Regarding Draw Mohammad Day

[The Minx]

For those of you that haven't heard about it, yesterday was "Draw Mohammad Day", where people would draw the prophet of Islam, and post the picture on a Facebook page dedicated to this purpose. This was apparently in response to the decision by Comedy Central to pull an episode of South Park off the air where Mohammed appeared wearing a bear costume. Comedy Central had received threats from some web site or other, which turned out to be run by a couple of fringe nuts (without which none of this would have happened). The idea was to reject the censorship of criticism of religion and religious people.

Unfortunately, this seems to have been hijacked by Islamophobes and bigots, so much so that the artist who first suggested the idea has publicly come out to criticize the response to her challenge. Pretty predictable outcome in hindsight, IMHO, even though I support the idea of Draw Mohammed Day in principle.

Apparently, YouTube and Facebook are being blocked in Pakistan because of all of this.

Anyhow, here are a couple of articles:

Link

Thousands of users posted illustrations of Muslim prophet Mohammed to the web Thursday, responding to a controversial Facebook group that prompted Pakistan to block access to the social-networking site.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day encourages people to flout the belief by devout Muslims that it is wrong to depict religious figures because it could lead to idol worship. The group has more than 81,000 fans on Facebook.

Creators of the group say they got the idea after recent controversies surrounding the belief. A series of cartoons of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper in 2005 led to riots in countries around the world.

At least two European cartoonists live under police protection after drawing Mohammed and, most recently, Comedy Central edited part of the animated show "South Park" because it showed the prophet.

By mid-morning on Thursday, more than 7,300 images had been uploaded to the Facebook page, most of them drawings of Mohammed.

Some are silly. But a quick scan showed many that are crude, and some seemed to be intentionally offensive.

The creators of the page said that's not what they're after - that their message is about free speech, not attacking Islam.

"Enjoy the rest of the day and draw Mohammed however you may like," said a Thursday morning post. "We will of course encourage you to make a creative and humourous picture, instead of something hateful."

Predictably, the group has created backlash. Another Facebook group, called "AGAINST Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," actually had more members - about 96,000, as of Monday morning.

Recent posts on that page called on members to "keep protesting against those filthy pages" and report the Draw Mohammed page to Facebook as being objectionable.

But a Facebook spokesman said the page does not violate any of the site's terms. A glitch prevented some users from accessing the page briefly Monday morning, but he said that was technical and has been fixed.

"We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss issues and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others," he said Thursday.

"With now more than 400 million users from around the world, who have varying cultures and ideals, using Facebook as a place to discuss and share things that are important to them, we sometimes find people discussing and posting about topics that others may find controversial, inaccurate, or offensive."

He did, however, suggest Facebook is monitoring the situation closely.

"When these feelings, or any content reported to us becomes an attack on anyone, including Muslim people, it will be removed and further action may be taken against the person responsible," he said.

He said Facebook is disappointed with Pakistan's decision to block the site and is considering legal action.

Pakistan's government issued an order Wednesday blocking Facebook for an indefinite time because the site had not removed the page.

And a self-described atheist weighs in on it as well as on the Muslim response:


Link

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 Believeâ€

[SirNitram]

I despised the idea, frankly. It was too-often discussed in 'fighting back' and other stuff. It's not. It was another excuse for the 101st "Fighting Keyboards" of the Chairforce to feel Big And Tuff without having to actually roll their asses out of their parent's basements and face the big scary world.

So yea. I was not in favor of this, however harmlessly it might have started.

[Derek Thunder]

But without the act of civil disobedience known as "Draw Muhammad Day," how can we antagonize the ultraconservative Sunni Ummah that currently rules over North America?

To be more serious, I was on the fence for a while but then realized that there's just something ugly and mean-spirited about the whole affair that won't do anything to improve relations between Muslims and the West.

[rhoenix]

But without the act of civil disobedience known as "Draw Muhammad Day," how can we antagonize the ultraconservative Sunni Ummah that currently rules over North America?

