Not Even In South Park?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html

by jamesbressi • 16 years ago

257 146 16 years ago

nytimes.com

jamesbressi2• 16 years ago

Skip to the 6th paragraph if you already know the back story and want to read the actual Op-Ed piece.

locopati• 16 years ago

And a well-stated counterpoint http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...

illumin83• 16 years ago

I don't think the counterpoint is as valid as you say it is. Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a "gay Jesus" character is a lot different than killing someone.

There are some small similarities between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims. Bombing of abortion clinics comes to mind, however, let's not pretend that a strongly worded email or phone call is anything like killing a cartoonist because he drew the wrong picture.

Alex39173• 16 years ago

"Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a 'gay Jesus' character is a lot different than killing someone."

Threatening to burn down the theatre, kill the staff, and kill the director strikes me as more than a strongly worded email. See fundamentalists like to use what I'd call the sandwich method. First you threaten to kill someone, then you kill them, and then you take credit for killing them. These threats seem pretty clearly like step 1.

DannoHung• 16 years ago

Doesn't that just mean that the really crazy ones in each religion are pissed off at different things?

liuliu• 16 years ago

But this is not a "well-stated counterpoint". The article from your link justified the action with listing all successful censoring actions in the past. It like pointing out how many nations in the world has the Internet censorship and conclude that it is correct thing to do. A list of all actions in the past cannot prove the correctness of the action at all.

Besides, I don't like the pop-out in the link.

spot• 16 years ago

the point of listing them all wasn't to justify it but to show that such threats are not uniquely muslim, as claimed in the original piece.

Jun82• 16 years ago

I don't think this piece goes anywhere near "well-stated", to me it read more like a hysterical outburst. Look, I don't know who Douthat is, he's not one of the NYT writers I read (I'd rather read Dowd for her dazzling word games). And I don't care. All I care is the column he's written and that's the way it should be, I think.

Now, the Salon essay's main point seems to be to argue that "threat-induced censorship" is not "a uniquely Islamic practice". I totally agree with that, other groups also dabble in such threats (and sometimes carry them out, too, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). However, carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...) or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries.

I know, because I'm a Muslim and I come from such a country.

sshumaker2• 16 years ago

This particular brand of 'worldwide censorship' is not unique in this day and age - Scientology practices something very similar, using the threat of copyright to discourage talking about their practices.

In any event, it's only recent globalization has made this approach a possibility. Go back two decades, and the Soviet Union practiced similar censorship within their own territories. Go back a few hundred years, and the catholic church threatened excommunication if you didn't toe the party line.

It's the same idea - just the techniques have gotten more refined.

Alex39173• 16 years ago

"carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries."

What about the war on drugs? What about the millions of people we killed because they preferred communism?

adelevie6• 16 years ago

Almost all of Greenwald's counterpoints referred to situations in which public resources were involved: public funding of an art exhibition, public funding of a play via a university, use of public airwaves.

What's somewhat frightening about the South Park censorship is that cable is not regulated by the FCC for indecency as it's not a public resource. What's really frightening is that the cable company was able to censor the Internet "broadcast" of the episode.

I don't have a problem with Janet Jackson's breast on CBS, but I respect the complaints of those who do. Spectrum is a scarce national resource, so we should democratically allocate it. Cable, and especially the Internet, should be afforded a much greater degree of freedom of expression.

We no longer live in an open and free society when a man with a web site gets to decide what millions of people can and cannot watch.

philwelch5• 16 years ago

Consider me disappointed. That was merely a weak "tu quoque" argument, or even a rousing round of "what-aboutery", but it was no counterpoint. (Definition of "what-aboutery": http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...).

I'm disappointed, personally. I would have loved to read someone actually argue that satirical depictions of Muhammed should be censored. (Well, someone who isn't threatening to kill people for it at least.)

njharman• 16 years ago

Are people this short memoried / one sided / blind?

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

Others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_controversies#Visual_...

And go ask the grieving families of abortion doctors if they think only Islamic fundies murder for their religion?

praptak2• 16 years ago

Piss Christ as a counterexample? So what exactly have the fundies achieved in this case, compared to blacking-out of Mohammad by CN?

sabat2• 16 years ago

Piss Christ didn't inspire any murders that we know about, but he's got a good point about the ongoing abortion clinic killings.

adelevie6• 16 years ago

The issue with Piss Christ was government funding. I doubt anyone is in danger for their lives for Piss Christ.

evo_94• 16 years ago

Man I would love a real Super Best Friends t-shirt (and not the cheap rip-offs on cafepress right now or the the one with the black censor box).

