]

59. The question of 'victimhood' is not an easy one

I think it's a shame whenever a person is murdered (and Fortuyn was not killed by a Muslim, let's remember), but the things he was saying scare me. They scare me because those views are so widely held in Europe. The rise of nationalistic, right wing parties in Britain and in Italy is troubling. Its gotten to the point that even mainstream political parties feel they have to adopt some of the worst, most ignorant anti-immigrant rhetoric in order to get elected.

As for Ali and Rushdie (who I don't believe is religious at all, though I could be mistaken), I think it's sad they have to live under police protection. I don't think their cases are an argument against what I am saying. I think some very cynical people are using Ali's story for cheap political points. I also think some of what she is saying is just wrong. Saying Islam is something akin to a new Nazism is ignorant, and it plays into the hands of some very dangerous people on the right.

[Ex Lurker]

60. be that as it may, she has a right to say it without fearing for her life

as do all of us. And that is the problem. As someone said upthread, when we bow to threats and intimidation, we enable the bullies. Also, when we talk of playing into the hands of right wind extremists in Europe, I contend that the Islamic radicals are doing just that, far more than people like Ali.

[okie]

65. Of course she should

But, realistically, what can we do about it? I'm arguing that this would not even be an issue in a world without Western imperialism. I am arguing that 'we' (US government, certain governments in Western Europe) are the bullies, and we should not be acting shocked and indignant when we're hit back. We need to stop killing children overseas. We need to stop empowering authoritarian governments. We need to stop insulting the refugees who show up on our shores. That's all people have the power to do. We can't stop people from being angry when we don't.

[Ex Lurker]

67. I have to disagree

the conservative muslim countries treat their own women and minority groups (gays, anyone who deviates from the cultural norn) like second class citizens at best. At worst they murder them out of hand. The immigrants have simply brought those practices with them. We are far from blameless in that part of the world, but we didn't have anything to do with this.

[okie]

73. I think we did

We have backed some of the most fundamentalist, repressive regimes in the Middle East. We have also backed repressive secular regimes which has only fueled the fundamentalist cause. But most people in these countries can not be considered 'fundamentalist'. If you were to walk around in Iraq or Iran asking people about a starting up a caliphate most would just be confused.

There's a lot of what annoying liberal arts types refer to as essentialism in these discussions. Y'know, saying that it's alright to be skeptical of this new minority because Islam represents anti-Western values. But Islam represents a lot of things. And Muslim immigrants hold a lot of views (often contradictory ones). And Western nations treat their minorities like second class citizens, and when there is minority group without much political clout it is often very easy to just point fingers at THEM rather than address 'our issues'. And again, all this is especially troubling when we are engaged in imperial projects abroad.

[Kurska]

81. Your lack of historical perspective is glaring.

Fundamental Islam is not a western created phenomenon. It is a sickness that took the weakened, but still amazingly advanced Muslim civilizations of Islam's golden age and throttled the life the Mongols had left in it out of it. It is a plague that kept one of the previously most intellectually fertile regions of the world and stopped all progress for nearly 600 years. It is a resurgent, disgusting and backwards philosophy. Your attempts to apologize for it with western mistakes only demonstrate your utterly flawed eurocentric view of the world. If anyone has a problems with Muslims here it is the ones who apparently think they are children not to be held accountable for their actions.

[okie]

114. I disagree

Take Iran. The elected government in the 1950s was a secular, social democratic one. We all the know the story. The CIA had the Prime Minister overthrown and installed an oppressive regime more to the liking of Western business interests. Can you see how something like this is related to the rise of the current clerical regime? Can you see how backing Mujihadeen in our imperial spats with Russia might lead to the current mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan? I don't think 500 year old history is particularly relevant here. Nothing has done more to shape the state of Middle East affairs today than Western imperialism.

Much of the political Islam we see in the Middle East has its roots in the 1950s with the struggles of the conservative, anti-colonial Muslim Brotherhood (Sayyid Qutb being the most important figure here). The BBC did a nice series dealing with this a few years back. It's called the Power of Nightmares. Check it out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

[Quantess]

68. My thoughts, exactly.

+1

[Codeine]

29. Oh fuck that nonsense.

Not liking it is fine; I dislike all kinds of things. what pisses people off is the insane overreaction -- rather than ignore it like I ignore all the things I dislike (American Idol, I'm looking at you!) they start with the "You drew The Prophet and now there's a fatwa against you and we're going to kill you and cut your head off wharrgarblllllll!"

