Draw Mohammad Day

[Greyarcher]

Nobody has to visit /b/, and yet I still find much of the content tasteless.

Same for me. And yet, I wouldn't demand that it not exist, nor give death threats to people who post much of the content, nor use the fact that many consider it tasteless as a reason to block access to it, etc.

Drawing Mohammed is an innocuous activity. The fact that it is prohibited within their religion is not, I think, a reason that anyone not of their religion ought to follow their precepts. And I am not quite persuaded by overlapping their religious sense of what is sacrosanct with the secular realm of politeness and offense. It strikes me as smuggling a religious decree in under a secular guise (though I doubt there is such intent, this is how it functions).

It's a shame I'm not well-versed in religious doctrines. Or I'd provide some examples of how silly it would be if innocuous activities were prohibited because a religious group took offense at others not submitting to their sense of what is sacrosanct. Like a bizarro-world where a billion hardline jews aren't content to not eat pork, but also demand that others not eat pork, censor sites with recipes that use pork, and declare they take offense with any mention of using pork as a food.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Same for me. And yet, I wouldn't demand that it not exist, nor give death threats to people who post much of the content, nor use the fact that many consider it tasteless as a reason to block access to it, etc.

And you're talking to a bunch of people who are saying the same thing about the Muhammad drawings.

[Greyarcher]

Same for me. And yet, I wouldn't demand that it not exist, nor give death threats to people who post much of the content, nor use the fact that many consider it tasteless as a reason to block access to it, etc.

And you're talking to a bunch of people who are saying the same thing about the Muhammad drawings.

...yes? I'm not sure of your point. Indeed, I am speaking to some people who say the same thing, and indeed there is an analogy to Muhammad drawings that in neither case I consider censoring and such to be reasonable responses.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

My point is that nobody has recommended censorship. Your post is non-sequitur.

[Argency]

I think this "I would die to defend anyone's freedom of speech" thing is misguided. Absolute freedom of expression makes it ok to do and say things which hurt people, and which damage society. There's nothing essentially good about free speech itself - it's a means to an end and if that end is bad then the freedom is bad. Its ok to censor people who are being dicks.

Then again, I'm not certain that this draw Mohammed day is an exercise in dickishness. Certainly, a lot of the people involved are probably dicks, but thats unavoidable in any exercise involving people.

Look at the facts: some nutcases, who happen to be Muslim, have decided that nobody in the world should be allowed to draw Mohammed, and that they have a mandate to punish anyone who does. It isn't restrictive of anyone's rights to say that that's dumb. It is dumb, and no one has the right to be that dumb. They're allowed to disapprove of drawing the prophet, but they're not allowed to hurt people about it and they're certainly not allowed to stop people doing it purely on the basis of religion.

It's important here to point out that I'm not the one deciding what they can and can't do. I'm just pointing out what they can and can't do. It isn't even international governments or the majority of people who have made this decision, it isn't even a decision that has been made. In so far as unhappiness is a bad thing, then what these particular nutcases are doing is a bad thing, because it is not conducive to general, enduring happiness. Happiness is by definition a good thing, and the definition of happiness is not something that we have decided.

So, by any moral code that makes sense, these nutcases are to be stopped from threatening people. That isn't a mandate to hurt them or act unethically, but stopping them will probably make them unhappy for a while, so it is a mandate to make them unhappy (only in one particular way, not generally) in that sense. These are all things that could go in the "things you shouldn't have to say" thread, but we're talking about ethics here, and historically people have gone out of their way to muddy these waters.

All of these things considered, I think that Draw Mohammed Day was a good idea. I think we should make May 21st Draw Mohammed Day as well, and also May 22nd and all subsequent days until people stop getting angry about it. I think we should do the same thing with "Be Openly Gay" day, with "Practise Abortion When Nessecary" day and especially with "Punch a Jew" day. Just kidding, obviously. But not about the abortions or the gays. You get the point.

EDIT:

Oh, and inb4 "it's not just Muslim nutcases who are a problem". I know its not just the Muslims. It's the nutcases. People would be doing stupid shit like this even if we were all atheists, I get that. The only relevance of Islam in this problem is that they've made it about Islam. There's nothing about Islam that in inherently bad, as long as you don't take it too seriously.

[Gelsamel]

It is absolutely and infinitely not okay to censor people who are being dicks.