Funny, I was just watching an illegal stream of SouthPark over the weekend and they showed the original superbest friends ep and there was no censorship at all on Muhammed. In fact, they treated him kind of cool, if anything.

adelevie6• 16 years ago

The best part of South Park exemplifying the double standard is at the end of the Cartoon Wars episodes where they show Jesus and the American flag in a pretty vulgar scene.

I'm sure Comedy Central received plenty of complaints from offended Christians, yet there was no censorship.

imp• 16 years ago

There were also probably no death threats.

niekmaas• 16 years ago

So it seems that by making a death threat getting what you want is possible in the western world today. If you don't want SP to make fun of your religious leader? Just make a few death threats and they will censor the episode. And on top of that all other shows are afraid to touch the topic too.

By what will happen is, for instance, Paris Hilton activists will start making death threats to the SP creators? Will Comedy Central start censoring all references to Paris Hilton too?

Probably nothing will happen since Paris Hilton activists haven't killed anyone yet.

So in fact you can conclude that terrism does work to get what you want in the world today.

mcantelon• 16 years ago

Hard to say. Christian extremists are quite willing to issue death threats against abortion practitioners and such.

easp• 16 years ago

Given the extreme rhetoric I've seen voiced by various "Christian" groups and individuals in the US over the past few decades, I'd be surprised if there haven't been death threats against Parker and Stone. That we haven't heard as much about them doesn't surprise me either. Right-wing domestic terrorism gets some coverage, but is typically downplayed.

evo_94• 16 years ago

So what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim? Wouldn't that be an easy way to solve this for them and then do whatever the hell they want? Sort of like the dentist on Seinfeld that changes religions 'just for the jokes'?

In all seriousness, it worked for some Fox News reporters a few years ago who were capture by muslim extremist. That's almost a South Park ep right there it so absurd.

anamax6• 16 years ago

> So what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim?

Nope. Then their "unIslamic" behavior would be apostacy and blasphemy, which are always taken more seriously when committed by "the faithful".

evo_94• 16 years ago

Yup, for sure. I was joking hence my comment about it making a great topic for a SouthPark. I guess I'll lay my sarcasm on thicker next time, people are awfully jumpy on this topic apparently.

ErrantX9• 16 years ago

The reason this is always such an "outrage" when the Muslim religion is parodied is historical.

The religion was founded on the idea of spreading the itself as widely as possible. Certain leaders (the founder himself even) achieved this through conquering and control. Which was fine thousands of years ago when being invaded was just part and parcel of life. :)

Nowadays the original edicts don't really have any answers of what to do when you get a detractor from the religious teachings (i.e. a parody such as this). Hence extremists turn to literal interpretations and go for violence.

EDIT: hmm, not that I mean to suggest Islam is a violent religion - this was meant as an explanation to the other comments that were wondering why slamming Islam elicits such a violent response from extremists compared to other religions - it is historical.

(I've scrapped all the respectful nonsense - it was a quick opinion at the end of a comment relating to something different. I never intended it to be taken so seriously :))

CWuestefeld• 16 years ago

Voted back up out of negative territory.

I strongly oppose the sentiment (I'll avoid the colloquial "violently oppose"). But it's still an important viewpoint in a discussion like this.

jerf3• 16 years ago

If we're going to be that respectful of Islam, why are we not going to be that respectful of Christianity? Or, relevant to the current discussion, Scientology?

Because they don't threaten violence anywhere near as credibly? That's a terrible, terrible incentive to set up. (But perhaps you have another answer?)

ErrantX9• 16 years ago

[most of this was incoherent - sorry]

Perhaps the suggestion of be respectful is the wrong choice of words; probably I mean "avoid inciting the extremist elements" instead (till they become irrelevant).

What would you suggest as an alternate solution?

adrianwaj2• 16 years ago

I will never respect Islam so long as it wants me and my society dead or radically changed for the worse. And it doesn't just stop at freedom of speech, as this story only points toward. The fundamentalists are what Islam is all about, it's not my problem that Islam hasn't reformed in the past 1000 years, or that the moderates can't moderate the fundamentalists. The fight for freedom never stops - and you don't win it by taking away someone else's freedom.

mrduncan2• 16 years ago

I haven't read it yet and don't doubt that it's a great op-ed but:

Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.

