Thank-you for clarifying that detail.   I obviously misunderstood you.  I cannot comment further on the consistent application of the guidelines of conduct.

FUNNY!    

Oh yeah but you might have missed that all my sockpuppets have been banned so that is old news.

Serena, what isn't funny is that you were wrong about multiple things in your account of the past few days, and with one thread gone and me banned, I doubt anyone else would have corrected you.  I get in enough trouble without you trying to make me appear worse than I am.

And I'm glad you caught the sockpuppet reference, but I'm aware you've been stripped of them and that you recently became an atheist, so in a way, I should congratulate you on losing so many imaginary friends in such short order.  But I was just referring to the obvious throwing stones/glass houses sort of thing.

There is a significant difference.  This is a site populated by Christians, as a result a discussion can be held debating the various viewpoints of hell and damnation including those who do not believe in either and, therefore, negate the negative imagery. 

As far as I know there is only one participant here who is Muslim.  He has been offended for his belief on several occasions including being told that he would "burn in hell".    Not only was he able to defend himself, he was supported by others who believe that all positions and beliefs are valid and worthy of respect.

For those of us who do not practice the Muslim faith we will not have an understanding as to why those images are offensive and will project our own perceptions most of which will be inaccurate.  Without having Muslims participate in the discussion it will be nothing more than taking shots at an open net.   Now some may get debating points this way but it is not, IMHO, a good game.

 LB

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
     Martin Luther King, Jr.

My account of what happened and admin 's account are pretty much the same.  IF you are supposedly innocent of being banned why do you get into enough trouble?

Yeah you should.  The sockpuppets though are harder to lose than God since they actually helped me.  Actually, God (and RevJohn) were going to help me not have sockpuppets anymore but that did not work.

The throwing/stones glass house is a Biblical reference so I am surprised you used it.

I am glad that you did not stay banned.

Actually, it's just an idiom. There's no such biblical reference that I know of. Sort of like many people thinking that "The Lord helps those who help themselves" is biblical, but it's not.

Really...maybe I should have looked for it.  It must be right beside "cleanliness is next to godliness"

Quite simply, they are not.  Aaron did not go into detail - you extrapolated.  Badly.

I was not given "multiple private warnings", as you claimed - I received exactly 3 private messages from Aaron between May 20th and 21st, and only the first warned about the first picture that was removed (the second warned about mocking admins, and the third tried to justify the bad admin decision of removing the thread).

I never reposted a picture that I was instructed to take down, as you claimed - I reposted two pictures not created by me, originally combined in one (deleted) post, and reposted individually because no reason was given and I thought at least one of them should pass.

After this, I was was not issued another warning, as you claimed - I was simply banned.  I requested a method of recourse by email, and a second admin sent me the only personal email I received, and unbanned me with the "we need to have you understand why you were banned" line, without actually waiting to see if I understood why I was banned.  You were simply wrong with almost every keystroke you made.

Let me try to rewrite my concerns using another issue.    I am concerned that what has happened with the question of drawing the Prophet is not much different to what lead to many retail corporations telling their employees that saying "Merry Christmas" to customers was offensive to Jews and Muslims, and other people with non Christian belief system.

Which in turn lead to a ban on employees mentioning Christmas, or having Christmas displays at Christmas time.

Corporations decided that it was easy just to use generic Season greetings, and than this was misunderstood to mean  saying "Merry Christmas" was offensive and wrong.

Likewise for hundreds of years there have been drawings of the Prophet. However due to a disagreement in Danemark between cartoonist and local Danish muslims, a cartoonist and his publishers decided to publish many cartoons of the Prophet. 

Now my understanding of this is coloured by the belief that Europeans are not just suffering from a angst over Islam, but actually immigration.  In Europe it just happens that many of their immigrants are from countries that these Europeans have colonised in the past.  As well they have denied full rights to many of their immigrants. Places like germany had "immigrants" from Turkey who were actually not immigrants, but Children and grandchildren of immigrants. However until recently, they were denied the vote and other rights.

Many right wing politicians in Europe try to make it Islamic issue to justify their mistreatment of immigrants, and their decendants. However in reality these people were often from one country, and they just happened to be muslims.  So when the Danes published their cartonns they went over the top, and actually published 12 or so.  This is important, because in the past cartoonists like the creators of South Park had drawn the Prophet without any protests.  However it is my belief that offensive things can be turned into hateful and rude things, by the context. Just as a Gay man, I do not like what i consider homophobic, however it becomes more than just homophobic and offensive when you increase the numbers. In the past I have protested against homophobic posts because there sheer number and presistence, created an atmosphere of hate, that went beyond what a single post could do.

Add to this the riots and killing that resulted when it was reported that these cartoons included depictions of the Prophet as a pig.   Then corporations like Comedy central owners decided to just ban all depictions of the Prophet.

Now we are in the Merry Christmas situation where corporations are making decisions based on what they see as the easiest way to make money, and that those decisions somehow become one of what is right or wrong for others to do do.

I do not agree with Chansen statement  that it is Islam to blame and that it is Islam that is asking to be appeased.  For me it is a question of letting corporations decided what is moral in society.

