
Not Even In South Park? - jamesbressi
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html
======
kloncks
As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take.
Ultimately, we have two issues. Portrayal of the Prophet is a big big no no in
our religion, yet Freedom of Speech/Expression is a pertinent human right in
most of the civilized world.

Does it offend me to see any portrayals of a man we don't like to have
portrayed? Yea, of course. But I'm pretty sure it offends me more to see the
reactions from the people involved.

If someone caricatures the prophet as a violent person, how can people [angry
extremist Muslims] think that VIOLENTLY rioting and giving death threats will
make the person recant that?

"You think Islam's violent!? No, it isn't. And to prove that to you, I will
kill you."

I'm offended every time I see things like this - even if I'm a fan of South
Park - but I do the sensible thing, I don't watch it. I can go more, say,
write to them (sans death threats), or not buy from them anymore, etc. But
this response just makes no sense at all.

~~~
guelo
_As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups
take._

The RevolutionMuslim guy explains it in great detail here,
[http://revolutionmuslimdaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/clarifying...](http://revolutionmuslimdaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/clarifying-
south-park-response-and.html)

I have to say, from the POV of a true Muslim he makes a pretty airtight case.
If you can't make yourself agree with the idea that Trey and Parker have to be
killed maybe it's time that you start questioning your beliefs in this
religion.

~~~
joecode
That's a rather interesting mix of good points and religious crazy talk. I
think the most pertinent point is that the U.S. has in fact acted in an
imperialist way over the past half century or so, and has killed a very large
number of people in the process, many of which happen to be Muslim. I don't
agree with the theory that this results from a lack of values on the part of
Westerners, but I can see how Muslims might feel like they are being attacked
on all fronts---both militaristically and culturally.

From that perspective, the idea of refraining from unnecessarily insulting
their most important religious leader makes sense to me. In context, it sends
very much the wrong message, and is counterproductive. Of course, death
threats over the matter are stupid and counterproductive, too, as it only
feeds into the jihadist stereotype.

~~~
anamax
> I think the most pertinent point is that the U.S. has in fact acted in an
> imperialist way over the past half century or so, and has killed a very
> large number of people in the process, many of which happen to be Muslim.

I'm not seeing the relevance.

Precisely how does what the US has done explain threatening the South Park
guys?

~~~
joecode
It doesn't excuse it of course, but I think it does explain it a bit. Imagine
somebody kills one of your children, then comes back and insults your wife.
It's adding insult to injury.

It's kind of like kicking someone when they're down. People in the Islamic
world are sensitive as of late, and considering what's happened in Iraq and
Afghanistan lately, I think it's pretty understandable. The prudent, friendly
thing is show a little respect.

~~~
anamax
Suppose that an orange person raped my sister, would you "explain" if I issued
death threats when orange people made fun of my pants?

Of course not.

> People in the Islamic world are sensitive as of late, and considering what's
> happened in Iraq and Afghanistan lately,

Umm, what happened is that we kicked out their govt, which was killing them,
and we kill people who attack us (and them). Meanwhile, we build schools and
the like.

All they have to do to get us to leave is lie low for a while. Then they can
go back to killing each other. (However, since that's what they're going to
do, I'm not that excited about them being killed by us. Dead is dead.)

If you're looking for "brutal occupation", the US isn't in the same league as
France and Germany.

------
adelevie
The best part of South Park exemplifying the double standard is at the end of
the Cartoon Wars episodes where they show Jesus and the American flag in a
pretty vulgar scene.

I'm sure Comedy Central received plenty of complaints from offended
Christians, yet there was no censorship.

~~~
imp
There were also probably no death threats.

~~~
niekmaas
So it seems that by making a death threat getting what you want is possible in
the western world today. If you don't want SP to make fun of your religious
leader? Just make a few death threats and they will censor the episode. And on
top of that all other shows are afraid to touch the topic too.

By what will happen is, for instance, Paris Hilton activists will start making
death threats to the SP creators? Will Comedy Central start censoring all
references to Paris Hilton too?

Probably nothing will happen since Paris Hilton activists haven't killed
anyone yet.

So in fact you can conclude that terrism does work to get what you want in the
world today.

