Forum:Draw Muhammad Day


 * Moved from the Saloon Bar 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Draw Muhammad Day
Is tomorrow. I'm not sure whether to do a proper image or just do a snarky entry like so: >:-> 12:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I had no idea that there was such thing. 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We should throw the Pope in for good measure. And Jesus. And Abraham, Xenu, Brahma, Zeus, FSM, Buddha, Confucius, Darwin, PZ Myers, Joseph Smith, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Satan, Cthulhu, Manwë, Morgoth, Wotan, Patriarch of Constantinople, and anyone else. We can depict them in one big circle jerk or something. DickTurpis (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most other religions don't go apeshit and threaten to kill you if you draw a picture of their prophet / God(s). 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I think is the point. 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, have you seen the priests of Manwë? They're fucking hardcore. DickTurpis (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think Jesus jerking off on a cookie would anger some people. Probably wouldn't get us murdered though. DickTurpis (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you draw a nice picture of jesus, christians think it's cool. If you draw a nice picture of muhammad, muslims go batshit crazy because it is against islam to draw the prophet, whether you are drawing him heroically or fucking a sheep. It doesn't matter. 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that. But I still like the idea of equal opportunity disrespect. DickTurpis (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! So, what are you drawing him as then? A deceitful conman who abused people's trust and superstition to get sex, money and power? 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're drawing Muhammed, not the amazingly heterosexual Ted Haggard. -- ConcernedResident possibility, for the ladies 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I summed up just about every holy man in history (apart from the Prophet Bobby Henderson, RAmen) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shit! I forgot "Bob" Dobbs! DickTurpis (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not "against Islam" to depict Muhammad. Even in the strongest Islamic countries you can find depictions of Muhammad all over. It's some odd rule tacked on after the tenets of the religion were set down to prevent idolatry. Kind of like how limbo was made up by the Catholics when they realised that a "kind and loving" God was being a bit harsh when deciding to burn innocent babies. 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Muhammed and his wives? -- ConcernedResident mad axe-murderer, for the ladies 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is trying to block Facebook temporarily because of this. 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And now YouTube. That's the spirit! If you don't like something, don't bother trying to come up with a retort, just censor it. Assfly would be proud. 08:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(Undent)Hemant Mehta has put up a nice collection of his readers' submissions at his blog. I think this one is my favourite. It would be awesome if Karajou also did one, but they probably don't want to piss off fellow fundamentalists. Röstigraben (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever made this one will be dead before the end of today. 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is an amazing piece of hard-hitting satire. Neither group condemns child-rape, but it does condemn condom use. Pretty simple, really. 11:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Haaaang on. Why does the bishop look like Yoda? Or is it meant to be Ratzinger? 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yoda? Palpatine?  He could easily pass for either.   17:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not partake
I posted that it was Draw Mohammed Day on Facebook and that people should take advantage of that fact. I subsequently got deleted by a friend of mine who is Muslim, and as such decided to take down the status and apologise to my friend. I'm behind freedom of speech 100%, but when it offends someone I care about in the way it did, I'd rather just keep my mouth shut. 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weird what can happen when internet-style rationalism strays into the real world.-- 13:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't ask why he was so offended? 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you step back and apologise? If they're demanding that you respect their beliefs, then conversely you can demand that they respect you and yours. Respect and tolerance is always a two-way thing and perhaps the entire point of this is to highlight that. If someone wants to put their religion above friendship, I believe that's their problem, not yours. 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those tolerant people you love to hate, who isn't comfortable offending his friends in that kind of way. I talked to my friend and he said he was offended because Muslims don't know what Mohammed looked like, and thus don't like it when people try and draw them. "Draw Mohammed Day" has a principle of freedom of speech behind it, but I'm not comfortable offending my friends with it. Also, not why I retracted, but the guy I offended happened to be my old boss, and I didn't want to fall out with him in case I go back to work with him. 13:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a little bit of freedom of speech in there, but it's mostly about generalising all Muslims as idiots and trying to deliberately annoy them so you can laugh at their expense. Puerile is the word for it. Josh's friend is rightly annoyed and Josh is right to not do it.