Now I agree the WC is owned by a Church that there is to be a double standard in dealing with other religions. I would never post a piece of art like Piss Jesus, that reference another religion because of the context.

However, I am worried when we accept a US corporations ideas of morality.  Especially when it is In reaction to racist  white Europeans, who are not anti-Islamic, but just plain and simple racists and anti-immigrant, who are covering  their racism with post 9-11 angst, by  saying they are taking a stance against Islamic extremism.

i also do not think the Draw Mohamed for the Day, on facebook helped clarify the issue, because they too seem to accept corporate morality as Islamic morality.  the two are different..

thus while they are not accepting of corporate morality, they are letting corporations frame the debate.

I understand the reason you took the decision. It's just a reality of life in 2110.  i do not think you took the decision based on corporate ideas, but more practical ones.  In writing I did not make this point. 

What I am concerned about is not the denial of being able to post drawings, or a stick figure, but that the debate here on wondercafe was not addressing the original issues underneath. (thus my  previous posts were  for the wondercafe community and not the admin, sorry I should have made that clear)

i should have stated that my opinion differered wuith the premise of Chansens original post that the draw campaign was about needing to standing up to Islam, which I beleive is true if you only accept a limited view of Islam that excludes most muslims.

It is understandable,  I just want to make sure that certain points are raised, that highlight differences in opinion and Islamic traditions.  

I am concerned ( debate wise and not wc wise) with the resulting image of religion in general. Just as I stand up I think many t are mistaken in their crtiques of Christianity, because to do so they start with a premise that defines Christianity in a limited way, which always exclude my understanding of it  of it.  

If we accept the fact that all muslims are against all images, than it makes Islam sound uniformly intolerant of non-muslims.  Which it is not. Even more than  Christianity and  Judaism, Islam is very diverse. Also each image is different, and the time and manner they are presented are different.  So we should not create in our minds general rules, without knowing that.

I understand determining what is offensive is difficult for other religions, and the need for practical solutions, I just want to make sure that people understand these are that, and not some theological position that is fixed or even the same,  through out much of Islam.

I have learned on Wondercafe that even Christian art can be seen in many different ways, the same, picture, poem or video can be seen by one as anti-Christian and other as pro Christan. In Posting Christian art we can be accused of being against Christiainity, but we are able to defend it with our inside knowledge.  We are much more unaware of other religions, so it is best not to use  art  when it comes to certain topics like this in other religions. 

BTW you do a good job of running the site and I like how the WC community has evolved, partially as a result of rules and the application of them. 

As (I think) the only muslim poster who is still active on the site, I feel like I should stand and say a few things.

The main reasons why having pictures drawn of the Prophet Muhammad is prohibited is to prevent Idolotry.  A Muslim' devotion should be to God and the persuit of goodness, kindness, and justice, not a symbol. 

An example would be the cross in Christianity.  I am not saying this is idolotry, but it is a living example of the veneration of a peticular object.

This being said, I personally do not have a huge problem with people drawing the Prophet Muhammad.  Mostly because I can't remember the last time I saw a Muslim draw on and start worshipping it...

However, this is where intent comes into it.  In court, in politics, in life, intent plays a huge part in how people recieve things.  Where the infamous danish cartoons just a slightly risqué critique of islamist extremists/terrorists?  The intent of the cartoons was to insult the person of the Prophet Muhammad, and associate him with the very extreme edge of some so-called Muslims.

On freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights we as Canadians hold and I treasure it immeasurably.  Alas nowadays too often is it stifled for political correctness.  The same goes for artistic expression et cetera...

Again, intent must come into play.  If I walked down the street with a burning cross that had house pets nailed to it...would I be able to get away with saying "oh, it's not my fault other's are insulted, I didn't intend it".  As hyperbolic as this example is I think you see my point.

Now chansen, we both know you are quite the shit disturber, and that is good because the world needs them.  I too can stir up quite the storm on occasion.  But why must you drive more insecure people into extremity with your actions? If your on some kind of mission, please, the world has seen enough "shock and awe" tactics to know they generally just piss people off.  Ease into it, find common ground, use pursausion.

What I am trying to get at is this: Is there a need to do what you did chansen?  Did your sense of freedom feel so stifled that you had to find out just where Admin would draw the line? 

I can call out the craziness of Scientology and Mormonism all I want.  Heck, there is a lot about Islam I disagree with, hence why I don't practice it.  A lot of it is out dated.  Islam is supposed to be a religion that can change with the times.  in the Qur'an you are allowed to own slaves (as was the way back then) and have multiple wives.  The only places you're allowed to have muliple wives with no qualms is in some of the more...rustic...middle eastern countries that stagnated because of historical/poltical reasons. 

In the west we have continued to advance...or at least one would hope...in areas such as the arts, politics, and less corporeal things such acceptance, diversity, and societal chancge.  A lot of Muslims are immigrants who come from some of the those very middle eastern countries where interpretations of Islam are different from what they are here. The reason there is uproar about these things is a lot of people don't see why you need to do it.  Yes it may seem rediculous to you, I understand where you are coming from, if people never get challanged then the world would be in big trouble.  But is causing normally moderate people to be less amiable to the rest of the population really the way to do it?

