Today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

[Husker_x]

My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday. We couldn't decide if the people who are promoting the draw Mohammed day are just trying to fan the flames or if they are making a valid point about unrestricted speech. I leaned towards the latter and she leaned towards the former. No winner, unfortunately.

 

Well I'd be happy to settle the debate for you. This is entirely about free speech and has only ever been about free speech. If there hadn't been death threats, assassinations, and intimidation of American television outlets, there would be no Draw Mohammed Day at all. What would the point be? What would the point of a draw Jesus day be unless some Christian whacko sectarians decided that they were going to car bomb someone they thought had offended them.

 

That's the thing about offense. You don't have the right to not get offended in the United States. The constitution protects my free speech, not their delicate f*#king sensibilities. It's gotten so bad with Islam that we literally have to form ranks and draw targets on all our backs just to protect the freedoms of cartoonists. This is a nonviolent demonstration. If I had my druthers it would be having an open dialogue about the merits of Islam and theism with practicing Muslims, but since that's pretty well out of the question in theocratic countries, this is the best we can do. Good news is its working, as the fundies once again retreat to censorship to protect themselves and demonstrate how sickly and weak their position is.

Restriction of free speech by private actors is not against the law. I'm not supporting it . . . but it's not illegal. The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect someone from restricting your speech unless that person is a government actor.

 

Also, you might reconsider somewhat if you saw the drawings that people are posting on the facebook group. Drawing Mohammed makes a valid point . . . but many (maybe most!) people submitting drawings drew Mohammed as excrement, a monkey, etc. For me, that's crossing the line into baiting. Do and should people have a right to do it? Absolutely. Will I be surprised when it offends Muslims? Nope.

 

It's a good concept but unfortunately it's being executed by idiots.

 

No, when Comedy Central caved like a bunch of cowards over South Park's Mohmmad-bear bit, it wasn't illegal, but given the context of what's been going on in the world, it was pathetic. And even John Stewart, so lauded as Mr. Equal Opportunity offense, pulled up his skirt and squeaked, "Well, they pay the bills."

 

Of course a load of a$$hole$ are going to miss the point and dump on Islam just because they can, but again, that's not the point behind the demonstration. (Though I shed no tears of meanly depicting an Arab warlord who's said to have personally mutilated and executed numerous people). The internet just extrapolates these things beyond where they need to be. I still think that regardless this is an important and worthwhile exercise of our rights.

But aren't the extreme drawings counterproductive? I think the most positive outcome that could potentially come out of this whole thing is that islamic extremists will be exposed as the crazies that they are (as if we need more proof . . .). However, I think that if the drawings are so offensive that we are just creating more extremists than the whole thing is causing more problems than raising awareness. If it's just Mohammed as a monkey or excrement I see it as comparable to Christians being offended by the Piss Christ exhibit.

 

I think the moderate/mainstream Muslims would be more likely to condemn the outcry and marginalize the extremists if there was an outpouring of death threats over smiling stick figure drawings of Mohammed than if the drawings were even more intentionally offensive.

 

A hateful and unthinking drawing campaign will just fuel the inferno whereas a more thought out campaign of less incendiary images might be able to create a backburn that limits or halts the blaze. (Hopefully that's enough fire metaphors in one sentence.)

 

Counterproductive to what aim? I think the bottom line is that we're at war. Literally on the one hand, and ideologically on the other. Because of the particular psychotic nature of Muslim fanatics, the only appropriate response is to show that under no condition will we bow the knee or make exceptions to our freedom even under threats of violence. I have certain serious questions about whether one can be a 'moderate' Muslim who holds to Koranic teaching, but that's a separate issue. You can't forget that the original drawings that started this firestorm were fairly tedious and bland––certainly no Mohammed fornicating with goat kind of thing. The Muslim response to that resulted in numerous deaths and riots. So what we find is we're not operating with two extremes and a wide middle. Once you draw the prophet, it's worthy of death. What are options then? Seems to me it's say you're sorry, or hit back harder.