~~~
jrockway
_So in fact you can conclude that terrorism does work to get what you want in
the world today._

It doesn't work for white people though -- that guy who flew his plane into
the IRS building didn't get what he wanted, and neither did the Unabomber or
Timothy McVeigh.

It seems that we are more afraid of different-looking people than we are of
being blown up.

~~~
kilowatt
That's a poor comparison. Presumably a small army of white guys pissed off
enough by taxation to kamikaze themselves into public buildings does not
exist. (Although, see the insurgence of the militia movement, and Palin's
"don't retreat, just reload!" rhetoric...)

------
kjhgbhnjklkjh
Similar thing happened here with Sikhs. A young Sikh writer produced a play
about child abuse in a temple (you thought catholic priests had a monopoly).
The local peace loving religious leaders threatened to burn down the city run
theatre. So the play was taken off. The city then went further to suggest that
all future plays with Sikh characters should be approved by the religious
leaders.

Since no writer was going to go for that it simply removed all Sikh character
from plays and to be careful from tv aswell.

So the result of this censorship is going to be that the only time muslims are
seen on TV it will be in news reports about terrorists. Way to go guys!

~~~
cglee
You didn't say where "here" was, but I'm going to assume it's somewhere where
Sikhs are the minority.

I think one aspect of media is that it should be called out when it
misrepresents a minority who don't typically get the well rounded coverage
that the majority culture gets. For example, Christianity in the US. It's "ok"
to make fun of Christians because we are inundated with Christianity; the joke
is obvious and there's an abundance of positive portrayals to offset the
negative impact of the satire. In the case of a marginal minority, it's a lot
more hurtful, and so the response is more dramatic (ie, death threats).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If atheists are to be believed Christians are also in the minority though, so
why no protection from infantile attempts to denigrate Jesus Christ.

Case in point - Behzti (sp) was cancelled the month before the BBC airing
"Jerry Springer the Opera"
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer_The_Opera>) which was widely
criticised as being needlessly defamatory of Jesus. A few Sikhs complain and
the the UK authorities react and shut down the show, thousands [of Christians]
complain (the most complaints ever received by the BBC apparently) and nothing
is done.

The difference, well the Sikhs threatened to kill the Sikh playwright,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/21/religion.arts> (add pinch of salt!),
and took part in violent protests at the theatre.

So violent protest is the way to win.

Aside: IMO both shows should have been put on. Interestingly the Jerry
Springer:The Opera show includes the use of the word "cunt" which from what I
can tell is the only word the BBC won't normally allow - exceptions are made
if your show is considered blasphemous, obviously.

------
mrduncan
I haven't read it yet and don't doubt that it's a great op-ed but:

 _Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or
exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an
article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's
important._

From: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
jamesbressi
What really is a shame is that your comment regarding this submission--which
isn't entirely on the mark--is what is at the top of the comments and taking
away from the discussion which I am finding (and I'm sure others) very
passionate and enlightening.

Sorry, the only thing I added was "Great". The title is the original and
adding NYT Op-Ed let the HN user know it was an Op-Ed.

While I understand your concern and deciding to quote from the guidelines, I
don't believe adding just the word "Great" was misleading or breaking the
rules...

And well, this may be where I get flamed, but if you want to be technical, it
isn't a "parenthetical remark".