[Argency]

God, the one sentence I didn't qualify. Ok, its not ok to censor people just because they're being dicks. That was an exaggeration. I should have said, "its ok to censor people if they're doing things which hurt others unessecarily, where hurt is defined as physical, mental or fiscal injury."

It would be ok to censor someone from being naked in public.

It would be ok to censor someone from playing the kazoo at a funeral.

Thats the sort of thing I meant.

EDIT: no, you were right to correct me, sorry if I sounded angry.

[Griffin]

It would be ok to censor someone from being naked in public.

I find this a really weird example, because I don't think plain nudity has ever been linked in any way to physical, mental, or fiscal harm.

Public lewdness, sure, especially when its directed towards people who have no desire to participate, but plain nudity seems... a bit of a stretch.

[Thadlerian]

Except that there is a really simple solution. Nobody HAS to look at the pictures. If there mere existence of such pictures causes such distress, that's a problem with their religious beliefs, not the depictions.

I agree! From a rational point of view, this whole conflict is unnecessary. If not for the Islamic depiction taboo, this would not be an issue. But why stop there? Why not deconstruct the very notion of offense, while we're at it? Imagine the opportunities of that; no more political dirt-flinging, no more schoolyard fights, no more costly injury lawsuits. If only folks would stop taking offense when other people seek to offend them.

But that's all beside the point. The question of whether or not to look at the depictions, the question of whether or not to take offense - that is a choice the potential offendee will have to make, and no-one else can make it for them. I'm not interested in them. My initial post was aimed at the offending side, and is thusly iterated: How is attacking an entire group OK as a means to get at an extremist minority?

[felltir]

I disagree heavily with this. The rule in Islam about drawing Mohammed is to prevent people becoming confused and worshipping him instead of Allah. Now, I agree with this, as a religious person. As a christian, I wouldn't pray to saints, or to Mary, or anyone but God. So I understand the rule, and why it is in place. The reason the majority of people are being offended is not because he's being drawn (most people either don't care or find it only slightly distateful, IME), but because it's being done to piss them off. Which I think is perfectly justified.

[Devoni]

The reason the majority of people are being offended is not because he's being drawn (most people either don't care or find it only slightly distateful, IME), but because it's being done to piss them off. Which I think is perfectly justified.

Yes, it is. But it's not 'justified' to make threatening comments to someone not following their religious beliefs which is primarily where the issue (as far as I can see) for those partaking and/or endorsing the action lies. Beyond that, if most people (presuming you mean the people with those religious beliefs) are not offended (by drawings of him) then they still shouldn't be offended by this day as it's targeting those which are forcing their beliefs onto others with violent threats. Presumably those people (the ones not normally offended) are able to define intent and action as two separate things so while the drawing may offend their religious notions the intent or directed action will not, as it won't be them as the target. To me, that would appear like those that are reasonable will be no more adversely affected than normal, while those with extreme views will be shown as 'impotent' on repercussions.

[Indon]

No, drawing depicting Mohammed at all in any fashion regardless of context, content, or intent, is blasphemous.

But the reason it is blasphemous for muslims is because Islam is about worship of Allah, not Mohammed. It's a taboo against idolatry.

Non-muslims don't worship Mohammed, and there is no reason to expect any of them will start. There is no reason for the taboo to be applied to them, except as an aggressive imposition of Islam upon non-muslims.

Thus, drawing a non-offensive depiction of mohammed should not be offensive to all muslims - only those muslims who want non-muslims to follow their religion. And they're the group this event is meant to address.

I'm not going to stop eating pork (awesome analogy Greyarcher), why should I be unable to depict Islam's prophet?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

People eat pork because they like it, but they frequently depict Muhammad in order to upset Muslims. The latter action isn't inherently wrong, but it can be poorly motivated.

[Xeio]

How is attacking an entire group OK as a means to get at an extremist minority?

They're NOT attacking them. The only thing they are doing is NOT FOLLOWING MUSLIM BELIEFS.

[Nordic Einar]

How is attacking an entire group OK as a means to get at an extremist minority?

They're NOT attacking them. The only thing they are doing is NOT FOLLOWING MUSLIM BELIEFS.

Yeah! They're just living their everyday lives, damnit! They aren't going out of their way to be offensive to Muslims - I REGULARLY draw pictures of various religious figures stereotyping them in their worst light, like this one.

