"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" Now May 2oth

[der Astronom]

True, but to me, it seems like an abuse of the right as I stated earlier. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean that we necessarily SHOULD. And the "whole point" of this is--the way I'm seeing it--twofold to begin with. Yes, it's to defend our freedom of speech, but the only reason we're defending it is because it makes certain people upset. In this case, everyone participating knows that it's going to upset a specific group of people, but they're going through with it anyways. That's some straight-up weaksauce right there.

This whole event is just promoting a wicked case of intolerance.

Then that defeats the whole purpose of free speech because that's just like saying you can't make fun of someone, or you can't express something that won't offend anyone, which is entirely the whole point of free speech--if we shouldn't try to use free speech that happens to offend others, then it's the same as not having it. And it doesn't matter anyways because in theory, anything you say can in principle offend someone; why not just not say anything at all and not offend anyone--I don't think that's what it means to have free speech. We're not doing this because we know we're going to offend someone; it's because someone is trying to screw over our efforts over the centuries, and if they're going to get offended over something we strived long and hard for, I don't think we have to put up with that.

People get offended for all kinds of things. They get offended for some of the stupidest things. And there are also people who get offended way too easily. In fact, if you think free speech can be abused, telling people "you're offended" is really easy to abuse too. I don't think we necessarily have to care if we're offending someone, particularly if they're getting offended over something the rest of the world has already gotten over. You don't see most Christians complaining about some magazine cover depicting Jesus. You don't see Buddhists complaining about South Park's depiction of Buddha. You don't see Hindus, Jews, etc. complaining about other people making depictions of their deities. Muslims need to grow up and stop pulling the "I'm offended" card.

 

[West]

And it doesn't matter anyways because in theory, anything you say can in principle offend someone; why not just not say anything at all and not offend anyone--I don't think that's what it means to have free speech.

You're right. That's what it means to argue a slippery slope. Just because I don't feel like we should shove something not only offensive but generally prohibited by a peoples' belief system into their collective faces is not the same thing as saying that no one should call anyone stupid.

We're not doing this because we know we're going to offend someone; it's because someone is trying to screw over our efforts over the centuries, and if they're going to get offended over something we strived long and hard for, I don't think we have to put up with that.

And if that's what you support, that's totally cool. All I'm saying is that it seems like a pretty thin line between the two in this instance. I find it hard to believe that there can't be a more civilized method of standing up for our rights as opposed to forcing a proverbial bucket of salt into a wound. But I suppose that's how things are done around here.

I don't think we necessarily have to care if we're offending someone, particularly if they're getting offended over something the rest of the world has already gotten over. You don't see most Christians complaining about some magazine cover depicting Jesus. You don't see Buddhists complaining about South Park's depiction of Buddha. You don't see Hindus, Jews, etc. complaining about other people making depictions of their deities. Muslims need to grow up and stop pulling the "I'm offended" card.

This is sort of an uninformed argument. There are reasons why depictions of Muhammad are forbidden for Muslims. Saying that "the rest of the world has already gotten over" it, and that Christians don't complain about depictions of Jesus, Buddhists don't complain about depictions of Buddha are really entirely moot points. Non-Muslims are over it and other religions aren't offended by images of their respective Gods because they hold different beliefs from those of Islamic faith. They aren't just "pulling the 'I'm offended' card" all willy-nilly over this; depictions of Muhammad are generally regarded as forbidden.

Again, this event may be promoting the well-being of our right to freedom of speech, but it is certainly also promoting religious intolerance. I'd rather live in a world were I don't see Muhammad in the media or other public outlet than one in which people aren't free to practice their systems of faith freely.

 

[der Astronom]

You're right. That's what it means to argue a slippery slope. Just because I don't feel like we should shove something not only offensive but generally prohibited by a peoples' belief system into their collective faces is not the same thing as saying that no one should call anyone stupid.

Well, that's exactly it. If you don't like someone saying something, all you have to do is say that it's offensive to your beliefs, and then suddenly, nobody talks about it anymore, even though we have free speech. That's what I mean about abusing the "I'm offended" card; just say it's part of your personal beliefs, and free speech doesn't apply anymore. What part of free speech don't you understand? It doesn't matter what it is people are expressing, and it doesn't matter how offensive it may seem. In the end, people who don't appreciate free speech in its entirety don't realize they have the power to ignore what people express. So if you don't like that someone is belittling your personal beliefs, feel free to ignore them. And putting up a website somewhere with some pictures of Mohammed isn't shoving anything into anybody's faces; nobody is forcing any Muslim to see that webpage.

And if that's what you support, that's totally cool. All I'm saying is that it seems like a pretty thin line between the two in this instance. I find it hard to believe that there can't be a more civilized method of standing up for our rights as opposed to forcing a proverbial bucket of salt into a wound. But I suppose that's how things are done around here.

Well, you're not going to be standing up for your rights if you don't do anything about it, and let Muslims or anybody else excuse away free speech by saying anything and everything is offensive to him/her. So what do you suggest?

This is sort of an uninformed argument. There are reasons why depictions of Muhammad are forbidden for Muslims. Saying that "the rest of the world has already gotten over" it, and that Christians don't complain about depictions of Jesus, Buddhists don't complain about depictions of Buddha are really entirely moot points. Non-Muslims are over it and other religions aren't offended by images of their respective Gods because they hold different beliefs from those of Islamic faith. They aren't just "pulling the 'I'm offended' card" all willy-nilly over this; depictions of Muhammad are generally regarded as forbidden.

Ja, but why do their rules have to apply to us? We're not Muslims, so why can't we choose to draw or express their god however we choose to? And if they're not even allowed to see their own god being depicted by someone else, then their beliefs are crossing the boundaries of our freedom and our rights, and I don't think I like them using their beliefs as a reason for us not to be able to draw or express what we wish, and keep our freedom of speech.

Again, this event may be promoting the well-being of our right to freedom of speech, but it is certainly also promoting religious intolerance. I'd rather live in a world were I don't see Muhammad in the media or other public outlet than one in which people aren't free to practice their systems of faith freely.

I wouldn't consider it religious intolerance if someone's beliefs are overstepping the boundaries of the freedom and priviledges we've been granted from all the hard work these past centuries. Because I don't think most of us find it acceptable to condone slavery or to force women to wear certain clothing, even if a religion dictates these things. If there is a conflict between religion and our rights, I think it is arrogant and selfish for people to claim they can get away with breaking the rules because of religion. Because a man's religion should not interfere with the lives of others who do not share the same religion; it's disrespectful and highly inconsiderate.

