Skip to main content

Tonight's new South Park episode was a big event. Not only was it Matt Stone and Trey Parker's 200th episode but it was the continuation of a two part event, and the culmination of several plot points that had been presented over the past 10 years only to be brought bac for this individual episode.

Saddly the entire episode was censored during the airing. Every reference to Muhammed was bleeped out as was the entire ending of the episode, the moral of the story. Originally I though it was part of the joke, but now that's turning out to not be the case.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker's controversial show have been part of the media landscape since it debuted in 1997. Often poking fun at controversial poltical and media issues it soon became a sleeper hit and gained strong ratings despite the strong language.

Despite the raunchy topics often introduced more often than not the series contained subtle polical and ethical messages in every episode. The series gained much prominence due to the Cartoon War's series of episodes that lambasted the idea of censorship as a manner of giving in to terrorism. It was itself a victim of that censorship in fact.
 title=
As many know the Muslim religion finds depictions of Muhammed to be sacreligious and people have been nearly killed for depicting the prophet as was the case with the infamous mohammed bomb cartoons in Denmark.

 title=

The funniest part about tonights episode was the reference to the fact that South Park had previously shown Mohammed, prior to 9/11 without a worry, while lambasting other religious figures like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and Krishna.


But tonights episode was completely censored, not only was Mohammed's image blocked but so was the uttering of his name and the final lesson. And it appears that Comedy Central was the one doing this, not the creators of the show...
 title=
It seems that here Terrorism has won, and terroristic threats made against Matt and Trey have prevailed. They put their lives on the line, yet were censored by the network itself.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Considering the ratings the show gets, being possibly more popular than anything else on Comedy Central including The Colbert and The Daily Shows this puts the network in a dangerous position having censored the work of two of the networks bigget stars...

Update

Here is a statement from Matt and Trey

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.

Originally posted to electronicmaji on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:10 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (246+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alumbrados, DeminNewJ, Garrett, ryeland, Timaeus, casamurphy, Rimjob, burrow owl, MrPlow, bosdcla14, lobbygow, Byron from Denver, dsb, TX Unmuzzled, sersan, marjo, DigDug, opinionated, Shadan7, Agathena, Dont Just Stand There, boilerman10, mkfarkus, otto, Transmission, Fe, dchill, oceanview, michael1104, wader, tomephil, behan, psnyder, Dittoz, jlynne, pat bunny, JimWilson, defluxion10, AbsurdEyes, cevad, Matt Esler, nswalls, djtyg, tomjones, lyvwyr101, bablhous, weelzup, Bluesee, Tinfoil Hat, jrooth, skidrow, klamothe, Roadbed Guy, PBen, Alice Venturi, DoGooderLawyer, ChemBob, bleeding blue, LABobsterofAnaheim, Ice Blue, jabbausaf, rb608, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, FunkyEntropy, The Raven, CWalter, leftynyc, Dunvegan, terra, peacestpete, Uthaclena, martini, El barragas, esquimaux, Sanuk, cybersaur, Junkyard Dem, Kimball Cross, allmost liberal european, richiedoc, fizziks, Son of a Cat, blueoasis, KozmoD, MJ via Chicago, Glorfindel, justalittlebitcrazy, real world chick, MarciaJ720, max stirner, Unitary Moonbat, Turbonerd, Cenobyte, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, shaharazade, poxonyou, Picot verde, Temmoku, andrewj54, dotdot, bluicebank, Russ Jarmusch, Loudoun County Dem, Deadicated Marxist, linkage, Wino, DoubleBarrellBunnyAnger, NorthAndEast, HeartlandLiberal, DWG, newpioneer, mbh1023, Kentucky Kid, ubertar, SeaTurtle, Newzie, Moderation, Jack the R, Rumarhazzit, Captain Nimrod, Predictor, South Park Democrat, Empower Ink, Flit, MKinTN, mconvente, Devsd, Justus, condorcet, pullbackthecurtain, flowerfarmer, scooter in brooklyn, geez53, last starfighter, Involuntary Exile, sandbox, elwior, Laughing Vergil, Greasy Grant, happymisanthropy, Jeff Y, home solar, mofembot, pragprogress, kyril, kempsternyc, o the umanity, bob zimway, The Revenge of Shakshuka, Troubadour, Zulia, Nica24, ekyprogressive, Simply Agrestic, statsone, greywolfe359, satanicpanic, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, maggiejean, SciMathGuy, Pris from LA, JohnKWilson, Magick Maven, citicenx, h bridges, DrFaustus, cn4st4datrees, krllos, Daily Activist, Carakav, Losty, realwischeese, Muzikal203, Tortmaster, Leftcandid, ratmach, brentbent, henlesloop, angry liberaltarian, roadbear, The Jester, breathe67, Jess27, jethrock, BFSkinner, BonnieSchlitz, HartfordTycoon, ebbv, Mariken, 2020adam, DailyDrew, Grumpy Young Man, Looking for Mauve, elengul, Hoosierdaddio, progdog, dwayne, Actbriniel, JanG, quixoto, rmabelis, Eric0125, Byblis, Armadillious, Front Toward Enemy, SkylarkingTomFoolery, alizarin, ozsea1, ems97007, Amayi, Susipsych, BlackQueen40, UtahLibrul, kevin k, gravlax, felldestroyed, moldyfolky, Mother Shipper, merrily1000, lizard people, Sark Svemes, yaque, VTCC73, curtisgrahamduff, bloomin, Hector Gonzalez, daveusf, blue aardvark, Tom Seaview, PrometheusUnbound, Jerry Melton, nutbutter, sjterrid, Flying Goat, FireBird1, TheLizardKing, qed, orestes1963, prdrums77, The Drawback, FreeLancer, Socratic Method, colonel ingus, DrinkingJameson
  •  I Knew It (36+ / 5-)

    This is a shame you posted this diary so late, it wont get the attention it deserves.  It's definitely BS and I have had my disagreements with South Park's liberal bashing in the past, but I can't help but be eternally grateful to Matt and Trey for putting their asses on the line, they really could be killed for this.  If I were a celebrity on their level, I honestly don't think I'd have the balls to do this, I'd be too afraid some Muslim degenerate would harm me or my family.  

    They set down the gauntlet and are getting intense heat from the Muslim community.  They have always been equal opportunity offenders.  I'm glad someone has stood up for freedom loving liberals who are terrified of encroaching Islam.

    Justice for Siegelman!

    by skidrow on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:18:15 PM PDT

    •  i would rather die than live in fear. (6+ / 0-)

      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.~Voltaire

      by Randy Flagg on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:43:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Intense heat from the Muslim community? (48+ / 0-)

      Umm...do you have any sources that show the Muslim community have given them intense heat?  I don't know a single Muslim (I'm Muslim by the way) that was offended by this.  Nobody I know even wastes their time watching that show.  So unless you can provide a source showing that the Muslim community...which keep in mind is a generalization...showed intense heat, then please take that comment back.  By the way...that radical group that condemned this do NOT speak on behalf of the Muslim community.

      •  but they do speak for the bomb throwers. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hoosierdaddio, Hector Gonzalez

        Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.~Voltaire

        by Randy Flagg on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:45:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And that's not all Muslims... (31+ / 0-)

          So therefore, they were not speaking on behalf of the Muslim community.  The only thing that people have quoted was from this radical group.  

          •  Apparantly, (9+ / 0-)

            Comedy Central received a letter... one letter, that was vaguely threatening.  I guess that was enough.  Who knows.  It seems pretty clear that Comedy Central is overreacting but they obviously weighed the pros and cons of censoring the episode and decided it was in the network's best interests to punk out.

          •  You can't arbitrarily claim that some people... (7+ / 0-)

            ...are good representatives of the Islamic community and some are not. Look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. Are all Muslims awesome because the ones that behave badly are no longer real Muslims? Whether you like it or not, these people belong to your community and their voices DO count.

            in everything give thanks.

            by terra on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:35:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They said that there was intense heat from (15+ / 0-)

              the Muslim community.  That's a very large group of people.  So a couple of people don't speak on behalf of an entire community.  Even those that I may see as "good Muslims" don't speak on behalf of the whole community.  I surely don't speak on behalf of the whole community.  So if there is no source that shows there was intense heat from the community, then it's invalid.  Did I say they're not part of the Muslim community?  Does one part mean the whole thing?  I don't think so.  This is the ONLY thing I've seen of Muslims speaking out against the show...a radical group is the source they decided to use.  That's like saying, "Well, al Qaeda issued a statement against the United States."  Does that mean the United States is getting intense heat from the Muslim community?  I don't think any sensible person would say that.  

