General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDrawing scurrilous cartoons of Mohammed is not just protected speech, it's a good thing to do.
Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)
In itself, obvious, drawing a cartoon of Mohammed in a crude sexual position is not a particularly illuminating or worthwhile statement; it's not obvious why it needs to be said, when it offends so many people.
The reason it needs to be done, and should be done more, is that while the cartoon itself cannot really by justified by reference to its content, there are a lot of rude statements about Mohammed that very much can be. Mohammed was a bloody-handed tyrant, a slaver, a liar, and an advocate of wife-beating; he made a 7-year-old girl marry him and had sex with her (the word rape is almost certainly appropriate) when she was 10; if you really want to you can play the "standards of his time" card in his defence, but even so he is an appalling choice of man to set your moral compass by.
Of course, in large parts of the world, saying that would get you killed. It's important that that doesn't spread.
Drawing scurrilous cartoons of him is an excellent way to stand up for the right to launch more substantive criticisms of both him and his teachings.
Yes, it does have two potential drawbacks: causing offence and distress not merely to those Muslims who accept the more objectionable parts of his teachings (which I don't care about) but to the minority who don't (which I do, and apologise for), and potentially encouraging non-Muslims not merely to speak against Islam (which is fine) but to act against Muslims (which very much isn't; whenever you criticise Islam you need to keep "is this going to inspire some idiot to deny someone a job because they're wearing a turban?" in the back of your mind). But, nonetheless, if done carefully it's still worth doing.
On Edit: I should admit that I'm not going to do so personally, because a) I can't draw, and b) I don't want to be a target of violence, and I'm a coward. I may agree with what you say, but I am not going to risk my life to defend your right to say it when there are braver people (and better artists) willing to do so for me while I remain in the comfort of an armchair, I'm afraid.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)In other words, saying that some of the people running around with the "Je suis Charlie" placard are very hypocritical and should have spoken up before.
I believe the ambiguity is deliberate. I believe it's designed to make people think.
dissentient
(861 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Mohammed was a very bad man. A violent pedophile.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Really, why should any of the non-believers care what he was like? He's dead and gone. There may be some who see him differently, and if that's how they wish to see him, IDGAS, let them be. Why poke and smear their cherished beliefs?
All this talk reminds me of the crusade BS I though we'd put to rest. To rest until bush cranked it back up.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Walking into someone's house and shitting on the rug ALWAYS makes them receptive to your arguments. Proven fact!
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)In the civilized world when your at a public place you don't like the content, the tradition is to walk out. With militant muslims the reaction is to attack the author, venue, content and be violent until civil society is cowed to the radical muslims will.
screw the intolerant.