Surprised no one's commented on South Park latest two-part episodes, Cartoon Wars, based on the Muhammad cartoon issue, censorship due to Islam, Scientology, and Catholocism, and fair play. A Play within a play (with a touch of Family Guy jibing). Very nicely done.
Summary can be found at wikipedia. Part 1 andPart 2
[ April 17, 2006, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was kinda expecting a discussion on this too.. I watched the episode eagerly to see if they would show Muhammad, but of course, Comedy Central "P***ed out" (as they put in their ads).
Back when the whole cartoon protest thing was going on, I thought we should all draw cartoons of Muhammed just like the one guy advised in South Park (the people chose to bury their heads in sand instead.)
I don't see why free speech isn't important to people in this case...
I'm still mad at Comedy Central for that idiot Mencia and his, "Seriously, why the hell are we rebuilding New Orleans?" crap.
I do want to see that South Park, though.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I tihnk it's important to answer the question, "Why is it okay to show George Bush and Jesus flinging crap at the flag and each other, but not show Mohammed standing by a door?"
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I missed the second half. I wonder when it'll be on again...
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Both parts were on last night. The last one can be accessed by going here
MrSquicky- That's the point. But CC is, at least, honest in their admission that the decision was not based on anything like tolerance (which would be grossly hypocritical on their part) but was based on simple fear. (The link from the wikipedia article goes to a blog where Janene Garafino, a SP producer, appreciates CC's honesty.)
The whole thing is laughably ridiculous. Or would be, if all of us didn't know that there are people who would kill/die if CC did air the clip. Clearly, for Christians (or anyone else) who want CC to stop airing things they consider blasphemous, they need to start rioting and killing people before they'll be taken seriously.
Either that, or some people better learn that satire and lampooning the sacred are no reason to kill anyone. And that it is ludicrous to expect other's to follow the dictates of your conscience or beliefs.
Editorial Cartoons are designed to poke fun/expose every segment of society.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I saw the second half. I thought it was well done and was a perfect example of why I enjoy South Park. The satire is hilarious, poignant, and encourages thought.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
IanO- How do you make the episode dealy work on a Mac computer? Or at all?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Not sure. There's a Real Media version. Is there a RM player for MAC?
Other than that, it's a bittorrent. You need a bittorrent downloader. That's about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ian, That's exactly my point.
One of the lines we're supposed to swallow is that terrorism is stupid and ineffective and that terrorists are mindless animals. That just doesn't seem to be true. Given what they have to work with, terrorism seems to often net people employing it much higher results than if they used most other methods.
What this actually means in the long term is something I really don't know. However, I don't think that any of the peaceful methods of protest would have accomplished the goal of making it well-nigh impossible to portary Mohammed in mainstream media. I think that's something to keep in mind.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
On Peter David's blog, there's a comment by a guy (not sure if it is Peter David) about his own publishing of a Mohammad caricature. As he thought about it, he decided not to. It was one thing to risk his own life. But not his family's. It's clearly a tough call for all involved.
"What a perfectly vicious little trap the terrorists have put us in. It's not easy for those with a conscience to fight those without one."
Interesting.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I can't not believe they did what they did on "South Park" in those two episodes.
I am simply shocked.
Is there no decency?
Is there nothing left worthy of respect?
Of all things in this world to poke fun at, why target "Family Guy"?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I was kinda expecting a discussion on this too.. I watched the episode eagerly to see if they would show Muhammad, but of course, Comedy Central "P***ed out" (as they put in their ads).
Back when the whole cartoon protest thing was going on, I thought we should all draw cartoons of Muhammed just like the one guy advised in South Park (the people chose to bury their heads in sand instead.)
I don't see why free speech isn't important to people in this case...
Pix
We must draw a distinction between "free speech" and "bigotry."
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Did you see the episode?
All that happened was that Muhammad was walking around and either drank some tea or stood at a door and give someone a hat.
How's that bigotry?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:We must draw a distinction between "free speech" and "bigotry."
last I checked, even bigotry was protected under the 1st ammendment.
But as I said, this did not even remotely qualify as bigotry.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
It's bigoted to cheer the defilement of a major religion's central figure. I mean, if Christians are cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place, then that's cool. But I think it's a bit misguided to hope that other religions should be as nonchalant in their reaction to outsiders bringing down the person they worship.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
How is it defilement, again?
No one asked that anyone be non-chalant. People can be upset. They can boycott. They can protest. The whole point of the episode (and even the Danish cartoons, as far as I can tell) is that exact thing. There are methods and standards in a multicultural modern civil society to express ideas and/or disagreement (or even disgust). And those who refuse to play on the same field (while doing the same thing to others, as Middle Eastern papers routinely do with cartoons stereotyping Jews) are declaring that they want special exemption. They declare that they have the right to react in a violent way while playing the victim when others do it to them.
How is killing over images ever appropriate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"What a perfectly vicious little trap the terrorists have put us in. It's not easy for those with a conscience to fight those without one."
but what remains is that there are plenty of muslims with varying levels of what we'd call conscience out there that really, really don't like dipictions of Mohammed. Prior to the violent protests, there were mild, non-violent ones done by more moderate Muslim groups. Had those groups been listened to and the newspaper and associated parties not gone ahead or been forth coming with an apology, I doubt the violent protests would have happened.
I'm not making a judgement here on what the right or wrong thing to do was. I'm just pointing out this and saying that this is another example of the Muslim world seeing that they don't get listened to/accomodated unless there is violence or the threat of violence.
Edit: And then of course, we turn around and tell the more moderate, civilized groups, who have already been shown that their methods don't achieve results, that they should marginalize themselves some more by being outspoken in condemning the methods that did get the desired results.
[ April 17, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO:
quote:We must draw a distinction between "free speech" and "bigotry."
last I checked, even bigotry was protected under the 1st ammendment.
I agree, but people don't necessarily have to tolerate that bigotry. So, beyond mild-hearted inveighing, christians went "meh" to south park repeatedly poking fun at Jesus. I mean, good heavens--their sheer economic might is enough to take "South Park" out of its miserable existence. Why doesn't that happen? Maybe Jesus isn't as holy to them as Mohammed is to Muslims?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Somalian, I think you may find that Christians are not cool with it, but that they realize that it is really small potatoes. I think many of them realize that outsiders can't actually do any harm to the things they worship and that freedom of speech isn't just for things you approve of. To me, that's a more mature reaction.
Even if they were terribly inflamed by this, many Christians have gotten out of the habit of throwing violent protests to get what they want. Again, I think that is the more mature reaction.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
So when people refuse to take into account our feelings about things (any thing) we have a right to escalate the reaction until we get the desired response?
Not tolerating means destruction and death?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ian, I'm not sure, was that directed at me?
Somalian, At a certain point in a person's adulthood, you learn that it is generally not a good thing to try to kill or main people you think gave you a dirty look. On such realizations rests a significant portion of productive society.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: How is it defilement, again?
No one asked that anyone be non-chalant. People can be upset. They can boycott. They can protest. The whole point of the episode (and even the Danish cartoons, as far as I can tell) is that exact thing. There are methods and standards in a multicultural modern civil society to express ideas and/or disagreement (or even disgust). And those who refuse to play on the same field (while doing the same thing to others, as Middle Eastern papers routinely do with cartoons stereotyping Jews) are declaring that they want special exemption. They declare that they have the right to react in a violent way while playing the victim when others do it to them.
But I don't think nasty stereotypes of Jews necessarily equal depictions of Mohammed. Now, if those muslims were deliberately trying to offend the religious sensibilities of Jews--you know, just because they could--then I'd agree with you about a double standard. But comparing something born out of geopolitical tensions and ignorance to something as deliberate as the willful degradation of a religion's central figure is a bit misguided.
To put it another way, it's okay (to me at least) when Gary Larson draws Mohammed in a cartoon (because it's doubtful he knew better, plus the cartoon was genuinely funny) but not funny when others deliberately do it for the sole purpose of giving offense.
quote: How is killing over images ever appropriate?
Your mistake--and that of "South Park" and the Danish cartoonists--is considerng those depictions "mere images."
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Somalian, I think you may find that Christians are not cool with it, but that they realize that it is really small potatoes. I think many of them realize that outsiders can't actually do any harm to the things they worship and that freedom of speech isn't just for things you approve of. To me, that's a more mature reaction.
Even if they were terribly inflamed by this, many Christians have gotten out of the habit of throwing violent protests to get what they want. Again, I think that is the more mature reaction.
It is a mature reaction at the expense of the religion--the idea of Jesus is less for it in the eyes of any future christian. How can you reconcile holiness with such images?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The muslims were trying to foster and strengthen a culture of stereotypes that places Jews as subhuman and as always out to get Muslims, largely as a justification for violence against Jews. You're right they are not on the same level, but I think you may have your relative weighing wrong.
Another one of those realizations on which civilization is founded is that other people don't necessarily have to follow your rules. If it's a Muslim rule that you shouldn't have images of Mohammed, then fine, Mulsims don't have to make images of Mohammed. Saying that other people can't do this and having riots when they do...well, besides being childish, it retards the productive functioning and/or formation of a civilized society.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is a mature reaction at the expense of the religion--the idea of Jesus is less for it in the eyes of any future christian. How can you reconcile holiness with such images?
Like this. It takes a very immature view of religion to regard something like these pictures as seriously damaging it. Holiness is not at stake here. If you think it is, you've got a very warped idea of holiness. It is not about what you can force others to do.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The muslims were trying to foster and strengthen a culture of stereotypes that places Jews as subhuman and as always out to get Muslims, largely as a justification for violence against Jews. You're right they are not on the same level, but I think you may have your relative weighing wrong.
Another one of those realizations on which civilization is founded is that other people don't necessarily have to follow your rules. If it's a Muslim rule that you shouldn't have images of Mohammed, then fine, Mulsims don't have to make images of Mohammed. Saying that other people can't do this and having riots when they do...well, besides being childish, it retards the productive functioning and/or formation of a civilized society.
Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right? Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Am I hearing an implicit defense? "Well, they kept pushing and pushing."
Sounds similar to the "she was asking for it" defense used of some spousal abusers and/or rapists.
Regardless of what was done, the reaction deserves and requires NO defense whatsoever.
If we can't agree that violence has no place in a discussion, dialog or even satire of people's beliefs (or rather, in this case, and, in South Park's usual case, of peoples interpretations of traditions), then there is a common ground that is completely missing.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I am not defending violent reactions over this, but if only you can begin to understand how holy Mohamed is to muslims, you'd understand why (some) would react violently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right?
I never said anything remotely close to that. You know, words like bigotry have actual meanings, and are not just there to try to score points with.
If I had to make a choice, I'd put "deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose" in the not okay column. Of course, that's not actually what any and all depictions of Mohammed do.
Speaking of the not okay column, I'd put cutting people off in traffic, but that doesn't mean that I think that when someone does this, a mature response is to pull them from their car and beat them with a tire iron.
It's rude, so it's not okay in the grand scheme of things, but the disproportionality of the response betrays the immaturity of the respondent.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:I If I had to make a choice, I'd put "deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose" in the not okay column. Of course, that's not actually what any and all depictions of Mohammed do. [/QB]
Hence why you don't understand the situation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What about that betrays my not understanding the situation?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
What authority are you to assert what depictions of Mohammed do and don't do? As if the poor devout muslim is supposed to take a pause and reflect on the civics lesson supposedly inherent in the defilement of his prophet.
[ April 17, 2006, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
There is, I think, a fundamental idea that, in general, the western world has come to believe so intrinsically that we are speaking passed each other. It is, I believe, an outgrowth of the hundred years war, the crusades, and centuries of religious schisms. I believe it is this: any religious idea that requires that you kill the unbeliever for not agreeing with you is not a very strong belief. If it is not strong enough to handle argument or even satire and ridicule, then it never was strong enough to begin with.
It is the idea behind the statement, 'what are going to do? Kill me? How will that prove your point? How will that do anything other than raise me up as a martyr."
