Follow this link to the call to deem May 20, 2010 as the first annual Everybody Draw Mohamed Day!
.
I can empathize with the pain that a Muslim might feel at seeing a purported drawing of Mohamed if they feel that their religion forbids such drawing.
Some radical Muslims might think that violent threats and actions are their appropriate reaction to the perceived offense. I have no control over what they think
However, I cannot condone threats and acts of murder over such an offense. This call to a non-violent action, Everybody Draw Mohamed Day!
, seems to me like an appropriate response to such threats of violence.
Of course the response to acts of violence needs to be full enforcement of the law.
I am not sure what the answers to the following questions prove, but I am having fun contemplating them.
1. You see someone whose attire accentuates their obesity. Do you feel obliged to tell them that their outfit really makes them look fat? If not, why not?
2. You are in a low income neighborhood and you see a young man showing gang colors. Your stereotype of gang members tells you that they do not take kindly to signs of disrespect. Do you feel obligated to show disrespect to show him how silly he is to place so much emphasis on respect? If not, why not?
3. You have some devout religious friends. Do you feel obligated to explain to them your feelings about the issue of abuse of children by clergy in their religious denomination? If not, why not?
Roger,
I agree with you 100% that violence and threats of violence are unacceptable. I tried to make it clear that I believed the full power of the law should be brought to bear against violence.
The point of disagreement is your connection of self-censorship with my declining to draw Mohamed.
If I had the inclination to draw Mohamed but did not because of intimidation, that would be self-censorship.
Starting from no desire to draw Mohamed and then deciding that I did not then need to draw Mohamed as a response, is not self-censorship.
I defend South Park‘s right to do what they did, but that defense does not require me to do what they did.
I am generally in favor of responding to bad ideas (e.g., superstition or misogyny) with humor, ridicule, and derision. It rarely changes the minds of believers; gullible minds aren’t often changed by anything once they are made up. But this strategy does help to inoculate skeptical or undecided people, especially young people, against the bad ideas. Of course, following up with calm and rational argument helps, too.
More generally, let me remind you that violence and threats of violence are unacceptable, period. When we censor ourselves to prevent violence, they win. This makes it more likely that they will employ the same abhorrent tactics next time.
I encouraged Richard to post his comments for a few reasons that I explained to him.
If I were to just withdraw the item, nobody else would get the learning experience that I did from hearing his remarks.
Certainly, if he did not post the remarks, nobody else would get that experience.
Now I suppose, I could have quoted and paraphrased him and put his remarks on the site myself. However, since he said it so well, how could I say it better?
I was just thinking again of the oft heard adage, “I vehemently disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I had earlier thought about that phrase in connection with the South Park episode that started this all.
What just occurred to me is that defending their right to say it does not require me to repeat it. In fact repeating it implies that I do agree with their way of satirizing something.
I do not, in fact, agree with poking someone in the eye because somebody else poked me. (As Richard said.)
Collateral damage is a a part of what this discussion is about. We see that the blow back from collateral damage just perpetuates the problem we were trying to solve.
Even if the other side does not care about the collateral damage they may cause, I care about the collateral damage I might cause.
If I truly believed that my collateral damage was injurious to my own cause, maybe I should trust that their collateral damage will be injurious to their cause.
All I should hope for is to prevent their acts of violence and bring the law to bear if I fail to prevent it.
Maybe there is no need to do more. Or perhaps the more to do is to only encourage other Muslims to speak out against the threats from the radicals.
Drawing pictures of Mohamed is no way to encourage anything good.
At SteveG’s request and over my tentative reluctance to do so, I am submitting, as a comment to his post, excerpts from a private email, which I sent to Steve:
I consider Dan Savage’s post (to which Steve linked inside his post) to be pure and simple intolerant religion-bating.
Furthermore, the effect of Savage’s “‘Everybody Draw Mohammed’ Day” does not accomplish anything of value for believers in “modernist” views.
1) The Islamic extremists will probably (secretly) celebrate it because it will draw (some) other Muslims toward an extremist point of view.
2) The Savage “demonstration” could offend a significant proportion of the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world.
Now, maybe I could be accused of religion-bating when I post links
supporting Darwinism over Creationism but I consider linking to or discussing evolution vs. religion as entering into a national cultural debate, and I try to argue without rancor.
However, the “‘Everybody Draw Mohammed’ Day” is a provocative “stick in the eye,” ostensibly aimed at the people who murder (or threaten to do so) those who ridicule Mohammed followers through drawings, but which really hits many who have not threatened anyone.