Today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

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

by mapleoin • 16 years ago

93 185 16 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

gexla• 16 years ago

Uh, oh, Pakistan is going to ban Wikipedia now.

mike_organon4• 16 years ago

I'd love to see Google celebrate today with their logo. CNN sort of has a drawing on the front page.

natrius• 16 years ago

I don't know what you're talking about. That's clearly Muhammad Ali. It looks nothing like the prophet Muhammad.

maqr• 16 years ago

This is clearly a juvenile attempt to troll a religious group for their beliefs. Everyone who values free speech and reason should support it.

mortenjorck• 16 years ago

Because nothing supports the noble causes of free speech and reason, virtues that have inspired some of the most eloquent and passionate arguments throughout history, like juvenility and trolling.

Locke was in it for the lulz, no doubt.

cscotta• 16 years ago

Pardon me, but I'd like to disagree.

The murder of Theo van Gogh and subsequent threats against other artists, authors, etc. are terrible acts. No one should be killed for such expression.

But I have to say - I find any "juvenile attempt to troll a religious group," well, juvenile and trollish. It is uncivil and rude. It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community.

I am not a Muslim. The closest affiliation I'd claim might be with some liberal emerging christianities. But I believe in respecting others enough not to make fun of deeply-held beliefs, which I myself do not hold and which do not impact my life but are absolutely central to the worldviews and spirituality of a very signification portion of the world's citizens.

I'd suggest that "valuing free speech and reason" needn't involve encouraging socially destructive behavior intent on marginalizing a people group, self-selected or not.

jat850• 16 years ago

Written much, much better than I could have phrased it - I was searching for a way to write what you just did. Thanks.

WestCoastJustin• 16 years ago

I disagree with you.

When I first watched the south park episode I was very confused.. then I watched the backlash unfold.

I think this movement is needed to get this out into the open. What would you say if Skin Heads, KKK, or any other racist organization threaten violence and we bowed out.. stopped the presses and let them have their way.

This is what we are doing by tip toeing around the issue in our country, censoring our media, and for what? We need exactly this movement because it is "uncivil and rude".

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

> It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community.

Nothing promotes more division and distrust like murdering someone for drawing an image or punching someone in the face for it. Yes, if you think about it as "trolling a religious group" it does sound juvenile. But you think about it as an act of solidarity with those who have been killed or punched in the face, then it makes more sense.

dhyasama• 16 years ago

I can understand protesting against fundamentalists of any type. I was initially concerned this would offend and alienate moderate Muslims. But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics? I don't think so, and in fact would support the protest. It's ok to protest the actions of a subset of a group. Level-headed people won't be offended.

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

> "But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics?"

But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics.

This is going to do very little good, but a whole lot of harm to inter-faith relations everywhere.

parfe• 16 years ago

The reason Muhammad is not supposed to be drawn/carved/painted etc is to avoid the temptation of worshiping an idol rather than the god itself. The fundamentalists have taken the concept to the extreme and believe he should never be drawn. It's generally accepted among the moderates I know that no one needs to worry about being fooled into watching South Park's drawing of Muhammad and fall to idolatry.

adbge• 16 years ago

This is someone protesting Muslims that believe that they should be able to infringe upon your freedom of speech because of their religious beliefs. Your apologist attitude and fear of offending someone is, quite frankly, sickening.

theorique• 16 years ago

But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics.

It isn't really like protesting Christians per se.

It's a bit more like using a symbol dear to Christians' hearts (say, Jesus himself) and then creating a political cartoon that shows Jesus operating as a terrorist and shooting doctors who perform abortions, or blowing up clinics.

While depicting Jesus as a terrorist would be offensive to most or all Christians, this is a perfectly permissible political cartoon. [1]

This "Draw Muhammad" exercise is a perfectly sensible way for those of us who don't wish to bow down to the threats of Islamic-inspired fascism to contribute our little part to a protest. To say "I live in a republic where the rule of law includes freedom of speech, and not a freedom not to be offended. If you don't like it, draw something that offends me right back."

