Re: [chchskeptics] draw muhammad day
| From: | Benjamin Wiseman |
| Sent on: | Friday, May 14, 2010 1:07 PM |
Unfortunately, Issac, I disagree.
1/ Yes, however the creators of south park were issued death threats for depicting the prophet. The real issue is that while Muslims shouldn't care if people who do not share their religion disobey Islam. Unfortunately this is not the case as has been demonstrated all too tragically before. The crunch line is that no religion has the right to dictate to people, let alone people not from that religion and control how they can and cannot live. It is also a means of demonstrating to the extremists that their death threats are not an effective way of getting what they want. If the world continues to buckle every time extremists make threats the problem will only get worse.
I should also point out that many depictions of Muhammad appear in Islamic literature, so I wouldn't say "they" were upset by the act of depiction, moreover by criticism being applied to their religion. To censor critique of religion and give it unprecedented respect is, and always will be, an insult to reason.
2/ An obscure newspaper does still have the right to publish what it wants, including criticism of any religion. If it is offensive, don't buy it. The fact remains that the Jyllands-Posten publication was a legitimate exercise of free speech. If the newspaper devolves into marginalized racism then so be it, while it may keep a few readers, it will likely run it self out of business. Additionally, The claim of a public appeal is unfounded. The cartoons were submitted by 12 professional cartoonists. The cartoons were a far cry from a blatant attempt at being offensive.
3/ This was no more bulling than any other form of satire given to any social group, politician, or religion. Over 100 people were murdered in the ensuing tantrum (including as far as I am aware one of the cartoonists), this was far from a few minor protests by a bullied few. Imagine what would happen if atheists responded to the Richard Dawkins episode of south park in a similar way? Or beheaded Ray Comfort for "bulling" us? it would be unacceptable, and so it is with theists.
(For convenience and tidiness I have not quoted you and have continued with numeric points)
4/ Yes, I am advocating making an issue of it, as has already been stated, it is imperative to send the message that terrorism will not be effective.
5/ Is thunderf00ts video emotional? Yes, it is also very honest and pulls no punches. Granted he does get caught up in his emotion which I will concede, is an awful tactic, I still found it worth while. Sure, we can nit pick for hyperboles and such he used to make his video appeal to a broader audience, however the point he was (probably) trying to make was one of the importance of rational inquiry, and the great advances it has brought the world.
6/ Fear mongering seems an overstatement. Conscious raising in a controversial way, sure but it's far from writing "the Muslims will kill you in your sleep". If anything it is a statement against the fear generated by terrorism by blatantly defying those who use fear as a political tool.
I was not suggesting that this should be an official thing, I was merely advertising an event that may interest those who wish to make a stand against the fear based self censorship stemming from Islamic extremists. For those who take grave offense to their religion being subject to scrutiny, I honestly don't care. Religion must never be free from criticism and it must never govern the lives of innocent, and especially unaffiliated people.
Cheers,
Ben
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Isaac Freeman <[address removed]> wrote:
On 13/05/2010, at 10:16 PM, Benjamin Wiseman wrote:On the 20th of May it's the first annual draw Muhammad day.Count me out. Do what you like as individuals, of course, but I think it's a bad move and would damage the image of skeptics if we were collectively associated with it.As I understand it, the basic situation is this:1. Muslims don't make images of Muhammad, because they don't want anyone to worship them. They only worship God, not Muhammad. Obviously, it doesn't make any direct difference if non-Muslims make images of Muhammad, because they're not liable to worship them.2. A while back in Denmark, a right-wing newspaper ran a campaign encouraging readers to draw cartoons of Muhammad and send them in to be published, so they could offend Muslims.3. Muslims felt bullied, which was fair enough, because that's exactly what was happening. Some wrote polite letters, some over-reacted. The newspaper selectively picked out the over-reactors to create a massive media frenzy, pretending that they represent all Muslims. Repeat until everyone has worked up a good self-righteous indignation and nobody remembers what it was all about, because obviously all Muslims want to destroy civilisation, and all non-Muslims want to destroy Islam.They don't even need to be outright offensive, they just need to depict the prophet.Suppose you walked up to a Jew with a spare rib and said "Look at me! I'm eating pork! What are you going to do about it?" They don't care that you eat pork, but they do care that you seem to want to make an issue of it. The same applies here. Muslims don't care that you draw pictures of Muhammad, but there's a difference between just just doing it and doing it with an obvious intention to provoke.Thunderf00t does a great advertisement for it.I found this video rather disturbingly irrational. It commits a number of logical fallacies: targetting a straw man ("those who mistake the freedoms of a First World society for weakness"), treating questions of politeness as if they were matters of fundamental principle ("It really is that simple. NON-Negotiable"), dubious unsourced factoids ("fuels maybe 90% of the people in the world who are willing to kill civilians who merely disagree with their religion"), misattributing causes ("how many other religions react like this to a cartoon?"), leading questions ("How many other religions act like this?" Lots of them. And many non-religious groups under similar circumstances).It also uses some fairly blatant image-based triggering ("Those who have stood in that light..." [Neil Armstrong Saluting] "... and have seen the boon that his concept can deliver..." [US Flag] "...realise that that line is non-negotiable").Most fundamentally, it presents an extremely biased sample, portraying a religion with a billion adherents using only closely-cropped images of small protests. The vast majority of moderates are "weekend Muslims" practicing some watered-down version of Islam that only the "extremists" are doing right according to the speaker. If you're not issuing death threats and bombing buses you're not a proper scary Muslim.I'm a skeptic because I believe in rationality. I think we become better people when we strive to base our opinions on evidence, and refrain from substituting emotion for thought. I don't see normal, mainstream Muslims trying to restrict my freedom, and I don't want to be associated with fear-mongering. If you're going to do this, please don't put the word "skeptic" anywhere near it.Isaac Freeman
Web Design & Development[address removed] ++64 21 1511209 AIM: isaacfreem
This message was sent by Isaac Freeman ([address removed]) from Christchurch Skeptics in the Pub.
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
To learn more about Isaac Freeman, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | [address removed]
