South Park Creators Threatened by Radical Muslims

[Sir Bandelot]

March 28, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/theater/29arts-CORPUSCHRIST_BRF.html

It also overlaps nicely with the Anne Coulter tragedy.

[Michael Hardner]

It also overlaps nicely with the Anne Coulter tragedy.

As with other religions, one shouldn't project the aims of the zealots to all adherents of that religion.

[bloodyminded]

As with other religions, one shouldn't project the aims of the zealots to all adherents of that religion.

Certainly. And in fact, this Islamic group is nowhere near as big as the number of Christians incensed (including to the point of threats) over the "Corpus Christi" play.

[sharkman]

Certainly. And in fact, this Islamic group is nowhere near as big as the number of Christians incensed (including to the point of threats) over the "Corpus Christi" play.

Oh yeah, what kind of threats? How come you didn't link them?

[bloodyminded]

Oh yeah, what kind of threats? How come you didn't link them?

Yes, my mistake. Here it is (scroll down to "The New York Times' Muslim Problem."):

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[sharkman]

Yes, my mistake. Here it is (scroll down to "The New York Times' Muslim Problem."):

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Funny link. I mean the part where the media groups that are covering the White House are censoring themselves rather than directly criticizing Obama.

Anyway, yep, you got your threats in order all right, but then to extrapolate and claim that the number of 'christians' making threats is greater than the number of muslims is just more typical bias. I agree that radicals exist on both sides, but I can't recall the last time a director was murdered for mocking christianity.

[ToadBrother]

Funny link. I mean the part where the media groups that are covering the White House are censoring themselves rather than directly criticizing Obama.

Anyway, yep, you got your threats in order all right, but then to extrapolate and claim that the number of 'christians' making threats is greater than the number of muslims is just more typical bias. I agree that radicals exist on both sides, but I can't recall the last time a director was murdered for mocking christianity.

I can, however, recall the last time a doctor was murdered for performing abortions...

[bloodyminded]

Funny link. I mean the part where the media groups that are covering the White House are censoring themselves rather than directly criticizing Obama.

Yes, as we can see, Greenwald is a principled critic, and not a liberal Democrat partisan. This only underlines his integrity on other matters, in my view. Limbaugh and Beck (hell, and Olbermann, for that matter) should take lessons from him.

Anyway, yep, you got your threats in order all right, but then to extrapolate and claim that the number of 'christians' making threats is greater than the number of muslims is just more typical bias.

I'm not claiming this in the larger context; but I'm reporting it as plain fact in these two particular situations. The RevolutionIslam group (or whatever the hell they call themselves) is a radical fringe organization. The fight against the offending Christian play was led by the Catholic League, who are a far bigger organization. PErhaps they are "radicals" as you say, but I don't think I've ever heard them described as such. As for threats, to our knowledge, South Park received one; the folks involved in the "Corpus Christi" play received several.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[sharkman]

I was assuming that there were more threats across North America than just those two groups who bothered to make it official, but maybe I'm assuming too much.

So are we down to this again? Whenever a thread discussing Muslim mis-deeds is started, Christians-are-bad-too comments usually are not far behind. Does that excuse the radical muslims?

Edited April 29, 2010 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

So are we down to this again? Whenever a thread discussing Muslim mis-deeds is started, Christians-are-bad-too comments usually not far behind. Does that excuse the radical muslims?

I could ask you the same sort of question.

At any rate, one poster specifically implied it was only an issue with Islam (and Islam as a whole, rather than radicals.)

Edited April 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

I could ask you the same sort of question.

At any rate, one poster specifically implied it was only an issue with Islam (and Islam as a whole, rather than radicals.)

I'm sure that's comforting to Trey n' Matt...knowing it's only the radicals who want 'em dead.

Edited April 29, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

I'm sure that's comforting to Trey n' Matt...knowing it's only the radicals who want 'em dead.

Why would it be comforting? you seem to have missed the entire point.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that radicals exist on both sides, but I can't recall the last time a director was murdered for mocking christianity.

The problem, Sharkman, is that picking criteria in this way can never be objective.

[sharkman]

Okay, how then should the criteria be picked? Personally, I think breaking laws is a good indicator, but what do I know...

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, how then should the criteria be picked? Personally, I think breaking laws is a good indicator, but what do I know...

Why do we want to do this, first of all ? If you answer me that, then I'll propose a criterion.

[maple_leafs182]

I just saw Episodes 200 and 201. It was actually pretty funny. You don't even see him, he is censored. The episodes message was not let fear and intimidation control our lives.