Islam does not have that as a belief. Or is, at least, intolerant when such ideas and challenges are made against it. And I say that in the face of the fact that my Grandmother, The_Somalian, is from the north of you, Eritrea, and is a devout Muslim. So I am not ignorant of what I speak.
But I disagree with it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think the key words in Squicky's post are "deliberately" and "for no real purpose." You said yourself that Gary Larson's depiction was okay to you, because it was unlikely that he knew better. Squicky is saying that not all depictions are deliberately disparaging. I think that's a fair assertation.
The "for no real purpose" part becomes a bit trickier. Someone can deliberately disparage other people's sacred cows and believe that they do it for a purpose. You can disagree if it's a valid purpose or a good purpose, but you cannot speak with anymore authority to the person's intent than I can to if someone should be offended by it or not.
I agree with Squicky's statement, by the way. I also would call deliberately disparaging other people's sacred cows for no real purpose a bad thing.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:if Christians are cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place, then that's cool.
I would suspect that many/most Christians are very much NOT cool with images of Jesus pooping all over the place. I think that was part of their point. You can't make a distinction between what is ok to satire and what is not- either it's all ok or none of it is. Comedy Central's decision to cut the image of Mohammed while playing the sacreligious picture of Jesus was pure hypocrisy. Both are incredibly offensive to many people of those faiths. Either we have freedom of speech, even when others find it offensive, or we don't.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: There is, I think, a fundamental idea that, in general, the western world has come to believe so intrinsically that we are speaking passed each other. It is, I believe, an outgrowth of the hundred years war, the crusades, and centuries of religious schisms. I believe it is this: any religious idea that requires that you kill the unbeliever for not agreeing with you is not a very strong belief. If it is not strong enough to handle argument or even satire and ridicule, then it never was strong enough to begin with.
Well this is nicely stated but it really gets us nowhere as the fanatic killer can always tell himself that he kills because of the strenght of his religion.
I will agree with the point about "speaking past each other." I don't intend to excuse violent reactions but mainly to question the wisdom of depicting Mohammed (something so offensive I don't think Westerners can even conceive of it) to raise the question.
The propoganda machine in most of these countries is informing the masses that the West is at War with Islam. Start depicting Mohammed now and those people may just come to thoroughly belief such lies.
Do I agree with violent reactions? No. Do I think that those people are entitled to a reaction at least on some level? Yes.
Also, South Park is sooo poorly drawn.
[ April 17, 2006, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
It might be hypocritical, but as IanO quoted, it is safe. No one dies for treating Jesus with no respect. On the other hand, we can't say that about Mohammed.
Honestly, as a Christian, SP offends me greatly - but I'll defend their right to say what they want.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:No one dies for treating Jesus with no respect. On the other hand, we can't say that about Mohammed.
I understand the fear but I think that giving into it is asking for a world of pain. How long until other groups use the same tactics to achieve the incredible success that Muslims have?
South Park is undoubtedly one of those most offensive shows on air. It treats nothing as sacred. Now, it is suddenly censored to be less offensive. Giving terror and violence this much power is flat out wrong.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: I can't not believe they did what they did on "South Park" in those two episodes.
I am simply shocked.
Is there no decency?
Is there nothing left worthy of respect?
Of all things in this world to poke fun at, why target "Family Guy"?
It's South Park.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I think it's cute that it makes fun of Family Guy's brand of humor given its own insipid "anything that offends must be funny" routine. Neither of these shows could ever hope to come close to achieving the satirical quality of The Simpsons (1989--1998, RIP). Or heck, even Futurama! (true heir to The Simpsons tradition?) =D
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
The thing is, Mohammed has already appeared in South Park. They did an episode several years where Jesus, Buddah, Moses, Mohammed and Joseph Smith teamed up to fight crime. Nothing happened then.
In fact, they mentioned it in one of their commentaries. They said when they first heard that Muslims were rioting because someone made a cartoon image of Mohammed, they panicked. Then they read the rest of the story and realized it wasn't about them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well, add another one to the list of people who will try to escape from the re-education camps.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Then all bigotry is okay. Because--hey, what offends you doesn't offend me, right?