From: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jrockway2• 16 years ago

Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

pw0ncakes• 16 years ago

I generally agree, but I've submitted articles that I didn't like, just because I thought they were interesting starting points for discussion.

jamesbressi2• 16 years ago

What really is a shame is that your comment regarding this submission--which isn't entirely on the mark--is what is at the top of the comments and taking away from the discussion which I am finding (and I'm sure others) very passionate and enlightening.

Sorry, the only thing I added was "Great". The title is the original and adding NYT Op-Ed let the HN user know it was an Op-Ed.

While I understand your concern and deciding to quote from the guidelines, I don't believe adding just the word "Great" was misleading or breaking the rules...

And well, this may be where I get flamed, but if you want to be technical, it isn't a "parenthetical remark".

Either way, point taken.

mrduncan2• 16 years ago

I completely agree. My only goal was to remind people of the guidelines and get one of the mods to tweak the title, certainly not to overshadow the conversation.

tron_carter• 16 years ago

Xeni Jardin interviews Matt and Trey about the 200th episode and the Mohammed controversy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVU-8X8T7U

kjhgbhnjklkjh4• 16 years ago

Similar thing happened here with Sikhs. A young Sikh writer produced a play about child abuse in a temple (you thought catholic priests had a monopoly). The local peace loving religious leaders threatened to burn down the city run theatre. So the play was taken off. The city then went further to suggest that all future plays with Sikh characters should be approved by the religious leaders.

Since no writer was going to go for that it simply removed all Sikh character from plays and to be careful from tv aswell.

So the result of this censorship is going to be that the only time muslims are seen on TV it will be in news reports about terrorists. Way to go guys!

cglee• 16 years ago

You didn't say where "here" was, but I'm going to assume it's somewhere where Sikhs are the minority.

I think one aspect of media is that it should be called out when it misrepresents a minority who don't typically get the well rounded coverage that the majority culture gets. For example, Christianity in the US. It's "ok" to make fun of Christians because we are inundated with Christianity; the joke is obvious and there's an abundance of positive portrayals to offset the negative impact of the satire. In the case of a marginal minority, it's a lot more hurtful, and so the response is more dramatic (ie, death threats).

savrajsingh2• 16 years ago

+1 smart comment cglee, and what I was going for too.

kjhgbhnjklkjh4• 16 years ago

Sorry here - was the UK. In an area with enough of a Sikh community to have people to protest but still a minority.

Somebody said, you know you have reached equality when it's ok to portray you as the villain!

Ever wondered why Brits are always cast as the bad guys in Hollywood movies. Can you imagine the press if you had a black/female/gay/disabled/minority villain.

pbhjpbhj5• 16 years ago

If atheists are to be believed Christians are also in the minority though, so why no protection from infantile attempts to denigrate Jesus Christ.

Case in point - Behzti (sp) was cancelled the month before the BBC airing "Jerry Springer the Opera" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer_The_Opera) which was widely criticised as being needlessly defamatory of Jesus. A few Sikhs complain and the the UK authorities react and shut down the show, thousands [of Christians] complain (the most complaints ever received by the BBC apparently) and nothing is done.

The difference, well the Sikhs threatened to kill the Sikh playwright, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/21/religion.arts (add pinch of salt!), and took part in violent protests at the theatre.

So violent protest is the way to win.

Aside: IMO both shows should have been put on. Interestingly the Jerry Springer:The Opera show includes the use of the word "cunt" which from what I can tell is the only word the BBC won't normally allow - exceptions are made if your show is considered blasphemous, obviously.

btilly• 16 years ago

So the result of this censorship is going to be that the only time muslims are seen on TV it will be in news reports about terrorists. Way to go guys!

What do Sikhs have to do with Muslims other than the fact that ignorant Americans have trouble telling them apart?

kjhgbhnjklkjh4• 16 years ago

Sorry 'this' as in the south park case.

The result of the South Park episode will be various official (and unofficial) rulings in TV companies that if you put a Muslim character in a show there might be trouble. It doesn't have to be a picture of the prophet it just has to be a muslim character who isn't perfect, or is a sunni/shia and you get threats from shia/sunni. Safer to just leave them out - soon they will be as rare as black characters were in the 50s.

Now do you think you would have a black president if the majority of middle americans had never seen a black person in the flesh and the only ones on TV were on America's most wanted?

savrajsingh2• 16 years ago

If you don't know who Sikhs are, check wikipedia, visit sikhswim.com / sikhnet.com / sikhs.org or watch the official US-DOJ introduction on Sikhs for the TSA and law enforcement: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6224218468847681650#

I don't know the details of the situation you mention, but severely underrepresented minorities are understandably unhappy when the only TV & Film portrayals they get are negative and one-sided. Efforts like the Sikh American film festival http://www.sikhlens.org/ are proactive solutions to this problem.

I took a course titled "The Asian American Experience" in college. In that course, we learned about how all minority groups start out negatively portrayed, get mad, and find that the only way to earn a seat at the table is to be positive and churn out actors, writers, and directors. :)

mokchuk_• 16 years ago

I believe the play being referred to here was called "Behzti - Dishonour" and was due to play in Birmingham (UK) in 2004 before protesters stoped it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/21/religion.arts

Birmingham is home to a very large Sikh community, and as a religious group in the UK they tend to have integrated and adapted to British life pretty well. The events surrounding this play was seen as being very unusual (at least from the perspective of the middle class English)

Interestingly the writer herself is a Sikh, and is currently touring with a play based around the incident. http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2010/mar/15/gurpreet-kaur-bh...

jsm386• 16 years ago

For those interested, this week's South Park: NEW YORK, April 26, 2010 - JIMMY AND TIMMY head off TO SUMMER CAMP WITH ALL THEIR HANDICAPABLE FRIENDS in an all-new episode of "South Park" titled "Crippled Summer," premiering on Wednesday, April 28 at 10:00 p.m. on COMEDY CENTRAL.

Competition is the name of the game this summer. There is no time for Jimmy and his friends to slack off. They're working to be this year's champions at summer camp. Jimmy suits up and prepares to shred in the annual surfing contest.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3880

Interested to see what lines they push given recent events. They certainly have been in this territory with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Fight & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Steroid

cjeane• 16 years ago

This article fails to recognize Seaman as a member of the super best friends. Leave it to the NYT Op-Ed to get the facts wrong.

tlack• 16 years ago

Has anyone read an official statement from Comedy Central about this? This situation seems so counter to their reputation and public image I'm surprised they'd let it stand and not respond to all the trashing.

aagha• 16 years ago

I haven't taken a position on this matter yet, but is anyone (credible) looking into whether the hype around this story was generated on purpose as an attempt to smear American Muslims? See:

The Radical "Muslim" Group That Threatened South Park Creators Was Founded and Run by Joseph Cohen, a Former Israeli Radical Who Used to Live in a Settlement in the West Bank http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bvnsa/

adelevie6• 16 years ago

Has anyone credible raised the question that Theo van Gogh was really murdered by someone out to make Muslims look bad?

smallblacksun3• 16 years ago

If by credible you mean not a raging anti-Semite, then no.

johnyzee• 16 years ago

Upvoted for some very good comments in that reddit thread (a lot more balanced than here, surprisingly.)

philwelch5• 16 years ago

A conspiracy theory blaming radical Islamist violence on Jewish people? I've seen that one before.

nekopa• 16 years ago

This situation really saddens. I hate the fact that people are self-censoring because of a minority of violent people. This lends them legitimacy, when they deserve none. Seeing this after reading about a girls school being poison-gassed in Afghanistan makes me say why kowtow to the violent ones? I've read the Koran and its no worse no better than the bible. My girlfriend is a Middle Eastern anthropologist who loves the culture and speaks Arabic. My research into the history of math show the ancient Arab world as a hot bed of science and literature. Yet nowadays when people think of Muslims they think of death. The high point of my last week was having one of my university students (during a class on privacy issues) say that nobody has a right to ask you what your religion is on a job application. Unless, that is, you are from somewhere in the Middle East. Then its understandable that you need to ask. WTF... But, if some Muslim feels the need to show pictures of murdered directors on then website as a prediction of what will happen to you if you make art, then it gets harder and harder to fight these prejudices.