[carlfense]

My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday. We couldn't decide if the people who are promoting the draw Mohammed day are just trying to fan the flames or if they are making a valid point about unrestricted speech. I leaned towards the latter and she leaned towards the former. No winner, unfortunately.

 

Well I'd be happy to settle the debate for you. This is entirely about free speech and has only ever been about free speech. If there hadn't been death threats, assassinations, and intimidation of American television outlets, there would be no Draw Mohammed Day at all. What would the point be? What would the point of a draw Jesus day be unless some Christian whacko sectarians decided that they were going to car bomb someone they thought had offended them.

 

That's the thing about offense. You don't have the right to not get offended in the United States. The constitution protects my free speech, not their delicate f*#king sensibilities. It's gotten so bad with Islam that we literally have to form ranks and draw targets on all our backs just to protect the freedoms of cartoonists. This is a nonviolent demonstration. If I had my druthers it would be having an open dialogue about the merits of Islam and theism with practicing Muslims, but since that's pretty well out of the question in theocratic countries, this is the best we can do. Good news is its working, as the fundies once again retreat to censorship to protect themselves and demonstrate how sickly and weak their position is.

Restriction of free speech by private actors is not against the law. I'm not supporting it . . . but it's not illegal. The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect someone from restricting your speech unless that person is a government actor.

 

Also, you might reconsider somewhat if you saw the drawings that people are posting on the facebook group. Drawing Mohammed makes a valid point . . . but many (maybe most!) people submitting drawings drew Mohammed as excrement, a monkey, etc. For me, that's crossing the line into baiting. Do and should people have a right to do it? Absolutely. Will I be surprised when it offends Muslims? Nope.

 

It's a good concept but unfortunately it's being executed by idiots.

 

No, when Comedy Central caved like a bunch of cowards over South Park's Mohmmad-bear bit, it wasn't illegal, but given the context of what's been going on in the world, it was pathetic. And even John Stewart, so lauded as Mr. Equal Opportunity offense, pulled up his skirt and squeaked, "Well, they pay the bills."

 

Of course a load of a$$hole$ are going to miss the point and dump on Islam just because they can, but again, that's not the point behind the demonstration. (Though I shed no tears of meanly depicting an Arab warlord who's said to have personally mutilated and executed numerous people). The internet just extrapolates these things beyond where they need to be. I still think that regardless this is an important and worthwhile exercise of our rights.

But aren't the extreme drawings counterproductive? I think the most positive outcome that could potentially come out of this whole thing is that islamic extremists will be exposed as the crazies that they are (as if we need more proof . . .). However, I think that if the drawings are so offensive that we are just creating more extremists than the whole thing is causing more problems than raising awareness. If it's just Mohammed as a monkey or excrement I see it as comparable to Christians being offended by the Piss Christ exhibit.

 

I think the moderate/mainstream Muslims would be more likely to condemn the outcry and marginalize the extremists if there was an outpouring of death threats over smiling stick figure drawings of Mohammed than if the drawings were even more intentionally offensive.

 

A hateful and unthinking drawing campaign will just fuel the inferno whereas a more thought out campaign of less incendiary images might be able to create a backburn that limits or halts the blaze. (Hopefully that's enough fire metaphors in one sentence.)

 

Counterproductive to what aim? I think the bottom line is that we're at war. Literally on the one hand, and ideologically on the other. Because of the particular psychotic nature of Muslim fanatics, the only appropriate response is to show that under no condition will we bow the knee or make exceptions to our freedom even under threats of violence. I have certain serious questions about whether one can be a 'moderate' Muslim who holds to Koranic teaching, but that's a separate issue. You can't forget that the original drawings that started this firestorm were fairly tedious and bland––certainly no Mohammed fornicating with goat kind of thing. The Muslim response to that resulted in numerous deaths and riots. So what we find is we're not operating with two extremes and a wide middle. Once you draw the prophet, it's worthy of death. What are options then? Seems to me it's say you're sorry, or hit back harder.