 

[Rydia]

Then that defeats the whole purpose of free speech because that's just like saying you can't make fun of someone, or you can't express something that won't offend anyone, which is entirely the whole point of free speech--if we shouldn't try to use free speech that happens to offend others, then it's the same as not having it. And it doesn't matter anyways because in theory, anything you say can in principle offend someone; why not just not say anything at all and not offend anyone--I don't think that's what it means to have free speech. We're not doing this because we know we're going to offend someone; it's because someone is trying to screw over our efforts over the centuries, and if they're going to get offended over something we strived long and hard for, I don't think we have to put up with that.

Thing is free speech is so much about saying what ever you want without consequences. If you go into a movie theater and yell "fire!" you'll be arrested for inducing panic. And try going into a low income all black neighborhood and yell racist remarks in the name of free speech and see what happends to you. And there was the time Mel Gibson was caught driving drunk, said anti semetic statements, and pretty much had to apologize to the Jewish community. And people still bitch about it. You also can't make public false statements about someone.

And I highly doubt that a radical Muslim would care if people care whether or not they get violent. They may see it as their duty to protect their religion no matter what. Like someone else said, they could see this day as an attack on Islam and choose to attack western society in general. What if they choose to bomb something like what almost happened with the bomb in New York? You can say that the artists think "We are going to do this and we do not care if you get violent!" But what about the people who could care less about the whole Muhammad issue and just want to get along with their lives and end up being victims.

And I do not think these people should be stopped or arrested for drawing Muhammad. I just think that this could be handled in a much better way. Most of the people that I see wanting to get involved with this in other areas of the forum seem like young kids that just want to stir people up.

 

[der Astronom]

So I ask again: What do you suggest to promote free speech without "offending" others?

And Muslims have many other reasons for attacking us anyways. They don't like the way Western women dress themselves. They don't like our other freedoms. They don't like the way our government and society function in general. So even if you sat there and did nothing, the fact that we live here and have these priviledges might be enough reason for them to hate us and do something about it. I mean they've already bombed the crap out of enough places, burned flags, killed people and other nasty stuff. Technically, I think they should just leave us alone. It's not any of their business what we choose to do.

 

[The Witch]

I agree with utilizing free speech. And to make yourself even more annonymous--use proxy.

For the level headed Muslims, they'd be the same as all the other nice Christians; turn the other cheek if they see Jesus being portrayed by others. And if they're so worried about their religion, they should probably do something about their own mess.

I don't think the whole point of this is to piss people off; granted, that's probably an inevitable consequence of it, but the whole point of this is to say that we have fought for centuries to get free speech, we'll utilize it as we see fit, and it's not going away. We don't care if you're going to get violent over it, and we don't care if you don't like it; you don't live here, and you don't have the same privileges we do. But we're not going to let you step all over us; we don't want all that effort over the centuries that went towards freedom of speech to be for nothing. Instead of stooping to your level, and reacting violently, we're going to fight with our own tools. The very same freedom of speech.

And people should remember: freedom of ignorance has existed long, long before freedom of speech.

Couldn't agree more, man. That's what I was trying to say earlier but you worded it much much better!

 

[West]

(I've been super busy, otherwise I would've responded earlier.)

Anyway, I understand freedom of speech just fine. I don't think I've once claimed that people shouldn't be allowed to draw Muhammad, in fact, I'm pretty sure I said that they absolutely could if they wanted to. But there are appropriate measures that should be considered because, as a society, we should at least attempt to be civilized, tolerant, and empathetic toward others. If these things didn't come into play, I'd bet it'd get pretty chaotic. Clinging onto the right of your freedom of speech is not an end-all-be-all in and of itself in every case. The examples presented by Rydia are perfect. If you're going to preach true freedom of speech, then no one should get in trouble for ever saying or doing anything, ever, yet this isn't the case. True, pure freedom of speech does not exist.

But when it comes right down to it, that's not even the point here; there's something I'd really like an honest, legitimate answer to: is it terribly inconvenient for you NOT to draw Muhammad? Really? Is not drawing Muhammad making you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat? If it does, then this event sounds like the thing for you. If you couldn't really care less, then try to not be a dick just for the sake of being a dick. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

 

[der Astronom]

This isn't about being a dick; if anything, it's the Muslims that are being dicks. Because they are interfering with our rights to express whatever we want--as I said, I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want--but if you go too far and start having beliefs which interfere with the lives of others, then I think you are overstepping your boundaries, and your religion is causing people problems. These Muslims have beliefs where they think other people have to conform to their ridiculous rules about covering up women, and women's rights in general, stoning people for not believing in their religion, beating people up for not believing the same things as them, bombing and terrorizing places where other people who don't believe their religion live, and killing people who leave Islam. This would actually all have been fine if they didn't claim these things as part of their religion; then they're just the ones at fault, but no, that's not it; they do all these things because it's part of their religion. You think it's okay that we have to sacrifice our free speech for the sake of their religion, even if we don't have anything to do with it, but I don't think any sane person living here would condone their violent behavior here. Even if they claim it's part of their religion.

Because I still don't think not doing anything about free speech is a solution, I'll ask you again if you know of a "non-offensive" solution to promoting free speech.

 

[West]

Everyone's beliefs interfere with other people's lives in some way whether it be through murder or other means. The Holocaust was a case of Christian violence in history. Should we all have converted to Judaism to see if they could kill us all, too? How about people who were killed at the hands of modern-day Christians over the abortion debate? Should we all become pro-choice and see if they can silence all of us? (I don't mean to pick on Christians, but it's a prime target here considering their numbers here in North America.)

And if I cared more about this issue, I would have attempted to post a different solution back in my post where I was all "there has to be another way". But I really don't, because as I've pointed out, our right to free speech isn't as encompassing as you make it out to be.

It is about being dicks. It's about being dicks because they're being dicks (which I will happily agree with). But their being dicks doesn't justify our being dicks.

Also, as far as the whole thing about "ridiculous rules to cover up women", since you've mentioned it twice: while I will agree that there are women over there who would love to come out from under their hijabs or their burqas, there are just as many over there who are fighting for their right to keep them. We think we're doing them a favor by going over there and "liberating" them, but the hijab and burgas are part of their religion and culture. What we're actually doing is trying to force our culture on theirs. Which, by even your argument, is completely uncalled for.

Anyways, I'm not saying that we should "sacrifice our freedom of speech for the sake of their religion". I'm saying--for the hundredth time--that we should be decent and understanding people and have our rights, but choose not to use them in this particular case. It's like that saying, "true power is having power and choosing not to use it".

 

[Rydia]

Everyone's beliefs interfere with other people's lives in some way whether it be through murder or other means. The Holocaust was a case of Christian violence in history. Should we all have converted to Judaism to see if they could kill us all, too? How about people who were killed at the hands of modern-day Christians over the abortion debate? Should we all become pro-choice and see if they can silence all of us? (I don't mean to pick on Christians, but it's a prime target here considering their numbers here in North America.)