-- 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine myself having to fake such an apology (and such an apology would certainly be fake). Where do you draw the line? For a job? A friend? A girlfriend? If someone is that irrational, I'd let them go. I've had it happen with Christian girls I started to dated. You "have respect for the irrational" guys can fuck yourselves. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit arrogant of you.-- 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? If you're all about respecting the irrational, you're in the wrong place. And if you're criticizing me for not respecting the irrational, like I said, fuck yourself. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing rational about being an arrogant, self-important idiot. It sounds like your plan is to make yourself a martyr to pseudorationality by going through life with no friends at all.-- 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's been clearly demonstrated that you're on a slippery slope with no coherent logic in where you draw the line. Somehow this got to you. Sucks to be on that slope, doesn't it, you politically correct half-wit? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I understand your reasons, and I wouldn't say you're a "love to hate" person for it. I'm just saddened that you had to succumb to what is, in effect, outright emotional blackmail - doubly so when the guy is your ex-boss that might have some power over your life later. But seriously, the message is that Islam needs to grow up and deal with the fact that others are going to do stuff they don't like. Millions of people across the world are doing things that I'd deem offensive, but I'm lumped with it because they have the rights to do that. Get offended by all means, indeed, that's your right, prerogative, and in many cases duty, but threats and emotional blackmail are just proof that your assertions can't gain respect by reasoned argument. 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Personally, I think every day should be Draw Mohammad Day. Once images of Mohammad become commonplace, people will have to stop being quite so offended by them. I look forward to the day when offensive images of Mohammad get the reactions from Muslims that Piss Christ gets from Christians. Outrage, offense, indignation, but eventually resignation, not murder. Christians seem to have reached a level of acceptance with being the butt of jokes that Muslims have not; sure they bitch about it, but they bitch about anything, and it's harmless. Hopefully inundation with silly images will be a small step towards Muslims accepting that other people do not have to honor their religious traditions, or respect their religion more than any other. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ECx2)It's not about rationality, it's about respecting the views of others and your friends. No, it's not right for Muslims - or any other group, religious or no - to tell other people what they can and can't do, but it takes the piss a bit when people deliberately try and make Muslims look stupid by making a whole day depicting the Holiest person in their world. What we call rational, they call blasphemous, what they call rational, we call stupid. They are two completely different worldviews and practically none of us here have had any religious experience in the same way people living in the Middle East and other high-population Muslim countries have, there's no way for us to tell how they'd feel about it. Western and Eastern culture and incredibly different things, and insulting someone from one side of the world isn't going to get the same reaction as insulting someone on the other side of the world. There's a difference between standing up for freedom of speech and deliberately trying to piss off a whole bunch of people and trying to use freedom of speech to defend it. I apologised to my friend not for the job (he wouldn't have any control over whether I joined or not anyway), but because he was my friend and I felt like a dick to him. As Armond says, it's my prerogative anyway. 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly your prerogative when it's that close to you - I can't empathise on the grounds of not directly knowing any Muslims. On the other hand, I do know some fairly evangelical Christians and don't hold back the fundy-bashing; but I think that's because they're fairly liberal ones anyway and understand the difference between being allowed to be offended and throwing the toys out of the pram while screaming. But you have to put the "deliberately pissing people off" thing in context. In 2005, a few cartoons were made (let's mostly ignore the ones that were added later that had nothing to do with it when a few Muslims decided to spread it around, in essence, they were the ones being provocative, not the original cartoonists) and 100 people died because of it in the ensuing riots. Some of the cartoonists are still living in safe houses and are being attack. That sort of behaviour can't be allowed to stand in our world - I don't give a shit how acceptable it is in different cultures or other countries, we're talking European and American culture, which says freedom, not threats. So following this, the Draw Muhammad Day thing is an active protest. Remember, participants in it are drawing a few pictures, on the other side of the coin people are being murdered. I think it's important to remember that when discussing intentionally pissing people off. 