 

Counterproductive in the sense that I don't see any possible positive result from the inflammatory images. Here's how I could (theoretically!) see the options working out:

 

1. Smiling stick figure drawing of Mohammed. -Radical muslims send out death threats and generally freak out. Moderate muslims see the overreaction by the fringe and either push back against them or marginalize them.

 

2. Extremely inflammatory drawings of Mohammed. -Moderate muslims are just as offended as radical muslims and are pushed into the waiting arms of the violent fringe. MORE muslims issue death threats.

 

You say we're at war. Do you mean that you think we are at war with Islam? I sincerely hope that is not the case because that would be a truly impossible war. The only way to win a war of that type would be the complete extermination of the Muslim people.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, as an aside, I mostly agree with your difficulty with the term moderate Muslims. I don't know any Muslims personally. I don't think they are very common in Nebraska. My unfamiliarity with the people who follow that religion might make me focus on the Muslims that I see on the news. I really don't know . . . There certainly seems to be a lot of violence in the Koran but there's a lot of violence in the Bible and most other religious texts as well. I suppose it all depends on how you use it. I do know that millions of people have died in the name of Christianity and Islam and I cringe any time religion is used as justification for war or killing.

[sarge87]

My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday. We couldn't decide if the people who are promoting the draw Mohammed day are just trying to fan the flames or if they are making a valid point about unrestricted speech. I leaned towards the latter and she leaned towards the former. No winner, unfortunately.

 

Well I'd be happy to settle the debate for you. This is entirely about free speech and has only ever been about free speech. If there hadn't been death threats, assassinations, and intimidation of American television outlets, there would be no Draw Mohammed Day at all. What would the point be? What would the point of a draw Jesus day be unless some Christian whacko sectarians decided that they were going to car bomb someone they thought had offended them.

 

That's the thing about offense. You don't have the right to not get offended in the United States. The constitution protects my free speech, not their delicate f*#king sensibilities. It's gotten so bad with Islam that we literally have to form ranks and draw targets on all our backs just to protect the freedoms of cartoonists. This is a nonviolent demonstration. If I had my druthers it would be having an open dialogue about the merits of Islam and theism with practicing Muslims, but since that's pretty well out of the question in theocratic countries, this is the best we can do. Good news is its working, as the fundies once again retreat to censorship to protect themselves and demonstrate how sickly and weak their position is.

Restriction of free speech by private actors is not against the law. I'm not supporting it . . . but it's not illegal. The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect someone from restricting your speech unless that person is a government actor.

 

Also, you might reconsider somewhat if you saw the drawings that people are posting on the facebook group. Drawing Mohammed makes a valid point . . . but many (maybe most!) people submitting drawings drew Mohammed as excrement, a monkey, etc. For me, that's crossing the line into baiting. Do and should people have a right to do it? Absolutely. Will I be surprised when it offends Muslims? Nope.

 

It's a good concept but unfortunately it's being executed by idiots.

 

No, when Comedy Central caved like a bunch of cowards over South Park's Mohmmad-bear bit, it wasn't illegal, but given the context of what's been going on in the world, it was pathetic. And even John Stewart, so lauded as Mr. Equal Opportunity offense, pulled up his skirt and squeaked, "Well, they pay the bills."

 

Of course a load of a$hole$ are going to miss the point and dump on Islam just because they can, but again, that's not the point behind the demonstration. (Though I shed no tears of meanly depicting an Arab warlord who's said to have personally mutilated and executed numerous people). The internet just extrapolates these things beyond where they need to be. I still think that regardless this is an important and worthwhile exercise of our rights.

But aren't the extreme drawings counterproductive? I think the most positive outcome that could potentially come out of this whole thing is that islamic extremists will be exposed as the crazies that they are (as if we need more proof . . .). However, I think that if the drawings are so offensive that we are just creating more extremists than the whole thing is causing more problems than raising awareness. If it's just Mohammed as a monkey or excrement I see it as comparable to Christians being offended by the Piss Christ exhibit.