Another one, in Cincinnati, if you say any public racial remarks, there will be riots. So should everyone walk into certain neighborhoods and yell racial remarks?

And weren't the South Park creators the first to be dicks by putting something in their show that they knew was going to upset people? So the Muslims retailated, then more people are going to retailate against them with Muhammad, then Muslims retailate again?

A better way to go about this would be to detain the person/people who sent the death threats, deport them if they are illegal and give them a long prison sentence if not, and air the episode on a later date. And of course, have very high security at the studio. And what the hell is the government doing about this?

Everyone's beliefs interfere with other people's lives in some way whether it be through murder or other means.

Yep just look at some Liberals and conservative beliefs that contradict each other. DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with these statements they are just EXAMPLES. Conservatives against the health care bill feel that they are being forced to buy insurance when they would rather spend their money on different things, however, those in the very low income group can now have health insurance. People hate having their taxes raised because they do not want to pay for people that do not work and would rather keep the money for themselves but taking it away would get rid of basic necessities for some people. People that protest at abortion clinics interfere with women walking in to have the procedure however, those people have the right to free speech. The new Arizona law is going to interfere with many hispanic lives, whether they are illegal or not. You can pretty much find one for all their issues. Jehova's witnesses come to my door to preach their bible or catch me on the streets. They are annoying but they have the right to do that as long as they do not enter your house.

 

[der Astronom]

Everyone's beliefs interfere with other people's lives in some way whether it be through murder or other means. The Holocaust was a case of Christian violence in history. Should we all have converted to Judaism to see if they could kill us all, too? How about people who were killed at the hands of modern-day Christians over the abortion debate? Should we all become pro-choice and see if they can silence all of us? (I don't mean to pick on Christians, but it's a prime target here considering their numbers here in North America.)

Historically, people's beliefs interferring with others has never been properly resolved. Because of things like the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and a lot more, there is more reason for us to bother considering when people's beliefs interfere with the public. And if they do, you can't really call them personal anymore, because it's no longer between you and yourself; it involves everyone, and they probably don't have anything to do with your beliefs, and don't deserve whatever flack you're giving them. If someone's beliefs interferes with the lives of others, you don't have to pretend you agree with their beliefs to make a point; you bring up the issue and resolve it as best you can. This usually involves having the other party stop interfering with the lives of others because it is usually a violation of their rights and priviledges. So basically, if someone is hindering your rights to free speech, they're violating your rights (which are protected by laws in certain countries). If someone is hindering your rights to dress however you wish, they're violating your rights (again, they're protected in certain countries). If someone is violating the law, and they claim it's a part of their beliefs, they have no right whatsoever to be doing these things.

And if I cared more about this issue, I would have attempted to post a different solution back in my post where I was all "there has to be another way". But I really don't, because as I've pointed out, our right to free speech isn't as encompassing as you make it out to be.

This issue is about whether or not it was a good idea to post some drawings on the Internet, of which I'm aware it's protected by free speech. But since certain countries exercise censorship and don't agree with free speech, then that's their problem what the citizens of their country are seeing from the Internet; I don't care if they choose to censor a website that displays people's depictions of Mohammed; at the very least, they're exercising freedom of ignorance, and I fail to see how that's forcing anyone to view said website. It's like with porn; just because there's a group of people who would be harmed or offended by the expression of certain material doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. They just have warning labels that tell people that it might be offensive to said groups. I'd consider myself even more of a dick if I forced people to see certain things they didn't want to see.

I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with free speech; I know they don't. But as far as the Internet is concerned, and considering where most people who would consider drawing Mohammed live, free speech exists.

It is about being dicks. It's about being dicks because they're being dicks (which I will happily agree with). But their being dicks doesn't justify our being dicks.

Because you refuse to bother with a better solution, I'm just going to say that I'd rather be a dick and defend free speech than to not be a dick and not support something people take for granted.

Also, as far as the whole thing about "ridiculous rules to cover up women", since you've mentioned it twice: while I will agree that there are women over there who would love to come out from under their hijabs or their burqas, there are just as many over there who are fighting for their right to keep them. We think we're doing them a favor by going over there and "liberating" them, but the hijab and burgas are part of their religion and culture. What we're actually doing is trying to force our culture on theirs. Which, by even your argument, is completely uncalled for.

I'm not concerned about what they choose to do over there in their country, but if they are trying to change what priviledges the Western world has for allowing women to choose what they want to wear, then their beliefs are interferring with our lives. And over here, if you want to wear a burka, you're allowed to. And if you don't want to, nobody should care. This was only ever an issue because killing someone for not believing in the same religion (or for leaving your religion) is considered a crime in the Western world, and if you tried to do that in America, you'd be arrested. In other words, there is a conflict between the law and what you believe. The law was put in place here in this country to protect the well being of others, and if we are to override these laws just for the sake of people's personal beliefs that may well be dangerous and crazy, then we wouldn't be enjoying our freedoms quite so much. If you want to place the personal beliefs of others before the law, which was mostly derived from secularism, then you potentially end up with what we see in the Middle East.

Anyways, I'm not saying that we should "sacrifice our freedom of speech for the sake of their religion". I'm saying--for the hundredth time--that we should be decent and understanding people and have our rights, but choose not to use them in this particular case. It's like that saying, "true power is having power and choosing not to use it".

I don't see the problem because Muslims always have the right to ignore us. They have censorship over there for a reason. And I'm not sure what there is to understand about women being treated poorly, and random people being beaten up over apostacy--it's cruel, it's barbaric and obsolete. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be beaten up because you wanted to change your religion.

 

[West]

Historically, people's beliefs interferring with others has never been properly resolved. Because of things like the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and a lot more, there is more reason for us to bother considering when people's beliefs interfere with the public. And if they do, you can't really call them personal anymore, because it's no longer between you and yourself; it involves everyone, and they probably don't have anything to do with your beliefs, and don't deserve whatever flack you're giving them. If someone's beliefs interferes with the lives of others, you don't have to pretend you agree with their beliefs to make a point; you bring up the issue and resolve it as best you can. This usually involves having the other party stop interfering with the lives of others because it is usually a violation of their rights and priviledges. So basically, if someone is hindering your rights to free speech, they're violating your rights (which are protected by laws in certain countries). If someone is hindering your rights to dress however you wish, they're violating your rights (again, they're protected in certain countries). If someone is violating the law, and they claim it's a part of their beliefs, they have no right whatsoever to be doing these things.

So I'm gathering that you agree with this particular point that people from all over--including Westerners--have a terrible history of interfering with other peoples lives. Anyway, what happens when the law hinders our freedom of speech? What's correct there?