Seriously? Stop kidding yourself.

[Xeio]

Yeah! They're just living their everyday lives, damnit! They aren't going out of their way to be offensive to Muslims - I REGULARLY draw pictures of various religious figures stereotyping them in their worst light, like this one.

Seriously? Stop kidding yourself.

Haven't we already covered that it doesn't matter in what manner you depict them? So cartoonists who really do do this for a living (like... for example... oh... I dunno... South Park? which, incidentally, didn't even depict them in a particularly demeaning manner) is fine doing this? Or... what? Or you just think that Islam is special and doesn't deserver ridicule?

[Nordic Einar]

Yeah! They're just living their everyday lives, damnit! They aren't going out of their way to be offensive to Muslims - I REGULARLY draw pictures of various religious figures stereotyping them in their worst light, like this one.

Seriously? Stop kidding yourself.

Haven't we already covered that it doesn't matter in what manner you depict them? So cartoonists who really do do this for a living (like... for example... oh... I dunno... South Park? which, incidentally, didn't even depict them in a particularly demeaning manner) is fine doing this? Or... what? Or you just think that Islam is special and doesn't deserver ridicule?

I think that if you're going to be an asshole, even if you're being an asshole for noble reasons, you should be honest enough with yourself to admit that you're being an asshole.

I reiterate, since people continue to strawman this - I do not believe Islam is exempt from criticism, or that you shouldn't have the right to draw Muhammad. I just think you're a dick for doing it, and I'd appreciate the honesty of admitting you're a dick.

[Xeio]

I think that if you're going to be an asshole, even if you're being an asshole for noble reasons, you should be honest enough with yourself to admit that you're being an asshole.

I reiterate, since people continue to strawman this - I do not believe Islam is exempt from criticism, or that you shouldn't have the right to draw Muhammad. I just think you're a dick for doing it, and I'd appreciate the honesty of admitting you're a dick.

As long as you admit there is nothing wrong with being a dick.

[Kayangelus]

I think that if you're going to be an asshole, even if you're being an asshole for noble reasons, you should be honest enough with yourself to admit that you're being an asshole.

I reiterate, since people continue to strawman this - I do not believe Islam is exempt from criticism, or that you shouldn't have the right to draw Muhammad. I just think you're a dick for doing it, and I'd appreciate the honesty of admitting you're a dick.

We are being dicks. We honestly don't care that we are being dicks, since we are fighting for our right to be dicks.

Happy now?

[felltir]

I think that if you're going to be an asshole, even if you're being an asshole for noble reasons, you should be honest enough with yourself to admit that you're being an asshole.

I reiterate, since people continue to strawman this - I do not believe Islam is exempt from criticism, or that you shouldn't have the right to draw Muhammad. I just think you're a dick for doing it, and I'd appreciate the honesty of admitting you're a dick.

We are being dicks. We honestly don't care that we are being dicks, since we are fighting for our right to be dicks.

Happy now?

No, because regardless of that, you're still being dicks.

[Rakysh]

I think it's roughly analogous to mocking dead and wounded servicemen. It's legal, and you'd receive a similar reaction (death threats etc), but I don't see a "take the piss out of dead soldiers" day. If you're going to be a dick to fight for your right to be a dick you have to do it to everyone, otherwise it's discriminatory.

[Maduyn]

I think it's roughly analogous to mocking dead and wounded servicemen. It's legal, and you'd receive a similar reaction (death threats etc), but I don't see a "take the piss out of dead soldiers" day. If you're going to be a dick to fight for your right to be a dick you have to do it to everyone, otherwise it's discriminatory.

being a Richard to everyone is only to enforce the fact that you can be a Richard to other people and they have to take it.
if a Richard is a Richard to a specific group the Richard must have a point to make
in this case the point is that Richards will not back-down because of threats and violence.

[felltir]

I think it's roughly analogous to mocking dead and wounded servicemen. It's legal, and you'd receive a similar reaction (death threats etc), but I don't see a "take the piss out of dead soldiers" day. If you're going to be a dick to fight for your right to be a dick you have to do it to everyone, otherwise it's discriminatory.

being a Richard to everyone is only to enforce the fact that you can be a Richard to other people and they have to take it.
if a Richard is a Richard to a specific group the Richard must have a point to make
in this case the point is that Richards will not back-down because of threats and violence.