 

I think the moderate/mainstream Muslims would be more likely to condemn the outcry and marginalize the extremists if there was an outpouring of death threats over smiling stick figure drawings of Mohammed than if the drawings were even more intentionally offensive.

 

A hateful and unthinking drawing campaign will just fuel the inferno whereas a more thought out campaign of less incendiary images might be able to create a backburn that limits or halts the blaze. (Hopefully that's enough fire metaphors in one sentence.)

 

Counterproductive to what aim? I think the bottom line is that we're at war. Literally on the one hand, and ideologically on the other. Because of the particular psychotic nature of Muslim fanatics, the only appropriate response is to show that under no condition will we bow the knee or make exceptions to our freedom even under threats of violence. I have certain serious questions about whether one can be a 'moderate' Muslim who holds to Koranic teaching, but that's a separate issue. You can't forget that the original drawings that started this firestorm were fairly tedious and bland––certainly no Mohammed fornicating with goat kind of thing. The Muslim response to that resulted in numerous deaths and riots. So what we find is we're not operating with two extremes and a wide middle. Once you draw the prophet, it's worthy of death. What are options then? Seems to me it's say you're sorry, or hit back harder.

 

Counterproductive in the sense that I don't see any possible positive result from the inflammatory images. Here's how I could (theoretically!) see the options working out:

 

1. Smiling stick figure drawing of Mohammed. -Radical muslims send out death threats and generally freak out. Moderate muslims see the overreaction by the fringe and either push back against them or marginalize them.

 

2. Extremely inflammatory drawings of Mohammed. -Moderate muslims are just as offended as radical muslims and are pushed into the waiting arms of the violent fringe. MORE muslims issue death threats.

 

You say we're at war. Do you mean that you think we are at war with Islam? I sincerely hope that is not the case because that would be a truly impossible war. The only way to win a war of that type would be the complete extermination of the Muslim people.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, as an aside, I mostly agree with your difficulty with the term moderate Muslims. I don't know any Muslims personally. I don't think they are very common in Nebraska. My unfamiliarity with the people who follow that religion might make me focus on the Muslims that I see on the news. I really don't know . . . There certainly seems to be a lot of violence in the Koran but there's a lot of violence in the Bible and most other religious texts as well. I suppose it all depends on how you use it. I do know that millions of people have died in the name of Christianity and Islam and I cringe any time religion is used as justification for war or killing.

While there are small pockets of Arab Muslims in Omaha and Lincoln, the largest groups of Muslims who live in Nebraska are from Somalia and Sudan residing in the central (G.I. and Kearney) and western regions (N. Platte) of the state.

[Husker_x]

Counterproductive in the sense that I don't see any possible positive result from the inflammatory images. Here's how I could (theoretically!) see the options working out:

 

1. Smiling stick figure drawing of Mohammed. -Radical muslims send out death threats and generally freak out. Moderate muslims see the overreaction by the fringe and either push back against them or marginalize them.

 

2. Extremely inflammatory drawings of Mohammed. -Moderate muslims are just as offended as radical muslims and are pushed into the waiting arms of the violent fringe. MORE muslims issue death threats.

 

You say we're at war. Do you mean that you think we are at war with Islam? I sincerely hope that is not the case because that would be a truly impossible war. The only way to win a war of that type would be the complete extermination of the Muslim people.

 

Finally, as an aside, I mostly agree with your difficulty with the term moderate Muslims. I don't know any Muslims personally. I don't think they are very common in Nebraska. My unfamiliarity with the people who follow that religion might make me focus on the Muslims that I see on the news. I really don't know . . . There certainly seems to be a lot of violence in the Koran but there's a lot of violence in the Bible and most other religious texts as well. I suppose it all depends on how you use it. I do know that millions of people have died in the name of Christianity and Islam and I cringe any time religion is used as justification for war or killing.