To be more serious, I was on the fence for a while but then realized that there's just something ugly and mean-spirited about the whole affair that won't do anything to improve relations between Muslims and the West.

Something like Boobquake though seems less politically volatile, as its very difficult to coherently give an argument against it.

Given the recent death threats against Comedy central for having a South Park episode with Muhammad in it, in this case I will agree with Nitram - this really did sound like the "We'll take it from here, we're from the Internet" sort of scenario, where a bunch of socially-maladjusted teenagers would "show those dictators" by trying to piss them off.

Also as Nitram said, it's the act of a coward - no real harm will ever come to the ones who organized it over here, but real consequences can happen to people who don't live in the West but still participate.

Our actions have consequences, and sometimes, some people don't stop to consider them.

[The Minx]

But without the act of civil disobedience known as "Draw Muhammad Day," how can we antagonize the ultraconservative Sunni Ummah that currently rules over North America?

To be more serious, I was on the fence for a while but then realized that there's just something ugly and mean-spirited about the whole affair that won't do anything to improve relations between Muslims and the West.

I was half tempted to participate myself. But yea, it's a shame how much the tone turned sour.


EDIT:
Link to a YouTube video of how it should have been gone down. Fair warning though, this guy (AronRa) is an unapologetic atheist and pretty critical of religion in general, though he is calm and well-read, and makes makes reasoned arguments.

[Limepink]

They should have made fun of the FCC and CC network executives if they wanted to poke fun at anyone. CC shouldn't have pulled it in the first place, but the whole concept of Draw Mohamed was juvenile and petty.

We don't like your radicals, so lets make fun of one of the tenets of your religion that will also offend all the non radical people.

And considering how thanks to the radicals, America is pretty anti-islam- see Miss U.S.A- or America, can't keep track of the pageant names- the first Arab-American- though she's Lebanese American- to win, and people were freaking out about affirmative action and how the country is owned by terrorists and sending death threats to a 19 year old girl. These are the same "ingelligentistas" they thought could provide satire and wit, as opposed to blatant hatred?

Next they'll think its a good idea to promote a "Draw a dead Nigra' day in the south. No chance of people being bigoted assholes with that one either!

I didn't participate, I didn't think it was a good idea, and I'm pretty pissed at the few friends who thought it was a funny idea to do so.

[The Minx]

And considering how thanks to the radicals, America is pretty anti-islam- see Miss U.S.A- or America, can't keep track of the pageant names- the first Arab-American- though she's Lebanese American- to win, and people were freaking out about affirmative action and how the country is owned by terrorists and sending death threats to a 19 year old girl. These are the same "ingelligentistas" they thought could provide satire and wit, as opposed to blatant hatred?

It was Miss USA. As far as I could tell, the circle of people who started Draw Mohammad Day were not planning on the bigots at all. It probably became much more widespread than they intended.

Next they'll think its a good idea to promote a "Draw a dead Nigra' day in the south. No chance of people being bigoted assholes with that one either!

Challenging those who would use fear as a political tool on the one hand and just pointlessly attacking a minority on the other? Even if the plan was hijacked, that is not really comparable.

In all this, I'm reminded of the danish cartoons from a few years ago and the brouhaha that resulted. I supported the newspaper's right to print those cartoons then, and still do. Nor do I object to people on the internet participating in challenges to authority in this way even if they do not risk themselves by doing so. In fact, I maintain that to do nothing simply because you wouldn't be putting yourself at risk if you were to do something isn't all that noble either: what little good can be done by each of us should be done, so I'll have to disagree with SirNitram on that point. Moreover, any challenge to threats by Islamic fundamentalists is almost guaranteed to be exploited in some way by the nut-job bigots over here anyway, though some methods are more prone to suffer that fate than others. IMHO, the way is to challenge both hate groups equally, to emphasize that it is the threat of violence and suppression that is the first target of campaigns like these.