              •  If a single radical Muslim decided to send (0+ / 0-)

                a death threat over it, I'd call that "intense heat." You can't get any deader than dead.

                The sad thing here is that we are all incredibly upset over the violent rhetoric we've seen launched towards our Democratic leaders, and we can make as big a deal out of it as we want...but apparently that outrage does NOT extend to victims of religious fundamentalism.

                How bout we start imagining Nancy Pelosi being forced to stay off C-Span because she invokes violent rhetoric and it might endanger her life. I'm pretty sure there would be an incredible outcry here. There's BEEN an incredibly outcry here.

                in everything give thanks.

                by terra on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:49:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And that one individual represents an entire (16+ / 0-)

                  community?  Come on, you can't really believe that.  You've basically said that the things said by al Qaeda means people should think it's anger and hate from the Muslim community.  That's totally not cool that you think that.  For every American that does or says something totally idiotic and says they're doing it for America, do you really think it's a reflection of how we as Americans feel?  Or better yet...do you think that people should say that because of the one radical that made stupid remarks, there's such hate coming from the American community...you see how illogical that sounds?  There's radicals everywhere!  To say they speak for an entire group of people doesn't make much sense.  I don't identify radical groups as the voices for average, regular families.  What one radical group decides to say isn't a reflection on the entire Muslim community.

                  •  No, that is not what I "basically said" (0+ / 0-)

                    in everything give thanks.

                    by terra on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:16:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I went to graduate school (0+ / 0-)

                    with a girl who is muslim.  She's very westernized and unless you ask her the question 'are you muslim?' you could mistake her for any bubbly post-graduate college student.  I asked her about the depiction of muhammed by S. Park once and she agreed that it was a violation of Islamic law and people could [justifiably] be punished with death for it.  I asked her if that's true even for non-muslims and she said 'yes'.

                    And for the record, she is not a "bomb throwing radical".

                    "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

                    by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:50:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dss
                    •  Fantastic.... (0+ / 0-)

                      So there are at least several openly outed Muslims (to borrow a term) right here in this thread that would likely disagree with your 'lone Muslim graduate school girl' theory.

                      So now you have first hand experience that she is in the minority of all your 'known Muslims'.

                      The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

                      by dss on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:17:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's not about majority/minority (0+ / 0-)

                        it's about evidence that extremist Islamic beliefs are not limited to "bomb throwing muslims" and exist everywhere.

                        It's evidence that the greater muslim community cannot hide behind the 'this isn't true Islam' excuse.  

                        Silence is consent.  And when a group celebrates the murder of Van Gogh or advocates the murder of Stone and Parker and cites Islamic law as justification people like me and others listen up for the other 1.6 billion of you to call that out as bullshit.

                        "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

                        by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:58:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I don't get your points at all (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Uberbah, Alec82, Medina Mahmoud

                  First... if the Mafia killed some people or Scalia said/did something hateful as a Catholic Italian would I have to face that,like it or not, these people belong to my community and their voices DO count.
                  Assuming I don't live with them or commune with them in any way.
                  Some nut's extremism doesn't belong to everyone of that age/sgender/ethnicity/religion

                  Then this

                  The sad thing here is that we are all incredibly upset over the violent rhetoric we've seen launched towards our Democratic leaders, and we can make as big a deal out of it as we want...but apparently that outrage does NOT extend to victims of religious fundamentalism.

                  How bout we start imagining Nancy Pelosi being forced to stay off C-Span because she invokes violent rhetoric and it might endanger her life. I'm pretty sure there would be an incredible outcry here. There's BEEN an incredibly outcry here.

                  Ummm... what?
                  I bet every single person here would be against some ass making a threat. Now the diary is actually more about the decision to censor the show as opposed to whatever threat might have triggered this.
                  And there is no comparison to the Pelosi issue and this one.
                  The outrage on Pelosi or other thread would be louder because we have been watching the clips of lying, fear mongering right wing media and the angry crowds and ugly signs, worried about what was being promoted. It was a build up.

                  And frankly... a cartoon being shown in full is not the same as a political leader not being able to get her job done.

                  It is a shame to see some punks making an ugly threat and being rewarded by censorship they wanted
                  Of course we don't know whole story of all threats they might have seen, just what they told us.
                  It's great that the creators were willing to go ahead despite it.

                  Maybe it is as simple as the person who decided to censor it had some reason to think the threat was real and decided they'd rather censor it than show whole thing and have something happen to Matt and Trey and then wish too late they had not shown it

                •  How many Muslims have brought guns to rallies in (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dss, dmh44, protectspice, squarewheel

                  the US opposing the government? The teabagger comparison is absurd.

                  ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

                  by bicycle Hussein paladin on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:22:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  we should ask then (0+ / 0-)

                when south park made fun of donahue and the catholic church, jesus and the pope, they got tons of complaints from Catholics but i knew not a single catholic who cared or was offended by the South Park episode.  But they did get letters from all over the country. so im guessing enough muslims did call to make their point. it's probably a minority, but it was probably vocal.

                •  I don't know... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dss, Gracian

                  People are now saying it was possibly a hoax, so maybe we have to wait and see if real answers come out.  I follow the major American Muslim organizations, mostly Council on American Islamic Relations-CAIR, and I haven't heard them say anything about being against this South Park episode..  CAIR actually condemned the statement made by the radical group.  And all the media has decided to talk about was this one radical group.  I don't know...let's just wait and see I guess.

                  •  i know CAIR is against depicting (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    think blue

                    Muhammad on the supreme court, at least last i checked. i do not know if this has changed. i'm muslim btw and follow major muslim orgs too. and CAIR is legit and is a good org. however im a free speech absolutist. and im guessing if they didnt want a respectful depiction of muhammad on the supreme court building, they would be in favor of the censorship by comedy central, but not the violence advocated by radical nuts, obviously.

                    the media decided to talk about this one radical group because they showed the picture of a dead Theo Van Gogh lying stabbed on the street that was taken immediately after he was murdered for his film "Submission" criticizing Islam. And they posted a bunch of addresses to many of the Comedy Central and Viacomm offices. When someone threatens someone, its a big story, especially following the Danish cartoon threats and the murder of Theo Van Goh, and the fatwa on Salman Rushdie and countless others.

                    •  But Comedy Central wasn't showing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Uberbah
                      the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).  I guess that's why I didn't get what the big deal was about it.  I don't watch the show anyway, but I just didn't see the big deal about this.

                      And I definitely think when people are threatened it sometimes is made into a big story.  However, what about the man that was just sentenced for threatening to kill President Obama?  And others that have been arrested for the same thing...why hasn't there been more attention put on that?

                      I think the group had an empty threat here.  They later even backtracked then ended up deleting those statements from their website.  So they seemed to back off.  That's why I still don't get the whole thing with the show and why it was censored.  They didn't get opposition from any legitimate Muslim organization that represent a far greater number of American Muslims than this one radical group does.  So what happened?  I'd really like to know.

                      •  in the 1st half of the episode (0+ / 0-)

                        they depicted muhammad wearing a bear costume and some might say it wasn't glorifying him, to say the least. thats what the muslim website noted in its implied threats

                      •  and also, the media is covering this (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        defluxion10, Alec82

                        because of several incidents in europe and africa where a depiction of muhammad was met with not only threats but actual violence, and some deaths by the hands of extremists. the end result was self censorship in some of these cases, with some of those threatened forced to leave the country and take refugee status. censorship because of the threat of violence is the bigger and more important story here, the part the msm should be focusing on more.  and i for one, and glad people are bringing attention to it. i agree with you, that i, as a muslim, do not enjoy being associated with radicals. it is a humiliating experience. but im also a free speech absolutist. and censorship has always been a gigantic issue in the history of this country.

                        •  Those people piss me off... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lizard people

                          I mean, who do they think they are to decide somebody's life should end?

                        •  so you would be okay with child porn? (0+ / 0-)

                          you said you're a free speech absolutist.

                          just wondering where you draw the line and how you decide to where to draw it.

                          •  Child porn is against the law (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jds1978
                            Depicting muhammad or any other religious figure is not and neither is making fun of them.  Try another strawman.
                          •  so the law defines what speech is? (0+ / 0-)

                            if the law on child porn were to change tomorrow, would you still want constraints on speech?

                            it's not a straw man; answer the question.

                            what criteria do you use to judge whether speech is free, or whether it needs to be constrained?  what is the legal basis for the law against child porn?

                          •  I forget the case, I think it is.. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dsb, think blue

                            ....Ferber v. Ohio or something, anyway, child pornography is criminalized on two theories:

                            1. Market demand.  The existence of the child pornography market necessarily fuels a demand for child sexual abuse and
                            1. Revictimization.  Each time the images are viewed, the child (or adult at some point) is revictimized.

                            There was a period where some free speech absolutists did argue that child pornography laws were unconstitutional.  In fact until the early 1980s child pornography was not criminalized, and when it was first criminalized it was usually a misdemeanor.  The felony child pornography laws are relatively new; in the 1970s you could find it at adult magazine stands in New York.  

                            It should also be emphasized that there's no academic or journalist exception to the child pornography laws; it's a total ban on possession.  

                            Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                            by Alec82 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:49:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The law decides what (0+ / 0-)

                            FREE speech is.  And the day they make it against the law to make fun of religion will be among the darkest in this country.

                            The legal basis against child porn should be obvious - a child cannot consent.  Any other strawmen you want to put up?

                          •  "should be obvious" is hardly the way laws (0+ / 0-)

                            are interpreted.  

                            and you can't just dismiss criticism of your "absolutist" position simply by calling it straw man.

                          •  Either something is against (0+ / 0-)

                            the law or it's not.  Nothing absolute about that.  We can wish people are tolerant and respectful but we can not and will not make it against the law.  And I think you're wrong.  Comparing making fun of religion and child pornography makes no sense whatsoever.

                      •  and no, they did not backtrack (0+ / 0-)

                        they implied the threat originally. they know their free speech rights. but it was clearly a violent threat. with a picture of dead theo van gogh with a knife through his chest and the addresses of every single office associated with comedy central and viacomm

                        •  Here's a little bit of what I meant by... (0+ / 0-)

                          backtracking...

                          In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Younes Abdullah Mohammed, one of Revolution Muslim's founders, said the blog was not calling for Stone's and Parker's killings outright.

                          "If it happens to them, they deserve it," Mohammed told The Globe and Mail, explaining that sharia law would allow the killings. " 'South Park' plays a role in the hedonistic, vice-based society that keeps America ignorant."

                          •  they didn't backtrack (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            pullbackthecurtain

                            you quoted this: " said the blog was not calling for Stone's and Parker's killings outright."  but they had that kind of statement on their blog in the original:

                            We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

                            its a threat with a wink and a nod. its not explicit and so not considered a threat. in their blog post they try to make it sound like they are concerned for the welfare of Stone and Parker but it is so obviously a threat.

                            the specific group in question that owns RevolutionMuslim.com is verrrrry aware of their 1st amendment rights. this group has a history of making threatening statements that are careful not to cross the line where they can be arrested for it.

                            but anyone could plainly see that they were threatening them. especially by posting a really graphic photograph of a dead man and the addresses to all off the comedy central offices.

                          •  This is where it gets so difficult for me. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sandbox

                            When Revolutionmuslim.com is getting within a hair of threatening the lives of anyone who would depict Mohammad, how responsible would it be for Comedy Central to run this episode?

                            On the other hand, obviously, not running it means bowing to the demands and threats of dangerous religious crazies.

                            The overwhelming consensus of 2,000+ scientific experts from the IPCC& 18 US scientific assns: climate change is happening and is a growing threat to our wo

                            by Cenobyte on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:09:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  dog whistle call for violence (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            defluxion10, o the umanity

                            people who like to wish violence on their political and religious enemies who live under US law have learned very well how to walk up to the line and not cross it.

                            "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

                            by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:52:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  There's a difference. (7+ / 0-)

              Saying "the Muslim community" suggests a wider coalition--a coordinated effort among a relatively broad cross-section of the community. If the FLDS threatened someone, you wouldn't say that the individual received threats from "the Christian community"; you'd say they received threats from "a fundamentalist Christian group."

              Nobody's trying to say they're not Muslims. But to say that one extremist group is representative of the views of every Muslim is just as ridiculous.

            •  are you white? (5+ / 0-)

              Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer were also white.  How do you answer these charges?

              I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

              by Uberbah on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:07:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well apparently that was enough (0+ / 0-)

            to get the images and names of Muhammad censored.

            "I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough" -Eugene V Debs

            by jabbausaf on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:07:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  not all muslims (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DrinkingJameson

            And that's not all Muslims...So therefore, they were not speaking on behalf of the Muslim community

            Nice to see you're not setting the bar absurdly high for "muslim community".  Apparently a mere 1.6 billion people have to concur to adequately use the term 'muslim community' fairly by your rules.

            "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

            by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:45:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Definitely (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Medina Mahmoud

            frankly, I'm surprised more muslims aren't outraged by the bomb throwers (actually, I am also aware how little press coverage the substantial outrage gets, though one hears quotes that this business is definitely unIslamic, which is good.  It ain't zero.)  

            Frankly, the murders do more to insult islam than any cartoon could do.  I am grateful to my fellow buddhists that we are so far a fairly mellow crew.

        •  How sophisticated (6+ / 0-)

          they do speak for the bomb throwers

          That's some insightful commentary you've graced us with there, especially considering that you're responding regarding the bullshit claim that "the Muslim community" is giving "intense heat" to Comedy Central..

          If I may borrow the point from Medina Mahmoud, if someone is going to make a generalization about our friends in the "Muslim community," and even worse, is to claim that the "Muslim community" has done something or other, he better damn well have a solid link which backs up this claim..

          Anyone who can throw a term like "the bomb throwers" around without even a teaspoon of disclaimer has perhaps been watching too much "24".

        •  huh? does the Pope speak for Scott Roeder? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

          by Uberbah on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:03:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Theres a link in the diary. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bosdcla14
        •  Umm... (13+ / 0-)

          You provided a link for the radical group you mentioned in your diary.  I already said that they don't speak on behalf of the Muslim community.  So can you provide a poll or something that shows a majority of the Muslim community gave "intense heat" to this episode?

          •  Seems a bit much to demand that the commentator (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            think blue, Hector Gonzalez

            demonstrate "a majority of the Muslim community" did something in order to say that there was intense heat from the Muslim community.

            If AIPAC continued to slam Obama and someone described that as Obama getting "intense heat from the Jewish community" I wouldn't feel that's inaccurate even though I as a Jew hate me some AIPAC.  AIPAC is still part of the Jewish community, as much as they piss me off (and don't represent a majority of Jews).  

            Similarly, I think you can say that news networks have felt heat from the Catholic community over their reporting on the priest pedophile scandals.  I have no idea if its a majority of Catholics applying this pressure, and would sort of doubt it, but its still coming from that community.  

            •  This is a lot more like some Kahanite nut (12+ / 0-)

              slamming Obama, and then someone claiming that "Obama is getting intense heat from the Jewish Community".

              If the KKK issued a statement, and someone refered to that as "Heat from the White Community", I'd reject that.

              Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

              by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:19:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (5+ / 0-)

              If AIPAC continued to slam Obama and someone described that as Obama getting "intense heat from the Jewish community" I wouldn't feel that's inaccurate even though I as a Jew hate me some AIPAC.

              I don't think that comment would be accurate at all. In fact, I'd think that someone making that comment was making a baseless generalization about American Jews. I'd probably go out on a limb and make a wild guess that that person was an asshole.

              Someone should describe that as "Obama getting intense heat from Aipac," full stop. Otherwise any doofus with a fax machine can make a letterhead and send out a press release to ABC and suddenly be generating intense heat on behalf of the "..." community.

              •  that may even get HRed in I/P diaries here (4+ / 0-)

                by people from all sides (conflating AIPAC w/ the American Jewish community). At the very least, it would draw criticism.

                It would be different if they could cite a major Muslim or Jewish institution like CAIR or Hillel, which could make a more credible-sounding claim to speak with the blessings of the majority of the community.

                This diary disingenuously ties CAIR's 1997 request about a statue of Muhammad in the Supreme Court building with the request of this fringe group with guilt by association, implying: "CAIR tried to get rid of images of Muhammad before so they are on the same side as the fringe group on this issue".

                ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

                by bicycle Hussein paladin on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:29:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, i concur on this one (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

                It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

                by DoGooderLawyer on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Forget "majority" and go with (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            condorcet, Alec82, Medina Mahmoud

            "any significant fraction of" and you point would still stand.

            Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:17:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think the term "community" was a poor choice (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dotdot, Medina Mahmoud

            on Skidrow's part in his comment up thread.

            Thank you for clarifying the difference between 'community' and some people who claim to be part of that community, though are not in reality part of it.

            The Hutaree claim to be Christian, but clearly are not part of the "Christian Community" as most people understand it.

            Can't we all get along? - R. King.

            by mungley on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:28:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  i don't know what CAIR's position is now (0+ / 0-)

        generally i approve of them, but they were against the depiction of Muhammad on the building of the Supreme Court and asked for it to be taken down.

      •  While references to the "muslim community" (0+ / 0-)

        generally may have been sloppy, it's not sloppier than how we talk about "Republicans", and it's a little understandable, when groups like CAIR protest a statue of Muhammed at the Supreme Court.

        In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, protested the Supreme Court's Muhammad sculpture, saying, according to its annual report for that year, "While appreciating the fact that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations."

        Does CAIR speak for the Muslim community?  Does CAIR understand that behavioral restrictions imposed on Islam's followers are irrelevant to the behavioral choices of a diverse society?

    •  Can't tell if this is a joke or not (6+ / 0-)

      encroaching Islam

      That's a rightwing term. But since, like I said, I don't know if you're serious, I won't HR you for it.

      "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

      by ratmach on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:38:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WTF (8+ / 0-)

      ... some Muslim degenerate...

      And 14 people uprate this filth? Would everyone be cool if that middle word here were replaced by "Irish," "Jewish," "Black," "Chinese?"

      •  the Muslim degenerate (0+ / 0-)

        was clearly a reference to that degenerate CNN showed from the radical gorup who clearly threatens death on his Website.

      •  I interpreted that as distinguishing that (0+ / 0-)

        one particular Muslim, who is a degenerate, from all Muslims.  Would it have been better if he/she had said "some degenerate Muslim"? It's the same problem.

        It depends how the reader reads the comment, looking for disrespect or not.  We could impose a higher standard of clarity in writing, but the entire website would grind to a halt.

        •  not really (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dmh44

          The 99.9% of this website which is not using words like "degenerate" to modify someone identified only by their ethnic group or religion need not be affected at all.

          For the 0.01% of comments which could easily be interpreted as an ethnic / racial / religious slur... yeah, I'd suggest that, to borrow your phrase, we impose a higher standard of clarity.

          •  "Blue dog Democrats should be defeated" (0+ / 0-)

            No one would interpret that to mean that all Democrats are blue dogs or should be defeated.

            An adjective-noun phrase doesn't necessarily imply that the whole category is characterized by the adjective.

            I'd be too afraid some Muslim degenerate would harm me or my family.  

            What if it had been written as

            I'd be too afraid some Muslim would harm me or my family.  

            Clearly that's worse.  "Degenerate" is included specifically to distinguish a Muslim who would cause harm from a Muslim who wouldn't.

            There's a lot of prejudice against Muslims.  I don't find it in the above comment.  It seems to me that you're objecting to the pairing of the two words, even if it's applicable in this specific instance.  That would be understandable, but in my opinion, not persuadable.

            •  not really the point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              think blue

              Blue Dog Democrat is hardly an ethnic, racial, or religious slur, and is not especially relevant here. For example, if a repub were to accuse me of being "some degenerate Progressive," I'd probably wear this comment as a war medal in the ongoing fight against wingnuttery.

              I understand that the turn of phrase we're discussing can be interpreted in different ways, but that's part of the point. Instead of using Blue Dog Democrat as an example, try out, as suggested in my original post, replacing the word Muslim with "Black," "Jewish," Irish," or "Chinese," and see how it sounds.

              I am betting that no poster here would write "some Jewish degenerate," no matter how he intended his adjective - noun combination to be interpreted. I doubt that anyone would write "some Chinese degenerate." But it has become so commonplace to speak in bigoted language about Muslims, that a poster here could write "some Muslim degenerate," and have a 3rd party advocate for this on the grounds that the adjective - noun combination can have 2 meanings, one of which is less offensive than another..

              This is not to belittle your logic, nor your grammatical training, but rather to reinforce the original point that a phrase which would be HRd to oblivion if used about other ethnicities / races / religions should also not be used about Muslims.

      •  That is not analogous (0+ / 0-)

        I would never say that about a person's ethnicity or skin color.  You don't choose to have a certain color skin or have a particular ethnicity, none are superior to another.  I am a Latino atheist and I see nothing wrong with pointing out what a disgusting religion Islam is.  I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam.  Most people are sheep and generally follow the religion of their family unless a person is smart enough to make a logical leap away from backwards superstitions.  I am not apologetic for proclaiming my disgust at a religion that treats women and gays like trash.

        Justice for Siegelman!

        by skidrow on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:13:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think you should hide under your bed. (7+ / 0-)

      I hear that Islam doesn't encroach that close to the floor.

      And yes, this is a snarky response to an incredibly offensive comment that I cannot believe got uprated at all.

    •  listen "freedom" is to believe in what you (0+ / 0-)

      want without being mocked off because of your beliefs. I don't think making mocking off any religion is a nice thing to do because by doing so you are not humiliating the religion but the person who is believing in that religion. And I don't think that anyone has the right to humiliate anyone just because he/she wants to.

      Your cream of the crop in pet-sitting in Washington State is: MyNeighborhoodBuddy

      by dibsa on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sucks. (11+ / 0-)

    Never been a huge fan of South Park. Its humor gets a bit too intentionally gross for me. I do love pretty much anything political they do.

    Anyways, regardless of how one views the show as a matter of taste, it simply sucks that Viacom decided to go that route.

  •  whatever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hatecloudsyourthoughts

    i wouldnt want to see jesus raping children, or being skinned alive...but i really don't mind the latter if its a certain fat conservative commentator named rush....jk. People have beliefs in this world, and boundries...we shouldnt cross them if it really bums people out too much

    Prediction: Sarah Palin gets a masters degree in political science before 2012, or 2016

    by desiunion on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:21:52 PM PDT

  •  Irony (7+ / 0-)

    I wish I could buy stock in it.

    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

    by jlynne on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:24:41 PM PDT

  •  Bin-Laden* been doing the right wingers work for (17+ / 0-)

    a decade now.

    *of course, Osama is probably long dead and buried, but the fear lives on.

    The fascist right wingers that want to bust the unions, and destroy the economy and the working class have used fear to control Americans so well, they  might as well written the script for Al-Qaeda.

    Come to think of it, in a perverse sort of way, the ghost of Bin-Laden's probably had a hand in choosing the MPAA rating system, and has a seat on the FCC too.

    It's perfect.

    Americans love being afraid. They pay Hollywood millions to be afraid. They listen in mass hordes to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the liars at CNN, NPR, ABC, CBS to stoke their belief in fear. If it isn't fear of the blacks, the Latinos, the LGBT community, it's got to be fear of religious extremists [well, at least one type of religious extremist, they seem to adore and venerate the McVeigh type].

    Censorship done out of fear is perhaps the most dangerous censorship of them all.

    Shark Jumping, the new Dailykos sport

    by shpilk on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:34:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm Muslim... (11+ / 0-)

    And I wasn't necessarily offended by this.  I don't waste my time watching South Park anyway.  They offended me long ago with their character Starvin' Marvin.  All it did was perpetuate stereotypes about Ethiopia and as an Ethiopian-American, there was just nothing funny about that to me.  People are talking about censorship, but are failing to realize that Comedy Central can do as they choose.  If they want all of their episodes to be shown, then they need to move to a network that would have no problem showing any offensive stuff.  

  •  People have always (5+ / 0-)

    had a problem with those that ridicule things that are sacred/important to them. What is the point with intentionally antagonizing a group of people. A large part of the problem in the world has to do with a lack of respect for others beliefs/differences. As long as someone is not imposing their beleifs on you, leave them to their beleifs and respect their right to be different.

    THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW..........OR THE ONE!

    by Diamond Jim55 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:43:03 PM PDT

  •  I knew it... (5+ / 0-)

    I knew the second I heard today that the latest episode would culminate in a serious poking of Islam without censorship would end exactly opposite of the billing. Really lame. I would not be surprised to see South Park leave CC over this and move to another station, maybe ShoTime. That, or the unedited episode will become massively viral starting tomorrow. And you can bet guests Christopher Hitchens won't go near TDS again over this, as he's still holding his boycott of Borders over their insistence at letting terrorism drive sales of specific magazines.

    I gotta think MS and TP knew this might happen, and my guess is they have an ace up their sleeve. Sad that some things are just too off limits for TV.

  •  I recommended your diary (10+ / 0-)

    because I think it is an important issue.  However, this is not breaking simply because it is recent -- very recent.  I really tend to shy away from breaking diaries.  I have the sense that it is a gimmick.  

    We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children - - Native American Proverb

    by maggiejean on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:44:00 PM PDT

    •  It's breaking because that announcement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, ozsea1

      on the South Park Studios streaming website (which usually streams all the episodes completely uncensored) a matter of minutes before I posted the diary.

      •  okay, I think yours is an important diary (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eileen B, mconvente, elwior, MikeNH

        but it's recent, not breaking.  I think it's my problem more than yours.  Breaking in a title seems so trite to me, like a diarist thinks it will garner more attention.  Maybe it will.  It's just not my thing.  If you take out Breaking, he story remains.  It's not like we're here waiting to see how many bodies have been recovered, or what will happen next.  

        We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children - - Native American Proverb

        by maggiejean on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:20:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A "BREAKING" sub-title is absurdly overused. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lazybum, condorcet, maggiejean, JesseCW, MikeNH

        I'm with maggiejean - recent is not the same as breaking. BREAKING indicates an urgent story is unfolding. At the newspapers I've worked at, something had to be "life or death" to get the BREAKING banner on the website.

        South Park censoring just isn't BREAKING, sorry.

        Silence is consent.

        by Eileen B on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:28:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am so sick of all religions... (17+ / 0-)

    I'm glad the creators of South Park are willing to mock everybody... including the infamous Robert Smith vs. Barbara Striesand episode.

    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

    by jethrock on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:44:54 PM PDT

    •  You're sick of all religions? (0+ / 0-)

      Where's the tolerance?

      •  Tell me which religion other than (9+ / 0-)

        Buddhism and Hinduism tell me as a non believer that I am destined to hell?

        All Abrahamic religions believe that.

        This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

        by jethrock on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:48:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And who cares? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FunkyEntropy, Uberbah, Mariken

          I'm Muslim and if you're a non-believer, I'm not going to disrespect you.  I won't be intolerant towards you.  I have plenty of friends that are non-believers (atheist and agnostic).  I'm not disrespectful towards them.  I ask for the same respect and tolerance towards individuals like myself that I give to individuals like yourself...? **I put the question mark, because I don't know if you're a non-believer.

          •  I'm all for respect too (4+ / 0-)

            And I'm glad to hear you feel that way. But what Jethrock said is VERY important. Yeah, we (non-believers) might be respected by believers while we're here on earth. But isn't it, in fact, true that most believers (of whatever religion) believe that we non-believers (of whatever religion) with suffer for all eternity after we die? If so, to me that's WAY worse than being disrespected for the few decades we're here on earth. (And I'm NOT talking about just Islam now.)

            "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

            by ratmach on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:57:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Medina... I've had good conversations with you (11+ / 0-)

            about religion in the past.

            I've really enjoyed them.

            You can not adequately state as a Muslim that rejecting Islam will do anything but grant me a warm place in the underworld.

            Nor will Christians accept that any one who does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior enter the Pearly Gates.

            Religions by definition create an us against them mentality.

            I say I'm sick of religion because I know any believer will think I am on a highway to hell... for rejecting all religion.

            Yet I don't believe any of them are destined for an an eternity of pain...

            Who is being judgmental?

            This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

            by jethrock on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:01:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Honestly... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Radlein, Lefty Mama, Uberbah, quixoto

              I just don't see it like that.  I focus about time on this Earth more than I reflect on the after life.  I guess I worry more about how my actions affect those that are living than anything else.  I have respect for people even if we believe in different things (or even if people don't believe anything).  

              I say I'm sick of religion because I know any believer will think I am on a highway to hell... for rejecting all religion.

              I don't know what will happen to you.  I still question what happens if there is a good person that has done many good things for others all of their life, but has committed sins...what will happen to them?  I don't know.  And honestly, nobody can say they know for sure until they die. While I do firmly believe in my faith, can I promise you that you will go to Hell for rejecting all religions?  No.  Can I say from the way I interpret my faith you'll go to Hell?  Yes.  There's no me against you or others.  What I believe will happen to you or me or anybody else once we die I don't think is a big deal as long as while we're living this life I show you respect.  By the way, if you think nothing happens once you die (I'm assuming that since you reject all religions), then why does it matter what I as a Muslim or somebody as a Christian, Jew, etc thinks will happen to you?

              •  Let me clarify my original statement... (8+ / 0-)

                I am so sick of all organized religions.

                and Religions that preach conversion.

                It's not long ago that you joined me  when I was clarifying a lot of the similarities between all Abrahamic religions... And I was declaring "why don't you all get along... you worship the same God"

                I am not opposed to individual beliefs... nor the human need to ask "why am I here?"

                I truly respect the history, faith, contributions, wars, death, torture, control, that all religions have brought.

                It's when enlightenment becomes evangelicalism (for Muslims and Christians) that it becomes a problem.

                This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

                by jethrock on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:20:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm part of an organized religion though... (7+ / 0-)

                  And I feel like you're generalizing me.  I guess that's what I don't like.  I don't want to be generalized.  I'm far different than the stereotypical Muslim.  I don't fit the image that's been drawn out for me by society.  

                  I still do believe that all of the Abrahamic religions believe in the same God.  And believe it or not, there are many Muslims, Jews, and Christians that believe that as well.  I'd say 90% of my parents friends are Christians.  They never had a problem with them.  My Godmother and Godfather are both Christian.  We believe in the same God.  I don't stray from that belief.  

                  I think those that force religion on to others are absolutely ridiculous.  Forcing people to do something is the easiest way to get them to be totally against it.  For example, all of those that voted in California for Prop. 8 because of religion are the biggest idiots.  They basically forced their own religious beliefs on to others.  And there are delusional ones that thought by voting against same-sex marriage, it might help a gay person "become straight."  While reality tells us sensible ones that ain't ever happening, they still forced their religious beliefs on to others.  

                  •  Medina, You and I are basically on the same page. (4+ / 0-)

                    I do respect your beliefs... I hope you realize that.

                    I actually know more about religion than most people who claim any faith do...

                    I am an atheist, or maybe a better term would be an "anti-theist" because I believe that there is a possibility that there may be a god. However, I also believe that rather than one big bang there were millions of big bangs... and our universe just happens to be one of billions like a minute carbon bubble in a vast ocean.

                    My theory hasn't been proven.

                    I respect all religions from the Greeks, to the Romans, Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Mayans, Ancient Chinese, Muslims, to the Navajos.

                    I think each tells an important part in both the history and evolution of man. But I know for a fact none of them had all the answers.

                    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

                    by jethrock on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:48:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I respect what you have to say... (7+ / 0-)

                      And you don't have to worry about me being intolerant towards your views!  Ugh...I think I'm just way too into the idea of peace and I really believe that this world could become so much better if we just became tolerant towards each other.  I don't know...I don't see it as something difficult to do.  I have friends from all backgrounds (including races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, gender, etc).  I don't see having differences as a bad thing.  Differences actually intrigue me and make me want to learn so much more.  What you just presented about being an anti-theist and what exactly that means is an example of the things that interest me.  I had never heard of an anti-theist before.  But I love the fact that you just gave me a brief description about it.  Maybe I'm unusual compared to "normal" people, but I think it's the differences that make this world so much better.

                      •  "I think I'm just way too into the idea of peace" (4+ / 0-)

                        That is NOT a problem.

                        Our world needs more people like you.

                        One of my problems with organized religion is what I've experienced both on a personal level and a from a more distant education and curiosity level.

                        I'm in my thirties... but almost my entire life I have intimately known evangelical missionaries. Including my Uncle who raised his family in Indonesia while converting Muslims to Christianity.

                        That is an aspect I have always despised... One culture moving in and telling the rest that they are heathens and they need to abandon their traditions and cultures and convert.