 

Has there actually been a major terrorist act since 9/11 which didn't involve fundamentalist Muslims? Strictly speaking, no, the United States is not at war with Islam. A lot of Muslims around here get along just fine with everyone else. But in my fairly limited study of the Koran, and going off what I've observed in the strongest centers of Islam in the Middle East, Islam is not simply a personal religious ideology, though that is part of it. It is a geo-poltiical enterprise and has been since Mohammed himself first began to wage war. If there is no God but Allah, and it is proclaimed in the Koran that the world is either to convert or submit to Islamic rule, then I think you'll agree we have ourselves a problem. My point being, I have yet to see a convincing case made that one can be a 'true' Muslim and not subscribe to a literalist interpretation of the Koran.

 

Second point would be, if the images are so inflammatory that it leads moderate (we'll just have to let it slide for sake of discussion) Muslims to embrace Jihadist activity, well then I suppose they weren't really moderate to begin with, were they? Christians deal with obscene imagery and satire of Christianity. Maybe not all the time or everywhere they look, but it happens. Their 'retaliation' is almost universally peaceful with the exception of the odd abortion doctor shooting. A moderate Muslim can't claim to value free speech and then join a terrorist cell as soon as a picture of Mohammed taking a leak surfaces on someone's facebook profile. As long as the demonstrations for free speech remain nonviolent in nature, there's no argument from me. It was our rights that were attacked in the first place.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I have some Muslim co-workers from Azerbaijan. I find them to be like Christians. Most have a deep faith, but follow it to different degrees. One co-worker admires Saudi for its "clean" living, and others look more towards the US as the way to go, with a pluralist attitude towards there, and my, faith. If I were to hang a drawing of Mohammad on the wall, I dont think they would be so offended they would attempt to kill me, but I do think they would be really pi#$ed off.

 

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

[carlfense]

Here's an interesting OpEd on this issue. It raises some issues that have been discussed in this tread.

My Take: Everyone chalk Mohammed?

 

Secular students chalked smiling stick figures on campuses labeling them 'Mohammed;' Muslim students reacted by adding boxing gloves and re-labeling the drawings 'Muhammad Ali.'

 

Editor’s note: Greg Epstein, an ordained Humanist rabbi, serves as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University. He is the author of the New York Times bestseller “Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe” and chairs the national advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance.

 

By Greg Epstein, Special to CNN

 

If I told you groups of atheist and Muslim students around the country have been breaking out boxing gloves, and the outlines of bodies have been marked in chalk on the ground, you’d worry, right? And you should, though fortunately it doesn’t mean anyone has been physically hurt yet.

 

Rather, it means the latest in a series of controversies over drawing the Prophet Mohammed has arrived: “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” scheduled for Thursday, May 20, has gained tens of thousands of online followers, riling fears and anger on many campuses.

 

This spring’s 200th episode of the always irreverent “South Park” included the Prophet Mohammed disguised in a bear mascot suit. A fringe website called Revolutionmuslim.com issued a warning against the “South Park” creators.

 

But the forces behind that site consist of just two “extremist buffoons,” according to Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer and founder of TheMuslimGuy.com. Read Iftikhar's commentary here

 

Still, Comedy Central network pulled the episode after it first aired. And the network censored Part II of the episode, with audio bleeps and image blocks. In response, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris penned a satirical cartoon calling for a national day of drawing the prophet. And groups of secular and atheist students, among others, are mobilizing to follow her lead en masse. Except Norris long since disavowed her cartoon, apologizing publicly and profusely for the misbegotten day it seems to have produced. Got all that?

 

 

The "South Park" episodes, of course, should have been left alone. The show makes fun of everyone, often brilliantly. There’s no reason for Islam to get off easier. Comedy Central seriously erred, kowtowing to extremists or to the small minority of American Muslims who oppose freedom of expression.

