Have YOU drawn your Big Mo today?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202533.php

-- Thu May 20, 2010 11:40 am --

Hope this doesn't draw a fatwa down on Goth.net!

-- Thu May 20, 2010 11:52 am --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15OypPabIqQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHDRDkWeqt8&feature=player_embedded#!

-- Thu May 20, 2010 11:54 am --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kglvQqIz9NM&feature=player_embedded

-- Thu May 20, 2010 12:11 pm --

oh crap! I was gonna do something for this and completely forgot about it...oh well, there's still time.

Damn, They really do have a day for everything!

I may still draw up something and put it online. Today, my mind was elsewhere.

Do people really need to find a loophole just to rip on a religion in the form of dedication day?

Carpi, I don't think its the idea of "ripping" on anyone. I think, more than anything, the idea is that, at least in North America, we have artistic freedoms. They shouldn't be threatening to KILL people when their prophet is represented IN A BEAR SUIT, not even being mocked either. Mohammed was representing an untouchable power that Celebrities and "Ginger Kids" on South Park wanted to obtain, nothing offensive about that. But the Muslim extremists still went and threw death threats at Matt Stone and Trey Parker. So I mean, if THOUSANDS of people draw Mohammed, doubt they'll all be getting death threats. Strength in numbers, defending freedom, is the real idea behind this day.

My talent is more for anagramming than drawing, so I thought I'd anagram Mohammed a nifty goth name. I was going to post it here, but then I changed my mind – not because I thought it was "offensive" or anything, but just because I didn't think it was really all that nifty anyway.

I'm all for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, and for the reasons that ArcAngel stated above. But I'm not for using it as an excuse to bash Muslims who aren't doing anything to bother me. And I do make that distinction, between the fanatical extremists in the Middle East and the pretty decent Muslims I've met here in New York. There's a group of American Muslims who aren't threatening anyone over this, but are instead hosting their own "Pray for Mohammed Day" in response.

And, speaking of pretty decent Muslims – or just pretty Muslims... How about the newly crowned Miss USA, Rima Fakih, who happens to be a Muslim?

The conservative blogger, Debbie Schlussel (who's vying with Ann Coulter for Most Hateful Female Icon of the Conservative Party), wasted no time in throwing around outrageous accusations of Rima Fakih being connected to Hezbollah. Which is just so fucking retarded, because I doubt that Hezbollah would approve of Rima parading on stage in a bikini.

-- Nephele

It all seems rather petty and stupid to me, but knock yourself out guys.

Agreed! I don't think it's wrong for a cartoon that literally bashes any & everything to draw Mohammed. I do thinks it's childish for thousands of people to basically insult a whole religion because of a few fanatics.

Which suggests that, although they aren't doing so violently, they still feel the need to oppose this.

And, thinking about it... Statement on freedom of speech or not, it's still sacreligious. Would Christians here (in the west) be happy if a "Pin the Hands and Feet on Christ Day" was observed in Pakistan?

And, thinking about it... Aren't there a million other ways to make a statement about freedom of expression than flipping the bone at a religion? Is this REALLY about freedom of expression?

Please, think about it, people.

I am sure it would not be difficult to find instances where American christians have tried to suspend freedom of speech simply because they found a given thing "offensive." In fact, if you go back and look at the origin of the FCC, you'll find our earliest federal regulations on the subject of radio broadcast content were created to appease the christian demands for broadcast censorship.

See back in the day before there was an FCC, the feds created these radio acts regulating radio in the United States. These included a statute which defined any radio station broadcasting uncommon political views, and any radio station broadcasting un-mainstream religious views, as a "propaganda station," which would then promptly get shut down by having its license revoked [in a time when it was next to impossible to get a license in the first place]. This was the 20s, by un-mainstream religious views I mean to say anything that ran contrary to the christian faith. Not that any radio station of that time were going to start having satanist services on the air anyway: but the message was clear: christians could have religious services on the air in the US, but no one else could.