*action*

*death threat from offended party*

Hey, that's not okay!

*action spam*

The problem here is step 4. Just because it offends someone enough to cause them to threaten you, does not mean that you then can go and do it all over the place, just because it's legal. Obviously people who draw Mohammed as part of, say, comedy, or casually doodle style, should be allowed. But an en-masse drawing of Mohammed to say to (extremist) Muslims "Fuck you, we'll do it if we want." is bad.

[Gelsamel]

Is bad because... you judged it thus?

[Xeio]

Just because it offends someone enough to cause them to threaten you, does not mean that you then can go and do it all over the place, just because it's legal.

Correct. It could have been done all along, you don't need threats to initiate something like this. THAT would be a dick move.

On the other hand, the reason this movement started is because of the death threats. This whole event is basically to say "how are you going to murder all of us?" to the terrorists. They lose their credibility with the death threats, because they can't possibly complete them all.

Incidentally, I don't see what problem there is with saying "fuck you" to terrorists, and giving some sound advice to other non-extremist members of the terrorist's religion to distance themselves from them (you know, by being accepting that people don't have to follow their religion, for example).

[felltir]

Just because it offends someone enough to cause them to threaten you, does not mean that you then can go and do it all over the place, just because it's legal.

Correct. It could have been done all along, you don't need threats to initiate something like this. THAT would be a dick move.

On the other hand, the reason this movement started is because of the death threats. This whole event is basically to say "how are you going to murder all of us?" to the terrorists. They lose their credibility with the death threats, because they can't possibly complete them all.

Incidentally, I don't see what problem there is with saying "fuck you" to terrorists, and giving some sound advice to other non-extremist members of the terrorist's religion to distance themselves from them (you know, by being accepting that people don't have to follow their religion, for example).

Fair point, I guess. I just wish it had been done in a way that didn't offend all the innocent, non-murdery Muslims.

[Mot]

Fair point, I guess. I just wish it had been done in a way that didn't offend all the innocent, non-murdery Muslims.

Perhaps in the future they should declare it "Draw Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Darwin-as-a-monkey day". In this way they can piss off the radical nutjobs just as much without the normal peace-loving (majority of) muslim folk feeling marginalised.

[felltir]

Fair point, I guess. I just wish it had been done in a way that didn't offend all the innocent, non-murdery Muslims.

Perhaps in the future they should declare it "Draw Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Darwin-as-a-monkey day". In this way they can piss off the radical nutjobs just as much without the normal peace-loving (majority of) muslim folk feeling marginalised.

But the thing is, Islam forbids ANY drawings of Mohammed, lest he end up the focus of worship. Christianity, Buddism, and Science do not forbid drawing of their champions.

[Mot]

Fair point, I guess. I just wish it had been done in a way that didn't offend all the innocent, non-murdery Muslims.

Perhaps in the future they should declare it "Draw Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Darwin-as-a-monkey day". In this way they can piss off the radical nutjobs just as much without the normal peace-loving (majority of) muslim folk feeling marginalised.

But the thing is, Islam forbids ANY drawings of Mohammed, lest he end up the focus of worship. Christianity, Buddism, and Science do not forbid drawing of their champions.

Yes but Christians still don't like it when you draw the messiah riding a T-Rex. I realise these things aren't strictly forbidden or taboo, but i just thought adding it would make Muslims feel less targeted.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it might be perceived as less a case of [Christianity/America/The West] vs [Muslims] and more a case of [free speech] vs [oppression of free speech] (seeing as Islam won't be the only target)

[felltir]

Fair point, I guess. I just wish it had been done in a way that didn't offend all the innocent, non-murdery Muslims.

Perhaps in the future they should declare it "Draw Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Darwin-as-a-monkey day". In this way they can piss off the radical nutjobs just as much without the normal peace-loving (majority of) muslim folk feeling marginalised.

But the thing is, Islam forbids ANY drawings of Mohammed, lest he end up the focus of worship. Christianity, Buddism, and Science do not forbid drawing of their champions.

Yes but Christians still don't like it when you draw the messiah riding a T-Rex. I realise these things aren't strictly forbidden or taboo, but i just thought adding it would make Muslims feel less targeted.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it might be perceived as less a case of [Christianity/America/The West] vs [Muslims] and more a case of [free speech] vs [oppression of free speech] (seeing as Islam won't be the only target)

Personally, as a christian, I think that's hilarious. Jesus would be badass in the final battle described in Revelations if he fought riding a T-Rex.