Your problem is the inability to distinguish between something being "okay" and it being inadequate provocation to justify violence.
I believe that as a Christian, I respect Jesus as much as Muslims respect Mohammed -- moreso, if anything, since I regard Him as a perfect incarnation of God and not merely a prophet. Consequently, I am not amused by vulgar attempts to desecrate Him.
However, I also recognize that if I want other people to respect my right to hold and espouse those beliefs, then I must reciprocally respect the rights of those who believe differently, even if they act in ways that I consider blasphemous. I have no right to use violent force to silence the expression of opinions I don't like.
Those who do employ such coercion are savages, unfit to exist in a civilized world. I have no interest whatsoever is understanding their motivations or point of view, any more than I'd be interested in hearing a pedophile explain all the good reasons he has for molesting children.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think it's cute that it makes fun of Family Guy's brand of humor given its own insipid "anything that offends must be funny" routine
I'd say there are differences. South Park's satire usually has a message. Although I think it took them a few seasons to realize that satire, not bathroom jokes, was their talent. Family Guy just goes for as many gags as they can get. The Simpsons is great, but they don't even try to tackle the more taboo issues that South Park is great at.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by the_Somalian: As if the poor devout muslim is supposed to take a pause and reflect on the civics lesson supposedly inherent in the defilement of his prophet.
Yes, that's exactly what he/she is supposed to do.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I understand the fear but I think that giving into it is asking for a world of pain. How long until other groups use the same tactics to achieve the incredible success that Muslims have?
I agree completely, Amanecer. I just don't know if I could risk death to my family by doing the right thing. Me, sure - at least I think I could. My family, no. Not a chance. I guess it's kind of the "free rider" problem - it doesn't hurt me to give in to the terror. If I do, I live. If I don't, I have a chance of dying. But if everyone gives in, we're sunk.
I too worry about the day when enough people understand that we back down in the face of death that a critical mass is reached. I don't know if it will be very long at all, honestly.
What can we do about this? I wonder how many people have to die before we come to the understanding that these people (people of any creed/religion/ideology who will murder those who disagree with them) are valrese. I do think that Bush has made a (misguided?) attempt to show the world that we won't back down from terror.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I think what's called for here is bravery on a mass scale. Just like in that recent movie "V for Vendetta" all citizens should be given a costume of "Mohammed" and made to go out marching anonymously. This would really show the Muslim world how to respectfully handle opposition to one's core beliefs.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I think I'm gonna go bomb the Comedy Central studios! How dare they depict Jesus in that way?! Maybe then society will learn to respect Christian fundamentalists the way they respect Muslim fundamentalists...um....wait....
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't think you can call this a double standard since Comedy Central never claimed they acted out of respect for Islam. They acted out of a fear of violence. It is unfortunate that Comedy Central doesn't show a bit more respect for everyone, but one can hardly confuse fear with respect.
Personally, I would rather have South Park making tasteless jokes about my religion than have TV execs changing program because they are afraid of my violent retribution.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Daily Show on Comedy Central has made probably a dozen jokes about not showing the Mohammad cartoons because they are trying to show respect.....to the fact that they don't want to get the s$%# kicked out of them if they do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, fear has long been a part of American media choices. The House Unamerican Activites Commitee and then Joe McCarthy had at least as wide an influence and they and he weren't even killing people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One of the lines we're supposed to swallow is that terrorism is stupid and ineffective and that terrorists are mindless animals. That just doesn't seem to be true. Given what they have to work with, terrorism seems to often net people employing it much higher results than if they used most other methods.
Exactly who is feeding you this line? That terrorism is stupid and ineffective? The mindless animals part I hear, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Maybe MrSquicky is referring to the, "we won't let terrorism be effective," propaganda line?
I have the same vague impression I think he was talking about, but can't seem to nail it down.
-EDIT-
quote:Well, fear has long been a part of American media choices. The House Unamerican Activites Commitee and then Joe McCarthy had at least as wide an influence and they and he weren't even killing people.