The various law journals, philosophical societies, and other academic institutions reacted the way the ACLU would in our time, nonetheless it was as similarly ineffective in ending the suspension of free speech. Not that surprising, it was only a few short years after we went and deported every one suspected by the feds to be a naturalized socialist, Emma Goldman included. More recently than that, the son of Oliver Wendell Holmes had written a very much forgotten supreme court ruling where he justified the annulment of the first amendment by declaring that it would be illegal and unethical to shout fire in a crowded theatre: the warcry for censorship that has taken on a life of its own since, by people who probably haven't the faintest clue what the rest of that ruling entailed. That ruling? Was about a case where someone was attempting to reform building fire codes by passing out fliers, on the street, about a theatre that was so badly designed that it would become a major death trap if confronted with a conflagration. This naturally upset the businessmen who owned the theatre in question, who took the activists to court. Unsurprisingly the highest court in the land chose the business interests over freedom.

We wouldn't react by killing people though, at least not directly. Our country has never been too fond of getting blood soaked hands over content issues directly. Indirectly? It would be interesting to note 1/ what happened to all those political undesirables we deported in the teens when they were returned to their places of birth, 2/ it would be interesting to find out the extent to which our policymakers knew what would happen to them. [it would also be interesting to see what would have happened if the aforementioned theatre went up in flames after silencing the only people who gave a shit].

I can see the rebuttal to this already: but that was almost a hundred years ago, we're not like that today. Instead we have cops that arrest people for swearing without any statute to actually criminalize it, knowing full well about theviolence in our prisons and jails. We establish "protest zones" limiting free speech to small, out of the way fenced in detention centers and then tase & beat anyone who tries to use their constitutional rights outside of the fenced in box. We have a militarized police force that believes it is reasonable to use tasers to retaliate whenever a citizen is rude [compliant, but verbally rude]. We know all the while that people with certain pre-existing medical conditions will be killed by these abusive deployments of "non-lethal" citizen control weapons. Sure, that's not killing people for using their civil liberties, but OTOH these islamic countries known for killing people for being sacreligious do not have the technological advantages that our country has, technological advantages that make it easy to suspend someones' rights without killing them. They are also in countries where violence is more normalized than ours. Our mass media is afraid to give much "real" coverage of our two wars out of fear that it would be too much for our citizens to handle.

Well, unless this "holiday" (which is more of an internet meme) calls for participants to send their nifty doodle to a high-scale magazine with their name and address included, then I really don't expect a widescale attack by Muslim extremists either.

Muslims are simply going to have to understand that, as a religion, they are not special and do not have special privileges.

Period.

That means they are going to have to get used to and accept their religion being mocked and insulted the same way Christians have had to.

End of story.

If Serrano's 'Piss Christ' and 'Slayer's' 'God Hates Us All' [ironically, an all-time favourite album of mine! ] are acceptable and defended by expressions of secular piety regarding 'freedom of expression', so is the depiction of Mohammad as a pedophilic monkey.

Get used to it, Muzzies: this is the democratic West, and we DO this sort of thing here!

The reason I stepped in with my comment was precisely because I hold a neutral view of these things. Remember? No religion, no politics?

There's a slight difference between what you're suggesting and the examples you hold up of Christianity being mocked. Slayer and Serrano are born into and are effectively part of the society whose religion they're mocking. In a different era - not so very long ago, perhaps - I've no doubt that they would have suffered the wrath of the arbiters of what is "acceptable"; indeed, celebrate the freedoms we have because tomorrow they may be gone.

The idea of "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day", is, however, an excuse for Christians to point the (middle) finger at another religious culture, by encouraging people to indulge in an activity which is a sign of the deepest disrespect.

Don't get me wrong. I am deeply upset by the stupidity of individuals killing and maiming innocent people of any culture in the name of religious/political fanaticism. However, I am also deeply disgusted by activities which only encourage that kind of activity.

Sorry, I'm not buying that.

There's a LOT about Muslim culture to disrespect and attack, that's for DAMN sure. The sooner the rest of us attack them and make them uncomfortable with those despicable aspects of their culture, the sooner they'll drop it.

For every Muslim that thinks it's OK to self-detonate in a public market, there are a thousand that think its OK to perform an 'honour killing' against an apostate or disobedient duaghter, forcibly impose a hijab, or beat a shrewish wife who has the temerity to want to learn to read.