I just wish the non-violent majority of Muslims would (could?) step up to the plate and counteract the extremists.

viggity• 16 years ago

I'm not a very religious person, but I've done some light research and here is what I came up with as being the difference between violence in the Koran versus Bible. This an extreme paraphrasation and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it as of now:

According to tradition, if the Koran/Mohammad contradicts itself, what ever happened later is to be taken as the accepted rule, however the Koran is not organized in chronological order so it can be hard to tell at first blush what is the "correct" interpretation. In the early days of Islam, when Mohammad had very few followers, it was necessary to gain more followers to espouse peace, rainbows and sunshine. As he grew more politically powerful, his rhetoric changed and "kill the infidels" was the way to go. Since it happened later chronologically this is the "official" stance of the Koran.

Contrasted with the Bible wherein most of the violence is contained in the old testament. Then Jesus came along and essentially said "forget all this old stuff, I'm the new covenant, love thy neighbor, yay rainbows, sunshine and lollipops".

That being said, that doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been killed in the name of Jesus, but in current times I'd guestimate 99.9999% of Christians are peace loving people who don't want violence brought upon someone because they are non-Christian. But I'd also guess that worldwide 97% of Muslims are the same way. Unfortunately the other 3% is still a large number of people who want to bomb markets, fly planes in to buildings or throw acid on girls who insist on going to school.

You're absolutely right, the 97% needs to stand the hell up and drown out this nonsense.

sgoraya3• 16 years ago

"You're absolutely right, the 97% needs to stand the hell up and drown out this nonsense."

Plenty of people have been trying to drown out the nonsense, but it is not newsworthy (fairly recently a very influential religious figure in Pakistan made very strong statements and fatwa against the 'nonsense'). If it bleeds, it leads. Good works rarely make the news, but jackasses easily do so.

As a Muslim myself, having to 'stand the hell up and drown out this nonsense' makes little sense to me. It implies that I/we are somehow complicit in what the jackasses do. No thanks. I have a family to take care of, a job, etc. and do my personal best to be an example of a good human being, just like the majority of Muslims.

sabbot2• 16 years ago

Still waiting for their parody of the holocaust.

adelevie6• 16 years ago

Tolerance Camp.

sabbot2• 16 years ago

No. The holocaust, not a nazi cameo.

adelevie6• 16 years ago

South Park parodies stupid and foolish behavior. Being massacred is not stupid nor foolish, it is tragic. A completely unbalanced, bastardized form of political correctness is quite foolish and stupid.

ramoq• 16 years ago

Probably worth while to mention that depicting Jesus in an inappropriate manner is _greatly_ disrespectful to Muslims as well. Jesus(peace be upon him) is among the most renowned Prophets of God in Islam.

MaysonL2• 16 years ago

For a great response, see Glenn Greenwald's takedown: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...

MaysonL2• 16 years ago

I'm curious: who downvoted this without comment, and why?

EDIT: removed inflammatory derogation of said downvoters.

kloncks5• 16 years ago

As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take. Ultimately, we have two issues. Portrayal of the Prophet is a big big no no in our religion, yet Freedom of Speech/Expression is a pertinent human right in most of the civilized world.

Does it offend me to see any portrayals of a man we don't like to have portrayed? Yea, of course. But I'm pretty sure it offends me more to see the reactions from the people involved.

If someone caricatures the prophet as a violent person, how can people [angry extremist Muslims] think that VIOLENTLY rioting and giving death threats will make the person recant that?

"You think Islam's violent!? No, it isn't. And to prove that to you, I will kill you."

I'm offended every time I see things like this - even if I'm a fan of South Park - but I do the sensible thing, I don't watch it. I can go more, say, write to them (sans death threats), or not buy from them anymore, etc. But this response just makes no sense at all.

kloncks5• 16 years ago

From another viewpoint, it only seems to give events more exposure if you deal it with it this way.

Take the Cartoons incident. It was a fairly small newspaper that wouldn't have been seen by tens of millions. In protesting over the Cartoons, the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people.

pbhjpbhj5• 16 years ago

It wasn't about cartoons though was it. It's a power play, can muslims begin to establish sharia law by claiming they are discriminated against - and it seems they can.

rbanffy• 16 years ago

> the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people.

And let me tell you, it was a good thing. Many of them were very, very funny.

tome2• 16 years ago

Could you please from your perspective explain the reason why a culture which has never historically had any rules about drawing pictures of historical characters should not continue to allow drawing pictures of historical characters?