I just saw Good Night and Good Luck last night. I was struck by how good of a job was done of drawing parallels to today's socio-political climate without making me feel hit over the head by it.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
The thing about SP is that while it is crude and sometimes goes places that I am uncomfortable with, it always makes me think, is brilliant in its skewering (usually not the ostensible target) and oftentimes ends up speaking relatively reasonably about topics.
For example, a recent episode (one of the first that was actually pulled) was about an image of Mary bleeding. In all honesty, it was no doubt quite offensive to Catholics, at least that depiction. But the point of the episode was not to poke fun at Mary, but rather at our attitudes toward miracles and relics and our perceived powerlessness. Specifically, Stan's dad, who just received a DUI, has to go to AA meetings as part of his punishment. There, he is convinced that the drinking (which in fact is normal (if unwise in WHEN it is practiced) not an out of control thing) is a disease that he cannot control. So he goes from saying, "alright, I need to be balanced in my drinking and not drink when I drive" to (in classical SP fashion) sitting a wheel chair drinking endlessly, believing that he cannot beat it. He is powerless. When the miracle with the statue occurs, he hurriedly goes to the site and has to wait in line with numerous people with REAL problems (elephantitis, terminal illnesses) and is constantly saying he is the same as them (and cutting in line). Finally, he gets to the image and receives the blood.
Now he is cured. He drinks no more. He rejects his old drinking buddies. Until he finds out that the bleeding is not miraculous (per se). Suddenly he needs "4 drinks, stat!" because the disease was not cured.
His son helps him to see that HE had been able to beat it. His self control and "disciprine" (in Engrish) had helped him, but he had gone too far. Being balanced requires more but is more reasonable.
The point was not to make fun of Mary (though I know that the elements about her were offensive) but our attitudes about how we view and conquer things.
There are numerous other episodes like that. The offensive element is put in for humor and shock value (like Paris Hilton's "Stupid Spoiled Whore" episode or the "Beaver Dam"- Hurricane Katrina- or "Butt out" -anti-anti-smoking- episode) but nonetheless, the point it often makes is an arguably valid one that has a right to be made.
People have a right to be angry. They have a right to boycott. They have a right to write in and complain. They do not have to be sanguine about it. They do not have to be happy about it. They do not have to cheer the power of the first amendment.
But they don't have a right to kill those whoe disagree or are offended. Otherwise, no one is safe. No one.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I wonder if we would feel differently if the killing and rioting were going on in the West. I suppose I should be relieved that this isn't the case. Just finding it interesting that the West is acting, at least with this situation, as if it is happening in the West. On the other hand, I can't think of any reports of actual deaths from this issue - just riots and property destruction.
quote:The whole thing is laughably ridiculous. Or would be, if all of us didn't know that there are people who would kill/die if CC did air the clip. Clearly, for Christians (or anyone else) who want CC to stop airing things they consider blasphemous, they need to start rioting and killing people before they'll be taken seriously.
I said something like that a while back and was, mostly, yelled at:
quote:This has been going on to Christians for years. Why is it that when it happens to Muslims, people who wouldn't give a flip about what Christians think suddenly care so much not to offend? I think its time for secularists to go full boar against the Muslim religion like they do Christianity. Mohammad in a bottle of . . . you get the picture. Equal opportunity disrespect sounds nice, since there difinantly isn't equal opportunity respect.
"In (the West) it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," Mohammed al-Shaibani, a columnist, wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily Monday. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
Perhaps that is the argument Christians should start using. You insult Christianity than it is racism and a breach of human rights and not freedom of speach. I like that.
Another reason Christians need to create their own unabashidly theocratic Kingdom. Perhaps create a bit of respect out of fear that the Muslims use very effectively.
Its admittedly a little more crude and alarmist, but the thought is the same.
[ April 18, 2006, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, I think the difference between what was said in this thread and what you said is that you actually want to form a Christian theocracy and have said so on multiple occasions, whereas what you quoted was said sarcastically.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
In the fear that I was misunderstood, I want to say that Squicky is right. My statement was sarcastic. Obviously, I do not think that anyone who is offended must escalate their reactions until their desires are met.