 

But two wrongs don’t make a right. Several campus groups of nonreligious students affiliated with the national Secular Student Alliance, of which I am a big supporter, have started a campaign to chalk smiling stick figures on their campus quads, labeling the figures “Mohammed.”

 

Muslim students’ reaction? Add boxing gloves and re-label the drawings “Muhammad Ali." As an atheist (or better yet, call me a Humanist: one who emphasizes doing good without God) who longs for fellow Humanists to gain respectability in this religious nation, I begrudgingly admit the Muslims’ approach in this incident is superior in humor and civility.

 

This is not to say the secular students are bigots seeking to cause offense, as some have suggested. In fact they see themselves as standing up for free speech and free intellectual inquiry. They hope increasing the number of potential targets will make extremists think twice before attacking. And they earnestly believe no person should be so revered that they can not be drawn or spoken - that such reverence is simply a bad idea.

 

Proudly, they note that like the creators of "South Park," they are “equal opportunity critics” who would be just as harsh with bad ideas put forth by any other religion. They’ve written to their Muslim Students Association colleagues saying just that. In short they’re good, smart people, trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, they’re failing; maybe dangerously.

 

There is a difference between making fun of religious or other ideas on a TV show that you can turn off, and doing it out in a public square where those likely to take offense simply can’t avoid it. These chalk drawings are not a seminar on free speech; they are the atheist equivalent of the campus sidewalk preachers who used to irk me back in college. This is not even "Piss Christ," Andres Serrano's controversial 1987 photograph of a crucifix in urine. It is more like filling Dixie cups with yellow water and mini crucifixes and putting them on the ground all over town. Could you do it legally? Of course. Should you?

 

In Muslim culture, there is a longstanding tradition that to put something on the ground, where people step on it, is “the ultimate diss," indicating “I hate you, you disgust me,” as I was told by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America

 

To this add the fact that after 9/11 hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims and “those perceived to be Muslim” increased 1,700 percent in the United States, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. Large numbers of innocent Muslims in the U.S. have been harmed or intimidated simply because they share a religious tradition with extremists. Can we reasonably suggest they not be reminded of this upon seeing their prophet, the most revered and admired person in their cultural tradition, underfoot?

 

Our country’s top military leaders are struggling to win the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide. And many of the 1.57 billion Muslims are watching CNN and many other American networks to see what we think of them. If we think they are going to perceive this as a thoughtful exercise in critical thinking, we are in serious denial. To paraphrase one student I heard from, we should fight to the death for our right to chalk these images. But we should also have the dignity and respect not to do so.

 

Of course, Muslim extremists have again and again in recent memory committed atrocities that the angriest, most aggressive atheist I know could scarcely dream up on LSD. And it is moderate Muslims’ responsibility to speak out against these acts. And they are. My friend Eboo Patel is a Muslim who has built a movement training thousands of young Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Buddhist and Hindu leaders in pluralism as an alternative religious extremism. What Eboo and other Muslims are saying when they criticize the chalking campaign is, ‘please find a less hurtful way to protect free speech; you’re within your rights to do it this way, but we can’t help but see it as, at best, unfriendly in the extreme.’ Check out the resources his organization has created for those looking for Muslim-atheist/Humanist partnerships rather than cartoonish conflict.

 

And partnerships are, more than ever, a real possibility. Patel and Mattson, along with Akbar Ahmed, the chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington and a leading authority on contemporary Islam, all responded enthusiastically to my suggestion that we organize a meeting between Muslim and secularist leaders and students. Ahmed’s comment summarized their sentiment: “I’d much rather know a person who says there is no God, but is dedicated to being a good person [than a person who gives lip-service to God but behaves unethically.]”

 

As a Humanist, I hope I do not exist solely to advance the Humanist cause. I want to advance the human cause. In this case, the way to do it is to keep the chalk on the blackboard, where perhaps one day soon Humanist and Muslim college students will use it together in inner-city elementary schools, teaching understanding and cooperation between members of different religious and moral traditions.