[1] Coincidentally, it would do a great job of contrasting the message of peace that Jesus preached, with the wanton violence perpetrated by some of his contemporary followers.

tzs2• 16 years ago

I lack the artistic skill to draw Mohammed. If I had the skill, my drawing would be of him rubbing himself down with peanut butter. The title would be "Mohammed, peanut butter upon him".

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

You can always photoshop something. Be creative. Find an existing Mohammed image on the web , open your favourite image editor, find some peanut butter texture images and collage them together. Use brushes with textures or whatever you feel like doing. The possibilities are limitless...

I think some religious groups need to learn about the Streisend Effect.

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

etravers3• 16 years ago

And what would be your reason for doing this? I really don't understand. I do not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear.

It is _my_ opinion that anyone who participates in this is a sheep with a "me too" mentality.

cturner4• 16 years ago

    I do not follow any religion, but that does not give
    me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear.

That aspect doesn't give you the right, you have that right regardless.

maxharris3• 16 years ago

I don't think that you understand what a right is. You have the right to say whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) of another.

You have to learn how to think in principle (and identify the correct principles - those that will advance and enhance your life), or your life will turn out to be a mess.

tzs2• 16 years ago

"Mohammed, peanut butter upon him" does not ridicule anything held dear by Muslims. It's just an amusing pun on a common convention of the Muslim world. It does not violate the teachings of the Koran.

WiseWeasel2• 16 years ago

"but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear."

No, that would be the US Constitution's first amendment. Conversely, you do not have a right to not have the beliefs you hold dear ridiculed. There is no legal protection against having one's beliefs ridiculed. That's because it's not a big deal. Get over it.

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

I think this whole thing is stupid.

Don't get me wrong - I think we should have the freedom to draw whatever the hell we want and be free from threats of deadly force. I think all the people who threatened physical harm to the original cartoonist are despicable, but this way of going about it is frankly extremely damaging.

Note: I am not Muslim, I am an atheist, and I want to apologize on behalf of atheists who have unfortunately chosen to participant in this disgusting farce. They do not speak for all of us. But, moving along...

Most Muslims are against violent reprisal. Are they offended? Yes, but like every other controversial issue in the world, only the extremists would go to the end of harming someone. The internet community that has fueled the popularity of EDMD is ignorant of this, and their numbers are muddied by the many racists and bigots also in participation for the wrong reasons. It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility. As organizers of a principled stand for your rights, you need to make sure that your group cannot be conflated with racists, bigots, and other nasty people. The community around EDMD has done an extremely poor job at it (IMHO mostly because a lot of the core people spreading this around are themselves racist).

It is, frankly, juvenile, especially once you read some of the discussion by people who actually are participating in this.

Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism, and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane people?

No, it simply promotes more polarizing viewpoints, more extremism, and eventually more violence from both sides. It is counterproductive and I'm embarrassed that so many atheists, who like to proclaim themselves freethinkers, have gotten on this bandwagon.

This isn't a principled stand in response to extremist action - this is an indiscriminate melee of offensive content that is not targeted at the groups and people actually responsible for making threats against people's lives for their expression. Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the violence of extremists as we are - the correct course of action is to work with moderate and liberal Muslims to combat the actions of extremists, not to alienate and offend the allies we need most.

orblivion• 16 years ago

So what if they stuck to, say, "respectable" images of Mohammad? Something that says, "I'm sorry if this offends you, but I fear for my freedom of speech". Doing the same thing but making it clear that it's in self-defense, and that any offense taken is a side-effect?

kareemm5• 16 years ago

~1.6B people consider drawing Mohammed to be a blasphemous action. That's not self-defense; that's antagonistic.

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

That sounds more like "I'm sorry this offends you, but I'm going to do this anyways to further my agenda" - which some more liberal Muslims may understand, but IMHO not a good solution.

The way I see it, if the West, or primarily non-Muslims, are the ones battling these extremists, we're already screwed. Now, instead of a fight between violent extremists and peaceful moderates, you have introduced elements of race and politics (it is easy, for example, for EDMD to be perceived as Western insensitivity and arrogance). Fundamentalists will find ways to exploit this marvelously.

I wouldn't draw Mohammed at all - the best thing you can do IMHO is something that targets the extremists exclusively - something moderate and liberal Muslims won't find offensive. This way you can get them behind it also - it is far easier to remove a group's credibility and relevance when a large group of "their people" are also united against it. Involving Muslims in the solution to this problem is the key - otherwise it just ends up looking like a modern day Crusade.

kiba2• 16 years ago

People have made fun of Christianity and religions, but now we can't make fun of Islam. I mean, people draw Jesus all the time, but they can't draw the prophet Mommahad.

It is like parents shreking in horror because Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. No matter what religions you have, intolerance should not be allowed.

After all, free speech isn't about what speech you like or what I like, but what people hate. Someday, you're going to be on the opposite side.

lutorm3• 16 years ago

You can be in favor of free speech and still be in favor of not exercising that right just to offend others.

tptacek9• 16 years ago

Drawing Jesus, even in cartoon form, doesn't violate a fundamental tenet of the faith. Nowhere in the Catholic catechism (for example) are illustrations of Jesus proscribed.

I'm 110% with 'potatolicious on this. The people saying we shouldn't have to go out of our way to avoid offending Muslims are, of course, right. But there's no cause to go out of our way to offend Muslims, either.

If I was a Islamist culture-warrior, things like "Draw Muhammad Day" would be a coup for me; it might even have been the reason why I'd threaten the lives of cartoonists. To provoke a counterproductive response from the west.

kareemm5• 16 years ago

+1. Wish I had 10 upvotes to give you.

kareemm5• 16 years ago

wow, why the harsh downmodding?

mike_organon4• 16 years ago

You have no business apologizing for anyone else.

Muslims that are offended need to get over it. They will if we don't treat them like delicate children.

oldgregg3• 16 years ago

I agree, it's not very charitable. But remember we are also very isolated from the conflict in Europe-- the whole culture is getting rocked over how Islam functions in a modern society. My uncle in France has friends who describe themselves as "christian atheists" -- they are still 100% athiest, but apparently they miss the influence of Christianity.

As a Christian I certainly don't like Jesus constantly being mocked -- but I also think he is perfectly capable of defending himself. Christianity has a clear response. Jesus is our hero. When he was mocked, tortured and murdered he laid down his life. Most of his closest followers died in the same way. The whole question is central to Christianity.

Does anyone have any examples of a concise response that a "peace-loving Muslim" might give to an "extremist Muslim?" ... why do more Muslims not speak out more often against extremists?

saikat5• 16 years ago

People get offended by things whether you like it or not. It's extreme to make death threats, but it's also extreme and fairly despicable to go out of your way to offend an entire group of people simply because a subset of those people are acting extremely. If someone punches me in the face for making lewd comments about his mother, is it constructive to then go around making lewd comments about anyone's mother who thinks that these comments are offensive? I think the organizers of this event are free to do what they want, but it's still a pretty tasteless thing to do. And if people take this as a reflection on all atheists, it DOES make us all look bad.

all_elements2• 16 years ago

It is one thing to have the right to free speech and another thing to exercise it. Most people show restraint all the time (don't criticize excessively, highlight the positives in your kid, tell your wife/GF that she is looking good on a bad hair day, etc.).

Why is it so hard to extend the same courtesy to Muslims?

spoondan• 16 years ago

They will if we don't treat them like delicate children.

That's abject nonsense. Intentionally offending people doesn't make them grow up. It makes them feel aggrieved.

tptacek9• 16 years ago

No. Muslims who are offended do not need to "get over it". They can be as offended and alienated as they want. The only thing they need to do is uphold our social contracts, none of which require them to be OK with people intentionally offending their religion.

That's the problem with this plan. It doesn't recognize the degrees of antagonism involved. It posits that there is "being OK with cartoons of Mohammad" and "being so not ok with those cartoons as to be incompatible with civilization", and excludes the vast middle ground.

Or, to the extent that it acknowledges that there is a middle, it posits that any social or cultural price is worth paying to demonstrate that we can't be pushed around by a tiny, virtually powerless minority whose actions aren't in any way influenced by these cartoons anyways.

anamax2• 16 years ago

> It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility.

Actually, it depends on what you do when they show up.

> Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism, and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane people?

I'll bite - what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?

We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent". At some point, other groups are going to see if that generalizes.

> Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the violence of extremists as we are

Good for them. I note that Japanese-Americans turned in the few saboteurs during WWII. Italian-Americans turn on the Mafia. And so on. I hope that Muslims are doing the same.

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?"

Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to.

> "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"."

No, that's not what we're saying at all. What we're saying is "there's no need to troll and antagonize everyone of a particular belief just because a small minority of them are violent assholes". There's nothing in here that capitulates our freedoms to religious belief - drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't.

Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it, despite what some people seem to think. Your freedoms do not absolve from good taste and judgment.

Let me put this in another way. Your neighbor is deeply offended, by, say lawnmowers. You still have the right to mow your lawn - and it would be unreasonable for him to ask you to ask you to stop mowing your lawn. But instead, you ridicule him for it and invite all the neighbors over to have a big lawn-mowing party. That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass.

EDMD, IMHO, falls on the wrong side of this line.

zerokyuu• 16 years ago

I completely agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that the idiocy is all over the place (found in the wikipedia discussion):

"A prominent Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/world/africa/07iht-web.020...

My point is just that everyone (atheists, christians, muslims, jews) needs stop being immature and realize that trying your best to piss off people with a different opinion is just going to cause polarization and make them think their way of thinking is correct.

nooneelse• 16 years ago

As a member of "the West", let me reply to this Iranian paper's contest with this statement: Don't care, go on, whatever. See that, we aren't hypocritical on this... your turn to stop caring about the Mohammad cartoons. The ball is in your court.

metamemetics3• 16 years ago

You seemed to be confused and to not recognize that religion is intrinsically violent. It is not simply "a few bad apples" scenario nor just about Islam but a systemic problem that had been occurring for thousands of years. Are you aware the punishment for Apostasy in Islam (no longer believing in God) is also death?

In order to end violence, people must undergo cognitive dissonance, realize that one belief they hold prescribes death and another belief they hold prescribes that they shouldn't. The resolve this dissonance by permanently discarding the belief that prescribes them to kill, by encountering a situation that shows this belief to be absurd. People will NOT introspect on their deeply held beliefs unless beneficial situations like Everybody Draw Mohammed day occur.

edit:

    0

  --|--

    |

   / \

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

> "Are you aware the punishment for Apostasy in Islam (no longer believing in God) is also death?"

Because if it's written in some holy text, it must mean modern practitioners still follow it to the T, right?

"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." - Deuteronomy 22:11

It seems disturbing that those who are anti-Islam use the same fucked up interpretations of Quranic texts that the extremists themselves use. Kind of a sick irony I suppose.

chrischen• 16 years ago

If anything religion is just the rationalization of intrinsic human tendency for violence, or perhaps fear. Getting rid of religion won't fix the problem.

Pistos2• 16 years ago

> You seemed to be confused and to not recognize that religion is intrinsically violent.

You should clarify what you meant by the above.

(a) "You... [do] not recognize that religion [in general] is intrinsically violent." (b) "You... [do] not recognize that [that particular] religion[, Islam,] is intrinsically violent."

endtime2• 16 years ago

This didn't start because anyone threatened anyone. This started because an episode of South Park - which showed Buddha snorting cocaine, Moses as Zordon from Power Rangers, etc. - wasn't allowed to show Mohammed. This is a protest against self-censorship, in this case by Comedy Central.

potatolicious8• 16 years ago

> "This didn't start because anyone threatened anyone."

I'm under the impression that this started when a cartoonist drew a picture of Mohammed, inspiring violent threats from all over. South Park was simply dogpiling on this (as they do with all other contentious issues) - the notable part of South Park's involvement is that Comedy Central actually moved to self-censor.

bloch4• 16 years ago

Let me show you a recent example of what this is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfW95sSaVVo

This took place in a swedish university during a lecture about religion and freedom of speech. The video that Lars Vilks showed during this clip was made by an iranian artist. Before this he had showed examples of offensive material directed at christianity etc.

And there is a funny kind of double standard involved, because practically nobody objects when artists offend religions where the response to the alleged offence isn't violent.

EDIT: A few days after this attack, "somebody" tried to firebomb Vilk's house. All because of a series of rather tame drawings like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muh-hund-original-rondelll...

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

ErrantX23• 16 years ago

There's no excuse for such idiocy.

But comparing it to reactions to offensive material about Christianity is impossible; they just react differently is all.

The history and teachings of Islam differ drastically from the way modern Christianity has gone.

Defending the faith is still a core part of the Muslim religion - whereas Christian churches have been steadily pushing people away from those ideas. It explains why there is a difference.

As to why the individuals do what they do; well that is a personal liability. I suggest that there are those who would do the same if Christianity preached similar teachings in the modern day (indeed, plenty of them did in the past. And look at the Christian extremists - who foster much the same ideas)

lhorie• 16 years ago

I definitely agree, this is stupid.

The wikipedia page on freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) says this:

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

[...]

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[30] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech"

And the page on hate speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) says this:

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.

The one thing that bugs me the most is how quickly different aspects of the discussion quickly get muddled into a big mess

1 - You're about as free to draw Mohammed as a protester is free to say "burn the infidels". Heck, when it comes to controversial issues, people make life threats all the time.

2 - If you say something and someone kills you because of it, that's not a free speech violation. It's a criminal offense. They are completely different things.

3 - What a broadcasting corporation elects not to show on their air time doesn't have much to do with what you, as a individual can say, according to the law.

If the government told the TV station not to air something, then we have a free speech violation. If the government throws you in jail for saying something, then you have a free speech violation.

Did any of the two happen? No. Then, don't even mention free speech.

Did you insult your neighbour and subsequently got beaten up? That's 1) your responsibility to not say stupid stuff and 2) criminal law jurisdiction if you do get hurt because you said stupid stuff.

(edit: s/you/one).

icey• 16 years ago

Hacker News??

pixelbath3• 16 years ago

I'm a hacker; this is relevant to my interests. I'm sorry that you don't feel the same, but I do support your right to question your beliefs on what this site should be.

cturner4• 16 years ago

How can you be 'sorry' that someone else doesn't feel the same as you? Their feelings are their business. But were you genuinely sorry for something you were doing to cause their ill feeling you wouldn't be apologising in the same breath that you did the thing you were apologising for.

jrockway• 16 years ago

If we let a religious group control what we can and can't say, there will be no more hacking.

maxharris3• 16 years ago

The principle behind this must not be ignored. If you value your freedom of speech, please participate!

Every individual has a right to speech, so long as they are speaking in public or on property that they have a legitimate right to use (either via ownership or by voluntary agreement with the owner). No one - no matter how offended they might be by an idea - has any right to employ force or the threat of force to silence another.

When people threaten violent action against someone for offending their religious ideas, they must be challenged and stopped. Without the freedom to speak, we lose all hope of defending our rights by peaceful means.

hristov• 16 years ago

And when is everybody draw Yahweh day? Or do we defend our precious freedoms of speech by only insulting Muslims.

tome20• 16 years ago

I think the point is we only respond when a response is necessary. Avoiding offence is important, but standing up for our rights is more important.

saikat5• 16 years ago

So why decide to insult one giant group of people who didn't threaten anyone (all the Muslims that didn't send out death threats) instead of another (all the Christians that didn't send out death threats)?

jacquesm7• 16 years ago

So, am I to conclude we now also have fundamentalist atheists?

You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't achieve much by insulting him some more.

The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than individual intelligence.

The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is needed is de-escalation and less fundamentalism, by all parties.

You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the issue.

Religious people (of all religions) will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this and it might take 2,000 years.

tome20• 16 years ago

I admire the sentiment, but are you aware of the relative number of muslims and athiests on the planet?

jacquesm7• 16 years ago

Yes, what makes you think I'm not?

If I walk up to an American and burn a flag chances are they'll get violent. What's the difference here ?

Kick someones symbol on purpose and you kick the person behind it. If you do not wish to be kicked back you educate, not confront.

Of course it is stupid, but this is no less stupid, and childish to boot.

natch5• 16 years ago

Tell that to Abraham Lincoln. He effectively ended slavery in the US, you will recall. Antagonizing people and polarizing the issue were necessary to achieve what he did.

jacquesm7• 16 years ago

Those people were not antagonized by anonymous cartoonists, they were antagonized by guys with guns.

And even then it took some doing. And even today there are some 'holdouts' who think that was all a big mistake.

The people pushing this are just as stupid as the people that get upset over Mohammed being depicted.

They're just preaching to the choir and in the meantime will achieve the opposite of what they want to achieve.

You are not going to solve this with a confrontation, only with education.

Slavery could be solved with confrontation, and sufficient force. And I don't think you'd like to see this escalate the way the slavery issue did.

araneae• 16 years ago

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

-Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

jk4930• 16 years ago

Good thing. We (in most of Europe and parts of the US) tamed much of the Christian violence, now comes the next one. If their "protest" means killing artists, bombing embassies and planes and discotheques, we have to fight back the way fanatics hate most: Laughing into their hateful faces. (If laughing won't help, we still have bombs, too.) And those who think that Muslim extremists aren't a threat to our freedoms (which includes the freedoms of the moderate/secular Muslims as well) should visit Western or Northern Europe and see for themselves.

edit: That's what happens in Europe now. (A mild example.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo

dc2k08• 16 years ago

Recently during the British elections a photographer placed on his window looking out into the street a poster with a picture of the then candidate for prime minister David Cameron above the caption 'David Cameron Is A Wanker'.

An elderly neighbour noticed the poster and alerted the police. A gaggle of bobbies arrived shortly there after, pushed there way into his home and told told the now handcuffed afacer that the poster had to be taken down.

When he asked why, he was told that it caused offense. When he asked what the criteria was for that which is determined to be offensive, he was told "that which any reasonable person would find alarming, harassing or distressful" In a hilarious conversation with an inspector of the police some time later, he asked whether he might be allowed to use the word 'tosser' in place. 'No' came the answer. Masturbater?..still 'No'. He suggested onanist as a last resort which flumoxed the inspector. Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poste...

My point is that here is a case where freedom of speech is restricted by a government, but we don't see anybody rallying support for 'David Cameron is a Wanker day' not that many people wouldn't enjoy it.

Similarly The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States" but we don't see anybody rallying for a '6 million jews didn't die in the holocast' day.

Why is that? I think that although this 'everybody draw mohammed day' wants to wear the mask of 'supporting free speech' - it is at it's heart really just an excuse to bash religionists - an easy target. What's offensive to some, is not offensive to others. If we are to have restrictions in society on what we can and cannot say, do, write or draw then what exactly does and does not get restricted will often be because of some bias on behalf of the lawmaker. In this case the US law sides with the caricaturists, in another instance it might not.

philwelch• 16 years ago

Drawing Muhammed isn't taboo to Westerners, but denying the Holocaust is. So I don't think we should expect an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day", or even an "Everybody Wear A Swastika Armband Day" (though if gangs of anti-fascists started killing people for denying the Holocaust...).

Europe has worrying levels of political censorship, of course, but they always have and always will. The difference is that no one actually killed anyone for saying "David Cameron Is A Wanker". "John Terry Is A Wanker" might get you bludgeoned to death with a wadded up newspaper, of course, but then football hooliganism is not nearly as tolerated as Islamic hooliganism. That's really the root of the problem here, isn't it?

tome20• 16 years ago

Thank you. I think this is the finest example of an anti-Draw Mohammed Day comment on Hacker News.

You didn't react emotionally, didn't appeal to "can't we all just get along", and provided plenty of analogous cases for comparison.

You've given me a lot to think about. This is one of the reasons why Hacker News is great!

For what it's worth: I disagree with your argument and think it is rebuttable, but it was measured and considered and I'll learn a lot thinking about why I disagree with you.

jfager• 16 years ago

This whole thing is so lame.

Anyone who wants to kill you for drawing a picture already wants to kill you for other reasons, they just haven't singled you out yet. If you're participating in this because you want to stand up to a violent threat, you fail. You're simply saying "I'm afraid of the boogieman, and I can't stand up to him without a herd to hide me".

The censorship argument is equally ridiculous. The media censors all kinds of information that would piss of their advertisers and audiences, and a cartoon of a dead religious figure surely ranks among the least significant to anyone's daily life. If you want to get pissed about something, get pissed about the utterly insignificant bullshit that gets paraded around as news every day (hint: EDMD would be a good start).

ErrantX23• 16 years ago

As echoed elsewhere... this is childish, proves nothing and solves nothing.

The extremists will be delighted; they get to propagate fear and use this as propaganda.

Moderate Muslims will probably consider it a bit childish (and may be offended, that's their right I suppose)

Anti-westernism will be bolstered a little more in the Muslim states

And people like myself just feel a bit embarrassed to be on the "same side" as these people.

Now, if someone wants to sit down and discuss how we could perform a grown up show of strength and unity against extremism then I'm all for it.

(I think the first point is the most important one; clearly this is going to backfire because it is the reaction the extremists where looking/hoping for. It's progressing to the point where they don't need to bother trying the actual terrorism any more - certain elements in Western society are scared to death and reacting to just words...)

tome20• 16 years ago

Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures".

If someone is "anti-western" because of exploitative child labour, pillaging natural resources of the third world, etc. then great, let's sit down and talk.

But harmlessly drawing pictures? Come on.

ErrantX23• 16 years ago

Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures".

What I'm trying to say is that the profile of the US (the general symbol of Westernism in Islamic states) is already extremely low. A lot of people consider the US rude and intolerant; that's just the image that has unfortunately developed.

Ordinary people in those states are probably looking at this and thinking "well this just proves it doesn't it".

I'm not sure alienating people further is a clever idea (us vs. them is one reason why extremism is fostered on both sides).

It's not even really about causing offence (as already pointed out, everyone is offended by someone) but about "proving" to people in those states we don't really understand the problem...

This is pitched as sticking a finger up to extremists; a sentiment I utterly agree with. What it actually is is feeding them ammunition, and potentially causing more resentment in Mulsim countries. I can't help feeling there is a better way to stick that finger up :)

Also; this stinks of fear to me.

OmarIsmail• 16 years ago

What do people honestly expect to come from this?

Anybody that would have been against drawing the Prophet (pbuh) before, will be even moreso now. This day will only 'prove' their assertions that Islam and the West are 'against' one another.

And for rational people that just let things slide... well they're not going to be affected by this either.

So what is really happening here?

I can tell you that as a Muslim I do feel attacked and provoked. Pretty much every one of my regular community sites has a discussion/thread on this topic, so it's difficult for me to avoid it without changing my regular Internet routine for the day.

Now, I know that the stupidness of this day isn't directed at me. I'm entirely cognizant that this is a natural reaction by certain groups of people that feel strongly about censorship.

So as a Muslim I'm not offended. But I am annoyed. I'm annoyed with the people promoting and enacting this day. I'm annoyed with the extremists that caused the violence that triggered this reaction. I'm annoyed with the oppressive history that helped create these extremists. I'm annoyed with the corrupt politicians and self-seeking 'religious' folk that manipulate people into doing evil acts.

Essentially this stupid day is just reminding me that there are a lot of stupid and annoying people out there. Most days I can ignore that and focus on the great things that people do (like here on HN).

So what this day did is just made me feel annoyed.

I also know that I'm pretty reasonable and rational. If someone like me feels annoyed I know there are other people out there that are going to find even more reason and justification to fuel their violent acts. And that's just going to escalate the situation with an escalated response. All of which will annoy me.

Ahh screw this. I'm going outside. ---- without my iPhone.

jacquesm7• 16 years ago

Thank you. As an atheist I'm exactly as annoyed by this, and for exactly the same reasons.

It really serves no purpose and only causes minds 'close' to be 'closed' a little harder, and for people that are moderate to be upset for no good reason at all.

tome20• 16 years ago

You're annoyed, free speech has been defended. I'm sorry if you're upset about that but it sounds like a net win to me, and frankly very little if any harm has been done to you at all.

You may not understand this, but censoring South Park was a huge harm to liberal principles.

itistoday2• 16 years ago

I feel like this is something Anonymous would be all over. Any activity/response from "them"?

poppysan• 16 years ago

OK, I think that legally anyone can make fun of anything, but there should be a limit morally or socially.

Why do people feel that because they disagree with someone they must be rude and hurt their feelings. This is a really bad example of protest in my opinion...

Mistone• 16 years ago

Muslims should be offended by both the South Park episode and this continued effort to offend Muslims by drawing offensive pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), precisely because its extremely offensive. Are death threats by rogue terrorist groups or chat room nerds (who knows) wrong, yes, quite simple everyone gets it.

However that does not make dragging this out and going to extremes to further offend a group of people ok. I am Muslim myself, though not devout and lived my my entire life in America (luckily traveled a lot as well). My father converted to Islam so we also don't have a long ancestral/cultural tradition around Islam.

I find South Park utterly offensive and choose not to watch it, whether they are making fun of Jews, or Jesus, or whatever. The big difference here is that Jesus has been depicted in pictures for thousands of years, in churches and everywhere, so a stupid tee shirt with Jesus drinking a beer has somehow become not so terribly offensive in 2010.

In Islam it is Haram(not advised) to create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed (pboh). There are no pictures of any Prophets in Mosques, and just because people of other religions or no religion don't find it offensive does not make it so. Muslims have a very bad image right now so there is an feeling of antagonism in these types of situations. Its all a bit weird, but intelligent people should just respect other peoples differences rather then dictating how and what is viewed as offensive.

aagha• 16 years ago

There's an excellent response to this day by Nihad Awad:

CAIR: A Muslim Response to 'Draw Muhammad Day' http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-respon...

gokhan• 16 years ago

If you want to fight extremism, try aiming what's fueling it, not the end result.

jokermatt999• 16 years ago

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speec...

This article basically sums up my thoughts on it. Yes, it's not nice to unfairly antagonize people. However, when it comes down to freedom of speech and being too worried about offending someone on their ridiculous standards, something has to be done. I'm all for living in peace and harmony with people, but I'll be damned if I'm going to censor myself like that or be threatened for drawing a picture. I'm fine if you want to follow whatever rules you feel your god or prophet would like you to uphold (as long as they don't lead you to harming someone else) and as long as you don't try to impose them on others. That's when a line is crossed.

Today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Related Stories