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

[Sir Bandelot]

If we are to do anything constructive about the problem of radicals, we have to keep the moderates engaged. It would be stupid to alienate the moderates, by misunderstanding and fearing them. They need to be empowered, and given a voice. I think a big part of the problem is that the media is only concerned with hyped-up news about violent extremists, ie. news that really sells. That is what gets all the attention. The voice of a moderate person who makes reasonable arguments about tolerance or equality is not exciting enough to make the news. The media does not give them a fair shake. So the perception is that these extremists are representatives of what's going on out there.

Likewise when we write a thread or post something that condemns the whole group, moderate and radicals, we are only making things worse. We are suppressing the moderates and empowering the radical extremists. We have to think more about what we're doing.

[sharkman]

Maybe you should take that up with the Main Stream Media before you preach it around in this small neighborhood.

[DogOnPorch]

If we are to do anything constructive about the problem of radicals, we have to keep the moderates engaged. It would be stupid to alienate the moderates, by misunderstanding and fearing them. They need to be empowered, and given a voice. I think a big part of the problem is that the media is only concerned with hyped-up news about violent extremists, ie. news that really sells. That is what gets all the attention. The voice of a moderate person who makes reasonable arguments about tolerance or equality is not exciting enough to make the news. The media does not give them a fair shake. So the perception is that these extremists are representatives of what's going on out there.

Likewise when we write a thread or post something that condemns the whole group, moderate and radicals, we are only making things worse. We are suppressing the moderates and empowering the radical extremists. We have to think more about what we're doing.

All Sicilians aren't members of the Mafia...but that really doesn't matter if Don Vito has a pistol to your head. Another point would be that engaging the 'moderate' citizens of Palermo about the existence and location of the Mafia might indeed result in YOU being found floating in the Med tits-up.

[Sir Bandelot]

All Sicilians aren't members of the Mafia...but that really doesn't matter if Don Vito has a pistol to your head. Another point would be that engaging the 'moderate' citizens of Palermo about the existence and location of the Mafia might indeed result in YOU being found floating in the Med tits-up.

No one has a pistol to our head. This is not abou Sicily. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who don't agree with extremist groups within their religion.

The alternative view is to treat them like Germany treated the Jews. Some Jews are bad? Therefore all Jews must be arrested. Nonsense.

We need to give the moderates a voice. And keep in mind that it only takes a small group of nut jobs to do a lot of damage.

[DogOnPorch]

No one has a pistol to our head. This is not abou Sicily. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who don't agree with extremist groups within their religion.

The alternative view is to treat them like Germany treated the Jews. Some Jews are bad? Therefore all Jews must be arrested. Nonsense.

We need to give the moderates a voice. And keep in mind that it only takes a small group of nut jobs to do a lot of damage.

Fine. Let me know how your 'engaging of the moderates' goes. Is there any next of kin I should inform if you end up missing?

[sharkman]

No one has a pistol to our head. This is not abou Sicily. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who don't agree with extremist groups within their religion.

The alternative view is to treat them like Germany treated the Jews. Some Jews are bad? Therefore all Jews must be arrested. Nonsense.

We need to give the moderates a voice. And keep in mind that it only takes a small group of nut jobs to do a lot of damage.

This ignores the elephant in the room. The extremists know all this and so blow stuff up to get their message out. Moderates can't compete with that. But to me this is way past some sort of campaign to be waged between moderates and extremists. And the moderates seem to be kind of like the silent majority that stayed silent in WWII Germany.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yup. It's the same strategy being used in Afghanistan by General McCrystal, in order to marginalize the Taliban. And in the past where Canada played important peackeeping roles around the world. Iit's the only long-term strategy that makes sense.

[Sir Bandelot]

This ignores the elephant in the room. The extremists know all this and so blow stuff up to get their message out. Moderates can't compete with that. But to me this is way past some sort of campaign to be waged between moderates and extremists. And the moderates seem to be kind of like the silent majority that stayed silent in WWII Germany.

I'm talking about the propaganda war. Extremists will not respond to talk, they only understand power. The propaganda war is needed to minimize the growth of extremists. Turn the people against them, reduce the number of new recruits, reduce their moral support. That also makes the extremists easier to pick out.

[bloodyminded]

I'm talking about the propaganda war. Extremists will not respond to talk, they only understand power. The propaganda war is needed to minimize the growth of extremists. Turn the people against them, reduce the number of new recruits, reduce their moral support. That also makes the extremists easier to pick out.

Absolutely. This was entirely the intent, early on into the "war on terror" (redux), when President Bush deliberately pointed out that the beef was with radical extremists, not Muslims in general.

He was right to do this. But the message needs to be made more clear, and through actions as well as words.

Hell, it's no secret that part of the anger and fear felt by so many Muslims is because of Western support for tyrants in Muslim countries. This complaint, aside from being totally legitimate (and it is), also informs us that an awful lot of Muslims do not wish to live under tyranny; which further should inform us that the extremists who long for the religious tyranny of some Caliphate are not speaking for the majority.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded