So this thread got stupid pretty fast. And that's not a jab at anyone but everyone including myself. We've all gotten to a point where we're posting with our gut more than our brains. I would like to attempt to bring the discussion back to some sort of coherent discussion rather than a bunch of ad hominem and certain people being bombarded with posts every time they say something. Again, I am at fault for this too and I apologize for losing my cool.
So the event that prompted this "draw Muhammad" day is simply the SouthPark thing. Which some might see as the straw that broke the camel's back, but I think it's a shame there wasn't something this big going on when the Danish cartoonist was attacked for his drawings. Like I said before, I dislike South Park. I don't think it's funny or entertaining. What prompted me to participate in this discussion and possibly draw Muhammad day itself was the assertion of freedom of expression.
Freedom of speech/expression is not a new idea. It's not something America invented. It's in England's bill of rights as well as France. So this isn't "Hurr those terrorists taking away my 'murican rights" Freedom of speech/expression is an idea popular all over the world. So most countries have a vested interest in the idea. Free speech is even in the Universal Bill of Human Rights which is enforced by the UN. So America isn't forcing their constitution onto other cultures. Different cultures got together and decided that every human should have this right.
We need to have a talk about what freedom of actually is. Both sides of this debate are taking it to mean different things. I personally don't take it to mean I can say whatever I want no matter what. Legally freedom of speech is limited when it turns into hate speech or can harm someone. Like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded place. The latter having come from the American version of the law. I think the burden of proof lies on those against drawing Muhammad since most people wouldn't consider something like a simple portrait as hate speech. I would also kindly ask that it be explained how criticism of religion, or any belief for that matter, is also considered hate speech. To me there is quite a difference between "Fuck Islam." and "Islam isn't real, Muhammad is just a myth."
There are normal non-radical followers of Islam being caught in the crossfire here. To me it's the same as the difference between the Christians who bombed abortion clinics and those who just go to church on Sundays. Obviously if I were to criticize Christianity or display Jesus in an unsatisfactory manner it would probably offend the regular people. But that leads into the give and take of freedom of speech. You simply can't account for every single person's sensibilities when making such a law. Laws aren't meant to fit every single person, just the majority. So then enters self censorship.
Some of you say that in this case people should censor themselves and not draw Muhammad. But self censorship isn't a law. It's not a right. It's an opinion or a philosophy. Sure drawing Muhammad having gay sex is the asshole thing to do. Sure it's fucked up. But the person drawing it is legally certified to do so. Just as a Muslim is legally certified to call me an Infidel. And to believe that my way of life is wrong. You can't expect or demand that everyone self censorship. Where the hell would art be if people did that? People were offended by Van Gogh. And that's some of the most tame artwork in our time.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. " - Voltaire.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."