Either way, point taken.

~~~
mrduncan
_What really is a shame is that your comment regarding this submission--which
isn't entirely on the mark--is what is at the top of the comments and taking
away from the discussion which I am finding (and I'm sure others) very
passionate and enlightening._

I completely agree. My only goal was to remind people of the guidelines and
get one of the mods to tweak the title, certainly not to overshadow the
conversation.

------
nekopa
This situation really saddens. I hate the fact that people are self-censoring
because of a minority of violent people. This lends them legitimacy, when they
deserve none. Seeing this after reading about a girls school being poison-
gassed in Afghanistan makes me say why kowtow to the violent ones? I've read
the Koran and its no worse no better than the bible. My girlfriend is a Middle
Eastern anthropologist who loves the culture and speaks Arabic. My research
into the history of math show the ancient Arab world as a hot bed of science
and literature. Yet nowadays when people think of Muslims they think of death.
The high point of my last week was having one of my university students
(during a class on privacy issues) say that nobody has a right to ask you what
your religion is on a job application. Unless, that is, you are from somewhere
in the Middle East. Then its understandable that you need to ask. WTF... But,
if _some_ Muslim feels the need to show pictures of murdered directors on then
website as a _prediction_ of what will happen to you if you make art, then it
gets harder and harder to fight these prejudices.

I just wish the non-violent majority of Muslims would (could?) step up to the
plate and counteract the extremists.

~~~
viggity
I'm not a very religious person, but I've done some light research and here is
what I came up with as being the difference between violence in the Koran
versus Bible. This an extreme paraphrasation and may be wrong, but this is how
I understand it as of now:

According to tradition, if the Koran/Mohammad contradicts itself, what ever
happened later is to be taken as the accepted rule, however the Koran is not
organized in chronological order so it can be hard to tell at first blush what
is the "correct" interpretation. In the early days of Islam, when Mohammad had
very few followers, it was necessary to gain more followers to espouse peace,
rainbows and sunshine. As he grew more politically powerful, his rhetoric
changed and "kill the infidels" was the way to go. Since it happened later
chronologically this is the "official" stance of the Koran.

Contrasted with the Bible wherein most of the violence is contained in the old
testament. Then Jesus came along and essentially said "forget all this old
stuff, I'm the new covenant, love thy neighbor, yay rainbows, sunshine and
lollipops".

That being said, that doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been killed in the
name of Jesus, but in current times I'd guestimate 99.9999% of Christians are
peace loving people who don't want violence brought upon someone because they
are non-Christian. But I'd also guess that worldwide 97% of Muslims are the
same way. Unfortunately the other 3% is still a large number of people who
want to bomb markets, fly planes in to buildings or throw acid on girls who
insist on going to school.

You're absolutely right, the 97% needs to stand the hell up and drown out this
nonsense.

~~~
sgoraya
"You're absolutely right, the 97% needs to stand the hell up and drown out
this nonsense."

Plenty of people have been trying to drown out the nonsense, but it is not
newsworthy (fairly recently a very influential religious figure in Pakistan
made very strong statements and fatwa against the 'nonsense'). If it bleeds,
it leads. Good works rarely make the news, but jackasses easily do so.

As a Muslim myself, having to 'stand the hell up and drown out this nonsense'
makes little sense to me. It implies that I/we are somehow complicit in what
the jackasses do. No thanks. I have a family to take care of, a job, etc. and
do my personal best to be an example of a good human being, just like the
majority of Muslims.

------
cjeane
This article fails to recognize Seaman as a member of the super best friends.
Leave it to the NYT Op-Ed to get the facts wrong.

------
akkartik
The last paragraph is stirring: "if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring
so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in
our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing
down."

But this bit a couple paragraphs up strikes me as complacent: "Happily,
today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full
advantage." A new one can and will arise. Totalitarians _love_ a vacuum.

xkcd should do a stick figure of prophet mohammed.

------
rhl
This is actually getting really scary. A short while ago a cartoonist from
Seattle suggested to make May 20 'Everyone draws Muhammad' Day worldwide. Her
cartoon went viral, a Facebook page was created, the exacerbated mix of
anger/resentment/stupidity in the air fueled the whole thing -- and now both
her and the creator of the FB group want out:
[http://guyism.com/2010/04/creator-of-everybody-draw-
muhammad...](http://guyism.com/2010/04/creator-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-
wont-draw-muhammad.html)

I can absolutely understand the heat they must be feeling -- it's especially
chilling since she's clearly not famous enough to require protection, but
might become just enough so that she actually pays the heavy personal toll of
constant fear of reprisal.

It's very sad to see this lifelike Prisoner's Dilemma happening -- we would
all like to see people of goodwill the world over to show some spine and make
a respectful but clear and strong resistance statement. But no one, absolutely
no one can afford doing this anymore in an age of exponentials, viral growth,
annihilated privacy and geocoded checkins broadcast to the world, where you
can rise to (unwanted, in this case) virtual fame in a matter of hours.
Anonymity is not a protection anymore.

I sincerely hope that being the first globally connected generation will
somehow help us avoid tearing this planet apart over religion in the next 20
years...

------
jamesbressi
Skip to the 6th paragraph if you already know the back story and want to read
the actual Op-Ed piece.

------
tron_carter
Xeni Jardin interviews Matt and Trey about the 200th episode and the Mohammed
controversy. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVU-8X8T7U>

------
ErrantX
The reason this is always such an "outrage" when the Muslim religion is
parodied is historical.

The religion was founded on the idea of spreading the itself as widely as
possible. Certain leaders (the founder himself even) achieved this through
conquering and control. Which was fine thousands of years ago when being
invaded was just part and parcel of life. :)

Nowadays the original edicts don't really have any answers of what to do when
you get a detractor from the religious teachings (i.e. a parody such as this).
Hence extremists turn to literal interpretations and go for violence.

EDIT: hmm, not that I mean to suggest Islam is a violent religion - this was
meant as an explanation to the other comments that were wondering why slamming
Islam elicits such a violent response from extremists compared to other
religions - it is historical.

(I've scrapped all the respectful nonsense - it was a quick opinion at the end
of a comment relating to something different. I never intended it to be taken
so seriously :))