Live and let live.  Be at peace with yourself, and with your neighbour.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Hey, Omni.  Thanks for dropping by.

Fair enough.   But just so you know, I'm totally OK with you worshipping mine, if you feel the urge.

Some of the Danish cartoons were insulting.  Which was worse?  Insulting cartoons or the burning of embassies?

And the very extreme edge of some "so-called" Muslims probably think you're a "so-called" Muslim.  And, just like every other theological debate, there is probably evidence for and against those positions.  Both could be right and wrong at the same time.

And wherever there were riots about the cartoons, you could find Muslim-drawn cartoons, denigrating other religions.  How can Muslims be as profane as they like against other religions, but claim the right not to be offended by the cartoons of others?

But technically, the Danish cartoons did not inspire Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.  This came after Comedy Central censored a South Park cartoon in response to threats from an obvious Islamic fringe group.  The concept of EDMD is simple:  If everybody draws Muhammad, these nutcases can't kill everybody.  The cartoons are not intended to be idols, obviously.  But neither are the vast majoirty of them intended to be insulting.  Most are innocent stick-figures drawn by artistic noobies like myself.

Again, the idea isn't to draw insulting portraits of Muhammad - it's for everybody to draw lots of portraits of Muhammad.  Make it ubiquitous.  If all the newspapers and news shows in the world published these innocent images, that may be the end of it.  The problem is that by showing intimidation works, we encourage the fringe Muslims to intimidate.  It has to stop.

With the situation with Admin2, some images stayed, and some were deleted.  For a while "EVERYBODY DRAW A NON-PROPHET DAY" was acceptable.  "Muham___ ... is this OK?" with a stick figure was apparently very much not.  There were a lot of very clever images created for the day, and I posted some of the wittier ones:

i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu91/cphansen/religion/muham.jpg

i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu91/cphansen/religion/Muh121.jpg

i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu91/cphansen/religion/Muh401.jpg

And my own final contribution:

i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu91/cphansen/religion/P1010198-1-1-1-1.jpg

Be careful, as those are apparently very profane images, as they were deleted and I was banned for posting them.

It's all just too surreal to take seriously.  How do you compare "Self-portrait day was always one of young Mohammad's least favourite," with carrying "a burning cross that had house pets nailed to it"?!?  I know you think you exaggerated, but I don't think you're guilty of hyperbole - I think you just got it wrong altogether.

Right.  Places that progressed despite Islam - not because of it.  There is a young adult female Canadian citizen who can not leave Saudi Arabia because her father will not give his permission.  There are lots of other examples from that country as well.  How "rustic" is Saudi Arabia?

Why would "normally moderate" people become "not moderate" over a stick figure labelled Muhammad?  I have no interest in making Muhammad look like a goat or a pig or evil or anything of the sort.  I am just showing my solidarity with those who would like to draw Muhammad, because he is a central character in the circus of faith.  Muhammad should be fair game, just like every other one true prophet.

I hope that next May 20th, more media outlets don't just pick up the story, but publish the images.  We need as many people creating and publishing images of Muhammad as possible.

Why is an Islamic religious law being enforced on this site?  Does the site administration wish to enforce other Islamic religious laws?  How does the site administration pick and choose between which Islamic religious laws to enforce, and which to ignore?

I thought the second picture was quite funny actually chansen, I will reply more in depth later as I have a pressing engagement shortly.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Actually, Mohammed Day is on vacation visiting his distant cousin, Stockwell.

Hahahah!  Good one retiredrev!

Anyways my pressing engagement has been postponed until a little later.

I understand where you are coming from chansen re: cartoons do less harm than burning embassies.  I totally agree!  The backlash was totally rediculous!!!  Outrageous and wrong in every sense!  I condemn it vehemently!  That being said, it happened.  And just because it happened, that shouldn't preclude my opinions on why it happened and such. 

Anywho, yes the extreme edge of Islam probably thinks i'm a "so-called" muslim.  I could care less because there are more of me then there are of them, democracy at it's finest ;)

That aside, the difference is that I wouldn't kill them for thinking differently, the opposite might not be true however.   Alas, such is the state of things in some places and in some people.

You mention that while muslims were rioting about insulting cartoons about the prophet Muhammad, there are muslim drawn cartoons insulting other religions.  Again, my reply to this is, yes it happened, that doesn't however prevent me from putting out my opinion.  Does that make me responsible for them?  I certainly cannot remember drawing any insulting images in my lifetime.  Does being a muslim make me responsible for the riots?  No, for I, along with millions of others, did not take part in them.

I agree with the principles of "Draw Muhammad Day", to basically "out vote" the extremists with the actions of the moderates.  A noble goal to be sure, and if I had any artistic skill I might join in.  While I will not be participating (I have few compunctions against it as I don't believe it is that big of an issue but perhaps that is just because I personally can resist worshipping idols, even ones so well drawn as yours chansen), If asked about it I will endorse it as a good thing for the world.

Re: Hyperbole, think what you will chansen but by definition, my words were hyperbole.  I know it is hard for you to understand because I am not aware of much anything you hold sacred in the traditional sense, but some people hold some things sacred and as wrong of right as that may be, it effects how they view them and react to people's actions towards them.  That being said, I have mentioned before that this doesn't perturb me in the least because as much as I respect the great prophet, to hold the rule of not drawing him to be as sacred as being generous, kind, honest and upright is insulting to the religion, and tantamount to idolatry in itself!  Worshipping a lack of image for lack of an image!

I don't really think you understood what I meant by saying "rustic" when refering to Saudi Arabia.  Also I don't really know what your example was supposed to prove to me.  Saying "rustic" was my way of trying to express my distain while not remaining in a haughty western stance of superiority.

Again I support your goal. Because even though you can be rather asinine at times, you generally work towards the betterment of society. Just one point of interest, Muhammad is not the "one true prophet".  He is a Prophet, no less, no more. 

And addressing Azdagari's comments:

Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

^^ Except that no Muslims actually complained in this case.  The people who were involved in the banning weren't evidently taking any heat at all.

Now, wait a sec.  Above, you said:

If that's the case, and you agree that there is no malicious intent in EDMD to offend the Muslims who are not radical, then how is it simply hyperbole to go from EDMD with no malicious intent, to:

?

As it happens, the images are not intended to be insulting, and are not insulting to you, but yet you think there is a comparison to be made between these two extremes.  Sorry, they're just not in the same ballpark.

OK, so we both disapprove of the Saudi's use of Sharia Law in many circumstances.  But some very powerful Islamic religious leaders probably side more with them than us.   And the scriptures are on their side.

OK, but there are lots of prophets, and because they don't all agree with Islam, I assume you think many of them are false.  Hey, I think they're false, too.  Because we have no reason to believe any prophet, I figure every one from before Muhammad to after Joseph Smith is either delusional or a con man.  There is a "facility" in Israel that is full of "prophets".

I'm not sure why I'm "asinine".  I make my points and I can be sarcastic, but even when I'm going for a laugh, the underlining point is often serious.  There is a lot wrong with religious faith and dogma, and I choose to highlight it the ugly parts in a fun way, rather than ignore them.

Sorry, I missed this because the rest of the post was composed to other people.  Whatever answer you think will answer the question accurately, of course.

Well the short answer is; Whim.  The long of course being; It was a whim.

I bet you can't place that reference ;)

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

To chansen:

Apparently my hyperbole was...too hyperbolic.

Also, I think that many people are prophets in their own contexts.  Great fonts of knowledge and insight, regardless of faith, creed, or lack thereof.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Well what to say? First of all I  have read this entire thread, some points made are disturbingly ignorant, others just disturbing. Okay so a vast majority of muslims don't want you depicting mohammed, you do it anyways. A few extriemists threaten you, and all of a sudden your up in arms trying to save the world one post at a time. I am not sure every muslim in the world, of which there are a lot, are gonna go blow something up because you drew a stick man. Yet when you do your art, you'll still be offending even the non extreme muslims, that wouldn't dream of terrorism. The danish paper that posted the cartoons, was in my opinion, wrong. Free speech aside, they wouldn't have got away with posting some pictures glorifying hitler, or thank you letters written to him for the holocaust. This was a public newspaper, I think what they did was disgraceful and irresponsible. I believe newspapers should report the news in an impartial way, when I'm reading a news paper, I want to know what happend as oppossed to what the jounalist thinks happened. I feel they posted the cartoons to slight a religion they themselves no nothing about and tried to justify it with fear mongering. I mean Hitler used newspapers and facist propaganda to get alot of europe to hate those of jewish faith, before the holocaust. Not every muslum is a terrorist, and your reasoning for participating in facebooks art lesson is weak. If we all draw mohammed they can't kill us all? Are you serious. I don't believe anyone was attacked or physically hurt because of the southpark episode or the formentioned cartoons yet these images still managed to offend many muslims. You say you are not trying to show mohammed in an offensive way, yet just drawing him is offensive to a lot of muslims. I don't know the answer to why muslims don't want mohammed depicted, I just know they don't. I can site a lot of things people of certain races and religion don't want to be called, or stereotyped as, and I try not to do these things for harmonies sake. EDMD was a ignorant facebook stunt, created by fear and obtuse individuals, probley americans. lol. Great post though, provoked disscussion, that's why we're here right?

Well, that was...interesting.  Let's try to extract a few points from that paragraph.

OK, but Muslims do not have a right to not be offended.  Nobody does.  The world doesn't work that way.  You are entirely allowed to go off and act as offended as you like.  You just can't firebomb embassies and use "I was offended" as an excuse.

You went to Godwin in one post?

If people want to do that, why can't we just let them?  When you try to suppress holocaust deniers or holocause backers, it just makes it look like you're trying to cover up their stories.  I say let them spew their hatred.  It makes them look as ridiculous as a street preacher.

That could have been ripped straight from Sarah Palin (who reads lots of papers).  And like much of what Sarah Palin says, it was completely out of context.  The newspapers published images drawn by readers.  Most newspapers have opinion and "talkback" pages.  If you don't like those pages, you're free not to read them or firebomb an embassy.  OK, not the firebombing part.

I never wrote that "every muslum is a terrorist", never meant it, never inferred it, and that makes your critique weak.

Wrong.

The demonstrations lead to riots where hundreds died, according to one dubious web site.  One cartoonist was attacked in his own home.  He survived by retreating to his panic room and Danish police shot the intruder.  Comedy Central, Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened.

Nobody "attacked or physically hurt"?  Are you kidding me?

That's terrible.  Where's my violin?

Again, nobody has the right not to be offended.  If they did, then I couldn't even say that their God is a fabricatrion.  Which I can.

These are different things.  I'm not stereotyping Muslims as terrorists, and neither is that the point of EDMD.

But, hey, go ahead and stereotype Americans as "obtuse individuals".

That was an impressive job of shooting yourself in the foot, there.

Hi chansen,

I agree with you, there is no legislation anywhere which dictates what I must be offended by.  That does not mean, however; that I cannot be offended.  There is no legislation anywhere that dictates that I must not be offensive and yet, if I so choose to be offensive I can be offensive.

What is at play in this conversation is a relationship.  One where individual A is offended by event A.  Individual B knowing that event A will offend person A continues.  That is, at the very least a provocation.

Person B might think that the reaction of Person A is over the top or out of proportion with event A.  Unless Person B has the ability to control the reaction of Person A then Person B is left having to deal with the consequences of their action.

I submit that the world does work that way.  If you offend an individual by accident or design there are consequences.

The statements contradict.  If I am allowed to go off and act as offended as I like then there is no limit to what I can or cannot do.

Rationally, I would react in proportion to the offense.  Since offense participates strongly in the realm of emotion I suggest it would be illogical to expect offended people to react rationally.  The higher that individual's leaning towards their emotional self the more certain they are to react emotionally in very strong ways.

Which is a winning strategy provided the response remains within an acceptable realm.  As soon as lines are crossed (acts of terror) the whole exercise becomes skewed.  If I provoke an opponent into physically assaulting me and my opponent, in their rage, goes over the top public witness of such a spectacle does a number of things.  First, it may say that I was asking for it by taunting someone who was clearly evidencing that they were on the verge of losing control.  Second, it may say that even though I provoked the assault my opponent did very little to keep control.

If I poke a hornet's nest I have every reason to expect that the hornets will swarm and I will be stung.  That is me taking the brunt of the consequences for my own buffoonery.

Now, if the neighbour's kids are playing in close proximity to the hornets nest and I go over, poke it and they are swarmed as well as myself I have forced them to bear the brunt of the consequences for my own buffoonery.

One would hope that human beings are above the primitive instincts of irritated hornets.  Humanity, as a whole, has yet to prove that it is above its own primitive instincts.  Particularly when humanity is irritated.

There are a number of factors that come into play.  Risk assessment being perhaps, the primary consideration.  What consequences can I expect to pay for this action?  What consequences can society be expected to pay for this action?  How can those consequences be mitigated?  Is there another way I can make my point and reduce the risk of harm to any?  I am not confident that the campaign did that forethought.  And if they did and felt that the potential for harm to innocents was worth it I believe that they value life as little as those they sought to provoke.

Again.  The problem is that it was known, or suspected, that there would be elements of Islam that would take serious offense.  It was known, or suspected, that those so seriously offended would respond out of proportion.  It may not have been known or suspected that the level of violence would have reached the point that it did.  That doesn't make one innocent and the other a monster.

It makes one an idiot and the other a monster.  And innocent people get to pick up the consequences.  If nobody has the right to be offended.  Who has the right to be offensive?  Further, who should be obligated to pick up the pieces when someone exercising the right to be offensive offends someone who lacks restraint?

So one muslim who lacked restraint has been shot.  I'm wondering if what the police thought was a necessary use of force will lead him to exercise better self-discipline in the future or whether, in his mind, it justifies a heavier extreme next time out?  Who is the innocent in that episode?  The cartoonist?  The offended individual?  The police?  Of the three which do you think had a better understanding of outcomes and how that may have future effect on relations?

Parker and Stone engaged in provocative action (not new for either of them) being threatened is, I am certain, a consequence that they took into account.  They can if they so choose push further.  In so doing they should be advised that consequences can get higher.

I think this is evidence of the foundational problem in this event.

I'm trying to find an appropriate label so that we can work with at least the hope of some common understanding.  Mentally I'm failing so I apologize before hand for any failure to be clear.  

The problem is apathy and to some extent a callous disregard.  It is expressed in the notion that I have the right to engage in action A and if others do not like it that is simply too bad for them.  Further, just to prove that I have the right to engage in action A even knowing that others do not like it I will repeat action A to the point that others are harmed by it.

Maybe apathy and callous disregard are too strong.  I think it begins as irresponsibility and may eventually become apathy and callous disregard.

With respect to the cartoonist I'm not sure why he felt the need to have a panic room in his house.  It would appear he has made a habit of pissing dangerous people off.  So it should come as no surprise that he pissed people off.

With respect to Parker and Stone, they understand that they piss people off regularly and to some extent they enjoy the friction.

So far all is reasonably limited.  When others are paying the price for their decisions they should be thinking again.