It's drawing pictures for goodness sake. Who on earth can it hurt?

Drawing pictures, and indeed riduculing and condenming is something very important in a free society.

kloncks5• 16 years ago

It's not simply about drawing pictures. In Islam, certain people are considered holy and revered.

Before Islam, notable people in society would be drawn or portrayed after they die, and that would sometimes lead people to worship them or raise their level to holy, which is not right.

Thus, Islam has a very firm policy against depicting anyone who is important in our religious tradition. That will include God, Muhammad, the Angels (Gabriel, etc). Interestingly, portrayal of the people we consider were prophets before Muhammed - Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, etc - is also very strictly prohibited.

That being said, since Islam's base of followers is oh so diverse, certain cultures (some in India and some in Turkey) have at some points drawn picture stories of Muhammad and other prophets but to the base of the religion that was considered taboo.

It's more or less a huge sign of respect...

sgoraya3• 16 years ago

The line of thinking is that pictures/drawings can lead to idolatry (i.e. person kneeling before an image of a prophet/saint and asking for this and that).

cabalamat• 16 years ago

> As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take.

The key is that they are "fringe groups". There is no belief so wacky, stupid or nasty that someone, somewhere won't believe it. And with the internet, they can broadcast their nonsense to the whole world.

Jun82• 16 years ago

I fully agree with you kloncks, these fanatics just prove that the correctness of what everybody thinks about them by acting this way. However, there's a common perception in the West that these "fanatics" or "fringe groups" are a tiny minority. I don't think so. Try doing such a gravely offensive thing is Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and you will go to prison or worse. Those are unstable or backward countries you say? How about Egypt or Malaysia?

Some clarifications on the "portrayal issue": (1) Muhammad has been portrayed in many Islamic miniature paintings, always with a veil, though. (2) The tradition in Islam that no likeness of him can be created is coming from his words reported by ahadith, not from the Koran (e.g. see here http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html). This was most probably a reaction to Greek-Orthodox Christianity with their heavy use of icons. (3) The fact that Islam forbids pictures is not totally correct, Shia muslims usually have the picture of Ali displayed at a prominent place in their homes.

kloncks5• 16 years ago

Interesting. I would most definitely disagree with you there. They are most definitely a fringe group. I will maybe assume that the people in the group are either radical believers or brainwashed ignorant people, though.

I'm originally Egyptian myself, and while it's more Muslim-society and religious conservatism is higher, there are a number of freedoms there since it's a very touristy country. Sure, these things are taboo and people will not take them lightly, but you can say them. Just like you can insult the Catholic faith in the Vatican or the Mormon faith in Utah - it's just simply not the place to do it :P

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I feel are a very special case. Saudi Arabia is such a staunch conservative country and I don't agree with many of their policies so I mostly agree with you there.

--------

Regarding the portrayal. Yea, Muhammad when he was portrayed always either has his face covered by a veil or by light. Things that come from the Hadith can't be taken lightly - it's not as powerful as the Qur'an, yes, but it is the second most powerful Islamic text and all Muslims follow it (with the exception of some Shia).

On 3, I wasn't aware of that and I'm Sunni but it might make sense. Usually, Muslims will also not portray Prophet's companions but the rule is mostly for the Prophets, Angels, and God. Also, keep in mind that Shia muslims are a minority, roughly accounting for about 10-15%.

sgoraya3• 16 years ago

The whole issue is a tempest in a teacup, IMHO. I've never heard of the nut cases (from NY I believe) prior to this incident. Jackasses making veiled threats and TV networks obliging the jackasses by censorship.

There may have been a slight issue if South Park was singling out Islam, but they have not. They have gone after everyone and everything, many times in bad taste, but that is their appeal and that is why I sometimes watch the show.

seertaak• 16 years ago

> Jackasses making veiled threats and TV networks obliging the jackasses by censorship.

Yeah, well: it's all fun and games until someone gets knifed on the street, as happened to Theo Van Gogh. I'm sure the guy who did that was a jackass, too.

My point is that we shouldn't equivocate or relativize on the jackassery of the various parties. What the TV networks did was lamentable but, in light of recent events, comprehensible. What 'jackasses' making veiled threats and those that carry them out do is utterly reprehensible and doesn't merit the lightness of the word you chose. The two types of jackasses you mention are totally different. Ass-covering is surely not so big a sin as killing or threatening to.

guelo• 16 years ago

As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take.