                        This has happened throughout history on much larger scales... I find it destructive... and I hope it's something we as a people can break away from. However I don't see it happening anytime soon.... after-all people NEED to believe in something.

                        I don't. I still have hope for people though.

                        This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next. --Ian Curtis

                        by jethrock on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:11:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Eastern religions like Hinduism are more (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ice Blue, Philpm, Uberbah, elwior, ratmach, jethrock

          about a way of life than about strict religious edicts and principles. There are many atheists in Hinduism, who are depicted as paragons of virtue and not as infidels, non-believers or villains. Even the demons are shown to have excellent values and Gods to have demonic qualities.

          Between birthers, deathers and mouth-breathers, the gop has got 'teh crazy' and 'teh stoopid' covered.

          by amk for obama on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:08:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Eh hell, samsara, its all the same. nt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jethrock
        •  uh, no. (0+ / 0-)

          All Abrahamic religions believe that.

          That is not a tenet of Judaism.

          On your main point of being sick of all religions -- I can understand it, but for me, it's the religious fundamentalists of all stripes that are evil.

      •  Not to be found in religions... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loquatrix, Zack from the SFV

        I'm fine with any religion that actually can show me a history of love and tolerance.

        That's a very short list.

        Most religions have been a major source of hatred, pain, and, yes, intolerance, for pretty much the entire time they've existed.  Most religions divides people out, into 'followers' who have been enlightened, and (generally) will be rewarded in some fashion for being followers, and non-followers who (generally) will be punished and are to be looked down upon or pitied for not being followers.

        Go out on the street today, and start questioning random religious followers about their faith, and you pretty quickly start getting intolerant answers.

        I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:48:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tolerance towards the practitioners (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UK LibDem Dave, prdrums77

        is different from being sick of all religions.  

        I am 100% tolerant of your personal practice of religion, even though I am sick to death of the ceaseless pain, anguish, war and suffering that goes on in the world thanks to religions and their followers constantly needing to do bloody battle over whose fantasy sky giant is biggest and best, and constantly dragging the rest of us into it even though we don't believe a word of if.

        Clearer?

      •  Tolerance doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

        I've tolerated religious people my whole life, and still do today.  I don't berate the people I know in my life for their silly beliefs.   That is tolerance.

        Republican Healthcare Plan: Chickens For Check-Ups!

        by Beelzebud on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:01:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  My father was more than sick of religion. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Loquatrix, Uberbah, prdrums77

      He despised it, attacked it every chance he got.  
      If anyone asked him about the state of his soul, they were likely to get the back of his hand.
      He felt that a person's soul was his or her own, and that the right to privacy in those matters should be defended tooth and nail.

      You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

      by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:53:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Opiate of the masses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Loquatrix

      blind faith....

      knuckle-dragging Neanderthals

      by Deadicated Marxist on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:50:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Attention all hardcore God/religion defenders (19+ / 0-)

    I don't care what God/religion you're defending. But if you feel the need to raise that defense to the level of threats against the "blasphemers", your God/religion is a joke. You know why? Because apparently your "God" is not capable of taking care of him/her/itself. He/she/it is apparently so helpless and insecure that a lowly HUMAN, like YOU, must come to his/her/its defense. Some big, bad "God" you got there.

    "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

    by ratmach on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Lmfao. (0+ / 0-)

    And with that, the seventh angel opened his seal...

    We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine,

    And the machine is bleeding to death.

    by Marcus Tullius on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:46:50 PM PDT

  •  Problem with south park is that (6+ / 0-)

    it has been sucking ass over past few years. Maybe I'm too cynical but this seems like a publicity stunt more than anything at this point. They didn't need to do it in 2002 or 2004. Why in 2010 and ,besides, I've hardly seen any mention of south park episode in news. What happened in Europe was pretty Euro-specific and chances of it being replicated in US are fairly slim.

  •  Comedy Central is lame. (3+ / 0-)

    We don't want their cowardly sacred kowtowing.

    "Fighting for us, good. Winning, better. Talking about fighting, not so good."--Atrios

    by andrewj54 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:51:34 PM PDT

  •  The show is garbage (3+ / 0-)

    Theo Van Gogh was a douchebag

    If the mutants who write that show want a license to say whatever they feel like saying, then I'd recommend they buy their own station. Until they do, Comedy Central can edit out whatever they feel like editing out, particularly if they think it borders on racism or hate speech.

    Personally, I wish they'd edit the show off the air and replace it with something worth watching.

  •  I saw the episode premier on the west coast feed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tracker, ninkasi23, JesseCW

    The "moral" was heavily bleeped, as you say, but it was aired.

    It is better to be harmed by an evil power than to become one.

    by Enrika on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:09:35 AM PDT

  •  No wonder (0+ / 0-)

    they pulled the rerun after Colbert.  I'm pissed now.  Violation of the first amendment, anyone?  Hello, lawsuit.

    Livin' on the hope of a Celtics NBA title.

    by farleftloon on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:14:02 AM PDT

  •  People are such chickenshits. (25+ / 0-)

    Muhammed

    Oops, guess my life is now in danger because I've shown an image of Muhammed.  Maybe I should hide out in a survivalist bunker in Colorado.

    "Consequences shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." --Daffy Duck, Republican Hero

    by Troubadour on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:16:21 AM PDT

    •  That's not funny... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, wwjjd, gravlax

      And no you shouldn't be scared, because his name is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).  I don't know who "Muhammed" is.  

      •  I was not aware of that distinction. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FunkyEntropy, condorcet

        But now that I think about... yeah, he always referred to as The Prophet Muhammad, especially since Muhammad by itself is an incredibly common name.  It could get confusing.  It's not as big of a problem with Judaism or Christianity since you don't see as many people named Moses or Jesus... unless you live in Mexico or Spain, or other places with a huge Catholic Latino population... what was my point again?

        Right, that thing that Troubadour just did... that was South Park's joke.  They're making fun of the fact that it's offensive to Muslims to show the image of the Prophet Muhammad.  That was the point of the episode, and that's what all this fuss is about.  Basically, they don't get why Muslims are offended... and neither do I really, but that's neither here nor there.

        I'm tired I should probably go to sleep and not post this.

        •  I don't think it matters why it's offensive... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FunkyEntropy, quixoto, gravlax

          It's simply a matter of respecting our beliefs.  We're (obviously the we're that I'm talking about is those of us that don't turn to violence) not hurting anybody by believing what we do.  So asking for respect I don't think is that big of a thing.  

          •  I can respect that. (3+ / 0-)

            But for a lot of people that's too much to ask.  If a very American concept to believe that nothing should be off limits to poke fun at so I can kinda see The South Park creators' point of view.  But at the same time, I don't think you have to be a purist about freedom of speech for every issue.

            This reminds me of this webcomic... one character is sarcastic and makes jokes about everything and nothing is ever off limits.  Then someone makes a joke about suicide and that offends her because her father committed suicide.  She tells him, "hey, could you not make suicide jokes.  It's a sensitive subject."  Then problem solved.

            I guess that's just too much to ask for some people.

          •  Playing devils advocate (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FunkyEntropy, JesseCW

            My belief is in logic and science.  I deeply feel that religion causes more problems than it fixes.  It offends me that people "believe" anything without proof (and would go so far as to kill others over it) but I am forced to respect what I see as someone believing in the flying spaghetti monster.  Can you respect that?

            The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions

            by dog lover for obama on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:58:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And you should respect them even if... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gravlax

              They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  It's THEIR belief, not yours.  You're taking the actions of certain "religious" folks and basically throwing that at all "religious" people.  Some may say that the United States is guilty of causing many violent occurrences around the world, but does that mean all Americans should be looked down upon?  I don't think so.  The actions of some are not a reflection of all.  When Bush and Congress (and a majority of Americans) decided to invade Iraq and a lot of the world got mad at us, was it fair to blame all of us?  I don't think so...especially considering I was totally against it, even though I was just a teenager so my voice wasn't really relevant.  

            •  Let me add... (0+ / 0-)

              If nobody's life is being threatened, then people can (and do) believe in whatever they want to.  

          •  Have you SEEN South Park?! (9+ / 0-)

            Take, for instance, the episode “All About Mormons,” which ridicules their entire scripture from start to finish, pretty much calling their profit a fraud and a huckster. (BTW, Stone and Parker are apparently expanding that concept into a Broadway musical.)

            Believe me when I tell you that Islam has gotten off extremely light from South Park.