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have to point out, SJ, that according to your original post all you did was post something to the effect of "hey guys, it's Draw Muhammad Day!". How is that deliberately provocative and offensive, exactly? I do agree there is a difference between standing for free speech and being an arsehole, but that difference is blurred and quite context dependent. And the line continues to shift in favour of people being justified in being assholes every time there's a mass death threat or violent protest. 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ^^^I can haz outdent!^^^ Yeah, the reaction to those Danish cartoons was not justified by any means. Murder's a terrible thing and I'm not for one second defending it, but it's not for us to say what is and isn't offensive to other people and other cultures. My actual status also said "take advantage of that fact" as well, which was what would've annoyed him. When my friend said he was deleting me I thought he was joking, as he's never come across as a staunch Muslim, but then I saw he actually had, so I knew I'd offended him. I was surprised he acted the way he did, but I didn't have a problem apologising to him, and we're cool now. 14:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is telling them to not be offended. It's your given right to be offended with things - and even react to that offence in a reasoned and proportional way. The message is that you can't stop people doing things just because it's offensive. I'm all for Islam, do what the hell you like and certainly don't depict Muhammad if that's your belief, but it's not my belief and I (when I say "I" "me" etc. it's representative of many people) will not be held to account under a belief system that I don't believe in. It comes back to this two-way definition of respect and tolerance. I'm not asking Muslims to conform to my beliefs and ideas about the world, but I am asking them not to force me to conform to theirs - and threats and violence are part of that. 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just checked and Google did not alter its logo for Draw Mohammad Day. Typical liberals. DickTurpis (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of facebook memes on principle. This one's slightly less annoying than ZOMG THE POLICE WANT TO BAN ENGLAND SHIRTS WHY DONT THEY BAN TURBANS one, but not by a lot. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear fuck nothing is dumber than that. 16:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (At the risk of going off on a ranting tangent) I loathe Facebook groups. Every time I see recent changes there's some cunt joining groups about how they've been through emotional torture and it's such a poorly conceived attention-seeking ploy it's all I can do to stop saying "shut the fuck up and get over yourself." As for the England-shirt banning ones, they're populated by illiterate jerk-offs who'll believe anything if it's stuck under their nose for ten seconds. I wear my England shirt a lot and never have I been told it's offensive. I'm personally pretty sure that any real campaigns to stop the Union Jack and English/Scottish/Welsh flags are started by die-hard leftist wankers, and not by "bloody foreigners that should fuck off back where they came from." 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blacks and smoking
Imagine you had a friend who doesn't like, say, blacks for some irrational reason. would you still be his friend and just not bring your black friends around him? Would you criticize those who did? "Hey man, that's not cool. You know Steve hates niggers. Don't you respect Steve?" &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between drawing Mohammed and being black. If you had a friend who didn't like smoking, would you blow smoke in his face?-- 14:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no big difference in showing a muslim muhammed and bringing a black around a racist. If you had a friend who didn't like smoking, would you quit if he would forsake you otherwise? Also, the smoking example fails as an analogy because there is a rational basis for aversion to it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Black people aren't black just to annoy racists, whereas the only reason to wave a pic of the prophet at a muslim would be to get a reaction, or maybe to make a pompous point about how you were more rational than they were.-- 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That made no sense. Black people aren't black just to annoy racists. Pictures of Muhammad aren't made just to annoy Muslims. You wouldn't wave a picture of muhammad in a muslim's face nor would you bring a black around a racist. You probably respect one, but not the other. The problem is neither is based in rationality. You're on a slippery slope. Don't fault me for being more rational than you. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, most people taking part in Draw Mohammed Day are doing so in order to annoy Muslims, and the whole event is based on waving those pictures in Muslims' faces. You aren't more rational than me, you just think you are because you're choosing to disregard a colossal number of additional factors that come in when you apply your sterile brand of logic to real human beings.