South Park Creators Threatened by Radical Muslims

[bush_cheney2004]

... I offered up a couple of other examples that highlight the "rights" versus limits of acceptance - apparently, those pointed (American) examples of U.S. flag desecration and displaying the Confederate flag don't rise to the level of a dancing bear!

That's because those examples don't rise to the "dancing bear" level, and are quite legal. Hell, the correct method for detroying a US flag is by burning. Please play again soon.....

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes, every religion is. Why ? Because they're always the last vestige of ensconced patriarchal power, social conservatism and the attendant attributes. Mixed marriage, gay rights, and social change is a threat to the proper order as they view it. The world has been completed reformed over the last 50 years and they think it's wrong. Certainly there are other groups that are closed minded too, but these religious groups do stand out.

What are we to do about it ? Not much. They have the right to be upset, so if you want to make fun of them they will speak up loudly and angrily. As Bandelot pointed out, the New York museum depiction of Mary was one example.

So, yes, we have the right to insult them but why do we need to ? The views of religion are not rational, and certainly it is funny to poke fun at them now and again but it's not as necessary to do this as it once was. Religion lost the cultural wars, so I say we could be better sports about it.

You don't laugh at a fat lady on the bus either.

This viewpoint is quite popular, becasue it's easier and lazier to feel warm and fuzzy and say "religion lost" and then sweep threats of violence under the rug and say

"well is freedom of speech really necesary anyway? I mean, c'mon, these guys are offended, and the fact that a few film makers and artists got killed isn't a wake up call in the fight for freedom of speech, it's just more evidence of why we should never insult the prophet"

With that kind of thinking, I'd say you've de facto become one of those millions of "moderate muslims" we keep hearing about: not explicitly violent, but aquiescant to the concepts of threatening violence and never insulting the prophet.

It's quite common for people to look at the world of the past 50 years since WWII and become comfortable with the false idea that this is how things will always be. In reality, however, it could be argued that the half century of peace, properity, democracy and freedom has been guaranteed by a strong US world order, and that it is merely a moment in history - the american moment.

It's quite clear Obama wants the american moment - that period of time wheen america guaranteed security for other nations - to end. But that's not what this debate is about.

Moreso, it's about what comes after that moment. There are certain aspects of Muslim culture which are objectively inferior to what we consider as a free society. Are these becoming a bigger problem? Is Michael right - did "religion lose"?

The numbers would suggest the exact opposite. In 1970 the western world populace made up roughly 30% of the world's population and the muslim world made up roughly 15%. In other words, "The west" was twice as big as the muslim world. Today, the two both stand at 20%, and the Islamic populace is advancing rapidly, while the west continues to shrink.

Ask yourself, if today you can't have a chocolate swirl on the top of an ice cream cone at Burger King because it insults the prophet, you cant have artistic freedom because it insults the prophet, you can't make movies because it insults the prophet and you can't publish cartoons because it insults the prrophet...ask yourself if this is what is happening in the western world right now, what will a 2030 world look like when the muslim populace has advanced to 30% and the western populace has shrunk to 15%, with ever increasing death threats and agressive lobbying?

Religion lost the culture wars? Try telling that to Geert Wilders, filmmaker theo van gogh, or 14-year-old girl codie stott.

[Michael Hardner]

At the expense of comedy? After all, South Park's basic premise of existence is making fun of anything and everything. Which groups is next to be offended and respond with death threats?

I never ever found South Park funny, so I'm probably not qualified to say. The Daily Show, though, is mostly replete with gentle humour - not pointed ideological attacks.

Now we're being imposed on, because all they have to do is switch off the television. How many members of these groups would ever watch South Park anyway?

I'm not saying that they can't say it, just that they should really consider that it's offensive.

[Michael Hardner]

So what you're saying is that if a particular group of people don't like something that's being said or done, threaten or in many cases commit violence as a way to stop it?

Clearly that's not what I'm saying.

Does that also apply to abortion? Because to many people, killing an unborn baby is much more offensive than drawing a cartoon. But I don't hear the same types of defense applied to pro-life proponents. Interesting how that works, eh? I guess that "hornet's nest" doesn't matter as much.

Well the first part of your post was wrong, so I won't even respond to this one.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'm not saying that they can't say it, just that they should really consider that it's offensive.

Rest assured, they most certainly have. That's the reason for doing it.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes....both behaviours would escalate until resolution and satisfaction are obtained. Cheeseburgers would continue to be sold in many configurations.

So, let's get this straight. There are two fat ladies on the bus - one that you have heard will retaliate, and another that you have heard will just quietly suffer your rude comment.

Do you yell at one of them for being fat, or both ? If the former, then which one ?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, let's get this straight. There are two fat ladies on the bus - one that you have heard will retaliate, and another that you have heard will just quietly suffer your rude comment.

Do you yell at one of them for being fat, or both ? If the former, then which one ?

I only yell at the one threatening to kill me, my family, and my cat for pointing out their obesity.

BTW, why have you focused on "fat ladies"....that's a bit sexist! LOL! :0

[Michael Hardner]

This viewpoint is quite popular, becasue it's easier and lazier to feel warm and fuzzy and say "religion lost" and then sweep threats of violence under the rug and say "well is freedom of speech really necesary anyway? I mean, c'mon, these guys are offended, and the fact that a few film makers and artists got killed isn't a wake up call in the fight for freedom of speech, it's just more evidence of why we should never insult the prophet"

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. People are free to express their opinions in Canada and that's how it should be. ( I know some will argue that sentence, but let's leave that for another thread. )

With that kind of thinking, I'd say you've de facto become one of those millions of "moderate muslims" we keep hearing about: not explicitly violent, but aquiescant to the concepts of threatening violence and never insulting the prophet.

Well, that's not my thinking so...

Moreso, it's about what comes after that moment. There are certain aspects of Muslim culture which are objectively inferior to what we consider as a free society. Are these becoming a bigger problem? Is Michael right - did "religion lose"?

Yes, they did. They're the ones who are emigrating to a secular society, in droves. Not the opposite.

The numbers would suggest the exact opposite. In 1970 the western world populace made up roughly 30% of the world's population and the muslim world made up roughly 15%. In other words, "The west" was twice as big as the muslim world. Today, the two both stand at 20%, and the Islamic populace is advancing rapidly, while the west continues to shrink.

Good for you for using numbers.

My case is that religion is declining in 'the west'. Of course, the same survey says Muslims are increasing in population, but that is due to immigration.

Christians and Jews on the decline in America.

Ask yourself, if today you can't have a chocolate swirl on the top of an ice cream cone at Burger King because it insults the prophet...

What a deliciously American metaphor ! I love it so much, I'll leave it at that.

(The idea that Islam will take over the earth is a topic already discussed at length on another thread.)

Religion lost the culture wars? Try telling that to ...

They lost. You can go shopping on Sunday now thanks to Paul Magder. You can buy booze on Sunday, you can commit blasphemy without fear of jail time, etc. etc.

[Michael Hardner]

I only yell at the one threatening to kill me, my family, and my cat for pointing out their obesity.

BTW, why have you focused on "fat ladies"....that's a bit sexist! LOL! :0

This is my analogy, don't try to turn her into a Muslim terrorist. Do you care to follow me into it ? And don't be dismissive of fat ladies - I know quite a few of them and they're rather important people too don't you think ? Anyway, that's a separate thread.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bush_cheney2004]

This is my analogy, don't try to turn her into a Muslim terrorist. Do you care to follow me into it ? And don't be dismissive of fat ladies - I know quite a few of them and they're rather important people too don't you think ? Anyway, that's a separate thread.

I have already responded and decomposed your analogy, exposing a biased cherry on top.

If you can do it, so can Trey and Matt.

[waldo]

That's because those examples don't rise to the "dancing bear" level, and are quite legal. Hell, the correct method for detroying a US flag is by burning. Please play again soon.....

of course, in my previous emphasizing of the "varying limits" of acceptance, you well know that assorted U.S. legislation has existed against flag desecration. The latest challenge to that legislation brought forward the narrowest of Supreme Court rulings... you negate the lack of acceptance those prior legislation steps suggest. You also negate the desire for many legislators in your country to seek ultimate constitutional amendment resolution to ban flag desecration. Apparently, for many, that issue did rise to the level of the dancing bear... rose well above it. You also seem to be quiet on the issue of acceptance towards the legality in displaying the Confederate flag in certain areas/circumstance...

[sharkman]

I wouldn't say watch every step, but be basically polite. After all, it's the Christian thing to do.

It's this naive attitude that sets one up for abuse. You had it coming because your behaviour/words/whatever wasn't acceptable. again, this makes the faulty assumption that every person is reasonable and will respond well to your politeness.

AS for the christian thing to do, it's to be the the light that exposes darkness, the salt that preserves good. Pointing out the error of groups that murder over depictions they don't like is being the light.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Apparently, for many, that issue did rise to the level of the dancing bear... rose well above it. You also seem to be quiet on the issue of acceptance towards the legality in displaying the Confederate flag in certain areas/circumstance...

Not a problem at all, as we have much better reasons for death threats and homicides. The Confederate flag is a historical artifact and quite acceptable at my house. Try again....think harder if you can.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_8_48/ai_107526624/

Edited April 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Handsome Rob]

Good for you for using numbers.

My case is that religion is declining in 'the west'. Of course, the same survey says Muslims are increasing in population, but that is due to immigration.

I'll believe you when we get an atheist POTUS.

They lost. You can go shopping on Sunday now thanks to Paul Magder. You can buy booze on Sunday, you can commit blasphemy without fear of jail time, etc. etc.

They're still fighting strong, just look at what's happening in England. Looking for a link, the poor fellow that made the mistake of honking his horn at somebody of another religion, turns out he was guilty of 'discrimination.' Not hiring a hairdresser that refuses to expose her hair....pay up!

England is well on it's way down that hill, Canada is just starting at the top. Thus is born things like white supremacy movements, the BNP, and our own local conservative federal government. People get fed up with the B/S.

[waldo]

Not a problem at all, as we have much better reasons for death threats and homicides. The Confederate flag is a historical artifact and quite acceptable at my house. Try again....think harder if you can.

yes, but your house isn't every U.S. house - and the acceptance in your house, isn't the acceptance in every U.S. house. I trust you will try to think harder next time you beak off about your supposed lofty free speech ideals, that you'll think back to the assorted U.S. legislation that didn't allow that right to desecrate your flag... that doesn't allow you to freely and openly display the Confederate flag in all areas/circumstance.

[Michael Hardner]

I have already responded and decomposed your analogy, exposing a biased cherry on top.

If you can do it, so can Trey and Matt.

I still don't know what your answer is, but that's likely what you wanted.

Would you yell at the quiet fat lady, or the one who would yell back ?

[Michael Hardner]

AS for the christian thing to do, it's to be the the light that exposes darkness, the salt that preserves good. Pointing out the error of groups that murder over depictions they don't like is being the light.

You're really missing the point that Sir B was making. He was talking about insulting religious people, and you've turned it into exposing murderers. It's probably not worth continuing a conversation where things get twisted this much.

[Michael Hardner]

I'll believe you when we get an atheist POTUS.

Maybe you will. One attribute of the left is that they never seem to be satisfied with progress, I find. There is always so much further to go.

The current president has skipped Sunday service more than a few times.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

I only yell at the one threatening to kill me, my family, and my cat for pointing out their obesity.

Ok, if this is your response then you seem to be saying "don't yell at people who don't threaten you". In this case, I agree, and I would refrain from wholesale insults of Christians, Jews and Muslims - especially those without any other merits such as humour.

[bush_cheney2004]

yes, but your house isn't every U.S. house - and the acceptance in your house, isn't the acceptance in every U.S. house. I trust you will try to think harder next time you beak off about your supposed lofty free speech ideals, that you'll think back to the assorted U.S. legislation that didn't allow that right to desecrate your flag... that doesn't allow you to freely and openly display the Confederate flag in all areas/circumstance.

Alas, the finer points of public and private are lost on you. As is the missing manifestation of murder for doing so. But, again, thanks for playing and come back soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, if this is your response then you seem to be saying "don't yell at people who don't threaten you". In this case, I agree, and I would refrain from wholesale insults of Christians, Jews and Muslims - especially those without any other merits such as humour.

Were it not for Islam's extreme position on this matter, it would largely pass unnoticed. That is the catalyst for the controversy, not the "insult" in and of itself.

[Michael Hardner]

Were it not for Islam's extreme position on this matter, it would largely pass unnoticed. That is the catalyst for the controversy, not the "insult" in and of itself.

The extreme position is the position of extremists. Again, the position seems to be that you'll yell at them because they would yell at you. Not very Christian anyway...

[bush_cheney2004]

The extreme position is the position of extremists. Again, the position seems to be that you'll yell at them because they would yell at you. Not very Christian anyway...

Not so sure about that....it is "blasphemy" to depict an image of the prophet, punishable by death as a mainstream Islamic belief. Christianty has it's own historical problems, but unlike Islam, it is in the past.

Edited April 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[JerrySeinfeld]

So, let's get this straight. There are two fat ladies on the bus - one that you have heard will retaliate, and another that you have heard will just quietly suffer your rude comment.

Do you yell at one of them for being fat, or both ? If the former, then which one ?

So we should not be allowed to criticize other people's belief systems? That sounds like Saudi Arabia to me.

Isn't that what this forum is about: the ability to debate freely and openly without threat of death?

I can't believe anyone would take the other side on this issue, but you've found a way.

How does it feel? To attack freedom of artistic expression, speech and to defend murderous thugs, yet still find a way to stilt yourself into the false perception of moral high ground?

I love the political left for entertainment alone. Take a crime then work backwards, determine which aggrieved non-white group perpetrated it, then contort and twist to justify said crime.

Then ice the cake by postulating about how we all need to change to accomodate the criminals.

Edited April 25, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[Michael Hardner]

Not so sure about that....it is "blasphemy" to depict an image of the prophet, punishable by death as a mainstream Islamic belief. Christianty has it's own historical problems, but unlike Islam, it is in the past.

Not a mainstream Islamic belief, but anyway... spelling evidently being a continuing problem with Christianity.