            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

            by Jyrinx on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:21:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you know what I was even talking (0+ / 0-)

              about.  So no reason to jump to conclusions like you did.

              If you scroll up, you'll see that I already said that I wasn't offended by this cartoon.  I don't waste my time watching that show.  Somebody mentioned the general idea of why it's offensive to draw the Prophet Muhammad.  

              Believe me when I tell you that Islam has gotten off extremely light from South Park

              Really?  Come on...that's unnecessary.

          •  If you're asking (13+ / 0-)

            that non-muslims refrain from depicting the Muhammad you believe to have been a prophet, you're asking them to defer to your beliefs, and abide by your religion so that you can be comfortable.

            No matter how politely you ask, it's not respect that you're asking for.

            That's honestly what Matt and Tre are mocking here, the confusion the two things.

            Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:45:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not making anybody do anything... (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dss, FunkyEntropy, Uberbah, leawood, quixoto

              But it's like, why don't some white people use the n-word?  Because there's no purpose and it offends blacks.  However, if there are those that want to use the n-word, then they can and nothing can be done to stop them.  So by wanting somebody to not say the n-word out of respect isn't a bad thing....it's just that, out of respect.  If you think I'm trying to make others follow my religion, you're sadly mistaken.  I'm just asking for respect for what I believe.  Again, if people say, "Screw you and whatever you believe!" and want to draw him, then go ahead.  I won't even attempt to stop you.  But to me, it would show a lack of respect.

              •  we can respect you (7+ / 0-)

                but you cannot ask us to respect what you believe. As an atheist I do not respect what you believe, or what Christians believe. To me it's all nonsense. I respect you as a human being but don't ask us to do something we cannot do.

                •  So if somebody believes that the n-word (0+ / 0-)

                  is offensive, then that's irrelevant?  Out of respect, you shouldn't say the word is how I see it.  But if we want to talk about the Prophet Muhammad, you cannot live your life without wanting to draw an image of him?  What?

                  •  Just because it's offensive to some (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    quixoto

                    doesn't mean it's in any way the same as an ethnic slur.

                    It's much more like saying "godamn" even though some people don't like it.

                    Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

                    by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:49:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I see it like the n-word still... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dss, quixoto

                      It's that greatly offensive.  Quite frankly, I don't care what people say or do.  It's not a big deal to me.  If somebody says the n-word, I'd more than likely say something to them, but I cannot stop them from saying it.  If somebody draws the Prophet Muhammad, I'd say something to them as well, but I cannot and will not stop them from doing it.  People can do whatever they want.  But if they think they can do it without anybody saying anything, they're sadly mistaken.  I mean, those crazies that drew offensive drawings of the president at the Tea Party rallies upset many of us on the left.  We cannot stop them from doing what they want, but we have every right to say something either to or about them, because we were offended.

                      •  The degree of offense isn't what (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        quixoto

                        makes the N-word so horrible.  It's the type of offense.

                        The N-word is a slam on a person, not on an idea.  

                        It's frequently been a direct threat preceding an attack.  It's "fighting words".

                        Asking people not to depict Mohammed isn't like saying the N-word - it's the same as if Christians started asking you to please say that Issa died on the cross and was the begotten Son of God, because saying otherwise offends them.

                        It really does offend them, btw.  I'm not one, but I've heard several of them sincerely rage about how they can understand people who don't believe in him but saying he wasn't really crucified is offensive.

                        Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

                        by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:10:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The n-word doesn't have to be slam at a person... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          quixoto

                          There are those that say it just cause and they're not trying to offend blacks.  So if I, as a black woman, asked for somebody out of respect to not use the n-word when around me, there's nothing wrong with that.  So those that want to draw an image of the Prophet Muhammad can do so...but it doesn't mean I won't get offended.

                          •  Well, yes. Words have meanings. (0+ / 0-)

                            The n word means "Black people are stupid and should be degraded and enslaved and treated like second class citizens at best".

                            That's simply the meaning of the word in our cultural context.  It's not wrong because of a superstition - it's wrong because it embraces racist notions which were used to justify the enslavement and murder of millions.

                            You know those people who get offended by you wearing hijab, because they believe that when you do it it demeans all women?  

                            Do you say "I won't wear hijab to prayer, because I don't want to offend them"?

                            Or do you say "Sorry if you're offended, but I don't believe this demeans women at all."

                            Do you think it's rude of them to ask you not to, even if they ask politely?

                            I do.  I think it's them trying to control you, although asking is whole lot better than trying to violence or the law to force you to obey their request.

                            I think asking people not to depict the prophet, or not to eat pork, or not to practice wicca are all the same thing as asking you not to wear hijab - and they're all about asking for deference.

                            People have a right to be rude, but it bugs me when they won't admit they're doing it.

                            The issue is not whether Congress regulates Wall Street, it's the degree to which Wall Street regulates Congress. B. Sanders

                            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:13:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't agree with the hijab analogy... (0+ / 0-)

                            The wearing of the hijab has nothing to do with other people.  It's all about yourself and your beliefs.  The Prophet Muhammad has nothing to do with non-Muslims.  You know what though, going to the hijab for just a sec...there are some that get offended just for wearing it and not because it demeans women.  But why?  It's because they're hateful people to those that may be different than themselves.  So you I would assume would be on the side of the person wearing the hijab and say that they are the ones actually being disrespected and offended for their personal religious choices.  

                            But now back to the original point (lol)...those that do not understand the point of the hijab would be the ones that say it demeans women.  I don't wear it unless I'm praying, but there are women that wear it because they think Islam requires it.  So I don't quite see what is necessarily demeaning about it.  So if people find it offensive, because they think it demeans women need to do some research and meet some Muslim women that choose to wear the hijab...they obviously know nothing about it then.

                            I think asking people not to depict the prophet, or not to eat pork, or not to practice wicca are all the same thing as asking you not to wear hijab - and they're all about asking for deference.

                            I don't ask anybody to do anything.  I take it for what it simply.  If somebody knows that it's sacrilegious to draw the Prophet Muhammad and they do it with the intent of being disrespectful to what Muslims believe, then I know that they're not respectful of Muslims.  People eat pork all around me lol...In fact, I was required to take a cooking class this semester (so pointless!) and for our final big cooking project we were assigned to cook pork chops, roasted corn chowder (had pork in it) and some other stuff.  My group members handled the pork, but I wasn't bothered by having been assigned it.  And as far as wicca...doesn't bother me either.  I believe people can practice whatever they want to.  Even if we don't agree on it, I'm not going to ask you to stop.  Unless you're coming at me and calling me names, I won't waste my time asking somebody to not do this or that.

                        •  And oh yeah... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          quixoto

                          There's a reason why people like to stay away from discussing religion...they don't want to offend others for having different beliefs.  

                          •  And there in lies the problem, and honestly, (0+ / 0-)

                            the subtle bullying.

                            If you're offended by what others think, that's a control issue on your part.

                            The issue is not whether Congress regulates Wall Street, it's the degree to which Wall Street regulates Congress. B. Sanders

                            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:04:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not worried about what others think lol (0+ / 0-)

                            But I don't want to offend anybody.  There have been those that have wondered things about Islam and I was more than happy to tell them whatever they wanted to know about.  However, in a party or social setting, talking about religion is pointless.  There's no "subtle bullying."  But like you said, if people have different beliefs, they might be offended if people that don't share those same beliefs.  So rather than offending somebody, I'd rather refrain and not talk about religion.

                            By the way...if I was so worried about what others thought about me or my faith or whatever, there's no way I could be alive today...I would have driven myself into God knows what.

              •  No, you're not making anyone do anything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                itsbenj

                but you're asking that people do something.

                There's a big difference between what people think and who people are.  

                Mocking someones ethinicity is mocking them for who they are.  

                You're asking others to follow one tenent of your religion.  

                Asking South Park not to draw a picture of the Prophet is like asking me not to eat pork.

                I think you're a nice person Medina, and I don't think you would to make anyone do anything even if you could.  But I also think that by drawing a comparison with an ethinic slur you're making a very, very bad analogy.

                What you believe and who you are aren't the same thing.  Beliefs are mutable, changable things.