-- 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, most muslims would make the same stink out of an innocent depiction of Muhammad (say in a text book) and anyone's refusal to bend to their will. You're choosing to disregard a colossal number of analogous situations where your "logic" breaks down completely to make some muslim friends or something. Pathetic. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can have a pissing content about "who is more rational". Rationality is partially subjective - everyone thinks they're rational. But anyway, continue, the battle of analogies and sequiturs is interesting. 15:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Rationality is thinking like I do - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Rationality is thinking like I do. 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He is more rational than you, because your politically correct line of argumentation is that anything that offends somebody else we shouldn't do, and we should cave-in to death threats for the sake of being sugar and spice and everything nice. There's no reason behind supporting the wolf of self-censorship of benign acts (drawing a prophet) in the sheep's clothing of "Don't annoy others." What you argue is exactly what leads to this bullshit and this bullshit.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents
(outdent)I have no problem with SuperJosh apologizing, but I support Everybody Draw Mohammed Day because I don't support other people trying to tell me what I can and can't say/draw/write based upon their own religious preferences. If I want to say "Fuck Jesus!" and that offends Andy Schlafly, so be it. It's the same issue. Josh has every right to decide that some particular friendship is worth more to him than his saying "Everybody Draw Mohammed" but if he is putting himself forth here as an example that the rest of us should follow then I would disagree. It's also not true that we don't know what Mohammed looked like, as his son-in-law provided a helpful description: "[Mohammed] is neither too short nor too tall. His hair is neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long hair growing from neck to navel. He has long eye-lashes, close eye-brows, smooth and shining fore-head and a long space between his shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. I never saw a man like him before him or after him." I'm tired of the superstitious forcing me to adhere to their quirky supernatural rules, but that's just me and I'm not saying anyone should follow how I think or what I do. --Leotardo (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We achieve little by respecting the obsessive compulsive disorders and superstitions of the devout. We should respect their right to hold beliefs, but their actions and beliefs should not be somehow wrapped in cotton wool and protected from criticism and ridicule. It's down to the situation and the venue. Depends on your Facebook friends, but personally I tend to keep religious stuff out of there. It's a broad range of people, few of whom would be at all interested in Islam and its funny little prophet (piss be in his ear). Respect the believer but not the belief. Islam and Christianity warrant no more automatic respect than a guy who has painted his dick green and named it as his God. Sure it's his right to do that, and I hope he used a water-based paint, but there's no reason why I shouldn't criticise or laugh at him. It'd be bad form to attend his son's christening and launch in to a tirade against the painty fleshy deity, but then the same would be true of someone who wanted to complain about the quality of Renault cars when asked to give a wedding speech. There are numerous examples in which we would most likely practice self-censorship, such as when a dying and religiously devout relative mentions the gods, to which I believe most of us would certainly not respond with a blunt denouncement of gods and their little pixie helpers.


 * Muslims may not be dumb as a sack of hammers, but their religious beliefs certainly are. I doubt very much if the religious and offended would in turn apologise and silence themselves if their religious beliefs are offensive to others. In a discussion I had with a Muslim (an Irish guy who disovered Islam and subsequently became more Muslim than thou) and while demanding protection from blasphemy he absolutely refused to accept that his expressed beliefs and claims were terribly blasphemous towards others, and his views on homosexuality and women were batshit crazy and offensive. What he wanted was a totally one-way street in which he would be free to spew his tripe while others had to just politely nod. It's all situation. The guy in SJ's example may have warranted an apology in the same way that labeling the Pope a criminal protector of rapists during a business meeting would certainly require one. If what you're saying is appropriate to the venue then I think the response is "Fuck your prophet, your religion, your god and all his little goblin helpers." -- ConcernedResident loser, for the ladies 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I noted the comment "I am a Muslim girl, just a normal student. When my religion is insulted, it is me who is insulted" on the BBC news article linked earlier. Seriously, fuck this mutton head. If I choose to identify with Renault does that mean I can seriously claim to be personally insulted if someone should claim that they make terrible cars? This is an example of why accommodation is ultimately self-defeating. It's entirely one-way, since she demands that Facebook remove this "blasphemy", while totally ignoring the fact that freedom of expression is something that many of us take very seriously. Essentially, it's a case of bending over and taking it, and they're not even willing to buy a tube of Astroglide. I wouldn't only say that Islam is damn stupid, but I would quite comfortably say that she too is dumb as a sack of hammers. -- ConcernedResident Pac-Man, for the ladies 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Raised Catholic, I was invited to a Shabat dinner at an Orthodox Jewish family's home. I brought my camera and when I arrived I asked if I could take pictures, not realizing that it would be offensive to one of the customs surrounding the purpose of why I was there.  