~~~
jerf
If we're going to be that respectful of Islam, why are we not going to be that
respectful of Christianity? Or, relevant to the current discussion,
Scientology?

Because they don't threaten violence anywhere near as credibly? That's a
terrible, terrible incentive to set up. (But perhaps you have another answer?)

~~~
ErrantX
[most of this was incoherent - sorry]

Perhaps the suggestion of be respectful is the wrong choice of words; probably
I mean "avoid inciting the extremist elements" instead (till they become
irrelevant).

What would you suggest as an alternate solution?

~~~
jerf
Are you familiar with the logic as to _why_ we "don't negotiate with
terrorists"? It is not because the people saying that are waving their dicks
around and showing off. It is because when you do negotiate, you encourage
other terrorists to try terrorism next week. Today's hostages may die, but
they are saving tomorrow's hostages, and the next day's, and the next day's.
It is brutal calculus, but it is the only sane answer. The cost of being nice
here is death; it is a net cost of lives.

My solution is simple: To tell the extremist elements that they can't dominate
our discourse, and to meet both threats and any attempts to follow through on
those threats with all the force necessary to dissuade them. The "nice" answer
is wrong and has all sorts of "not nice" results. And however hard this may be
to believe or accept, the potential losses of knuckling under to terrorism are
_unbounded_. Because the thing is, it's not about the grievance they say it's
about. There's an infinite supply of grievances, and even if there wasn't, if
you leave the decision about whether you've discharged the grievance in the
hands of the terrorist they can always decide you haven't done enough. What it
is about is that they can get more benefit from the terrorism than it costs
them. That is what you must be concerned about, ensuring that the costs of
terrorism exceed the benefits, and one easy (and arguably necessary-but-not-
sufficient) way to do that is to make sure they don't get benefits. Official
"Draw Mohammed" day is a good solution on the side, by raising the costs of
terrorism.

Any policy that has the end result of moving the cost/benefit advantage of
terrorism in the direction of "benefit" is wrong, especially any that cross
from net-negative to net-positive. Regardless of how "nice" it is. Regardless
of how well-cloaked in moralistic bibble-babble it is. And it will be so
cloaked; the ability of humans to rationalize the short-term convenient answer
is nearly unbounded. This is part of the basic contract of civilization and
operates at a lower, more fundamental level than most people are used to
debating at, in that if terrorists are allowed to tear apart civilization (the
ultimate end result if this policy of appeasement is followed), most of the
rest of our debates are rendered moot. The first order of business is make
sure we still have a civilization in which to have our arguments about what it
should be.