CNN

[Chef K]

What "freedom" do they think they are supporting by taking away the ability to act in whatever ways people see fit? You want tolerance? Look in a mirror.

Agreed. This is the typical hypocrisy you see from the crowd that preaches "be tolerant and inclusive" and pounds their chest about it.

 

That crowd sure is tolerant and inclusive, as long as you believe exactly how they do.

And all religions are guilty of this. It's one of the biggest problems with organized religion - if there is a God, far too often his words are twisted for the purposes of evil men, and the world suffers.

Agreed. However, I don't see this so much as a problem with religion as a whole, but a mentality. My first issue is with the far left wing in the US, preaching tolerance. But speak out about a "hot button issue" such as homosexuality or illegal immigration, and they label you biggot or a racist. Second, is the problem we have with Islamic facists, those who will happily kill you for being an "infidel." I don't want to include all Muslims in this discussion, because supposedly Islam is not a religion of evil. But the Muslims who do not speak up and denounce this facist mentality are in essence being apathetic and allowing it.

 

Like Husker X said, I don't know any Christian or Jew who has threatened to kill a cartoonist because of a drawing about their diety, and then wants to hide behind the veil of tolerance.

I couldn't find a Muslim who shot abortion doctors because he is "pro-life".

[carlfense]

What "freedom" do they think they are supporting by taking away the ability to act in whatever ways people see fit? You want tolerance? Look in a mirror.

Agreed. This is the typical hypocrisy you see from the crowd that preaches "be tolerant and inclusive" and pounds their chest about it.

 

That crowd sure is tolerant and inclusive, as long as you believe exactly how they do.

And all religions are guilty of this. It's one of the biggest problems with organized religion - if there is a God, far too often his words are twisted for the purposes of evil men, and the world suffers.

Agreed. However, I don't see this so much as a problem with religion as a whole, but a mentality. My first issue is with the far left wing in the US, preaching tolerance. But speak out about a "hot button issue" such as homosexuality or illegal immigration, and they label you biggot or a racist. Second, is the problem we have with Islamic facists, those who will happily kill you for being an "infidel." I don't want to include all Muslims in this discussion, because supposedly Islam is not a religion of evil. But the Muslims who do not speak up and denounce this facist mentality are in essence being apathetic and allowing it.

 

Like Husker X said, I don't know any Christian or Jew who has threatened to kill a cartoonist because of a drawing about their diety, and then wants to hide behind the veil of tolerance.

I couldn't find a Muslim who shot abortion doctors because he is "pro-life".

Good point. Every religion has their fringe . . . it's just that some fringes may be larger or more visible than others.

[RedNeckHusker]

Counterproductive in the sense that I don't see any possible positive result from the inflammatory images. Here's how I could (theoretically!) see the options working out:

 

1. Smiling stick figure drawing of Mohammed. -Radical muslims send out death threats and generally freak out. Moderate muslims see the overreaction by the fringe and either push back against them or marginalize them.

 

2. Extremely inflammatory drawings of Mohammed. -Moderate muslims are just as offended as radical muslims and are pushed into the waiting arms of the violent fringe. MORE muslims issue death threats.

 

You say we're at war. Do you mean that you think we are at war with Islam? I sincerely hope that is not the case because that would be a truly impossible war. The only way to win a war of that type would be the complete extermination of the Muslim people.

 

Finally, as an aside, I mostly agree with your difficulty with the term moderate Muslims. I don't know any Muslims personally. I don't think they are very common in Nebraska. My unfamiliarity with the people who follow that religion might make me focus on the Muslims that I see on the news. I really don't know . . . There certainly seems to be a lot of violence in the Koran but there's a lot of violence in the Bible and most other religious texts as well. I suppose it all depends on how you use it. I do know that millions of people have died in the name of Christianity and Islam and I cringe any time religion is used as justification for war or killing.