[Limepink]

I'm having trouble quoting your quotes with my quotes in them so I'll be practicing in the test board later. It wont show my post with the codes in it.... but for now...sorry.....

"Challenging those who would use fear as a political tool on the one hand and just pointlessly attacking a minority on the other? Even if the plan was hijacked, that is not really comparable."- Minx


It wasn't meant as an even comparison, more of a 'tossing pearls to swine'- you have to know your audiences capabilities, and what you're asking them to do. And I don't see it as much of a "challenge", its soft activism. "Oh I can doodle something in MS paint and I'm sticking it to those nutjobs! Wooo Let Freedom Ring! Upload to Flickr, here Facebook friends, see my defiance." Its not useful, its not helpful, it doesn't impact things in a positive form. Its as useless as those 'If 10,000 people join I'll donate 10$ to InsertCharityHere". Makes you feel good for no effort.

You put the pressure where THEY put the pressure. You COUNTER their moves "We'll kill you if you show that" gets "We'll stop watching your network and you'll lose money if you give in to terrorists." That, has a change. That has an outcome that is desirable. That speak to those in a position to deal with those radicals.

In all this, I'm reminded of the danish cartoons from a few years ago and the brouhaha that resulted. I supported the newspaper's right to print those cartoons then, and still do. Nor do I object to people on the internet participating in challenges to authority in this way even if they do not risk themselves by doing so. In fact, I maintain that to do nothing simply because you wouldn't be putting yourself at risk if you were to do something isn't all that noble either: what little good can be done by each of us should be done, so I'll have to disagree with SirNitram on that point. Moreover, any challenge to threats by Islamic fundamentalists is almost guaranteed to be exploited in some way by the nut-job bigots over here anyway, though some methods are more prone to suffer that fate than others. IMHO, the way is to challenge both hate groups equally, to emphasize that it is the threat of violence and suppression that is the first target of campaigns like these.

- Minx

Most religions get a good shakedown in the press, it should be fair across the board. The newspaper was in its rights. People who were offended need to vote with their wallet when its a business entity that is pissing them off.

I agree with your last point about controlling both ends of the spectrum of idiots who hate other idiots, but theres a difference between negating something, which is good, and trying to counter it- if you counter too hard the balance gets tipped again.

America, frankly has it easy with terrorists. Israel, Britain, France- they have it hard. They have weekly problems popping up. Bus bombings, car bombings, kidnapped civilians, training schools in their country etc. We get freaked out by spoken/written THREATS. We haven't had a constant campaign of fear when everytime you leave your house you don't know if you'll die on your morning commute. We had a big one yes, but I'm constantly thankful we haven't been bombarded.

Just NYC alone is a playground that is impossible to regulate. The subway goes underground. The F and R train goes underwater. Millions of people use it everyday. It runs 24 hours. Ny'ers are jaded. Thousands could be killed every week in a subway bombing.

Timesquare, Empire State, Trump towers, etc- forget all the security in the airports, it is the common day meccas of population grouping that people need to be concerned about. And we have nothing -thankfully so far-. So when networks, businesses, politicians run from a spoken THREAT? I want to beat them over the head. They need to ignore that because they can afford to, and it hurts our image as a strong country for them not to.

People want to "challenge" that authority?

Then they need to support programs like this. They need to raise their children right. They need to help their neighbors. They need to show human compassion and SPREAD THAT MESSAGE. Not anything funny or witty or mean. They need to spread HUMANITY.

[SirNitram]

For those who think it was justified because of the radicals:

Would you, in response to a Catholic crime(Like, say, rape on a systemic scale), walk into every church in your nearest city, regardless of denomination, and smear various holy images with feces?

No, you wouldn't.

[The Minx]

I'm having trouble quoting your quotes with my quotes in them so I'll be practicing in the test board later. It wont show my post with the codes in it.... but for now...sorry.....

