Draw Mohammad Day

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:No, Jesus is not the same as god. Jesus is god's son (just pretend god is a normal man who is like, really freaking powerful), Jesus was human. Supposedly did some inhuman things, or he did some human things and god created miracles to make it look like Jesus did them, not sure. He was also like a really nice guy that taught other people to be nice. Insulting god should be irrelevant, he's a god for god's sake, what does he care? Insulting Jesus may be worse because he was just a really cool dude who was really nice, that'd be like spreading rumors around about that dude that brings in free milk and cookies to work everyday.

At least that is how I was raised.

But what about stuff like the holy trinity? Again, I'm not much for theology, but it seems to me that for christian's, their god and Jesus are the same entity. Or maybe if I think on it a bit, they see god as compromised of three entities, of which jesus is one, and the "holy spirit" (which I take to be the traditional depiction of their deity) is another, but they're both part of their god.

I guess this is the type of stuff that people who do like theology debate all day, but it seems to me that the, uh, theology, of christianity does have jesus as being the same as their god.

EDIT: Bah! Ninja'd.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby natraj » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

perhaps so, but most christian denominations consider jesus god. god and also the son of god; the majority of christian traditions consider him both human and divine. it's this whole trinity thing.

@tirian, there is a difference between insulting someone and actually destroying their stuff, or attacking them. i would wager most places have laws that treat those as entirely separate things.

you are free to think people are dicks for insulting a religion all you want, but if that is what you think than you can retaliate with words, not with violence and property damage.

DOUBLE NINJA'd. ah well.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

I enjoy that all three of us linked to the same wiki article :lol:

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Diadem » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:02 pm UTC

Most christians consider Jesus to be 100% human and 100% divine. And then they believe in the Trinity. Jesus is both the son of god and god himself.

That however is very nice for theologians, but most ordinary followers definitely make a distinction between Jesus and god, regardless of what they officially believe about the trinity. And insulting Jesus definitely seems to be worse than insulting god.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Saw former RNC Uncle Tom *cough* chairman*cough* Michael Steele in msnbc debating random obama guy. Steele said "You can't criticize my faith. Those are my strong held beliefs, and you can't do that." And stupid liberal guy kowtowed to him, trying to say he wasn't criticizing beliefs, just wondering about their impact on policy.

It irked me. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FUCKING STUPID. I'M NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT THEM, LET ALONE DIGNIFY THEM. Fuck your faith -- I hate how everyone has to regard others' faiths with sensitivity. Fuck that. If your faith is harming me, I will work for the day when I or my descendants get to dance on its grave. Your superstition might be sacred to you, but I shouldn't be forced to recognize it as sacred.

If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.


So... you're hating huge groups of people for what a few lunatics from each group does?

Seriously, the amount of hate is astonishing. If someone's harming you based on their faith, go fight that person, not everyone else with the same faith.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Steax wrote:So... you're hating huge groups of people for what a few lunatics from each group does?

Seriously, the amount of hate is astonishing. If someone's harming you based on their faith, go fight that person, not everyone else with the same faith.

The problem with that stance (regardless of what you feel about Lucrece's statement) is that those lunatics derive their power to act the way they do from the quantity of people who share their faith. From the fact that it is not socially acceptable to say that you think their beliefs are bullshit, while it is not taboo for them to say that your beliefs are. Because you're required to put their beliefs on a higher pedestal than others, solely due to the fact that so many people share that believe. Because people don't consider it them imposing their beliefs on others when they try to control your actions, but they do consider it imposing your beliefs on others when you try to prevent them from doing so.

You have to take an issue with the faith and the majority of people (though you do not have to oppose specific individuals) sharing it, otherwise you will get nowhere.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. My interpretation of your post is... "you can blame a whole religion based on a few lunatics, if many people share that religion." Can you please clarify?

Edit: Or do you mean "these people think they are right because many people share their religion, so it's okay to blame the people who share it"? I honestly don't understand; the post I quoted was basically, in my understanding, 'person harming me based on their religion, so I hate their faith (and by extension, everyone who believes in it).'
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Tirian » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:22 pm UTC

Chainer wrote:
Tirian wrote:
Lucrece wrote:If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.