I've gone down to this level because it's _really important_. The US remains a
ways away from this being a serious problem, but I am concerned about the
number of draws we're making against this account without depositing things;
we're a ways from bankrupt here but the trend is strongly negative lately.

I have carefully referred to "nice" policies rather than naming names, but in
most cases there are, shall we say, _correlations_ between political parties
and the "niceness" of their policies; applying this discussion to their
country's policies is left as an exercise for the reader. But there is
definitely a time and a place for "not nice" policies, if you actually want
your civilization to survive.

~~~
billybob
Exactly. Whenever we self-censor because of terrorist threats, we send the
message that threats work. Threats will get you want you want.

If we consistently replied with "we don't listen to threats; if you follow up,
you'll be punished," then crazies with agendas wouldn't be able to push the
whole world around.

Not that I'd find it easy to publish something, just for humor's sake, that
could get me or my loved ones killed. But if I thought it was truly an
important message, I hope I'd publish it.

~~~
ErrantX
> But if I thought it was truly an important message, I hope I'd publish it.

Just for the record; I entirely agree here! If it is important then it needs
to be said.

But if you say something for fun (which I think one should be allowed to do!)
and because of it a bomb goes off elsewhere in the world - that is hard to
justify.

> If we consistently replied with "we don't listen to threats; if you follow
> up, you'll be punished,"

Yeh, the problem with applying this to extremism is that, for the most part,
it doesn't work. On one hand it gives them ammunition to "legitimise" their
actions and on the other punishment isn't necessarily a concern for some. They
will kill anyway.

~~~
smallblacksun
No. If south park had shown Muhammad, and someone had gotten killed because of
it, the only people to blame would be the ones who killed them, not anyone
involved with south park.

As cliche as it is, if we let them dictate what we do and do not do, the
terrorists win.

~~~
ErrantX
Yes, to a point. But there is an element of blame too; they must know what
reaction their actions would provoke - and yet they choose to continue with
them.

There is, perhaps, only a small portion of blame - but it is akin to throwing
a red cape between a bull and a man with his back turned.

I think it is morally justified to think: "if I say this will some idiots try
to kill other people? perhaps I should tone it down"

~~~
inerte
What will happen is that in some time there will nothing left to be said.

Mind you, I'm drawing a line between incitement (flat out saying "go and do
something wrong") and saying something knowing others, in reaction, will do
something wrong.

You're opening the opportunity for _every_ type of speech to be silenced.
Example?

If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world.

Now you see, we can't even discuss the chance of having a discussion.

Also, one last point to be made: How do you "tone down" against a belief that
EVERY visual representation of a person is wrong?

~~~
ErrantX
> If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world.

The only real point there is that is an unlikely threat. I can ignore it. If a
substantial number of people developed a long history of killing ponies and
_then_ made that threat I might reconsider.

One of two things has to happen in my mind. Either we have to ignore the
terrorists - which is my preferred solution, but I highly doubt the media will
let us. Or we avoid inciting them for a bit as best we can _whilst_
eradicating the problem.

~~~
inerte
You know that blame means punishment right? I just drew Mohammed on a napkin.
Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?...

If you think "of course not, don't be silly", then tell me how can I know,
prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. What's a
substantial amount of people, how much time is a long history? You're saying
there's a line that speech should not cross, because after a certain point bad
things will happen.

Where is that line? You're being vague if you say "some people, long history,
napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law
abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to
say? A civilian committee? Should I use "common sense" (as if there's anything
common in 2 billion people and 2 major religions spanning 2 thousand years).
Or will I only know if what I said was okay after someone killed?

There are serious implications on who you choose to blame, I don't think
you've thought this one through.

~~~
ErrantX
> I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to
> jail, something?...

You know that's not what I mean :) and it's unrelated. Also your definition of
blame is fallacious because punishment does not always take the form of
jail/fine (i.e. social blame, personal blame).

Besides your action is not inciting; who will see it? If you now go into the
town centre and happen to post it near a mosque a _that_ has potential to be
inciting. And you need to consider whether that is the sensible thing to do.

(the answer is; it's probably fine because no one is likely to get killed)

> then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work
> will result in a murder.

Strawman; there is ample precedent for media, particularly cartoons, to cause
offence and elicit extremist response.

> You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay,
> cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen.
> Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say?

Deliberately so; it's a personal choice, not something anyone else should
decide!

> I don't think you've thought this one through.

You skirt around some good points - particularly with regards to "social
interference" (i.e. a moral brigade deciding what is right/wrong to publish
based on their feeling on what will cause extremist response). However I think
you make a few fatal mistakes in rhetoric (mostly by building on increasingly
shaking links); ultimately I'm not sure you've thought the counter argument
through clearly.

~~~
inerte
Just to let you know I think we're in a point where the medium doesn't help
either one of us to convince the other of anything, so I really would have
some additional stuff to say (I do have the modern judicial system on my side,
after all ;)) but I'm going to choose not do it right now, here on this board.
Agree to disagree?

~~~
ErrantX
Heh, yeh good reminder.. I actually never thought it would spurn such a big
thread. My fault.

I suspect I've just not really put my idea out there very well. It happens.

> Agree to disagree?

Done.

------
jsm386
For those interested, this week's South Park: _NEW YORK, April 26, 2010 -
JIMMY AND TIMMY head off TO SUMMER CAMP WITH ALL THEIR HANDICAPABLE FRIENDS in
an all-new episode of "South Park" titled "Crippled Summer," premiering on
Wednesday, April 28 at 10:00 p.m. on COMEDY CENTRAL.

Competition is the name of the game this summer. There is no time for Jimmy
and his friends to slack off. They're working to be this year's champions at
summer camp. Jimmy suits up and prepares to shred in the annual surfing
contest._

<http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3880>

Interested to see what lines they push given recent events. They certainly
have been in this territory with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Fight>
& <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Steroid>

------
tlack
Has anyone read an official statement from Comedy Central about this? This
situation seems so counter to their reputation and public image I'm surprised
they'd let it stand and not respond to all the trashing.

------
tamersalama
I find the comparison between Apple's lost phone and Muhammad (PBUH) drawing
interesting.

While most around here are with Apple's now legal tackling and their defence
of their future commodity (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1295964>),
many are sceptics and sometimes hostile when some call for understanding of
why they could be offended of other's 'freedom of expression'.

Edit: spelling, concision.

------
evo_9
Man I would love a real Super Best Friends t-shirt (and not the cheap rip-offs
on cafepress right now or the the one with the black censor box).

Funny, I was just watching an illegal stream of SouthPark over the weekend and
they showed the original superbest friends ep and there was no censorship at
all on Muhammed. In fact, they treated him kind of cool, if anything.

------
evo_9
Man there are a lot of [deleted] comments on this thread. Don't do it!
Seriously, the discussion is worth having - resist the urge!

Otherwise downvoting becomes an effective censorship tool as well.

------
jackfoxy
"...there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able
to bring them crashing down."

This may be the white space behind the type.

------
evo_9
So what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim?
Wouldn't that be an easy way to solve this for them and then do whatever the
hell they want? Sort of like the dentist on Seinfeld that changes religions
'just for the jokes'?

In all seriousness, it worked for some Fox News reporters a few years ago who
were capture by muslim extremist. That's almost a South Park ep right there it
so absurd.

~~~
anamax
> So what if Stone and Parker just announce to the world they are now Muslim?

Nope. Then their "unIslamic" behavior would be apostacy and blasphemy, which
are always taken more seriously when committed by "the faithful".