 

Has there actually been a major terrorist act since 9/11 which didn't involve fundamentalist Muslims? Strictly speaking, no, the United States is not at war with Islam. A lot of Muslims around here get along just fine with everyone else. But in my fairly limited study of the Koran, and going off what I've observed in the strongest centers of Islam in the Middle East, Islam is not simply a personal religious ideology, though that is part of it. It is a geo-poltiical enterprise and has been since Mohammed himself first began to wage war. If there is no God but Allah, and it is proclaimed in the Koran that the world is either to convert or submit to Islamic rule, then I think you'll agree we have ourselves a problem. My point being, I have yet to see a convincing case made that one can be a 'true' Muslim and not subscribe to a literalist interpretation of the Koran.

 

 

Right on. These talking heads - Obama and others - about Islam being a "peaceful" religion are either delusional or pathologic liars. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[RedNeckHusker]

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

 

Not a good point of reference. The "crusaders" were guided by the talking heads of their time, not their holy book. Their holy book condones no violence but rather condemns it.

 

On the other hand, the holy book of Islam not only condones violence, but requires it.

 

A big difference.

[carlfense]

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

 

Not a good point of reference. The "crusaders" were guided by the talking heads of their time, not their holy book. Their holy book condones no violence but rather condemns it.

 

On the other hand, the holy book of Islam not only condones violence, but requires it.

 

A big difference.

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. Judges 15:15-16

 

Samson was one of the good guys . . . right?

[RedNeckHusker]

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

 

Not a good point of reference. The "crusaders" were guided by the talking heads of their time, not their holy book. Their holy book condones no violence but rather condemns it.

 

On the other hand, the holy book of Islam not only condones violence, but requires it.

 

A big difference.

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. Judges 15:15-16

 

Samson was one of the good guys . . . right?

 

 

No question the guy was a warrior. But you can't find anywhere in the Christian holy book where followers are allowed violence or oppression against anyone, much less commanded to do it. It's just not there.

[Chef K]

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

 

Not a good point of reference. The "crusaders" were guided by the talking heads of their time, not their holy book. Their holy book condones no violence but rather condemns it.

 

On the other hand, the holy book of Islam not only condones violence, but requires it.

 

A big difference.

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. Judges 15:15-16

 

Samson was one of the good guys . . . right?

 

 

No question the guy was a warrior. But you can't find anywhere in the Christian holy book where followers are allowed violence or oppression against anyone, much less commanded to do it. It's just not there.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

 

No violence or oppression huh?

[knapplc]

No question the guy was a warrior. But you can't find anywhere in the Christian holy book where followers are allowed violence or oppression against anyone, much less commanded to do it. It's just not there.

 

You're forgetting the book of Joshua, in which the Israelites conquered the indigenous people of Canaan. There are other examples, but that's the easiest one off the top of my noggin.

[carlfense]

I find Islam to be much like the pre Reformation days of the Catholic Church. The great commision commands everyone to go out and bring all non-belivers to God. Until the Reformation this would involve all sorts of crusades, murder, forced conversions etc. I dont bring that up to defend or excuse what Islam has done, but I find it a good point of reference, that maybe they need a strong leader to shake them up and bring them into a more modern way.

 

Not a good point of reference. The "crusaders" were guided by the talking heads of their time, not their holy book. Their holy book condones no violence but rather condemns it.

 

On the other hand, the holy book of Islam not only condones violence, but requires it.

 

A big difference.

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. Judges 15:15-16

 

Samson was one of the good guys . . . right?

 

 

No question the guy was a warrior. But you can't find anywhere in the Christian holy book where followers are allowed violence or oppression against anyone, much less commanded to do it. It's just not there.

 

Just for starters . . . duck your head in that glass house.

 

 

Leviticus 20:1 - The Lord said to Moses… "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."

 

1 Samuel 15:2-3 - This is what the Lord Almighty says: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

 

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

 

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.