Yes. And they can break your stuff. Gosh golly, maybe they don't respect your veneration of unguarded property any more than you respect their allegiance to the dictates of their prophet.


Nope! You see, that's against the law, whether they respect my unguarded property or not. Funny how that works.


Nowhere did I say that they shouldn't accept the consequences of their choices. You CAN break the law, and even in Western society there are plenty of circumstances where people feel strongly enough about an issue to engage in civil disobedience. Should they in this case? I'll say no, but that doesn't mean that they should have to stoically endure crap being thrown at them.

If anything, the lack of responsibility that I see is from the side that flippantly disregards nearly a millennium of Muslim tradition just because it isn't their tradition. Until I hear more information about Draw Charlemagne Day or Draw Genghis Khan Day, I'll assume that the interest in drawing Mohammad is not about historical visual art but is about pissing off a minority group and feigning moral superiority when they get upset about it. That is an asshat move.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Dauric » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:24 pm UTC

Steax wrote:So... you're hating huge groups of people for what a few lunatics from each group does?

Seriously, the amount of hate is astonishing. If someone's harming you based on their faith, go fight that person, not everyone else with the same faith.


Here's the thing though, not all religious-based harm is caused by "that person". In many cases, like "Definition of Life" legislation in the U.S. or stoning to death women that don't completely cover their bodies or attempt to get an education in Afghanistan, it's a community that is doing the harm and the common thread of justification for their actions in that community is... the religion. It's not one person to call out for their assholeish behavior, it's a broad community of people that need to be taken to task.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

Steax wrote:Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. My interpretation of your post is... "you can blame a whole religion based on a few lunatics, if many people share that religion." Can you please clarify?

The lunatics derive their social power from the people that share that religion. Take the recent contraception debate in the US- most catholics (I think it was 98%?) have used contraception, despite the church's teachings. The "lunatics" in that case would be the bishops and priests trying to force their anti-contraceptive beliefs on others. Even though most catholics ignore those teachings, those people have real power. Why? Because of how many catholics there are (even if not a single one of them agrees with those bishops- they have, indirectly, granted that political power to those bishops). When you deal with problems, you should focus on the root of problem; in this case, the fact that a popular religion concentrates most of its power in a select handful that interpret their religious teachings more literally than most members, and that those handful of people have undue political power to influence the lives of others that don't share their beliefs. If you only try to "solve" the issue through the bishops, you'll accomplish nothing, because they'll be replaced with more "lunatics"- you're attacking the symptoms, and not the disease, so to speak.

By not opposing the results of their church's wielding of its power, then, as voluntary members, they are tacitly endorsing that action. Or as Dauric said- the "lunatics" are using power granted to them by that community. If the community does not oppose them when they use that power, then they are to blame.

Tirian wrote:If anything, the lack of responsibility that I see is from the side that flippantly disregards nearly a millennium of Muslim tradition just because it isn't their tradition. Until I hear more information about Draw Charlemagne Day or Draw Genghis Khan Day, I'll assume that the interest in drawing Mohammad is not about historical visual art but is about pissing off a minority group and feigning moral superiority when they get upset about it. That is an asshat move.

If I remember this very thread, the point is to show that they can't silence the freedom of speech of others through their threats. To show that they will not be able to scare others away from doing something solely because it offends their religion. If there wasn't a large enough group of people willing to do it, then the few who had "legitimate" reasons to do so would be easily singled out and threatened. You can bully a dozen people easily, but not so much 10,000 people.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The lunatics derive their social power from the people that share that religion. Take the recent contraception debate in the US- most catholics (I think it was 98%?) have used contraception, despite the church's teachings. The "lunatics" in that case would be the bishops and priests trying to force their anti-contraceptive beliefs on others. Even though most catholics ignore those teachings, those people have real power. Why? Because of how many catholics there are (even if not a single one of them agrees with those bishops- they have, indirectly, granted that political power to those bishops). When you deal with problems, you should focus on the root of problem; in this case, the fact that a popular religion concentrates most of its power in a select handful that interpret their religious teachings more literally than most members, and that those handful of people have undue political power to influence the lives of others that don't share their beliefs. If you only try to "solve" the issue through the bishops, you'll accomplish nothing, because they'll be replaced with more "lunatics"- you're attacking the symptoms, and not the disease, so to speak.

