ummm, free speech isn’t free speech if you can get attacked for using it. That’s kind of the whole point of this giant argument.
I wouldn’t say it’s entirely Western views of people hating other people. I could care less who is pissed about me exercising my free speech. I had the same issue when I was growing up, and was told not to talk about the Soviets, because they were the enemy, and I wasn’t allowed to discuss certain things in religion.
I could care less about what muslims practice or preach. I find their belief in the Lord to be truly a wonderful thing. However, they need to realize that they have no say in how non muslims live their lives. If somebody doesn’t follow their religion (eat pork, allow women to have equal rights, draw the prophet), all you should be allowed to do is bitch about it. You have ZERO right to attack somebody for ANYTHING.
Even if somebody killed my family and taunted me about it (look how Clifford Olsen killed all those kids years ago, and is STILL allowed to mock the families about it from prison), sure I would be super pissed, and there is a very good chance I would likely retaliate during a moment of rage, but that doesn’t make it right.
I’m Canadian, and my people haven’t exactly been the greatest to other cultures (ie the French, or Natives), but we’ve certainly been more tolerant than most of the rest of the world. This has sweet fuck all to do with world police ideology or superiority complexes. It’s simply about the fact that NOBODY SHOULD BE ATTACKED FOR A FUCKING PICTURE.
If you think this thread has run it’s course, stop posting in it. Either that or STFU, move to Saudi Arabia, and pull your head out of your ass.
This isn’t an attack on ALL muslims, just any that seem to believe that violence is an answer
This whole argument has nothing to do with the freedom of speech but you’ll never understand why but I’ll try to explain briefly anyway.
These drawings aren’t just drawings. They are attacks. To a Muslim, this might as well be you walking up to them and slapping one in the face, except much worse. You won’t ever know why, you’ll never appreciate why, and furthermore you will never CARE why, but that’s not the point. You CANNOT tell us it’s trivial, because WE don’t see it that way. You CANNOT tell us “I have the right to do this because I am a higher being with freedom of speech on my side” because to us, it’s completely irrelevant.
Again, there are ways to critique Islam. You are welcome to enter into a debate, or write well-informed articles. We’re not against criticism. What we are against are things like what the pig artist in the original post is doing. I don’t expect you to be able to tell the difference. It’s not about the freedom of speech, it’s something else entirely that motivates anger toward these images which you will never be able to sate. You will never justify this to any one of us by saying “Freedom of speech bitch.”
You’ve never respected something. You’ve never held something sacred. You wouldn’t understand.
I honestly think Vilks was prepared for the repercussions. The entire point of the drawing was to incite debate and bring attention to the matter of free speech. He had to know that something like this would probably happen and probably planned on it, thus sparking debate. Drawing Mohammad is a great expression of free speech because of how effective it is, if nobody cared there wouldn’t really be a reason to draw it.
From a Muslim’s point of view I can understand why it’s offensive and yes, I think you should be able to hold whatever you want sacred. The thing is you can’t expect other people to have the same views and you only really give them power by your reactions. There was a post some pages back about how the point of not showing Mohammad is because they don’t want it to be the same way that Jesus is portrayed in modern televison, etc. That image of Jesus still has the power to offend people though which is why it’s still used so often. You rarely see parodies of Buddha because you can’t really get anyone riled up about it and debating.
I dunno just some general thoughts on the subject. I probably didn’t put them out as well as I hoped.
If you really think this guy drew that just to be a jerk I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both human nature and that particular artist ideals. As we saw with the southpark episode extremist muslims violence towards anything they deem offensive actively affects our freedom of speech, you shouldn’t have to worry about more than bad reviews or people boycotting your work for something you’ve created. Stuff like this isn’t a “haha F you muslims!” it’s a “We aren’t afraid of your intolerance extremists!”. Freedom of speech is something that must be protected and I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who continues to do stuff like this even though the threat of retaliation is there, as soon as you let people push you around like that you’ve lost freedom of speech.
No, we do not believe in the oppression of women. Neither do we believe in the stifling of freedom of speech or of expression. The drawings in the original post enter into a different realm entirely.
See Khadija, one of the prophet’s wives for a prime example why women absolutely are not oppressed under Islam.
Ah, I see, but by getting offended by his image doesn’t that give it more power over your actions then the philosophies of the religion itself? Unfortunately I haven’t studied much about Islamic faith so you’ll have to pardon my ignorance.
not really sure what’s ignorant about it. its the truth. muslims can rage and throw temper tantrums and murder people such as theo van gogh whenever they are offended or threaten to kill the south park creators, but they can only do this so many times before the world is fed up, and stops being terrified of their bullshit, and responds using violence as well. only the rest of the world has way better technology. or do i need to remind you how israel has repeatedly beat the shit out of the middle east in every single war?
that’s kind of the problem with religion, isn’t it. You have a book full of stories that can be used to describe a ton of things (I read somewhere the Bible has more things negative about heterosexual sex, than homosexual sex), and people tend to pick which parts they do or don’t wanna deal with.
For instance, the catholic church seems to have no problem bitching about PROTECTED sex, and they preach how its abstinence or nothing…yet they have a fuckload of priests who seem to think molesting kids isn’t that much of a bad thing
Muslims can’t even get their shit right amongst each other (ie Sunni vs Shiite), and many ignore some of the things that Mohammed himself preached (ie sparing wounded enemies)
Isn’t it kind of a contradiction to say you don’t want to stifle freedom of speech/expression, but then say there should be limits to the way people can express themselves. I don’t particularly have a problem with people who think there should be limitations to speech/expression, since its a difference in values (and I think a lot more people than those who care to admit it draw a line somewhere for freedom of expression, so I don’t mean to single you, or Muslims out), but I think it does a disservice to discourse when you say you don’t want to stifle freedom of speech/expression while mentioning a particular type of expression that shouldn’t be tolerated in the same paragraph.
You don’t think someone could hold free speech in such a regard? That entire paragraph could be true from someone of the free speech POV. The taboo of Mohammad is a direct attack to free speech itself and goes against everything it stands for. So please don’t say that we can’t understand eachother.
i hold free speech to be just as sacred as you hold your particular deity. so you’ll never understand why i insist on defending it the way i do. you’ve never respected free speech the way i have, so you can’t possibly understand.