This issue is about whether or not it was a good idea to post some drawings on the Internet, of which I'm aware it's protected by free speech. But since certain countries exercise censorship and don't agree with free speech, then that's their problem what the citizens of their country are seeing from the Internet; I don't care if they choose to censor a website that displays people's depictions of Mohammed; at the very least, they're exercising freedom of ignorance, and I fail to see how that's forcing anyone to view said website. It's like with porn; just because there's a group of people who would be harmed or offended by the expression of certain material doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. They just have warning labels that tell people that it might be offensive to said groups. I'd consider myself even more of a dick if I forced people to see certain things they didn't want to see.

Well, I have doubts that people participating in the event are going to post notices that read "I drew some pictures of Mohammad. If you're offended by that, please don't look". And I certainly didn't mean to imply that people are being "forced" to view these sites as though someone is tying them to a chair and taping their eyes open while they browse through everyone's drawings. But let's say that--hypothetically and purely for the sake of an example we can all relate to--you go to Google to do some internet searching, only to discover that there's a picture of a nude woman on the front page. You didn't go to Google to look at porn, and chances are someone isn't going to be particularly enthused about the discovery. Likewise, a Muslim could innocently be surfing the internet and stumble upon a depiction of Mohammad. That's more of what I was saying.

Because you refuse to bother with a better solution, I'm just going to say that I'd rather be a dick and defend free speech than to not be a dick and not support something people take for granted.

By using that very something in an excessive manner and going out of your way to do so in a way that you're certain will offend a select group of people. If that's your thing, go right ahead. I'm just saying I'd rather take the high ground and be respectful. Personally--and I know this may sound crazy--I don't feel as though my rights are being violated just because I'll never show a picture of Mohammad to a Muslim in my life (or probably anyone else for that matter).

I'm not concerned about what they choose to do over there in their country, but if they are trying to change what priviledges the Western world has for allowing women to choose what they want to wear, then their beliefs are interferring with our lives. And over here, if you want to wear a burka, you're allowed to. And if you don't want to, nobody should care. This was only ever an issue because killing someone for not believing in the same religion (or for leaving your religion) is considered a crime in the Western world, and if you tried to do that in America, you'd be arrested. In other words, there is a conflict between the law and what you believe. The law was put in place here in this country to protect the well being of others, and if we are to override these laws just for the sake of people's personal beliefs that may well be dangerous and crazy, then we wouldn't be enjoying our freedoms quite so much. If you want to place the personal beliefs of others before the law, which was mostly derived from secularism, then you potentially end up with what we see in the Middle East.

Now I can't be certain on this, but I really doubt Muslims are killing non-Muslim women over here because they don't put on burqas when they go out. I imagine they're looked down upon, but probably not killed. Anyways, in addition to the list of other things I didn't claim in this thread, I also don't believe that a person's personal beliefs are above the law. Not sure if that was supposed to have come from something I said.

I don't see the problem because Muslims always have the right to ignore us. They have censorship over there for a reason. And I'm not sure what there is to understand about women being treated poorly, and random people being beaten up over apostacy--it's cruel, it's barbaric and obsolete.

They do that a right to ignore us, but I can hardly blame them for being vocal about people offending their religion in such a way for little to no legitimate reason. I don't agree that they should be killing people, but I can't blame them for being upset. Either way, they should be able to access public channels without having to worry about having such an important ideal to them tarnished, just like I should be able to go to Google without worrying about pictures of naked women showing up.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be beaten up because you wanted to change your religion.

I wouldn't, but as far as I know that doesn't happen in North America anyways. Freedom of religion and whatnot. Plus, if someone were to beat up or kill someone because they wanted to change their religion (or any reason, for that matter), I'm sure the authorities would have something to say about that.

So hey, there you go. There's one, simple solution for you: if threats are made or action is taken, let authorities do their job, enforce the law, and deliver justice. They'll be there if something happens. Doesn't mean you have to go around poking a bear in its face with a stick just because someone will cover for you if it attacks.

 

[der Astronom]

So I'm gathering that you agree with this particular point that people from all over--including Westerners--have a terrible history of interfering with other peoples lives. Anyway, what happens when the law hinders our freedom of speech? What's correct there?

Ja, but I'm not saying that I agree it should remain that way, and if it still is, there are people fighting it.

There's nothing correct about laws hindering free speech. But then there are plenty of laws that contradict laws that were put in place for a specific reason.

Well, I have doubts that people participating in the event are going to post notices that read "I drew some pictures of Mohammad. If you're offended by that, please don't look". And I certainly didn't mean to imply that people are being "forced" to view these sites as though someone is tying them to a chair and taping their eyes open while they browse through everyone's drawings. But let's say that--hypothetically and purely for the sake of an example we can all relate to--you go to Google to do some internet searching, only to discover that there's a picture of a nude woman on the front page. You didn't go to Google to look at porn, and chances are someone isn't going to be particularly enthused about the discovery. Likewise, a Muslim could innocently be surfing the internet and stumble upon a depiction of Mohammad. That's more of what I was saying.

If I ran that site, I'd put up a disclaimer. But I guess some people just feel more strongly about free speech than I do, that's all. If you're going to get all annoyed by the fact that Google occasionally spits out one or two images that you don't like, tough luck; just suck it up and move on. When you're browsing the Internet, you should be aware that since it's governed by free speech, you're bound to run across images or websites of things that either offend your or are less than pleasant, even if you're not asking for them. At least it's certainly better than intentionally looking for them; the probability that you'll find an unpleasant website if you're not looking for them is rather low compared with if you actually are looking for them (and if you are, I can't help you there; it's your fault). So if you don't like the idea of an Internet that's governed by free speech where people can post up just about anything they want, provided there exists a server out there that's willing to provide space for such material (or you can even provide your own), then don't use the Internet. It's that simple. And Muslims who live in the Middle East probably have even less of that problem, since their Internet is filtered.

By using that very something in an excessive manner and going out of your way to do so in a way that you're certain will offend a select group of people. If that's your thing, go right ahead. I'm just saying I'd rather take the high ground and be respectful. Personally--and I know this may sound crazy--I don't feel as though my rights are being violated just because I'll never show a picture of Mohammad to a Muslim in my life (or probably anyone else for that matter).

Ja, but you know, respect is earned. You don't just shell out respect to just about everybody you meet or don't meet. It doesn't work that way. Well, not for me anyways. And Islam has done absolutely nothing to earn any respect from me. None of its values are the kinds of things I would admire. In fact, I find them so abhorrent and repulsive that I find them not worth respecting at all. So if I used free speech in a manner that offends them, or they feel I'm being a dick, well that's because they never did anything to earn my respect. They hold values that threaten the freedom and priviledges we obtained after so many centuries, and they want to take them away, so of course I feel my rights are being violated.