Indeed you have that freedom.  You also bear the consequences.  Here at WonderCafe some people may type a strong response.  Should that response take on new dimensions and should others be threatened by your exercise of that freedom what would be your responsibility then?

I find that assessment to be a bit naive.  Islam is being targetted specifically.  A particular Islamic aversion is being targetted specifically.  Why?

The ruse is that it is an expression of personal freedom.  It is about the right to offend folk who identify themselves as Islamic.  Why?

And this is the point that really sticks for me.  The right to draw Mohammed is needed by whom exactly?  Why is any fighting for the right to do something that they would not, as a matter of course do, when it is reasonable to assume that exercise of that right will provoke folk somewhat shy in the ability to restrain themselves.

We could make a slippery slope argument stating that if I do not have the freedom to draw Mohammed then I can have my freedom to draw other religious figures taken away from me.  I might be clergy, that doesn't mean I spend all day long doodling pictures of Moses, JC, Paul and the crew.  Nor are my walls or fridge adorned with depictions of the one I identify as God.

Some folk like religious art, they should have access to it.  Some folk do not like religious art, they should not have it forced upon them.  If Islam has decided for itself that the Prophet Mohammed should not be depicted artistically they have the freedom to make that decision.

I agree with you that Islam should not be making pronouncements which restrict individuals outside of the Islamic communities.  For the most part Islam as a whole is not doing any such restricting.

A few within Islam are and those few take their outrage, at times, to levels typically reserved for Stanley Cup victory parades and/or soccer hooliganism.  With that as a known.  The freedom of expression comes with strings of responsibility attached.

Ad hominems illustrate that the freedom to express one's self combined with nobody's right to not be offended is not a consequence free relationship.  Should their be blood in the streets because of it?  By no means.  If Dogfac3 walked into an NRA convention and made the same comments and was given a fat-lip and a blackened eye because of it would we be surprised?

It would still be criminal assault.  Hardly unprovoked.  Even though you and I might not deem the provocation sufficient as to justify a fat-lip or black eye there will be some who think he got off lucky.  Fortunately we have mechanisms for keeping such extremism in check.  Those mechanisms could be hard-pressed if we decided to continue to provoke such responses.

Freedom of expression should not be equated with Freedom to be stupid.

Grace and peace to you.

John

If the Muslims who are outraged at the drawing of Muhammad were as outraged by depictions of Jesus, would we be removing all depictions of Jesus in response, so as not to offend them?

What is the difference, in principle, given that Jesus is also a prophet in Islam?

Hi Azdgari,

Removing depictions is a different action than creating them.  The aim of the campaign in question was to create artistic depictions of Mohammed which according to Islam is an affront and not to protest the removal of depictions of Mohammed by those offended by them.

I'm guessing that in principle since Jesus is not their primary prophet Islam understands it cannot dictate to Christians how they use the Christ.  They may not agree or like it.  They seem to understand that what a Christian does with Christ is primarily a Christian concern.

I'm not familiar enough with Islam to know if prohibitions for drawing The prophet extend to a prohibition not to draw any prophet.

While it may be an interesting avenue to explore I don't think it is going to provide anyone with material they can use to convince those violently opposed to the depiction of the Prophet to be less violently opposed.  Nor would I want to extend the range of that violent opposition.

Some sleeping dogs are best left to lie.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Substitute "refrain from ever creating new depictions of Jesus" for "removing already-existing depictions of Jesus", then.

So whether or not Jesus is their primary prophet is the relevant difference?  Really?  So, if a group of Christians decided to react violently to the creation of depictions of Jesus by non-Christians, then appropriate response would be to accomodate them?  Because that's what would come from applying this standard uniformly, without favoring one religion over another.

Not really relevant; this is hypothetical, an examination of our standards of conduct rather than the situation as it actually unfolded.

That wasn't my point.  I don't think anything is going to convince those who are violently opposed to the depiction of Muhammad to reduce their violence.  My point is that allowing such people to violently dictate what others can or cannot express (in this case through drawings) is something we would not allow in other contexts.  Islam is getting special treatment.

Hi Azdgari,

Even with the substitution it appears to be an apples and oranges argument.

X is a given.  Commission of X will provoke a violent response.  Committing Y means what?  If X is increased by degree or kind it will, in all likelihood, continue to provoke a violent response.

The violent response is something that society wants to shape.  Which is fair game.  How best then to shape that response?  Do we continue to commit X more brazenly even as the violence against X increases so that we arrive at a possible end-point that only those who exist are those violently opposed to X?

Or, do we find ways of social engagement that advance the foundation for X without committing X itself believing that when the foundation for X is universal it becomes more difficult for the commission of X to be violently opposed?

If we know that poking a hornet's nest will provoke the hornet and we believe that we have the right to swing a baseball bat as we like it seems reasonable to stand a few feet away so that my swinging my baseball bat doesn't, of necessity, involve striking the hornet's nest.

Telling the hornet's that their violent response is not right is not a solution.  Being critical of the hornets for not responding violently when I strike another nest ignores the fact that the hornets don't care about the other nest but they do care about theirs.