We have the freedom in the West to draw anything we want, revered Skydaddy or not. Should one find oneself uncomfortable with such freedoms one should stay in the theocracy of one's choice and leave 21st century folk alone.

[okie]

33. I don't think that's the typical reaction

It's more like, 'I find this fascination with trying to offend us offensive, can't you people get some sense of perspective'?

The idea that radical Islam is a big threat to civil liberties in the United States is wrong. A radical Muslim community doesn't really even exist in the US. See Scott Atran's talks about this a bit in this lecture:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5701806759199654816#

Muslims in America are considered fully assimilated. That doesn't mean many of them aren't offended by depictions of Mohammad, but the response to that shouldn't be to laugh and call them backward idiots. It should be to try to understand their position, and to try to look at the cartoons within the context of the West's bullying of Muslim people.

[appal_jack]

52. Here are some 'typical' reactions to free speech

Yes, these pictures are from Europe. But most of Europe lacks something like our 1st Amendment, so this sort of bullshit flies better over there...


http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp


-app

[okie]

57. What makes you think those are typical views

It's a handful of placards. I think the people holding those placards are in a very tiny minority. I think the research on this backs me up (see the Scott Atran video I posted above). I'm happy to consider opposing views, but a few angry nuts at a protest doesn't cut it.

Meanwhile millions of Muslims have been killed in Asia, and European governments are blaming the immigrants for their country's ills. Again, priorities folks!

[AmericaIsGreat]

54. This is a largely a response to Comedy Central's censorship

People expressing they won't be censored. Simple as that. You are conflating the issue talking about American Muslims being assimilated. Do they threaten or think it's ok to threaten death for depictions of Mohammed? That's the only question.

They can be offended; nobody is calling people backward idiots for being offended. They are calling people backward idiots for threatening death as a response to being offended.

I think "nobody has the right not to be offended" is the phrase of choice in this matter; certain people need to remember and come to terms with that.

[Odin2005]

31. Because it's fun to piss of these illiberal morans who don't understand what Free Speech means.

People don't have a legal right NOT to be offended. Just because someone offends you does not give you the right to threaten the person's life. If they don't like Western concepts like Freedom of Speech and Women's Rights they can leave.

[okie]

36. What if they're here, or in Europe...

...because some American missile blew up their house? Or because some American's decided it was in America's best political and economic interests to install some repressive regime in their country? How would you feel if this were the case, and upon arrival in the 'enlightened West' you found a bunch of smug white people making up contests about how best to offend you?

The point is not that drawing Mohammad is necessarily 'wrong', it's that this is a distraction. Millions of people are being murdered by Western governments. Who cares if we can press the buttons of some pious immigrants?

[Odin2005]

40. You are missing the point.

What does our moronic foreign policy have to do with the principle of Freedom of Speech? It doesn't matter how they feel, people have a right to express their opinion, even if others consider it bigoted or offensive. I may hate what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it, no matter how evil and disgusting it is, otherwise we will be on the slippery slope to censorship.

[okie]

48. There is a connection

Not necessarily between our foreign policy and abstract concepts of free speech, but between our foreign policy and our attitudes towards Muslim immigrants (we essentially force people to emigrate, then point and laugh when they show up on 'our' shores). These attitudes are represented in the kinds of cartoons that get people so angry.

Think about that one Danish cartoon with Mohammad wearing a bomb shaped turban. What is the message there? It's that Islam is inherently violent and always has been. There's no attempt to seriously examine why some Muslims act violently, it's only purpose was to be inflammatory. The outrage spawned by those cartoons just lead to cartoonists trying to outrage people for outrage's sake. There's no serious political point being made. Some Muslims get offended by the depiction of Mohammad. Alright. We get it.

I'm not saying we need to ban the cartoons, or censor South Park. I'm just saying it's juvenile. We have real concerns.

[Quantess]

92. You are a parody of a liberal.

[okie]

115. I don't consider myself a liberal

I am a socialist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. I sort of agree.