Now I can't be certain on this, but I really doubt Muslims are killing non-Muslim women over here because they don't put on burqas when they go out. I imagine they're looked down upon, but probably not killed. Anyways, in addition to the list of other things I didn't claim in this thread, I also don't believe that a person's personal beliefs are above the law. Not sure if that was supposed to have come from something I said.

Actually, there have been several cases of such killings (although they were more related to apostacy). Of course such Muslims did get arrested, and I'm sure a few Muslims who lived there probably did want to do it, but couldn't because of law enforcement--we wouldn't support their actions, and they'd have almost no power.

However, what I was alluding to was that you seemed to think that we're supposed to put aside free speech to respect other people's beliefs, so I explained how people's beliefs can be considered dangerous and crazy--in other words, there isn't exactly a good reason to sacrifice laws or ideals that are held up by our own modern societies for the sake of someone's beliefs, which are possibly based on obsolete ideals.

They do that a right to ignore us, but I can hardly blame them for being vocal about people offending their religion in such a way for little to no legitimate reason. I don't agree that they should be killing people, but I can't blame them for being upset. Either way, they should be able to access public channels without having to worry about having such an important ideal to them tarnished, just like I should be able to go to Google without worrying about pictures of naked women showing up.

Actually, there's a good reason why people get upset about their religion. Because of things like 9/11. What was it these people were saying when that happened? It was something about a jihad, and they did it for their religion. And why were Muslims bombing buses, burning flags, and killing people like Theo Van Gogh? The very same: for their religion. As I said before, if they hadn't stated it was for their religion, and they just did it because they were crazy, or other personal reasons, then there's no reason to tarnish their religion. But that's clearly not the case, and it has harmed thousands of innocent people, and the people they love. Of course they have a good reason for being disrespectful to Islam. Are you even going to sympathize with these people for believing they weren't happy with the Western world, just because we don't believe the same things, even though it's not really any of their business?

And once again, the Internet is governed by free speech. If you don't like the idea of accidentally stumbling on something less than pleasant, then you've got the wrong idea of what the Internet is, and should stop using it. We should be able to access the Internet, and find just about whatever we want to find on it.

I wouldn't, but as far as I know that doesn't happen in North America anyways. Freedom of religion and whatnot. Plus, if someone were to beat up or kill someone because they wanted to change their religion (or any reason, for that matter), I'm sure the authorities would have something to say about that.

And that is precisely why we live in the Western world and enjoy its priviledges; if someone beat you up for changing your religion, they'd be violating the priviledges granted to you by Western society. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't want to be living in the Middle East; they don't have these priviledges.

So hey, there you go. There's one, simple solution for you: if threats are made or action is taken, let authorities do their job, enforce the law, and deliver justice. They'll be there if something happens. Doesn't mean you have to go around poking a bear in its face with a stick just because someone will cover for you if it attacks.

But that's precisely the problem; they're only there to do their jobs; they won't realize if our priviledges are being threatened. And that's precisely why people take action; because the law itself won't recognize what's happening to itself. You need people to see whether or not they're satisfied with the priviledges we have, and to decide if they are suitable. And if they aren't, they'll do something about it. That's how people raise awareness of an issue. Make a big fuss about it.

 

[West]

Ja, but I'm not saying that I agree it should remain that way, and if it still is, there are people fighting it.

Agreed.

There's nothing correct about laws hindering free speech. But then there are plenty of laws that contradict laws that were put in place for a specific reason.

I don't agree entirely with this point. Going back to Rydia's example of shouting "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire will likely get you in trouble with authorities. Your freedom of speech should allow you to do it, but you'd be causing mass panic and people could potentially be injured as a result. It's not the strongest example here, but it shows that some laws hinder our free speech to keep us safe.

If I ran that site, I'd put up a disclaimer. But I guess some people just feel more strongly about free speech than I do, that's all. If you're going to get all annoyed by the fact that Google occasionally spits out one or two images that you don't like, tough luck; just suck it up and move on. When you're browsing the Internet, you should be aware that since it's governed by free speech, you're bound to run across images or websites of things that either offend your or are less than pleasant, even if you're not asking for them. At least it's certainly better than intentionally looking for them; the probability that you'll find an unpleasant website if you're not looking for them is rather low compared with if you actually are looking for them (and if you are, I can't help you there; it's your fault). So if you don't like the idea of an Internet that's governed by free speech where people can post up just about anything they want, provided there exists a server out there that's willing to provide space for such material (or you can even provide your own), then don't use the Internet. It's that simple. And Muslims who live in the Middle East probably have even less of that problem, since their Internet is filtered.

In my hypothetical, I meant that there'd be a dirty picture, like, right on the main page--between the logo and text field--for no apparent reason, not something that'd pop up during an image search. Google has content filters that will block adult images from appearing (though now that I think of it, I doubt it'd block stuff like Mohammad images...that'd be kind of interesting to test) anyway, but what if it appeared someplace you couldn't filter? Yeah, you could stay off the Internet and it'd be the best solution--but the Internet is supposed to be for everyone, and the content found on it is certainly not above the law. But yeah, I was thinking the Middle East would have a much more filtered version anyway. Still, the Muslims over here would have our unfiltered Internet.

Ja, but you know, respect is earned. You don't just shell out respect to just about everybody you meet or don't meet. It doesn't work that way. Well, not for me anyways. And Islam has done absolutely nothing to earn any respect from me. None of its values are the kinds of things I would admire. In fact, I find them so abhorrent and repulsive that I find them not worth respecting at all. So if I used free speech in a manner that offends them, or they feel I'm being a dick, well that's because they never did anything to earn my respect. They hold values that threaten the freedom and priviledges we obtained after so many centuries, and they want to take them away, so of course I feel my rights are being violated.

I understand what you mean, and I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm just a bit different is all. Also, maybe "respect" wasn't the right word to use. They haven't done anything to earn my respect, but they also haven't done anything to make me look at them as being less than human. And so far, all that I can think of that they want from me is to not show them a picture of their god, and it's not like that's a pain in my butt. So whatever.

Actually, there have been several cases of such killings (although they were more related to apostacy).

Well then I stand corrected.

Of course such Muslims did get arrested, and I'm sure a few Muslims who lived there probably did want to do it, but couldn't because of law enforcement--we wouldn't support their actions, and they'd have almost no power.

However, what I was alluding to was that you seemed to think that we're supposed to put aside free speech to respect other people's beliefs, so I explained how people's beliefs can be considered dangerous and crazy--in other words, there isn't exactly a good reason to sacrifice laws or ideals that are held up by our own modern societies for the sake of someone's beliefs, which are possibly based on obsolete ideals.