That's OK. :) It's done like this:

Code: Select all

[quote="Limepink"][/quote]

It wasn't meant as an even comparison, more of a 'tossing pearls to swine'- you have to know your audiences capabilities, and what you're asking them to do. And I don't see it as much of a "challenge", its soft activism. "Oh I can doodle something in MS paint and I'm sticking it to those nutjobs! Wooo Let Freedom Ring! Upload to Flickr, here Facebook friends, see my defiance." Its not useful, its not helpful, it doesn't impact things in a positive form. Its as useless as those 'If 10,000 people join I'll donate 10$ to InsertCharityHere". Makes you feel good for no effort.

Ah, OK. I can see where you're coming from, though soft activism in general has its place too and shouldn't be disparaged merely because it is less potent than the hardcore variety. Of course people need to do more than just that.

You put the pressure where THEY put the pressure. You COUNTER their moves "We'll kill you if you show that" gets "We'll stop watching your network and you'll lose money if you give in to terrorists." That, has a change. That has an outcome that is desirable. That speak to those in a position to deal with those radicals.

It's a logical method, and probably a protest boycott should have been organized by the people behind this event.

I don't know how much power a limited number of people have over a media corporation like that, though, but Comedy Central seems to have had regrets about pulling the episode in response to viewer outrage anyway. They're still not showing it, though, AFAIK.

Timesquare, Empire State, Trump towers, etc- forget all the security in the airports, it is the common day meccas of population grouping that people need to be concerned about. And we have nothing -thankfully so far-. So when networks, businesses, politicians run from a spoken THREAT? I want to beat them over the head. They need to ignore that because they can afford to, and it hurts our image as a strong country for them not to.

People want to "challenge" that authority?

I totally agree that the west is far too easily panicked by these things, and we don't know how good we have it over here.

But this is more about nipping things in the bud. Nor is it about terrorism itself per se, but the restrictions those who threaten it wish to spread. For instance, there are forces that are seriously attempting to legitimize sharia law in various western countries.

Then they need to support programs like this. They need to raise their children right. They need to help their neighbors. They need to show human compassion and SPREAD THAT MESSAGE. Not anything funny or witty or mean. They need to spread HUMANITY.

While still I think that wit is one of the sharpest and most important tools in the arsenal of free expression, that link is awesome and made me happy. :)

For those who think it was justified because of the radicals:

Would you, in response to a Catholic crime(Like, say, rape on a systemic scale), walk into every church in your nearest city, regardless of denomination, and smear various holy images with feces?

No, you wouldn't.

That's not really a fair comparison, is it? That would be like vandalizing every mosque in your nearest city. This is merely posting scandalous pictures.

[SirNitram]

Think more high-end blasphemy.

[The Minx]

Think more high-end blasphemy.

No, I still don't think that it is comparable. Vandalizing things is still destruction of property and invasion of a site, which the drawings aren't, unless some idiot went into a mosque and drew it there.

If you wanted to make that comparison, it would be like the destruction of religious icons during a postmodern performance or something like that. Besides, there are Muslims who do depict Mohammad (the Shiia, notably).


image


EDIT: de-inlined the image.

[SirNitram]

Congratulations, Minx, for focusing on a bad way of demonstrating my point and hammering at it. Take a random peice of extreme blasphemy for Christianity. Would you do that because of, say, the deaths in Africa because of the Catholic Church's actions regarding AIDS and condoms?

I do not say 'Catholic' specific blasphemy. This is a blasphemy against a religion. The majority might not care, but it's still what this amounts to. You can stop focusing on a bad example now.

[The Minx]

Congratulations, Minx, for focusing on a bad way of demonstrating my point and hammering at it. Take a random peice of extreme blasphemy for Christianity. Would you do that because of, say, the deaths in Africa because of the Catholic Church's actions regarding AIDS and condoms?

No. I might be tempted to do so if that blasphemy were directly and specifically relevant or related to the misdeeds in question. Tempted, but I probably wouldn't do it anyway.