I persisted with questions about taking pictures b/c I wanted to understand it (I find Jewish religious practices very silly, as do many Jews, even if they follow them).  It came down to that yes, I could take pictures if I really wanted, but if I did so I would be offending them.  Would they kill me?  Would they throw me out of their home?  No, I would just sit there all night as the asshole who didn't respect my hosts.  Their request, my respect for it, and the ramifications if I violated it, all were rational and reasonable and stands in stark contrast to what we are seeing with Islam's sensitivities to its own religious practices. --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. Draw Muhammad Day is fairly unambiguously about deliberately acting in a way that this group of people will take as acting like a dick. But it's about deliberately acting like a dick to make a very important point. The decision on whether to personally act in a way you know is intended to be taken as acting like a dick is an entirely individual one. But, y'know, there's a time when objecting to something in a way that its proponents will take as being bloody rude is absolutely appropriate. I like the idea a whole lot. Here's Muhammad: O-|-< - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But how do we know it's Muhammad? I mean, if it looks nothing like him why should people be offended? And suppose I draw him but don't tell anybody that it's him - is it still offensive?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't draw a stick figure and say it's Muhammad. You can draw an unnamed arabic guy fucking a girl who still plays with dolls. Clear enough? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about drawing a figure on "Draw Muhammed Day", writing "Muhammad" below it and then writing "But not that Muhammad"?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...intriguing... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's just pointing out the absurdist nature of it all. Particularly the South Park thing that kicked it all off. Muhammad was in a bear outfit, certainly didn't look like an arabic guy as they did in Super Friends Club a few years ago. That's why a lot of the pictures are stick figures with captions, because it's just a symbol. Symbols essentially mean nothing and only have the power you give them, if you make your symbol too broad, then it ceases to have much meaning. That explains the predominence of stick figures. 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I was getting at. Both the the artist and the viewer have to agree that the figure in question is the famous prophet. As neither can have any idea what he looked like it all pretty absurd. It's a weird unspoken agreement by the two parties to both be offensive and be offended.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, as a few of the infamous Danish cartoons weren't Muhammed in the eyes of the artist. Indeed, with some of the "fake" ones that were mixed in by the Muslim shit-stirrers, they were never even meant to be Muslim in nature in the first place. There can also be cases where an individal doesn't make something that is offensive, but offense is taken anyway. Does that still count if there was genuinely zero intent? 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's all "in the eye of the beholder" stuff. It's a decision to be offended. However in the "draw Muhammed" stuff it seems to be unlikely that there would be accidental drawings - though it's possible I suppose. But in terms of the general principal I see no reason not to be able to draw a picture and write "Father Christmas", "Zeus", "Jesus" or "Muhammed" underneath.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Aaccidental drawing" isn't so much possible as quite likely, it was a key part of the whole 2005 mess. If you look at the original 12 many aren't explicitly of Muhammad. Indeed, arguably the most famous one with the "bomb-turban" wasn't Muhammad if I remember an interview with the artist correctly. But as you say, this is all very "eye of the beholder" (I suppose we could also say "eye of the shit stirrer") and that's where the problem lies. Accidental offence or misinterpreation also comes down to art and interpretations of it, like the urban legend of a guy who lost his wallet in an art gallery, and when he backtracked to find it, he found a dozen visitors standing around it discussing it's meaning. A lot more seems to lie on the side of interpretation by the viewer than the intent of the artist - and this is very dangerous when it comes to the potential for offence, especially if that offence will spark a riot and/or murders. I also think it's one of the reasons why we do need to actively fight censorship over the causing of offence, because it's so subjective - and so often unpredictable - that almost anything could be deemed offensive, Leotardo's point below is a little crass (and in the context of arguing is a little lame), but it makes a beautiful point about the subjective and ultimately arbitrary nature of what is and is not offensive. 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a dick