It's fun to piss off mentally unstable dicks who totally overreact to everything.

That said, this is just plain bigotry. This is like having a "Let's Call Black People Niggers Day" because some ultra-radical black nationalist wanted to ban the word.

[Odin2005]

43. People have a right ot their opinions, no matter how disgusting they are.

[slackmaster]

98. Link to video that explains it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4njJXI8

[spoony]

25. Isn't that a libertarian rag that thinks Bush was too liberal? nt

[izzybeans]

55. yep.

[and-justice-for-all]

26. drat...I would have gladly sent something in...nt

[TK421]

27. For the record, I'm still working on my drawing of Mohammed nt

[BolivarianHero]

37. You want my opinion?

The Soviet Union's mistake was not being brutal enough in dealing with the Mujahideen and similar groups.

[okie]

41. 2 million dead civilians..

...according to some estimates. How many would have done the trick?

And what are you saying with this post? That if someone would just really 'crack down' on these Muslim nations we wouldn't have to worry about them causing trouble here?

[BolivarianHero]

45. Not at all...

I'm just saying if Afghanistan and Pakistan had been under Soviet rule, they might have universal literacy, gender equality, and some modicum of social progress akin to that which the Muslim-majority nations under Soviet rule has enjoyed. The West is to blame for the rise of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism and nurtured then in a myriad of ways as a means of checking the influence of socialist ideas. Pitting one fundamentalism faction against another (Christian against Muslim, Taliban vs. Northern Alliance, or anything else) is not going to fix it.

The Soviet Union didn't actually invade Afghanistan till Washington started carrying water for the Islamists.

[okie]

51. I don't agree with that view

Of course, the US was involved in a very cynical game with their support of Afghan rebels, but I don't agree that Soviet rule would have been good for Afghanistan. People must be allowed to choose their own destinies. Afghanistan payed a terrible price for no reason other than it was piece in a game played by world powers. The recently deceased British socialist, Chris Harman wrote a good article about the invasion back in 1980. It's reproduced here (quite a few transcription errors, but whatever):

http://chrisharman.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghanistan-and-russian-invasion-of.html

"*The Russian takeover will not break the impasse faced by the regime in Kabul. It will not in any sense, take Afghanistan forward. In all likelihood it will turn against the regime much of the urban middle class as well as the Muslim tribesmen. It will encourage precisely the clinging to archaic religious beliefs and customs that can be witnessed among the Muslin peoples of the USSR itself (see the article by Victor Haynes). This is shown by the fact that Karmal has already retreated from some of the reforms imposed by his predecessors Taraki and Amin. The Russian presence cannot in any sense solve the problems of the Afghan people. It can only make them worse.

*The motives behind the Russian invasion have nothing to do with a desire to
advance 'progress' in Afghanistan. Like the Americans in Vietnam in the mid-sixties, the Russians are out to prove that they can police their own sphere of influence. They were worried by the threats to the regime in Kabul because its downfall would have been a blow to their prestige and made it more difficult for them to control the Czechs, the Poles, the Hungarians, the national minorities inside Russia. One of the aims of the tank movements near the Kyber has been to remind workers in Prague and Budapest and Warsaw and Leningrad — of what happened in 1956 and 1968."

[KonaKane]

44. Because trying to piss off a sixth of the world population is a great idea.

.

[Codeine]

62. Yes, let us tiptoe around their superstitious fear of images

of their utterly imaginary skydaddy and allow them to decide that which is and is not appropriate for us to draw, read, or say. The only folks who actually get pissed off at this nonsense are the ones who get pissed off at EVERYTHING anyway. The Islamic dude who runs the gas station near my house really doesn't seem up in arms about it.

I don't mince my words about the ridiculousness of people expecting me to abide by the restrictions of Christian idiocy, and I certainly will not be limited in my actions or statements because the belief in question is a different iteration of the same Bronze Age goatherder mythology.

[slackmaster]

100. I'd rather piss them off then allow them to piss on my liberty

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!

[HuckleB]

47. Yeah, I saw this on skepchick.org ...

It could be the best blog ever!

http://skepchick.org/blog/

[Lucian]

56. See, this is why all religion is bad.

I see absolutely no positive to religion. All it does is hold back humanity and progress.