Alright. I just don't think of it as putting aside my freedom of speech is all. If I was a cartoonist who often drew Mohammad and I decided not to anymore because of angry Muslims, then that would be putting aside my freedom of speech, to me. But because I don't draw Mohammad anyway, it's really just inconsequential.

Actually, there's a good reason why people get upset about their religion. Because of things like 9/11. What was it these people were saying when that happened? It was something about a jihad, and they did it for their religion. And why were Muslims bombing buses, burning flags, and killing people like Theo Van Gogh? The very same: for their religion. As I said before, if they hadn't stated it was for their religion, and they just did it because they were crazy, or other personal reasons, then there's no reason to tarnish their religion. But that's clearly not the case, and it has harmed thousands of innocent people, and the people they love. Of course they have a good reason for being disrespectful to Islam. Are you even going to sympathize with these people for believing they weren't happy with the Western world, just because we don't believe the same things, even though it's not really any of their business?

That's why we have military forces and law enforcement. They should be doing their best to protect us. I understand that they can't save every life that's threatened, but you can't really tell who is an insane bomber before they try to bomb something. You can hate followers of a religion because of things some practitioners have done, but that's a pretty generalized hatred. The actions of some do not reflect the intentions of all.

But that's precisely the problem; they're only there to do their jobs; they won't realize if our priviledges are being threatened. And that's precisely why people take action; because the law itself won't recognize what's happening to itself. You need people to see whether or not they're satisfied with the priviledges we have, and to decide if they are suitable. And if they aren't, they'll do something about it. That's how people raise awareness of an issue. Make a big fuss about it.

But it isn't really an outstanding issue until we make it one. We don't need a bunch of Batmen acting outside of the law to solve problems. Like I mentioned before, that's what the authorities are for. And I don't think it should be a problem that they're "only" there to do their jobs... they're there to do their jobs. Because, well, that's their job. If they're not protecting us, then they should be fired.

The way I see it, if no one is dying, then all that's happening is an exchange of words (hate-filled as they may be), and things are more or less alright. If people are dying (or if attempts at taking lives are being made), then an effort will be made by the authorities to see to it that those responsible are punished. Which is better than punishing those who share a belief with terrorists but are actually innocent.

 

[der Astronom]

I don't agree entirely with this point. Going back to Rydia's example of shouting "Fire!" in a theater when there is no fire will likely get you in trouble with authorities. Your freedom of speech should allow you to do it, but you'd be causing mass panic and people could potentially be injured as a result. It's not the strongest example here, but it shows that some laws hinder our free speech to keep us safe.

I refer to a general case of allowing laws to contradict other laws, because then if you can excuse free speech on the basis of people causing mayhem by shouting "fire!" in a theatre, why couldn't you just create other laws that bypass free speech? You don't want to have to keep making too many laws that bypass free speech because then it's no longer called free speech anymore; it would be as if it didn't exist. There must be some criteria to determine when laws should bypass free speech, and when they shouldn't. In this case, I don't think we should have any law that hinders free speech on account of someone's beliefs.

But so what; it doesn't matter if you want to make it seem like our free speech isn't so free; it's certainly much better than whatever the Middle East gets.

In my hypothetical, I meant that there'd be a dirty picture, like, right on the main page--between the logo and text field--for no apparent reason, not something that'd pop up during an image search. Google has content filters that will block adult images from appearing (though now that I think of it, I doubt it'd block stuff like Mohammad images...that'd be kind of interesting to test) anyway, but what if it appeared someplace you couldn't filter? Yeah, you could stay off the Internet and it'd be the best solution--but the Internet is supposed to be for everyone, and the content found on it is certainly not above the law. But yeah, I was thinking the Middle East would have a much more filtered version anyway. Still, the Muslims over here would have our unfiltered Internet.

If it were for everyone, then it wouldn't have porn on it. Last I checked, the Internet being governed by free speech isn't above the law; the only restriction people have is whether or not a particular server is willing to host your content. And if Muslims here are upset over an unfilitered Internet, they're free to create their own filters. Afterall, coming over here means you'll expect some changes in your lifestyle and the laws you have to abide by--if you don't like free speech, then don't live here.

I understand what you mean, and I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm just a bit different is all. Also, maybe "respect" wasn't the right word to use. They haven't done anything to earn my respect, but they also haven't done anything to make me look at them as being less than human. And so far, all that I can think of that they want from me is to not show them a picture of their god, and it's not like that's a pain in my butt. So whatever.

They haven't done anything directly to me either, but I find their beliefs and their actions atrocious. If they actually got what they wanted, I'd be sincerely disgusted, and wouldn't want any part of it. As I said, their religion encourages barbaric, cruel practices. If they support such things, I consider them less than human.

I believe they want more than that from us; because not drawing a picture of their god only applies to people who share the same religion as they do; since we're not of the same religion, we don't uphold the same values; I don't see why I can't draw their god, and I'm not bound by their religious rules not to depict him, so I shouldn't be included in their standards.
By stating that we are not to draw pictures of their gods, they are including us as part of their religion, even though we might not wish to have anything to do with their religion, and imposing their values on us.

And there are plenty of other things we do that they're not happy about; they want us to be Muslims like them, they want us to have women cover up, they want women to have fewer rights, they want to be able to stone and kill people for the sake of their religion, and they want to take away our privileges and freedoms. Ja, that's right. Free speech is only a part of it.

Alright. I just don't think of it as putting aside my freedom of speech is all. If I was a cartoonist who often drew Mohammad and I decided not to anymore because of angry Muslims, then that would be putting aside my freedom of speech, to me. But because I don't draw Mohammad anyway, it's really just inconsequential.

But this concept can be generalized to expressing your dislike or criticism on something that you don't like--if you weren't allowed to express it because it would severely hurt someone's feelings to point out why you believed some movie, book, game, ideal or whatever else you felt sucked, then free speech is being compromised; the only reason you don't feel strongly about it is because it's not affecting you directly. The whole idea behind drawing Mohammed is to show that we can and will criticize anything and everything that needs to have its flaws exposed--and this is only possible because we have freedom of speech. It's not the only way of doing it though (Theo did it, and so did Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and it must have upset a whole bunch of Muslims because the former got killed for it, and the latter is being placed under protection), and if you feel either that your free speech is being compromised by some people who won't let go of a religion that preaches obsolete values, or that free speech should be allowed to be used to point out flaws in something, anything, then you'd have a reason to support drawing Mohammed as an example.

But it isn't really an outstanding issue until we make it one. We don't need a bunch of Batmen acting outside of the law to solve problems. Like I mentioned before, that's what the authorities are for. And I don't think it should be a problem that they're "only" there to do their jobs... they're there to do their jobs. Because, well, that's their job. If they're not protecting us, then they should be fired.