I do not know how the Islamic mind responds to both.  I cannot argue knowledge that I do not have.  At the same time, unless you have knowledge to the contrary, that they regard Jesus and Mohammed to be equals I submit you may (should you be wrong) making an apples and oranges argument.

Some accommodation should be made.  Not because we concede the point that they are justified in responding violently but rather because such violent response may have unforseen consequences upon innocents.

Similar, I think, to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  The consequences of possible harm to others curtails our right to the freedom of expression.  In the case of the crowded firehall it is forseeable that people in a panic will undertake action that may result in harm to themselves or others.  In the case of violent extremists of any persuasion deliberate provocation as an exercise of one's rights appears foolish and irresponsible.

Granted.  Of course the flipside is that folk are favouring their right to individual expression over public safety.

I would argue that it is.  We can examine a hypothetical.  Once it is tested we may need to revise our thesis.

I agree with that analysis.  Given that efforts on my part are not likely to reduce that violence my only other avenue is to reduce the risk of violence by acknowledging that certain action will provoke the response.

I cannot change the nature of the hornet.  How the hornet responds to certain stimuli is, I'm guessing, a decision made by the hornet.  If I am aware that certain behaviour will provoke a violent response I still have the freedom to engage in that certain behaviour.  It would be immature of me to expect that such freedom will protect me from the consequences of provoking the hornet.  I might be able to convince myself that I exercised my right and that the hornet is primitive and stupid.  That doesn't take the sting away.

I can jump up and down on the ground as much as I like.  I can jump up and down on the ice until it breaks.  If I am free to jump up and down why will the ice not support that freedom?

With rights and priviledges come duties and obligations.  Freedom of expression is not the freedom to put others at risk.  There is a choice and depending upon contexts there may be freedom to choose differently.  Provoking violence to myself, my choice.  Provoking violence to others well when I make that choice I'm exercising tyranny over those who would not choose to be on the receiving end of violence.

As far as special treatment goes it doesn't automatically imply favour.  Fences are built to keep things out as well as things in.  A dog behind a fence is part of a mutual protection.  The dog behind the fence is not at liberty to put the general public at risk.  The dog behind the fence is also protected from the consequences of behaving as it does.

Until such time as the violent response can be lessened of safeguarded against it is far more sensible for all to exercise some responsibility and not stir that particular hornets nest.

It is not the ideal, I grant that.  The ideal would be for a more measured response from individuals so offended.  Since I cannot control that response I can control whether or not I will provoke.

Should I have to?  In an ideal world no, I should not have to.

This world is by no means ideal.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you for your evenhanded thoughts on the subject.  In islam the physical representation of any of the prophets in the form of say...a picture, is a no-no.  Again, if other people want to do it, they can because they are not muslims and not (or at least they shouldn't be) urged to follow this Islamic tenent.

The question I come down to everytime a discussion of this type comes up, is why must people do this?  Yes there are unstable people out there, but is provoking them going to change things?  I like the hornet analogy (when applied to the unstable people, not all Muslims of course).  Would you petition the government to have all hornets de-stingered?  Or understake scientific study to try and change their behaviour?

That being said, draw away, but don't be suprised if some people are offended more than others.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni'

Once again, Muhammad is the central figure in a major religion.  People are going to want to depict him in their own ways, and satirize him.  As a character, he is just as ridiculous as Jesus, no more or less important, and should enjoy no more or less protection.  He should certain not be protected from depictions a satirization through intimidation tactics.  This intimidation makes all of Islam look weak, and as if the people issuing the threats are the true leaders of the religion.

This is not a harmless out-of-the-way hornet's nest.  These intimidators are interfering with the things that people do.  Satirizing popular figures and criticizing religion are perfectly fine persuits.

Hi chansen,

Satire is not consequence free.  I am not justifying the violence.  I deplore it.

Those who want to depict Mohammed in their own ways know that they are not speaking into a vaccuum and they should not be surprised if they are caught on the pointy barbs of their own satire spear.

There is no right to live consequence free.  Despite the fine effort by Allan Doyle and the Great Big Sea.

Which is your opinion not a fact.

Which again is your opinion.  Others obviously have a different opinion.  If you try to force your opinion on them they most certainly are not going to roll over and take it.  Some, will push back.

In the minds of those who paint with wide brushes perhaps.

Which may only be an optics problem and if we are not prepared to dig deeper to find out if that is true we certainly shouldn't be after them to dig deeper and grow up.

I disagree slightly.  These folk do not jump out of nowhere and attack people for absolutely no reason.  Sure, it might not be a very good reason or even a sane one.  There is a logic at play.  The hornets wouldn't be buzzing if the nest was not being stirred.

True.  They are.

The Satirist is interfering with things that other people do.  You may not think that what they are doing is not worth interrupting.  I gather that since they do it they get their noses out of joint when it is interrupted.  I think that is a fairly human response.  Their reaction is over the top, no doubt about that.  It is also predictable.  Just like standing in front of a train.

That is not the argument that I am making.  There are consequences to our actions.  Those who satirize sow insult and they may reap injury.  Those who respond violently may find themselves on the receiving end of violent action.