[Codeine]

64. Some at DU make a special exception

for the homophobic, anti-woman primitivists in the fundamentalist Muslim community -- they make anti-Western noises so there is a contingent here willing to carry water for them.

[okie]

70. What 'special exception' is being made?

People are perfectly capable of criticizing someone's homophobia and misogyny, while also recognizing that there is far more to Islam, and the personal lives of its adherents, than homophobia and misogyny. And if we care about things like putting a stop to the brutalities inflicted on Muslims overseas, we should be willing to listen to the concerns of Muslim communities in the West.

[FLAprogressive]

90. I've noticed this as well. nt

[trotsky]

95. Excellent observation. n/t

[okie]

69. What if religion motivates people to make progress?

Or to liberate themselves? See the speeches of Malcolm X. Or the work of Liberation Theologians. What if drawing cartoons for the purpose of annoying another group of people does not represent human progress?

[FLAprogressive]

91. Please explain to me how radical Islam motivates anyone to make progress.

See: Saudi Arabia

[okie]

117. I guess it would depend on what we mean by 'radical Islam'...

...and 'progress'. The Muslims who struggled for independence from France in Algeria were often quite radical, as were the Libyan Muslims defending their country from Mussolini. I think their struggles were just, and I think it would be wrong to say they were not motivated by their religion.

Malcolm X was considered a radical Muslim, and he was obviously a very important voice in civil rights struggles. As for Saudi style regimes, no, I don't think they represent progress. But then, who are the ones propping those regimes up?

[Lucian]

96. Drawing cartoons = freedom of speech

and when drawing cartoons threatens the lives of others (ie the creators of South Park), then that's where I draw the line.

[Karenina]

106. WELCOME TO DU, okie!!!

:yourock::yourock::yourock:

[Codeine]

108. Some religious movements do motivate progress.

There was a time when a vibrant and inclusive Islamic civilization was a guiding light of human intellectual development.

Fundamentalist movements in general - and fundamentalist Islam in particular - however, do not. Your attempt to represent all religious movements as being comparable and of equal value to civilization has failed.

[spoony]

80. What is the "this" you refer to?

Drawing cartoons to offend people? Discussing drawing cartoons to offend people? Comedy Central's Standards and Practices department? Facebook? Reason.com?

[JCMach1]

61. Strongly support their right to do this, but wouldn't do it myself because of my muslim friends

of course a moot point...

I can't draw anyway...

[Quantess]

71. Does it matter whether you can draw, or not?

I thought it was any depiction/drawing of Muhammad, notwithstanding artistic talent. I don't have any muslim friends currently, so I can't say for sure.

[DeSwiss]

76. K&R

"If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely
for views you dislike. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." ~ Noam Chomsky

[fujiyama]

78. .

[FLAprogressive]

89. Cool.......Of course, DU hypocrisy about religion shines whenever Islam is discussed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Irony: they had to shut off comments because of "gratuitously insulting imagery"

Why We're Having an Everybody Draw Mohammed Contest on Thursday May 20

...
Update: Due to the high, server-crushing volume of comments and the gratuitously insulting imagery of many of them—it seems that if there's one group of folks more obsessed with gay sex than Islamic terrorists, it's critics of the same—we've decided to shut down comments to this post. For those who wrongly equate this with censorship, please note that the Web, like the world itself, is wide and there are plenty of places you can go to post your comments about just about anything. If this be censorship, then kicking drunken party guests out of your living room at 6AM is ethnic cleansing. And the murder of Theo van Gogh simply another bad film review.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/18/get-ready-for-everyone-draw-mo

No, it may not be 'censorship', but how dumb do you have to be to call for gratuitous insults of Mohammed, and then to act surprised when you get them?

[mod mom]

102. WTF? Wouldn't it be better to show other cultures respect?

[Bucky]

104. That is not the DU way.

I think people feel obliged to bash Islam because we bash fundamentalist Christianity so much more. To then fail to bash Islam would make us guilty of profiling.

[Codeine]

105. If I don't show the dominant religion in my own culture respect

I certainly feel no need to show other religions respect. Religion is stupid, all of it.

[treestar]

116. Everyone owes tolerance to others on religious matters

That includes Muslims. Killing people for not following one's religion is inexcusable. The middle ages are over.