I didn't mean that people should use free speech to cause a ruckus to solve a problem. I meant that people can use free speech to make others aware of a problem so that it can be resolved, whether it's by the law or the policemen, or the politicians. These people won't always know if there's a problem, or what it is exactly until you say something.

The way I see it, if no one is dying, then all that's happening is an exchange of words (hate-filled as they may be), and things are more or less alright. If people are dying (or if attempts at taking lives are being made), then an effort will be made by the authorities to see to it that those responsible are punished. Which is better than punishing those who share a belief with terrorists but are actually innocent.

A criticism of a religion, regardless of who it is that believes in it may raise an awareness of flaws in the things people believe in. I don't consider it punishment to criticize the flaws of someone's religion, regardless of whoever else believes in it (again, if you don't like it, cover your ears/eyes). They might decide after hearing or seeing their religion being exposed, that they don't want anything to do with it anymore, after seeing just how ridiculous it is. And if they came to that realization, it wouldn't have been possible without free speech. And if they don't that's fine too; it's only punishment if they themselves or someone else forces them to sit through it.

 

[West]

I refer to a general case of allowing laws to contradict other laws, because then if you can excuse free speech on the basis of people causing mayhem by shouting "fire!" in a theatre, why couldn't you just create other laws that bypass free speech? You don't want to have to keep making too many laws that bypass free speech because then it's no longer called free speech anymore; it would be as if it didn't exist. There must be some criteria to determine when laws should bypass free speech, and when they shouldn't. In this case, I don't think we should have any law that hinders free speech on account of someone's beliefs.

But so what; it doesn't matter if you want to make it seem like our free speech isn't so free; it's certainly much better than whatever the Middle East gets.

Well either way, I was trying to show just that: that our freedom of speech isn't as free as it initially sounds. Laws hinder our free speech for the sake of our safety, but it still leaves the freedom impure.

If it were for everyone, then it wouldn't have porn on it. Last I checked, the Internet being governed by free speech isn't above the law; the only restriction people have is whether or not a particular server is willing to host your content. And if Muslims here are upset over an unfilitered Internet, they're free to create their own filters. Afterall, coming over here means you'll expect some changes in your lifestyle and the laws you have to abide by--if you don't like free speech, then don't live here.

The Internet is not above the law. Try hosting or distributing child pornography or copyrighted material and let me know how that goes for you. Maybe you won't get caught, but if an authority catches wind, you're going to get in trouble. Anyways, just because pornography exists on the Internet doesn't mean it isn't also for people who don't look at porn. If I were lactose intolerant, that doesn't mean that I don't belong in a candy store just because there's milk chocolate.

They haven't done anything directly to me either, but I find their beliefs and their actions atrocious. If they actually got what they wanted, I'd be sincerely disgusted, and wouldn't want any part of it. As I said, their religion encourages barbaric, cruel practices. If they support such things, I consider them less than human.

I guess there's no helping that. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I believe they want more than that from us; because not drawing a picture of their god only applies to people who share the same religion as they do; since we're not of the same religion, we don't uphold the same values; I don't see why I can't draw their god, and I'm not bound by their religious rules not to depict him, so I shouldn't be included in their standards.
By stating that we are not to draw pictures of their gods, they are including us as part of their religion, even though we might not wish to have anything to do with their religion, and imposing their values on us.

True enough, but I see it as a rather passive imposition. Amongst themselves, it's "Okay, seriously. Don't depict our god. It's not cool." and to us, it's "It'd be pretty great if you wouldn't depict our god, either." and I'm going "Man, it's cool. I wasn't gonna anyway so it isn't a big deal."

And there are plenty of other things we do that they're not happy about; they want us to be Muslims like them, they want us to have women cover up, they want women to have fewer rights, they want to be able to stone and kill people for the sake of their religion, and they want to take away our privileges and freedoms. Ja, that's right. Free speech is only a part of it.

People of pretty much every religion want everyone to conform to their religion. After all, their beliefs are the right ones and anyone who doesn't realize that is apparently an idiot. They're not often violent about it, but Muslims certainly aren't the first. I'm not trying to argue that it's any more justified because of that or anything, but it's not like this is a new thing to the world.

But this concept can be generalized to expressing your dislike or criticism on something that you don't like--if you weren't allowed to express it because it would severely hurt someone's feelings to point out why you believed some movie, book, game, ideal or whatever else you felt sucked, then free speech is being compromised; the only reason you don't feel strongly about it is because it's not affecting you directly. The whole idea behind drawing Mohammed is to show that we can and will criticize anything and everything that needs to have its flaws exposed--and this is only possible because we have freedom of speech. It's not the only way of doing it though (Theo did it, and so did Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and it must have upset a whole bunch of Muslims because the former got killed for it, and the latter is being placed under protection), and if you feel either that your free speech is being compromised by some people who won't let go of a religion that preaches obsolete values, or that free speech should be allowed to be used to point out flaws in something, anything, then you'd have a reason to support drawing Mohammed as an example.

That's a pretty big leap. Anyway, you're free to criticize what you feel should be criticized. All I'm saying is to know and take responsibility for your actions in the process. The South Park guys are notorious for making fun of anything and everything that they possibly can, but even they chose to censor Mohammad because they eventually realized the seriousness of the consequences their actions wrought.

Also, why is it that you insist that forbidding depictions of Mohammad are obsolete? You've made the comment at least twice now and I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

I didn't mean that people should use free speech to cause a ruckus to solve a problem. I meant that people can use free speech to make others aware of a problem so that it can be resolved, whether it's by the law or the policemen, or the politicians. These people won't always know if there's a problem, or what it is exactly until you say something.

Well, unfortunately, these people are going to cause a ruckus and they are (I would hope) well aware of it.

A criticism of a religion, regardless of who it is that believes in it may raise an awareness of flaws in the things people believe in. I don't consider it punishment to criticize the flaws of someone's religion, regardless of whoever else believes in it (again, if you don't like it, cover your ears/eyes). They might decide after hearing or seeing their religion being exposed, that they don't want anything to do with it anymore, after seeing just how ridiculous it is. And if they came to that realization, it wouldn't have been possible without free speech. And if they don't that's fine too; it's only punishment if they themselves or someone else forces them to sit through it.

I agree that any belief should be open to criticism. I'm just saying that--if it desperately needs doing--it should be done in a way that doesn't drive people to bomb cities.

 

[der Astronom]

Well either way, I was trying to show just that: that our freedom of speech isn't as free as it initially sounds. Laws hinder our free speech for the sake of our safety, but it still leaves the freedom impure.