Let me see if I've got this straight. Because some Muslims perform terrorist acts, we shouldn't generalize towards all Muslims, and treating them badly is unfair. But because some Muslims riot and place death threats over images of Muhammad, then we're justified in being a dick and doing something that offends all Muslims because that's an appropriate response. Is that about right? --Kels (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a dick is telling someone they can't do something because you don't like it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, we offend Christians all the time. Why should we treat Muslims any differently? DickTurpis (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're not right. Drawing a picture of a Muslim prophet in a diverse, free society is not "treating [Muslims] badly".  You seem to not care about the grave offense to me and my liberty when someone tells me I can't draw a picture of that prophet.  The offense to my liberty outweighs the offense to someone else's religious sensitivities as I am not forcing them to look at my drawing, but some Muslims are being dicks by trying to force me not to draw it.  --Leotardo (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no good at this whole socioreligious thing, I guess. I always figured that being a dick to a large group of people based on the actions of a smaller subset of that group was a bad thing.  Guess I'm a bit old-fashioned. --Kels (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Censoring non-muslims = being a dick to a large group of people. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On another note, there is the same, unspoken "self-imposed" censorship going on in the name of Christianity. Get an anti-Christian bumper sticker, park your car in Kentucky and then see how long you have working taillights. I've seen my fair share of Christians react violently to criticism. It's just that everyone complies. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kels, on one hand you have some people who say "Draw this man and you die" and in the other hand you have people say, "I will draw those pictures because that's not my religion and you have no right to control what I do based upon your religious edicts" and you think the latter are unreasonable dicks. Please keep in mind that you're on RationalWiki.  Perhaps when the death threats start coming in b/c womens' bare ankles are "offensive" then you'll be arguing that the women who want to wear skorts in reaction to that will also be labeled dicks, or is there some rational line in your head that your arguing from that isn't readily apparent?  --Leotardo (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, folks like SuperJosh's friend, or the muslims I see on the bus every day said that? Well then, I guess it's only right to collectively harass all muslims then. --Kels (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you've failed to say how drawing a picture harasses anyone. You seem to be arguing that not only will these people draw the pictures, but then take them on the bus, walk up to Arabs and shove the drawings in their face screaming, "Take a look at your prophet now, bitch!" You aren't discussing this rationally. --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that as a society we've become too accustomed to walking on eggshells when dealing with Islam in a way we don't with any other religion. Part of it is out of some sort of PC mentality, I suppose, and part of it is out of fear of what the radicals might do. I don't like it in either case, and as I guy who owns a "Christianity is Stupid" t-shirt I have no qualms about doing things Muslims might find offensive. Drawing Mohammad is such a minor thing (or at least it should be) that I don't see the problem. People only are offended by it because they're not used to it. If it happened all the time, they'd get over it; they'd have to. One can't maintain a psychotic rage over something utterly commonplace. Draw Mohammad Day seems like a good first step to me. DickTurpis (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dicks and gays: Kelsian logic for me
In the thread above I decided I'm all wrong and Kels is all right, and nobody should draw these pictures because Muslims might be offended. Okay, I accept it. Now as a gay, I am well aware that many things are said and written all over the Internets (books too!) that are fundamentally offensive to the core of my personhood. I'd like it to stop. No more talk that strays from my homosexual agenda because I find it harassing and you are being dicks. In fact, most gays find it offensive. So stop. Or die. I will be looking for these offenses, so be careful. This is a reasonable request and if you don't adhere to it, you're a dick (who might die). --Leotardo (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it occured to you that now you seem to be directly attacking Kels for holding a contrary opinion to yourself, it's you that is being the non-rational dick? 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, for proposing an example that follows his exact line of reasoning? That's an attack on Kels?  No, it's an attack on the reasoning and I'm perfectly fine with it. --Leotardo (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have saaid it better myself.