I think people need to grow up and recognize that the world is a big place and there are many other views and if you get mad or kill at everyone who disagrees with you or unintentionally, or even intentionally, insults you, you are going to be mad all the time and end up killing a lot of people.
Come to think of it, that might be problem here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It wasn't all that long ago that the Christian/European world would have reacted in much the same way. And there was a time when the Islamic world was the shining example of culture, intellect, and civilization.
To me, one of the big differences now is that Wesern countries have tamed Christianity (and Islam) with many extra-religious ideas and structures that has allowed for the growth of true multi-cultural and religious societies. The Islamic countries have never experienced a secular Enlightenment and so lack many of the fundamental ingrained ideas that pervade our society.
To me, a primarily offensive/reactive strategy isn't going to resolve our differences and could quite possibly lead to some form cultural genocide.
Unfortunately, I see this a distinct possibility, but it is such in part because of the tack we are taking. I think (or rather hope) that there is a better path.
I believe that the violent response to the Muhammed cartoons is childish and ultimately destructive to the Islamic societies they occured in, in much the same way that, in the case where Ian pointed out, being angry all the time seriously hurts you as a person. I think that societies that condone and encourage terrorism as a matter of course are fundamentally flawed. But here's the thing, in the eyes of many in the Islamic world, these are the most and often the only effective tactics for them to get what they want, especially in the short term.
I think that, if we want to avoid the real possibility of the costly and morally repugnant option of basically killing off many of the Muslim societies, root and branch, we need to find a way to encourage the development of Enlightenment principles and more peaceful ways of Muslims effecting changes that they want.
To be honest though, especially when looking at the half-tamed nature of our society, I don't know how possible these goals are.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I think you are right, Squicky. I would add to the enlightenment that the reformation together made western society 'grow up'.
Not sure how such a thing could be brought about quickly in Islamic countries, though. After all, it took ~500 years in western society.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't the Vatican a christian theocrasy?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ian, I guess I could see the Reformation, albiet more as a negative example. Although, come to think of it, it did introduce some important developmental factors.
That's acutally something I've been wondering about, but have nowhere near adequate historical basis to really say anything at all definitive about. That is, most of the true advancement towards civilization in Western thinking came about in large part because people got pissed or horrified at what the people in charge (most often the religious people in charge) where doing. Is it possible that the difference in Islamic society is cause in part because they've had less internal stuff to get pissed about or possibly that they've lacked a central figure or institution that was clearly in the wrong?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It used to be, back when it included the Papal states, but I don't think that claim is really accurate now. Vatican City isn't really a country so much as it's an politically independent administration center for the Catholic Church.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
yeah, I meant it as a negative example. After a few hundred years of killing each other over 'minor' points, when both sides are relatively evenly matched, you kind of step back and have to agree to disagree peacefully.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was going to argue with you, MS, but then I asked myself the question "Does the Vatican have any citizens?"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Is it possible that the difference in Islamic society is cause in part because they've had less internal stuff to get pissed about or possibly that they've lacked a central figure or institution that was clearly in the wrong?
The Islamic response to the Mongol invasions, the closing of the doors of ijtihad, is what I see as the root of the difference you're talking about.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:But here's the thing, in the eyes of many in the Islamic world, these are the most and often the only effective tactics for them to get what they want, especially in the short term.
In terms of effective tactics, I think the American Civil Rights movement or Ghandi's Indian indepedence movement showed the power of peaceful resistance. If they did that, I think that they would gain a huge amount of sympathy and NO ONE could fault them for anything. The west would be shamed into to doing more.
Of course such things are predicated on societies that value freedom of thought and action and peace, which is arguable in Sharia-based governments (as this situation illustrates).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, I know little bits here and there, but really have mostly just thumbnail sketches of Islamic history, so again, not a great platform to argue from. However, while I could see that from a non-inclusive/tolerant thing, I was talking about the much wider ideas like "you just can't trust those bastards in charge" which led many people to accept the ideas of individual rights set against government or religious controls.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, okay Squick, I was misunderstanding what you were getting at.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In terms of effective tactics, I think the American Civil Rights movement or Ghandi's Indian indepedence movement showed the power of peaceful resistance. If they did that, I think that they would gain a huge amount of sympathy and NO ONE could fault them for anything. The west would be shamed into to doing more.