Well, whatever freedom we still have is worth protecting, wouldn't you agree?

The Internet is not above the law. Try hosting or distributing child pornography or copyrighted material and let me know how that goes for you. Maybe you won't get caught, but if an authority catches wind, you're going to get in trouble. Anyways, just because pornography exists on the Internet doesn't mean it isn't also for people who don't look at porn. If I were lactose intolerant, that doesn't mean that I don't belong in a candy store just because there's milk chocolate.

I never said it was. Which was why I used porn (and not child pornography) as the example; it is something that isn't meant for children to see, yet it exists freely all over the Internet (and usually with warnings). If there were certain things that you couldn't put on the Internet, I don't consider certain audiences being sensitive towards them as a criteria, so long as they are aware that material they don't like to see could potentially be on the Internet, and if they don't like it, they should either ignore it or don't use the Internet.

I guess there's no helping that. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Fine with me. Sorry if I seem like I'm imposing my arguments, but I'm explaining why I'd do it, and not that you have to agree with me.

True enough, but I see it as a rather passive imposition. Amongst themselves, it's "Okay, seriously. Don't depict our god. It's not cool." and to us, it's "It'd be pretty great if you wouldn't depict our god, either." and I'm going "Man, it's cool. I wasn't gonna anyway so it isn't a big deal."

Ja, but you see, I wouldn't really be offended if someone depicted the Christian god. Heck, I wouldn't even be offended if someone took a picture of Richard Dawkins and drew all over it. Well, I could be offended, but that's no big deal; I'm not going to bitch and whine about people being able to do such things; I recognize their rights to do so, and if I don't like it, I'll just move on and ignore it.

People of pretty much every religion want everyone to conform to their religion. After all, their beliefs are the right ones and anyone who doesn't realize that is apparently an idiot. They're not often violent about it, but Muslims certainly aren't the first. I'm not trying to argue that it's any more justified because of that or anything, but it's not like this is a new thing to the world.

Personal beliefs are the things you keep to yourself, and you don't care if other people agree with you or not. That's why they're called "personal". If you get to the point where they're interfering with other people's lives, and it extends beyond getting through the harder parts of your life, then I wouldn't call it personal anymore; it might become religion, and if it harms other people, it becomes unacceptable.
The whole concept of religion interfering with others might not be new, but it seems some people have forgotten what it's like to defend the privileges we value most. We haven't had to for awhile now because we've been busy enjoying them, and not too many large groups of people have objected to it, or tried to do anything against it. But that might come to change in the future.

That's a pretty big leap. Anyway, you're free to criticize what you feel should be criticized. All I'm saying is to know and take responsibility for your actions in the process. The South Park guys are notorious for making fun of anything and everything that they possibly can, but even they chose to censor Mohammad because they eventually realized the seriousness of the consequences their actions wrought.

Here's the funny thing. The original cartoons in the Danish paper that sparked the controversy weren't actually intended to offend anyone. They were published within the laws of free speech there, and despite all that, they still managed to get offended. But then again, Russians and Germans got offended by certain depictions in certain Danish newspapers, but what they did about it doesn't amount to the same thing the Muslims did. What did they do? A Muslim threatened the life of one of the artists. They burned flags. A few Danish embassies were burned. There were death threats made, and the artists had to go into hiding. A German newspaper editor was almost killed for reprinting the cartoons by a student from Pakistan. When the offending student was reprimanded, and committed suicide, his family lied and said he was tortured to death. And so on.

Had they been trying to make a satirical statement on a god of any other religion, there wouldn't be such a large violent reaction. And if you draw Mohammed now, it now has several other implications, thanks to what happened the first time someone tried to do it. So I wouldn't call it farfetched if religion drove some people to be violent over some drawing.

Also, why is it that you insist that forbidding depictions of Mohammad are obsolete? You've made the comment at least twice now and I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

I actually intended to say that the religious values in Islam are obsolete. Women's rights are a modern concept which this religion doesn't seem to grasp or acknowledge. Killing people for wrong doings (no matter how small) is also a thing of the past. And learning to get along with people who disagree with you or don't share your beliefs is also something Islam doesn't seem to encourage--a common problem Christians historically used to have because their religion preached it too. But people now are generally more accepting of people from other religions. I can't seem to find any particularly good reason why we should still prevent women from enjoying the same priviledges men do, or why we need to kill people for something they did wrong, or why we should be intolerant or violent towards people of other religions--the only reason for these things to persist, even in the face of modern laws would be religion, which has existed for a long time, and rarely ever updates itself because it's authoritative.

But on that note, I suppose forbidding depictions of your god at this day and age and throwing tantrums at whoever does by being violent is a bit childish anyways. Because of things like the Internet and free speech, it's not hard for someone to make a satire out of it. But also at this day and age, people don't generally react violently to things they don't like by blowing up a bus or stoning people they don't know.
Wouldn't you agree that being violent to someone who did something that offended you is barbaric and not a value upheld by today's societies?

I agree that any belief should be open to criticism. I'm just saying that--if it desperately needs doing--it should be done in a way that doesn't drive people to bomb cities.

As I pointed out, you didn't have to criticize Islam, or make fun of them; they'd probably bomb cities just for promoting certain freedoms they don't agree with. I don't particularly care if they disagree, and don't want these freedoms in their countries. I just don't see why their rules have to apply to us when we don't live where they do. If you know you're going to get bombed anyways, just for living somewhere with rules they don't like, you might as well make the most out of it before you go out.

And I would have thought that a faster way to make people bomb your city is if you bombed them first. It seems Muslims are the only people who react to anything they don't like by being violent; if you applied this same idea to anyone else that wasn't a Muslim, they're quite unlikely to be so hostile.

 

[West]

When it comes right down to it, I'm pretty sure that, despite what the past three pages of debate may suggest, we both have a similar understanding of what's going on and what's at stake. We both believe that it is well within every person's right to draw Mohammad, and we both believe that those of Islamic faith are over-reacting (for the lack of a better term to emphasize how "over" their reaction is) not only in response to this but many other things. People shouldn't have to die over religious ideals. Maybe some Muslims feel that it's the only way people will realize how sensitive an issue it is for them, but nothing will justify taking the live of an innocent person.

As I understand, the main difference between our perspectives is that you believe that we should draw attention to this ridiculous flaw in the religion regardless of what consequences may come because we are well within our boundaries of free speech by doing so, whereas I would rather enjoy freedom of speech in other ways while turning a blind eye to the flaw for the sake of peace.

In the end, I think either side has its merits and its flaws. Drawing attention to the problem is more likely to alleviate it in the long run, but is also more likely to result in unnecessary casualties. Ignoring the problem isn't going to solve the problem, but it also reduces the chances of terror-induced chaos.