Anybody who is going to claim any freedom should understand that doing so has consequences.  If they are not mature enough to foresee negative ones or having experienced negative ones are not mature enough to sit down to think about what continuing a certain path might cost them they are reckless.

Being reckless is not a right.

Being immature is not a right.

Being funny might score you some creativity points.  Creativity points are not good ballistics armour.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 What is interesting is that we do not know what is or is not offensive to other people all the time. Some things are clearly offensive but other things are not.

The Danish cartoons were offensive and racist in my opinion.. This is because they were motivated to show disdain to muslims living in Danemark. However in Danemark, it is not a religious question but one of racism. They posted 12 images which mocked Muhammed, however the true intent was for white middle class and rich danes to divert the issues from race and immigration. It was openly done to offend and move the debate in Danmark from one of race and immigration to one of religion. Many young Muslims Danes and other Europeans have only turned to a radical ultra conservative forms of Islam as a result of first being desended from colonized people, and then being brought to Europe to provide cheap labour without the full benefits of citizenship that other Europeans (White) have.

The draw Mohamed day comes from a decision that Comedy central, part of the multinational Time Warner I believe, made to censor South Park. This was done without large numbers of American Muslims asking them to do so. It happened after they recieved a threat posted on the net, from a radical ultra conservative Muslim. They are a minority of the muslims in the US and around the world.

In fact Canadian and American Muslims along with Indian, and Indonesia Muslims are very progressive and Liberal.  The first women to read the Koren at a mosque was an American who did so at an Indian mosque in Toronto.  They too recieved a few threats from extreme ultra conseratives, however they went ahead and the threats were hollow becuase few muslims are intolerant of others. Intyolerance is more likely found among Christians and Jews than among Muslims.

Thanks all, again, for participating in chansen's great thread.

Instead of going over people's points here, I will instead point you toward a talk by Salman Rushdie.  I hope he doesn't need any introduction to any of you.

You can access it here, at the Point of Inquiry webpage.  When you get to the webpage, just click on the 'Listen' field and enjoy.

EDIT:  after you click on the 'Listen' field there will be a popup with a list of names and titles.  These are the many podcasts you can listen to.  The one you are looking for is 'Salman Rushdie -- Secular Values, Human Rights and' -- it can be found 187 entries down from the beginning, or if you scroll all the way to the end, then it is only 47 entries from the bottom.

...maybe we should have a "Nobody Discuss Draw Chasen Day"......

..just a thought.....

Rita

No point, really.  I did not start a religion, there is no danger of anybody worshipping my image, and I never married a 9-year-old girl.

Actually, one thing I meant to do, and never got around to, is posting dumps of the original thread.  Hopefully I'll have the energy after I get home from biking tonight.

Thanks for the link, Inanna.  I found the Rushdie podcast about 3/4 of the way down the list in the popup.  I'll try to listen later.

I'm very glad I found that site -- so many of those podcasts I find very enjoyable.  If I could have an example of my theology, those podcasts would be it.  Such awesome exploration of IDEAS, no sturm n drang needed.

If the artist had done a piss Mohommed instead, there would have been a more radical outcry & the artist would be in hiding.

One of the proponents of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day was Hemant Mehta, also known as the popular "Friendly Atheist" blogger.

He wrote a very interesting entry today, recounting a conversation with a theist friend of his, and among the topics was EDMD.  Here's the link, and the relevant bits of conversation from the link:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/09/04/why-arent-you-more-outspoken/

I hope they don't ban me.  Do you like my new avatar?

A little bit of humor:

Suicide Bombers to go on strike

Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement. The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death will be cut this February, from 72 to only 60. The rationale for the cut was the increase in recent years of the number of suicide bombings and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife.

The suicide bomber's union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs (BOOM) responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members and immediately balloted for strike action. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return, and to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth."

Thanks to Western depravity there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditure and laying people off. I don't like cutting wages but I'd hate to have to tell 3,000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up."

Spokespersons for the Union in the north east of England, Ireland, Wales, and the entire Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect their operations, as "there are no virgins in their areas anyway."

Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been put down to the emergence of Scottish singing star Susan Boyle - now that Muslims know what an actual virgin looks like they are not so keen on going to paradise.

Umm...lol?

As-salaamu alaikum, Ramadan mubarak

-Omni

Way, way too over-the-top to be funny.

I was questioningly laughing at Mely's sanity, not the so-called humour.

As-salaamu alaikum, Ramadan mubarak

-Omni

Just an update from last year

the guy responsible for instigating the various murders & violence surrounding the Danish cartoons, once islamofascist ahmed akkari, has repented doing it

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/17/ahmed-akkari-repents-vi...

islamofascism can be beaten...

Okay, I almost died when I saw that someone necro'd this thread. Then I saw why and I sighed with relief.

Mendalla

Ugh. Did you really have to remind me of this clusterfark?

This is a thread from the time when I really started to distrust the moderation of this place, and I haven't really fully recovered that trust.

couldn't think of a place to put it, chansen.  and aboot your reaction, its amazing how powerful human beings are, eh? building facts out of feelings...

and thanks, Mendalla, for the a neologism to me 'necro'd'