The RevolutionMuslim guy explains it in great detail here, http://revolutionmuslimdaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/clarifying...

I have to say, from the POV of a true Muslim he makes a pretty airtight case. If you can't make yourself agree with the idea that Trey and Parker have to be killed maybe it's time that you start questioning your beliefs in this religion.

aliston• 16 years ago

Wow... Pretty airtight if you're a non-scientific lunatic that can't tell the difference between physical assault and non-violent political satire.

joecode2• 16 years ago

That's a rather interesting mix of good points and religious crazy talk. I think the most pertinent point is that the U.S. has in fact acted in an imperialist way over the past half century or so, and has killed a very large number of people in the process, many of which happen to be Muslim. I don't agree with the theory that this results from a lack of values on the part of Westerners, but I can see how Muslims might feel like they are being attacked on all fronts---both militaristically and culturally.

From that perspective, the idea of refraining from unnecessarily insulting their most important religious leader makes sense to me. In context, it sends very much the wrong message, and is counterproductive. Of course, death threats over the matter are stupid and counterproductive, too, as it only feeds into the jihadist stereotype.

kjhgbhnjklkjh4• 16 years ago

>I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take

Suppose for a minute the leaders of these groups are motivated by personal power/glory rather than religious purity.

By stirring up this sort of trouble you get exposure, name on TV - fame and glory.

Then if you stir up enough trouble there starts to be a backlash. People start to associate your ethnic group with trouble and react to that. So you can start saying to impressionable young idiots - see you can never integrate into the society of 'wherever', they hate you. We must fight them, come and join my group. The bigger your group the more trouble you can cause, the more backlash, the more downtrodden followers.

Works for gangs in LA and kids in Northern Ireland today, worked for a certain mustachioed politician in Europe 80years ago. And was probably working for a bunch of idol worshipers in Ur 6000years ago.

adrianwaj2• 16 years ago

I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take

I think you understand, but you don't agree. Big difference. As soon as you disagree, you lose, because you'll never challenge the extremists the way they challenge you to be more like them, because they'll win. Hence you merely say you don't understand, which in this respect, is a lie.

akkartik• 16 years ago

The last paragraph is stirring: "if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down."

But this bit a couple paragraphs up strikes me as complacent: "Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage." A new one can and will arise. Totalitarians love a vacuum.

xkcd should do a stick figure of prophet mohammed.

evo_94• 16 years ago

Man there are a lot of [deleted] comments on this thread. Don't do it! Seriously, the discussion is worth having - resist the urge!

Otherwise downvoting becomes an effective censorship tool as well.

jackfoxy• 16 years ago

"...there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down."

This may be the white space behind the type.

rhl• 16 years ago

This is actually getting really scary. A short while ago a cartoonist from Seattle suggested to make May 20 'Everyone draws Muhammad' Day worldwide. Her cartoon went viral, a Facebook page was created, the exacerbated mix of anger/resentment/stupidity in the air fueled the whole thing -- and now both her and the creator of the FB group want out: http://guyism.com/2010/04/creator-of-everybody-draw-muhammad...

I can absolutely understand the heat they must be feeling -- it's especially chilling since she's clearly not famous enough to require protection, but might become just enough so that she actually pays the heavy personal toll of constant fear of reprisal.

It's very sad to see this lifelike Prisoner's Dilemma happening -- we would all like to see people of goodwill the world over to show some spine and make a respectful but clear and strong resistance statement. But no one, absolutely no one can afford doing this anymore in an age of exponentials, viral growth, annihilated privacy and geocoded checkins broadcast to the world, where you can rise to (unwanted, in this case) virtual fame in a matter of hours. Anonymity is not a protection anymore.

I sincerely hope that being the first globally connected generation will somehow help us avoid tearing this planet apart over religion in the next 20 years...

tamersalama• 16 years ago

I find the comparison between Apple's lost phone and Muhammad (PBUH) drawing interesting.

While most around here are with Apple's now legal tackling and their defence of their future commodity (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1295964), many are sceptics and sometimes hostile when some call for understanding of why they could be offended of other's 'freedom of expression'.

Edit: spelling, concision.

Not Even In South Park?

Related Stories