See, I disagree with this often made assertion. Consider, for example, the abject failure of the non-violent civil rights movement to achieve things in Chicago. Richard Daley was too smooth a politician and he shut them down at every turn. Non-violence worked because they were going up against Bull Connors's, but when you try it against people who won't supply you with violent spectacles, it tends to fizzle.
You know one of the big reasons why the U.S. is the Great Satan? Because we've been screwing around in the Middle East for years. There was plenty of non-violent protest over this, but it's not like we care or even acknowledge it. Same thing with South and Central America.
Non-violence movements require a certain type of opponent to be effective against. They also require clear and dramatic injustices being done. I don't think either of these conditions are fulfilled in these cases.
Many of the goals of the Islamic societies aren't things I even think they deserve. Consider, for example, non-violent protest of the Mohammed cartoons. Well, okay, you don't like it, but honestly I don't care. Of course, considering the situation, I think it would be better to capitulate to non-violent protest than to the threat and execution of violence. But I don't think, in final analysis, that their complaints are worthy of going along with, even if it's practical that we do.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I was thinking more along the lines of non-violence in regard to the Palestine issue. Sit-ins and other peaceful protests against perceived injustices would be more effective than blowing up a restuarant full of innocent patrons.
And, as you pointed out (and I tried to say) you have to have the right kind of 'enemy', the right kind of reactions and the right kind of 'audience' before it is truly effective. But I was thinking of it more as a matter or principle. Like the Bhuddist who set himself on fire (which was kind of dumb, but did make a point and only cost him his own life, as opposed to some kids sitting down to some pizza.)
But, yeah, there's also an element of 'grow up'. Not everyone agrees with you. And to use perceived, or even intended offense as an excuse for violence is ridiculous.
All you end up doing is killing off those who disagree with you (or frightening them into silence). Which doesn't say much about how noble, right, and true your cause is. I think OSC once said, "All you do is change the meaning of the word until they all mean the same thing. Bully."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are groups that protest non-violently about things like Palestine, etc. They're routinely ignored. When you come down to weighing a principle that a lot of the society doesn't fully believe in against tangible results and attention, I don't think it's generally much of a contest.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Non-violence movements require a certain type of opponent to be effective against. They also require clear and dramatic injustices being done. I don't think either of these conditions are fulfilled in these cases
1. Non-violence has worked quite effectively against a wide range of opponents including Hitler. (The Danes stopped Hitler from deporting and killing Danish Jews through non-violent resistance).
2. If you don't think clear and dramatic injustices are being done in Israel/Palestine you don't know thing one about the conflict.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Danish example is just a little misleading; the Danes spirited the Jews away over the water. It's not as though they sat in front of the stormtroopers that were coming to get the Jews, and made them go away by singing pacifist songs at them. And if Hitler had been willing to add Sweden to the list of his enemies - I don't see where this would have hurt him any, he already had 400 thousand troops in Norway that he could have used without damage to the Eastern Front, and then he wouldn't have to pay for the Kiruna ores - the evacutaion would have been useless.
The moral issue is one thing; people have said enough about that. Another thing about violence is that it ups the stakes; that's usually a bad idea. Today, perchance, you have an advantage, either in ruthlessness and willingness to kill, or in sheer force. That may not be true tomorrow. Indeed, if Europe ever gets sufficiently annoyed to forget about being civilised, the Arabs are in for an extremely bad time of it. It's worth recalling that the British invented the concentration camp as a means for dealing with a guerrilla army; I see no reason it wouldn't work just as well against terrorists. Internal passports; strictly enforced curfews; barbed wire and blockhouses; we've been here before, and we can do it again. It is fortunate for the Muslims that the terrorists are few in number.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)