By not opposing the results of their church's wielding of its power, then, as voluntary members, they are tacitly endorsing that action. Or as Dauric said- the "lunatics" are using power granted to them by that community. If the community does not oppose them when they use that power, then they are to blame.


I can't speak about the guy interviewed on the post I quoted, but the guy who assaulted during the parade wasn't exactly a group leader or was backed by a whole bunch of people.

I agree - if a section of people don't oppose these people, then they're partially to blame as well, as they have a bigger role in preventing it from happening again. Is there any indicator that a significant amount of other Muslims supported or was otherwise ignorant of the attack?

(I do think that we need to be really careful with the "we must attack the root cause" point here, because it's pretty hard to define. A real fundamentalist of that may decide to just end humanity, since we're pretty much the root cause of everything. We need to consider any innocent bystanders who don't need to get caught in the crossfire; in this case, peaceful religious people who don't attack people on the streets and just want to stay away from this stuff.)

Dauric wrote:
Steax wrote:So... you're hating huge groups of people for what a few lunatics from each group does?

Seriously, the amount of hate is astonishing. If someone's harming you based on their faith, go fight that person, not everyone else with the same faith.


Here's the thing though, not all religious-based harm is caused by "that person". In many cases, like "Definition of Life" legislation in the U.S. or stoning to death women that don't completely cover their bodies or attempt to get an education in Afghanistan, it's a community that is doing the harm and the common thread of justification for their actions in that community is... the religion. It's not one person to call out for their assholeish behavior, it's a broad community of people that need to be taken to task.


Well yes, if it's a society that's doing that, then yeah, you can extend the blame (to how far is another discussion, but yes). Thing is, the post I quoted was rambling about one person, and this particular sub-discussion was about one person assaulting the costume-wearer. Given it was a parade, and since Muslims aren't that low a minority, chances are a bunch of others had passed the guy during the parade and didn't attack him. So it's clearly a case of one lunatic who doesn't understand how the law works (and/or emotional issues or whatever), not one of the society there.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

Steax wrote:I agree - if a section of people don't oppose these people, then they're partially to blame as well, as they have a bigger role in preventing it from happening again. Is there any indicator that a significant amount of other Muslims supported or was otherwise ignorant of the attack?

The point is that the power of that person to attack the parade-goer is derived from the number of people that share their beliefs. They were able to use "it offended my religion" successfully in a court of law to avoid being punished for assault- if they were the only person in the world with their faith, how well do you think that would have worked? Church leaders (whether official or unofficial leaders) are able to force their beliefs to be a part of political discourse because of the number of people that they tacitly represent. So if you feel that those people are acting like lunatics, then you have to oppose all of those people that they derive their power from. If you have a preacher spout doom and gloom bullshit, people will give them attention, and will give them an avenue to project their opinion. Some will berate and attack anyone who calls that person out on their bullshit as being disrespectful or offensive, and people will not oppose that in any significant quantity. If you then had a non-religious person say the nearly the exact same things (changing words here and there to remove the religion from it), people will then write that person off as crazy and ignore them. What causes the difference? One person is attaching the belief of millions of people to the authority of their statement, and one is not.

So when you want to sap the power of that crazy person to influence your life, you can't just attack the problem of "them" head on- you need to remove the power of their religion to be blanket respected no matter what, it's power to influence discourse (one of the major political parties in this country frequently has leaders who believe that the US should determine it's laws according to christian belief), because that's the power that lets it influence your life, even when you aren't a practicing member. The fact that it is held to a lower standard to receive respect is the problem, not the person getting respect under that lower standard.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Dauric » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

Steax wrote:Well yes, if it's a society that's doing that, then yeah, you can extend the blame (to how far is another discussion, but yes). Thing is, the post I quoted was rambling about one person,...


Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He's not some random guy, he's the head of the political party that's trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of God's Chosen. The irritation be Lucreece comes both from Steele's insistence that his use of faith in policy is sacrosanct and immune from examination, but also the opposing speaker having backed down from the position that someone's faith shouldn't have carte-blanche immunity just because it's what they believe.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Steax wrote:I agree - if a section of people don't oppose these people, then they're partially to blame as well, as they have a bigger role in preventing it from happening again. Is there any indicator that a significant amount of other Muslims supported or was otherwise ignorant of the attack?

The point is that the power of that person to attack the parade-goer is derived from the number of people that share their beliefs. They were able to use "it offended my religion" successfully in a court of law to avoid being punished for assault- if they were the only person in the world with their faith, how well do you think that would have worked? Church leaders (whether official or unofficial leaders) are able to force their beliefs to be a part of political discourse because of the number of people that they tacitly represent. So if you feel that those people are acting like lunatics, then you have to oppose all of those people that they derive their power from. If you have a preacher spout doom and gloom bullshit, people will give them attention, and will give them an avenue to project their opinion. Some will berate and attack anyone who calls that person out on their bullshit as being disrespectful or offensive, and people will not oppose that in any significant quantity. If you then had a non-religious person say the nearly the exact same things (changing words here and there to remove the religion from it), people will then write that person off as crazy and ignore them. What causes the difference? One person is attaching the belief of millions of people to the authority of their statement, and one is not.

So when you want to sap the power of that crazy person to influence your life, you can't just attack the problem of "them" head on- you need to remove the power of their religion to be blanket respected no matter what, it's power to influence discourse (one of the major political parties in this country frequently has leaders who believe that the US should determine it's laws according to christian belief), because that's the power that lets it influence your life, even when you aren't a practicing member. The fact that it is held to a lower standard to receive respect is the problem, not the person getting respect under that lower standard.


Or you could, you know, make "it offended my religion" not work legally.

You're basically saying that if someone uses a faith to do something, every single person on the planet who shares that faith is also wrong for not, idk, what are they supposed to do? You can't kick someone out of your faith. You can't hurt them. People clearly already hate these people for giving their religion so much trouble. What do you propose people do? "Oppose" them? How do you define that? Does that mean a Muslim from Russia has to go oppose him too - because it's also his faith?

I don't see your logic. So if a person from nationality X attacks nation Y, is it all of X's fault, because they don't... don't do what?

Edit: Oh wait, I think I read you. You mean, we should stop people being able to use religion as an excuse for crime and other shit. In that case, yeah, I totally agree.


Dauric wrote:
Steax wrote:Well yes, if it's a society that's doing that, then yeah, you can extend the blame (to how far is another discussion, but yes). Thing is, the post I quoted was rambling about one person,...


Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He's not some random guy, he's the head of the political party that's trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of God's Chosen. The irritation be Lucreece comes both from Steele's insistence that his use of faith in policy is sacrosanct and immune from examination, but also the opposing speaker having backed down from the position that someone's faith shouldn't have carte-blanche immunity just because it's what they believe.


Ah, okay. I won't comment any further on this particular case, then. My opposition to that post was basically against the whole "these people are screwing with me, I hate that entire faith" thing.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:22 pm UTC

Steax wrote:You're basically saying that if someone uses a faith to do something, every single person on the planet who shares that faith is also wrong for not, idk, what are they supposed to do? You can't kick someone out of your faith. You can't hurt them. People clearly already hate these people for giving their religion so much trouble. What do you propose people do? "Oppose" them? How do you define that? Does that mean a Muslim from Russia has to go oppose him too - because it's also his faith?

I think our confusion is derived in part over differing interpretations of Lucrece's post. I thought this part was the relevant bit:
Lucrece wrote:I'M NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT THEM [your beliefs], LET ALONE DIGNIFY THEM.

What's being said is that when the standard for respect is lower for religion, when you can't criticize opinions that are derived from that belief, when those opinions are then used to attack the rights of other people that do not share that religion, that you are justified in being opposed to that religion and it's members (as a group, not as individuals). That lowered standard, that inability to criticize, those attacks on your rights, those come from the size of the religion. If a wiccan goes on national TV and says something stupid, they won't be able to use "Hey, you can't attack what I'm saying, that offends my religion" as a defense, because there as so few wiccans out there. If a christian does the exact same thing, they can use that defense (as per Dauric's example). That's because of how big their religion is. So if you see that person as a lunatic, you should be opposed, at least in part, to the religion giving them that indirect backing, that power, that automatic presumption of respect.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

That would be the confusion, yes. I think there's no reason any religion should be respected more than anything. I was more talking about the bit where he mentioned taking down the faith and all that stuff. I only got your point when I realized you were talking about respect, and before that I was confused with what you meant that the rest of the faith had something to do with it. Yes, the huge faith followers does mean some people expect the religion to be better respected, and yes, that's wrong and needs to change.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Prefanity » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Steax wrote:Well yes, if it's a society that's doing that, then yeah, you can extend the blame (to how far is another discussion, but yes). Thing is, the post I quoted was rambling about one person,...


Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He's not some random guy, he's the head of the political party that's trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of God's Chosen. The irritation be Lucreece comes both from Steele's insistence that his use of faith in policy is sacrosanct and immune from examination, but also the opposing speaker having backed down from the position that someone's faith shouldn't have carte-blanche immunity just because it's what they believe.


You mean he was. Rance Priebus is the current RNC chair.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

Steax wrote:That would be the confusion, yes. I think there's no reason any religion should be respected more than anything. I was more talking about the bit where he mentioned taking down the faith and all that stuff. I only got your point when I realized you were talking about respect, and before that I was confused with what you meant that the rest of the faith had something to do with it. Yes, the huge faith followers does mean some people expect the religion to be better respected, and yes, that's wrong and needs to change.

Ah, I think we're done here then. Unless Lucrece decides to show up and tell each of us just how stupid we are for wrongly interpreting their words, heh.

EDIT: Maybe a useful addendum, even though we appear to be on the same page now- beliefs should have to stand on their own merit. You can have a belief, and you can have a religious belief, or any other kind of belief. If the only way to effectively defend that belief is to say "But my religion says so", then you should not be able to hide behind that religious defense when trying to apply that belief others. If you're only applying it to yourself, then that's fine, but once you apply it to others, you need much better reasoning. Yet, that isn't what's happening with respect to Abrahamic religions in the US.
Last edited by Ghostbear on Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:54 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
kiklion wrote:No, Jesus is not the same as god.
Technically, it depends on which sect of Christianity. Catholicism and most of Christianity it literally belief that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time(along with the Holy Spirit) in what is known as the Trinity. There are a few sects that don't though, the Church of Latter Day Saints(Mormons), Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Church of God all don't believe in the Trinity.
And of course the Unitarians, who got there first and took the name. (Granted, most in the U.S. now don't even consider it a Christian denomination, but it did start as one.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:01 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Steax wrote:That would be the confusion, yes. I think there's no reason any religion should be respected more than anything. I was more talking about the bit where he mentioned taking down the faith and all that stuff. I only got your point when I realized you were talking about respect, and before that I was confused with what you meant that the rest of the faith had something to do with it. Yes, the huge faith followers does mean some people expect the religion to be better respected, and yes, that's wrong and needs to change.

Ah, I think we're done here then. Unless Lucrece decides to show up and tell each of us just how stupid we are for wrongly interpreting their words, heh.

EDIT: Maybe a useful addendum, even though we appear to be on the same page now- beliefs should have to stand on their own merit. You can have a belief, and you can have a religious belief, or any other kind of belief. If the only way to effectively defend that belief is to say "But my religion says so", then you should not be able to hide behind that religious defense when trying to apply that belief others. If you're only applying it to yourself, then that's fine, but once you apply it to others, you need much better reasoning. Yet, that isn't what's happening with respect to Abrahamic religions in the US.


Oh, I agree. I found that judge ruling in particular to be very... weird. I didn't even know that kind of excuse works in the US.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:That however is very nice for theologians, but most ordinary followers definitely make a distinction between Jesus and god, regardless of what they officially believe about the trinity.

They might make that distinction linguistically, by habitually using the word "God" to mean just the God the Father part of the Trinity. But that doesn't mean that they don't regard Jesus as part of the deity. After all, they may also use phrases like "God the Son" or "Mother of God."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby kiklion » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

I think it is also prudent to mention how there are various branches of various religions and each follower of each branch has their own beliefs that may or may not be closely related to others from that same branch.

Say you believe everything of one religion except for one part, that doesn't make you atheistic. You may fall into another branch you never heard of, but you will probably still identify as the original branch you came from.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Jave D » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:41 pm UTC

I don't think most people should participate in draw Mohammad day. Most people have like zero artistic ability. It's an insult to drawing!

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Lucrece » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

Steax wrote:That would be the confusion, yes. I think there's no reason any religion should be respected more than anything. I was more talking about the bit where he mentioned taking down the faith and all that stuff. I only got your point when I realized you were talking about respect, and before that I was confused with what you meant that the rest of the faith had something to do with it. Yes, the huge faith followers does mean some people expect the religion to be better respected, and yes, that's wrong and needs to change.



Yes, because less than 10% of the world's population is capable of physically toppling religious empires, which I might say have earned their place through violent suppression and hijacking their competitors.

Or, you can be reasonable and assume that when I say "dance on the graves" of Abrahamic/despotic religions, I mean when enough education and living standards have spread across the world so that ancient, barbaric and prejudicial mythology doesn't drive our modern existence and cannot afford to prey on the desperate and ignorant.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

BeerBottle
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby BeerBottle » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

As a western muslim convert, so with some kind of foot in both camps here, my views on this (speaking about DMD in general, not the specific incident discussed in that last couple of pages):

First, that muslims are outraged by this is illogical theologically and frankly silly. As has been said, prohibition of depicting Muhammed (or any prophets (or indeed any human/animal)) is to prevent people worshipping him - in Islam only God is worthy of worship, not any created thing. So if they care so much about pictures of Muhammed then in theory they should be equally outraged by the many depictions of Jesus (an Islamic prophet) in virtually every church in the world. And besides, the cartoonists are hardly likely to start worshipping Muhammed as god, so there's no real problem there. Muslims are told in the Quran to ignore insults, so in my opinion the correct response from a muslim to DMD is to simply ignore it.

However, in today's world of global communication, DMD, whether it is the intention or not, has become an aspect of a conversation between civilizations - civilizations with much in common but also some different values and experience of history. The west values free speech very highly (but see comment below). Free speech is a great thing and I fully support it. For whatever reason, many islamic societies currently place limitations on free speech. Now how do you think it best to convince them they're wrong, and that free speech is actually great? Imagine if you were trying to convinve a friend of the same point over coffee. Would you do it by saying the most insulting thing you can think of to her? If DMD is supposed to show islamic societies that they have got it wrong over free speech it's about the worst way of doing it I can think of.

Another point is that freedom of speech is held up as the ultimate reason or justification for DMD. There is a lot of suspicion among muslims that this is being used as a cover to attack and insult Islam. Here's a simple way to prove them wrong. Many of the DMD participants will live in countries with limitations on free speech. For example, many western countries prohibit certain speech / acts, maybe desecration of the national flag or symbol, denial of the Holocaust or other acts of genocide, membership of certain political parties, display of certain political symbols. If DMD cartoonists are so concerned with freedom of speech why don't they protest in their own country by breaking these laws? Perhaps you'll reply that there are special historical or cultural reasons why these laws exist in western countries. I wonder if DMD participants understand as well the cultural and historical reasons for the sensitivity over insults to Muhammed in islamic countries? Perhaps you'll say 'Well, extremest muslims are threatening us that if we draw muhammed then they'll attack us, so that's why we do it'. Well, your governments are threatening you that if you *say or do objectionable thing* then they'll use state violence to throw you in prison or confiscate your property.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote:For whatever reason, many islamic societies currently place limitations on free speech. Now how do you think it best to convince them they're wrong, and that free speech is actually great? Imagine if you were trying to convinve a friend of the same point over coffee. Would you do it by saying the most insulting thing you can think of to her? If DMD is supposed to show islamic societies that they have got it wrong over free speech it's about the worst way of doing it I can think of.

I don't think Draw Mohammad Day is targeting muslims in places such as the middle east, but instead the islamic members of western societies. Those are the muslims that are able to represent an actual threat to people who want to draw Mohammad for whatever reason, and my understanding is that the day is targeting them.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Dauric » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:03 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
BeerBottle wrote:For whatever reason, many islamic societies currently place limitations on free speech. Now how do you think it best to convince them they're wrong, and that free speech is actually great? Imagine if you were trying to convinve a friend of the same point over coffee. Would you do it by saying the most insulting thing you can think of to her? If DMD is supposed to show islamic societies that they have got it wrong over free speech it's about the worst way of doing it I can think of.

I don't think Draw Mohammad Day is targeting muslims in places such as the middle east, but instead the islamic members of western societies. Those are the muslims that are able to represent an actual threat to people who want to draw Mohammad for whatever reason, and my understanding is that the day is targeting them.


Ehh, I'd actually say that DMD does in fact target Muslims in the Middle East, but specifically those Muslims who want to demand that other nations and cultures adhere to their standards. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the accompanying bounty on his head over the book The Satanic Verses being another example where mideast islamic leaders get their knickers in a twist over shit that's outside their jurisdiction and go way, way over the line with their reaction.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote: If DMD is supposed to show islamic societies that they have got it wrong over free speech it's about the worst way of doing it I can think of.
True, but that isn't the point of DMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_Muhammad_Day

TL;DR:
U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park.
...

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic.
And therefore censorship by terror would not happen. That was the point.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Steax » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 pm UTC

I thought DMD was, at its core, targeting people issuing death threats against people drawing the guy. Since those threats came from groups both in the west and east, I'd say there's significant overlap.

Edit: Carp, ninja'd.

Though of course, one would argue that a significant number of other agendas got folded into the mix.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

Steax wrote:Though of course, one would argue that a significant number of other agendas got folded into the mix.

Which always happens. But the original DMD idea wasn't really targeting anyone, even if it upset a lot of people. The point wasn't to make Muslims angry (hopefully, most Muslim would at most be mildly irritated, at best, they'd understand the intentions and agree with it); the point was to protect people, essentially. Did a lot of Islamophobes join in? You bet.

But saying Draw Muhammad Day is about Islamophobia is like saying the Occupy protests were about homelessness. Not really true, but of course it attracted a lot.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:29 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote:However, in today's world of global communication, DMD, whether it is the intention or not, has become an aspect of a conversation between civilizations - civilizations with much in common but also some different values and experience of history. The west values free speech very highly (but see comment below). Free speech is a great thing and I fully support it. For whatever reason, many islamic societies currently place limitations on free speech. Now how do you think it best to convince them they're wrong, and that free speech is actually great? Imagine if you were trying to convinve a friend of the same point over coffee. Would you do it by saying the most insulting thing you can think of to her? If DMD is supposed to show islamic societies that they have got it wrong over free speech it's about the worst way of doing it I can think of.


Well, the original intention of DMD had nothing to do with showing Islamic societies that they got it wrong about free speech. The intention was to confront Western nations/media who were refusing to allow depictions of Mohammed to be published/broadcasted as a result of the original cartoon fiasco. It's not about free speech in their countries; it's about free speech in ours.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Dark567 » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:31 pm UTC

I had always thought at its core DMD was statement against the intimidation of free speech.

Ninja'd.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Lucrece » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:25 pm UTC

DMD struck me as a response to the vicious intimidation against the Danish newspaper that dared to draw cartoons depicting the prophet in an irreverent way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-P ... ontroversy

Setting fire to/bombing embassies is not an acceptable response to even an offensive drawing by another party, ever.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby emceng » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

This discussion also seems to tie into what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment. Violent rioting and deaths over the burning of a few Korans. So apparently burning a Koran is worthy or violence, but the fact that the prisoners were writing violent jihadist message in the books is A-ok.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

BeerBottle
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby BeerBottle » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:06 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:DMD struck me as a response to the vicious intimidation against the Danish newspaper that dared to draw cartoons depicting the prophet in an irreverent way.
Yes of course. In my post I realise I kind of skipped ahead to the secondary consequences without mentioning this. This primary motivation for DMD is awesome and I fully support it. But if it could be shown that DMD causes a significant deterioration in western-islamic relations with all the real world consequences that brings, would everyone here still support it, or could other ways be found to combat the extremist threats of a very small minority of muslims?

emceng wrote:This discussion also seems to tie into what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment. Violent rioting and deaths over the burning of a few Korans. So apparently burning a Koran is worthy or violence, but the fact that the prisoners were writing violent jihadist message in the books is A-ok.
Desecrating the Quran by writing violent messages in it is of course not ok (for muslims). But USA + allies are the occupying power here, and however you see the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan, the average afgani has suffered a huge amount through no fault of their own. For occupying troops to burn the holy text of the country they are occupying is beyond stupidity.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Dauric » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote: For occupying troops to burn the holy text of the country they are occupying is beyond stupidity.


The synonym for the underlined is "Bureaucracy".

When the messages were written in the copies of the Koran they became messages being sent between prisoners that needed to be disposed of when found, probably by unceremoniously shredding and burning the document in question in accordance with regulation <some number> subsection <other number> paragraph <dot yet another number>, which some low-ranking barely-an-officer followed to the letter in the absence of any other direct orders.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote: But if it could be shown that DMD causes a significant deterioration in western-islamic relations with all the real world consequences that brings, would everyone here still support it, or could other ways be found to combat the extremist threats of a very small minority of muslims?
I would love to know a good way to bring improve relations between everybody who is capable of being reasonable and coexisting while simultaneously finding a way to reign in the people who are not capable of reasonably coexisting to limit the damage and illegal influence they have.

I am not sure where DMD falls in the balance of things, but I imagine it is being used as a tool to stir up animosity by many.
BeerBottle wrote:For occupying troops to burn the holy text of the country they are occupying is beyond stupidity.
Yes, clearly it was not a good idea. Of course, if you trust the official response, it was an unfortunate, unintentional mistake. And it was only a few. Surely horrifying to someone who regards those texts as sacred in a way that makes burning them terrible, but when I hear things like
An apology isn't enough
...
What does that even mean? That because some horrifying desecration happened, the response needs to be violence? (Don't worry BeerBottle, I'm not ascribing that attitude to you... it's a quote out of a news article and I'm not assuming you agree with it.)

Similarly, the comic depicting Mohammed (peace be upon him) with a bomb-turban was undoubtedly offensive to many Muslims by linking Islam's main, holy prophet with terrorism... yet the responses against that included SEVERAL acts of terrorism and attempted terrorism. What?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Soralin » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:10 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
BeerBottle wrote: But if it could be shown that DMD causes a significant deterioration in western-islamic relations with all the real world consequences that brings, would everyone here still support it, or could other ways be found to combat the extremist threats of a very small minority of muslims?
I would love to know a good way to bring improve relations between everybody who is capable of being reasonable and coexisting while simultaneously finding a way to reign in the people who are not capable of reasonably coexisting to limit the damage and illegal influence they have

Encourage more muslims to get publicly involved in DMD or similar activities. If you can do that, you can shift connotations of "us vs them" into "everyone vs fanatics".

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:20 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
Роберт wrote:
BeerBottle wrote: But if it could be shown that DMD causes a significant deterioration in western-islamic relations with all the real world consequences that brings, would everyone here still support it, or could other ways be found to combat the extremist threats of a very small minority of muslims?
I would love to know a good way to bring improve relations between everybody who is capable of being reasonable and coexisting while simultaneously finding a way to reign in the people who are not capable of reasonably coexisting to limit the damage and illegal influence they have

Encourage more muslims to get publicly involved in DMD or similar activities. If you can do that, you can shift connotations of "us vs them" into "everyone vs fanatics".

That's kind of silly. That's like saying people who believe abortion is wrong but should still be legal should get abortions to distance themselves from those who murder abortion doctors.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Draw Mohammad Day

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:59 pm UTC

My assumption is that under the heading of "or similar activities" Soralin mentioned would be other causes which support open dialogue and free speech, and not just drawing pictures of the Prophet.
I looked out across the river today …


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 13 guests