[Cynical Idealist]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it might be perceived as less a case of [Christianity/America/The West] vs [Muslims] and more a case of [free speech] vs [oppression of free speech] (seeing as Islam won't be the only target)

The death threats that sparked this came from a South Park episode, that did include other religions.

[Kayangelus]

I think it's roughly analogous to mocking dead and wounded servicemen. It's legal, and you'd receive a similar reaction (death threats etc), but I don't see a "take the piss out of dead soldiers" day. If you're going to be a dick to fight for your right to be a dick you have to do it to everyone, otherwise it's discriminatory.

being a Richard to everyone is only to enforce the fact that you can be a Richard to other people and they have to take it.
if a Richard is a Richard to a specific group the Richard must have a point to make
in this case the point is that Richards will not back-down because of threats and violence.

*action*

*death threat from offended party*

Hey, that's not okay!

*action spam*

The problem here is step 4. Just because it offends someone enough to cause them to threaten you, does not mean that you then can go and do it all over the place, just because it's legal. Obviously people who draw Mohammed as part of, say, comedy, or casually doodle style, should be allowed. But an en-masse drawing of Mohammed to say to (extremist) Muslims "Fuck you, we'll do it if we want." is bad.

wait... so you are saying responding to perceived offense with death threats is okay?

Because honestly, the problem is not step 4. Step 2 is the problem. Step 4 might also be a problem, but definitely not the main problem.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it might be perceived as less a case of [Christianity/America/The West] vs [Muslims] and more a case of [free speech] vs [oppression of free speech] (seeing as Islam won't be the only target)

The death threats that sparked this came from a South Park episode, that did include other religions.

You forgot to mention that Islam was the only religion referenced in anyway that was not outright insulted

Seriously, the extremists were upset that, even though they were getting special treatment, they were not being treated special enough. Anyone who claims this is a case of The West vs Muslisms (or perceives it as such) did not get even the most rudimentary facts right.

[Gelsamel]

Offtopic to an extent, about Iconoclasm and why people react this way:

Spoiler:

I find the idea that iconoclasts are spurred on by the idea that the images of their gods are actually 3rd Order Simulacra extremely interesting. And it seems that the iconoclasm in this case is based on that concept.

From Baudrillard:

"l forbade any simulacrum in the temples because the divinity that breathes life into nature cannot be represented." Indeed it can. But what becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or is it volatilized into simulacra which alone deploy their pomp and power of fascination - the visible machinery of icons being substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God? This is precisely what was feared by the Iconoclasts, whose millennial quarrel is still with us today.3 Their rage to destroy images rose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of erasing God from the consciousnesses of people, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God; that only simulacra exist; indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum. Had they been able to believe that images only occulted or masked the Platonic idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroy them. One can live with the idea of a distorted truth. But their metaphysical despair came from the idea that the images concealed nothing at all, and that in fact they were not images, such as the original model would have made them, but actually perfect simulacra forever radiant with their own fascination. But this death of the divine referential has to be exorcised at all cost.

If images, at a subconsious or intuitive level threaten to dissimulate that there is nothing to those in the religion then it's not surprising we have death threats. It's not just like arguing that someone's religion is incorrect, it's something that, at a subconscious level, convinces them (if only the slightest bit) that their religion is incorrect and the typical response to when your beliefs are challenged to is lash out.

For example see this video by MystryBox where he talks about the Angry Catholic Mother video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivIHaxmsGFs

He talks about how the reason why the mother is so angry is not only because she is concerned for her child (which is understandable) but because at a subconscious, intuitive and emotional level the child's denial of her religion threatens her own belief. It's different to someone arguing you're wrong because pretty much everyone would just think the other person is wrong, but when you're hit at this kind of level you can't just dismiss it and the typical response is to lash out or get, as MystryBox put it, "really pissed".

Of course we don't know if this analysis is correct I think that it's probably close to the mark and if not, still an interesting discussion and comparison to iconoclasm (especially in this situation) and how people react when their beliefs are threatened at a deep level.