~~~
evo_9
Yup, for sure. I was joking hence my comment about it making a great topic for
a SouthPark. I guess I'll lay my sarcasm on thicker next time, people are
awfully jumpy on this topic apparently.

------
njharman
Are people this short memoried / one sided / blind?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ>

Others
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_controversies#Visual_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_controversies#Visual_arts)

And go ask the grieving families of abortion doctors if they think only
Islamic fundies murder for their religion?

~~~
praptak
Piss Christ as a counterexample? So what exactly have the fundies achieved in
this case, compared to blacking-out of Mohammad by CN?

~~~
sabat
Piss Christ didn't inspire any murders that we know about, but he's got a good
point about the ongoing abortion clinic killings.

~~~
praptak
Not really. The point of the article is not that only Muslims kill for
religion but that their tactic is disturbingly effective in getting what they
want (speech suppression.) Abortion clinic killings have not achieved anything
comparable.

------
MaysonL
For a great response, see Glenn Greenwald's takedown:
[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat)

~~~
MaysonL
I'm curious: who downvoted this without comment, and why?

EDIT: removed inflammatory derogation of said downvoters.

------
locopati
And a well-stated counterpoint
[http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat/index.html)

~~~
Jun8
I don't think this piece goes anywhere near "well-stated", to me it read more
like a hysterical outburst. Look, I don't know who Douthat is, he's not one of
the NYT writers I read (I'd rather read Dowd for her dazzling word games). And
I don't care. All I care is the column he's written and that's the way it
should be, I think.

Now, the Salon essay's main point seems to be to argue that "threat-induced
censorship" is _not_ "a uniquely Islamic practice". I totally agree with that,
other groups also dabble in such threats (and sometimes carry them out, too,
e.g. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence>). However,
carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political
influence
([http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...](http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15833005))
or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic
countries.

I know, because I'm a Muslim and I come from such a country.

~~~
sshumaker
This particular brand of 'worldwide censorship' is not unique in this day and
age - Scientology practices something very similar, using the threat of
copyright to discourage talking about their practices.

In any event, it's only recent globalization has made this approach a
possibility. Go back two decades, and the Soviet Union practiced similar
censorship within their own territories. Go back a few hundred years, and the
catholic church threatened excommunication if you didn't toe the party line.

It's the same idea - just the techniques have gotten more refined.

~~~
cpr
Except that excommunication simply let you know you had removed yourself from
the Church, and was a call to repentance. (Same today, though it's rarely
used.)

No physical threats, no violence, just a formal reminder from the Church that
by your actions you're essentially cutting yourself off. If that didn't bother
you, so be it.

~~~
sshumaker
You must be joking.

The church's excommunication back in the day went far beyond that.

For example, when the Catholic church excommunicated Martin Luther, "It also
made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It
permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence."
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther>)

Many excommunications were of the form "vitandus", where the excommunicated
was to be shunned by fellow Catholics. That's a pretty severe penalty when
_everyone_ was Catholic.

~~~
cpr
No, the Church didn't do that--the state (Emperor) sentenced him thusly. Read
the article more carefully.

------
sabbot
Still waiting for their parody of the holocaust.

~~~
adelevie
Tolerance Camp.

~~~
sabbot
No. The _holocaust_ , not a nazi cameo.

------
ramoq
Probably worth while to mention that depicting Jesus in an inappropriate
manner is _greatly_ disrespectful to Muslims as well. Jesus(peace be upon him)
is among the most renowned Prophets of God in Islam.

------
aagha
I haven't taken a position on this matter yet, but is anyone (credible)
looking into whether the hype around this story was generated on purpose as an
attempt to smear American Muslims? See:

The Radical "Muslim" Group That Threatened South Park Creators Was Founded and
Run by Joseph Cohen, a Former Israeli Radical Who Used to Live in a Settlement
in the West Bank <http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bvnsa/>

~~~
adelevie
Has anyone credible raised the question that Theo van Gogh was really murdered
by someone out to make Muslims look bad?

~~~
smallblacksun
If by credible you mean not a raging anti-Semite, then no.