Comic P-Foster (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, people sitting behind monitors and jerking off over it aren't in any real danger, but the fact that there even are people in danger is a sign that something has to be done. As Thunderf00t rightly points out in his recent vids on the topic, getting people angry is the first step. 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the comic fell miserably flat. Why buy a censored book solely to protest its censorship, when that's just going to piss people off?  The answer there is obvious.  Why draw a cartoon if you know it might bring death threats?  Because if you give in, the bar keeps getting moved and more death threats come for more various and sundry "crimes of annoyance".  I see no reason why cartoon Mohammed is any less reasonable line in the sand to draw than anything else, or should we wait until the Christian militias start issuing death threats before we take a stand, or will we start removing material from RW? --Leotardo (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly not be partaking in this endeavour.
Because I can't draw to save my fucking life. But from what I've read above, I'm completely with Neveruse on this one.
 * Perhaps you can just make a derivative work of David Gerard's masterpiece: O-|-< --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck all you guys
No one can criticize "Draw Muhammad Day" without offending people who want to draw pictures of Muhammad. It's offensive and the only reason you're doing it is to piss us off. I suppose I can archive this forum thread for posterity now, right? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm. No? Perhaps it would be better to wait until some time after people have stopped posting to it?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Bob... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make the point that either:
 * No one can do anything another group of people doesn't want them to
 * People can get offended and/or deal with it
 * So, as I see it, you can do nothing or whatever you want. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A very profound conclusion in that case.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will allow Stevie-boy Fry to express my views, which he does so incredibly eloquently, particularly in the last few seconds of this clip.

What the hell? Check out the comments on that video, including this one: All I want to say is﻿ that I am an atheist and thanks to God I exist; I got a name "atheist" Because if there was no God, there would be no athiests. You get it now? 13:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that guy is very very odd:

I tell my blind friends, 'But﻿ you are blind' And they burst out laughing. I look at them and tell them again "But you are blind." They become serious...I am not Jesus. Your ancestors believed there was an all powerful God and their eyes were opened just like mines.
 * What the FUCK? 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On my argument at Pharyngula
I decided to put this in the essay section, but if you were pissed off by that GJames guy and what he was saying on Pharyngula yesterday (no-one else was saying it, and a substantial number of our types had pretty negative views to the contrary), then you might be interested in what he has to say here: []

Don't draw Allah - oh wait
In case you needed any further confirmation that the religious don't know their religion, many Muslims believe depicting Mo the Prophet is the worst thing, but their holy book makes it quite plain that it's actually depicting Allah which is worst. Which is to say, the big guy upstairs who appears regularly in The Simpsons and of course is depicted in Christian art (Jewish too? I don't know) from many centuries. Oh.

The excuse from the religious authorities (who in reality simply know that the alternative is to start a holy war, lose it, and with it their followers) is that maybe the guy on the Simpsons and the ceiling of that chapel isn't Allah. I mean sure, he's omnipotent, he can do miracles, and all that. But um, maybe he's not anyway. On the other hand that cartoon of some generic vaguely Arab-looking guy? It's Mohammed - you're a blasphemer, so Apologise! Or a black guy with a fake moustache labelled Mohammad? That's clearly the prophet - apologise for your insult! A can of beans? Apologise! And so on.

Worse, there are also strong prohibitions in Islam against depicting any person at all. Some major Islamic cultures actually obeyed these restrictions, that's where the cool geometric art comes from. But not these days. It's pretty obvious that this forbids portraits, portrait photography (including for passports) and of course most television. Well, I say obvious, those restrictions would be hideously inconvenient, so as you might expect the modern Islamic religious authorities have rationalised themselves exemptions for all these things.

Basically it ends up coming down to the usual for religion. Do as I say, not as I do. Draw Mohammed day is not a very mature response, but religions are childish, they don't really deserve a mature response. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)