[AtlasDrugged]

Islam is reprehensible, and I have no qualms about 'offending' or 'othering' people who subscribe to a vile and oppressive ideology which they wish to impose upon others; they can get over it. Any dickishness which might be contained within an innocent drawing of Mohammad is far outweighed by their dickishness towards women, gays and non-Muslims (or indeed other Muslims!). I salute this initiative and support making every day Draw Mohammad Day (with prizes for most creative insulting depictions) until they shape up or shut up.

[Rakysh]

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Something tells me you should try it.

[jestingrabbit]

Islam is reprehensible, and I have no qualms about 'offending' or 'othering' people who subscribe to a vile and oppressive ideology which they wish to impose upon others; they can get over it. Any dickishness which might be contained within an innocent drawing of Mohammad is far outweighed by their dickishness towards women, gays and non-Muslims (or indeed other Muslims!). I salute this initiative and support making every day Draw Mohammad Day (with prizes for most creative insulting depictions) until they shape up or shut up.

This is a really great example of the attitude that I find so offensive in the "draw mauhammad day" crowd. You hate islam and you hate muslims. You might have a particular hate of terrorists, but at the core you believe in attacking islam wholesale. DMD perpetuates and intensifies hatreds, the us and them mentality. You want to fight misogyny and homophobia, fine. You can do that, you can attack those aspects of islam, without attacking all islam and all muslims. But that isn't ultimately what your support of this day is about. Its about hating muslims for you, and that's why I think this day is stupid. It gives comfort to idiots like you.

[Mot]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it might be perceived as less a case of [Christianity/America/The West] vs [Muslims] and more a case of [free speech] vs [oppression of free speech] (seeing as Islam won't be the only target)

The death threats that sparked this came from a South Park episode, that did include other religions.

Yes I know. I don't see how that affects Muslims feeling targeted by DMD. The message should be "fuck you, extremists, we will not be oppressed" and not "fuck you, Muslims". The point I'm trying to make is that while the extremists get offended either way, the non-extremist Muslims won't feel marginalised as much. And that's important, because the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to threaten anyone over a drawing.

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Something tells me you should try it.

I think this is some good advice. All the Muslims I know are normal, peace-loving, not-pork-eating, regular people. It is a very small minority that are so vocal and inclined to death threats.

[smw543]

See, there are three kinds of people. (Sorry, y'all were asking for it.)

I think it's roughly analogous to mocking dead and wounded servicemen. It's legal, and you'd receive a similar reaction (death threats etc), but I don't see a "take the piss out of dead soldiers" day. If you're going to be a dick to fight for your right to be a dick you have to do it to everyone, otherwise it's discriminatory.

Really? I mean, I'm sure the WBC has gotten death threats, but not legitimate ones (this is America—we send death threats to our sitcom writers). And if anyone did kill a WBC member, I would condemn it.

This is a really great example of the attitude that I find so offensive in the "draw mauhammad day" crowd. You hate islam and you hate muslims. You might have a particular hate of terrorists, but at the core you believe in attacking islam wholesale. DMD perpetuates and intensifies hatreds, the us and them mentality. You want to fight misogyny and homophobia, fine. You can do that, you can attack those aspects of islam, without attacking all islam and all muslims. But that isn't ultimately what your support of this day is about. Its about hating muslims for you, and that's why I think this day is stupid. It gives comfort to idiots like you.

I doubt you'll find many participants that would agree with those anti-Muslim sentiments. And even if that were the case, I'm more concerned with the merit of their actions than the purity of their motives.

[Aikanaro]

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Something tells me you should try it.

I think this is some good advice. All the Muslims I know are normal, peace-loving (Except when playing video games or DnD), not-pork-eating, regular people. It is a very small minority that are so vocal and inclined to death threats.

Fixed that for you, just to be perfectly fair. See? We have more in common with them than you thought!

[Gelsamel]

Considering the oppression, in this case, is not being able to Draw Mohammed the message is exactly "Fuck you, we will not be oppressed, we can draw mohammed whenever and however we want and your violence will do nothing to stop that". Expanding the message to include other things would dilute the message and increase this "collateral damage" that everyone seems so keen on preventing, you don't lower collateral by increasing the explosion radius... you have to make it more pinpointed... and the 'Drawing Mohammed' issue, especially given recent media coverage, is about as pin-point a reference to violent death-threats as you can get. If the message isn't clear and targeted then the message is ineffective.