                Justice Brennan Was A Recess Appointment

                by JesseCW on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:47:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Very Inappropriate Analogy (0+ / 0-)

                Calling a black person the N-word is bad because you're reducing a person to a subhuman racial stereotype based on their skin color.  It makes sense for anyone to be offended by that.  Muslims are ignorant for being offended by a depiction of their prophet.  It's a make believe superstition and I realize its not nice to call people out on their beliefs, but you can't be polite all the time, people need to be called out on their BS.  A person doesn't choose to have a skin color, you chose to have a certain faith.

                Justice for Siegelman!

                by skidrow on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:35:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  thank you, exactly right n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW
          •  why is someone making a drawing (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FunkyEntropy, gzodik, skyfox, turn blue, Arza

            considered to have anything what so ever to do with your beliefs? if you practice Islam, then YOU are the one who shouldn't create images of the Prophet Muhammed, right? your beliefs don't and can't have anything to do with what I do or don't draw an image of.

            I guess I can sort of understand why Muslims would have a problem with other Muslims depicting the Prophet of their religion in an unapproved way (although it would still make no sense to me), but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would care that other people, non-Muslim people, would do so. who cares?

          •  Yes it is (3+ / 0-)

            We can tolerate it, we don't have to respect it.  I'm a Jew, and I don't get all hissy when people make fun of Jews.  Actually the Jews themselves are great at making fun of Jews.  No religion is allowed to have a ban on satire or parody of itself, not in a free world.  I don't respect any organized religion - that is my freedom.  I obviously tolerate it, I don't really care what people believe, but I don't respect it.  I don't respect Scientology - why should Judaism or Islam be any different.

          •  i disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I think that Muslims who would be offended by the posting of the Prophet Muhammad's likeness should not do so, and should not be forced to watch as others do so.

            I also don't think Comedy Central made the right decision removing the image and name from the episode, and I am happy that the SP creators decided to tackle this, and disappointed that they weren't able to fully.

            It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it.

            by DoGooderLawyer on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:32:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  There's a baseball player now... (9+ / 0-)

          ... named Angel Pagan. I like to call him Mr. Oxymoron.

          "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

          by ratmach on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:03:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh come on, it is too funny. (23+ / 0-)

        Uh oh...I feel another sacrilege coming on...

        Muhammed2

        Look, I'm not making fun of your religion, but you have to get used to the fact that it is your religion and not mine - I have no obligation to observe its taboos.  

        "Consequences shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." --Daffy Duck, Republican Hero

        by Troubadour on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:54:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  About as funny as... (3+ / 0-)

        the rather vile and racist images of Obama that we are used to seeing from the tea baggers. They look at it as being "ha ha so funny", but there are been untold number of diaries and postings here saying how terrible they are.

        Ask the people that are truly offend by those images if they can't just laugh it off. A whole history of the civil rights movement in the US just can't take a joke? Is that how this is funny?

        So sure, people are certainly free to say and post whatever they like and I think it is wrong to go after or otherwise threaten. However, for a lot of people these images whether of Obama or of "Muhammed" have a message behind them more than just 'ha ha so funny can you take a joke'. People around here seem to get it with Obama---this topic not so much.

        My wife has been approach on a number of occasions now by people who find Muslim bashing funny ha ha and a good sport. By the way, there is now outwardly way you could tell her religion. When she is asked if she knows any one involved in 9/11 or the evils of Islam---in the grocery store---"funny ha ha".

        My daughter will be next---"funny ha ha".  

        The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

        by dss on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:44:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Comedy Central? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    An Affirming Flame, Mariken

    Do you mean Cowardice Central?

    "Hamas is bad, but not as bad the IDF." - edtastic

    by Mikemoud Huckmadinejad on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:19:04 AM PDT

  •  I'm with Richard Dawkins on this... (15+ / 0-)

    I am tolerant of human beings, I am not called to be tolerant of RELIGIONS.  Everyone should be free to believe and do whatever they please provided those beliefs do not infringe on my own right to believe and do what I please...but as I will surely be criticized for my anti-religious opinions, so do I have the right to criticize organized religion. There is no reason, NONE, why religious belief should occupy some sort of sacred, inviolable pedestal where criticism of such becomes a shocking act. No one says we have to be "tolerant" of another person's POLITICAL beliefs - only their religious beliefs - even though politics, religion and culture are so often one and the same.

    You can criticize a Republican for the ridiculous things they believe, but you can't criticize a Muslim or a Christian for the things they believe because it's just their beliefs and that's "SACRED."

    However, all that aside, what Comedy Central is attempting to do here is protect the lives of their employees. There is no entrenched Islamic lobby in America that is going to carry out a successful boycott of Comedy Central for portraying Mohammed (that kind of power rests in the American Taliban - the radical religious Christian right.) If this was not such a pressing safety issue, Comedy Central would NOT be censoring it. This is a point that is important to acknowledge. The massacre of artists and writers over free expression MUST stop.

    in everything give thanks.

    by terra on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:30:10 AM PDT

  •  I have a pic of Mohammad in a book.. I am going (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skidrow

    to scan it and put it on facebook and anywhere I can find. I am not afraid. I am going to send a link somehow to as many people as I can.. like a chain email letter. woudl be fun. then the Islamic radicals can attack us all.. wait they want to do that now.. If they have a problem wiht idols then that is thier problem The prophat was just a man.

    •  Main screen turn on. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Decih

      "We get signal!"

      We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine,

      And the machine is bleeding to death.

      by Marcus Tullius on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:34:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, Rick in Oz

      Yeah, what a way to show respect to all the Muslims in the world.  You're such a nice person! :/

      •  I'd rather show respect for free speech any day (11+ / 0-)

        Than respect for just another religion.  So tell me how much respect does the Muslim religion or many others have for homosexuals?  

        Oh that's right the holy word on that is death to homosexuals.  Very respectful.

        •  Yeah...and another generalization... (18+ / 0-)

          Good job!

          LGBQT Rights

          MPV endorses the human rights, civil rights and civil liberties of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender individuals.

          MPV is currently working on a scholarly paper documenting the basis of LGBQT rights in Islamic law; in the meantime, links to documents and organizations discussing LGBQT Rights from a Progressive Muslim perspective appear below.

          While we respect the recent decision handed down by the California Supreme Court, we unequivocally reject the content of Proposition 8. We believe that discrimination should never be written into law, and Prop 8 represents one of the few cases in which a constitution has been specifically altered to include discriminatory language. MPV will continue to advocate for the rights of same-sex couples, and we look forward to seeing Prop 8 reversed in the near future.
          Muslims for Progressive Values

          Al-Fatiha is dedicated to Muslims of all cultural and ethnic backgrounds who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and questioning or exploring their sexual orientation and/or gender identity (LGBTIQQ), and their families, friends and allies.

          Al-Fatiha promotes the progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice. We envision a world that is free from prejudice, injustice and discrimination, where all people are fully embraced and accepted into their families, faith and communities.

          Al-Fatiha

          Imaan supports LGBT Muslim people, their families and friends, to address issues of sexual orientation within Islam. It provides a safe space and support network to address issues of common concern through sharing individual experiences and institutional resources.

          Imaan promotes the Islamic values of peace, social justice and tolerance through its work, and aspires to bring about a world that is free from prejudice and discrimination against all Muslims and LGBT people.
          Imaan

          Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to ever be elected to Congress and a vice chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus speaking about same-sex marriage:

          Try asking before assuming.  You don't know how ALL Muslims feel about something.  You decided to generalize us all which was not right.

          •  Tell that to the thousands dead by stoning (4+ / 0-)

            So respectful of you not to mention the thousands dead by stoning, expecially in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.  We may have it again after the US leaves in Iraq now that Sharia law is back.  In Pakistan, which is supposedly still secular, homosexuality is illegal and they are thrown in jail to rot. At least you could grace their memories with some truth.

            And now from Wikipedia, the prominent muslim clerics, not the cherry picked ones you like to quote:

            Rulings by scholars of Islam

            Based on the principles of the Qur'an and the Hadith, several eminent scholars of Islam, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Ahmad and Ishaaq have ruled that the person guilty of homosexuality should be stoned regardless of his married or unmarried nature.[4]

            Ibn Kathir's commentary on the words of Qur'an with respect to homosexuality are,

               The words of Allah ‘And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both’ mean, those who commit immoral actions, punish them both. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and others said: By condemning them, shaming them and hitting them with shoes. This was the ruling until Allah abrogated it and replaced it with whipping and stoning. ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata, al-Hasan and ‘Abd-Allah ibn Katheer said: This was revealed concerning a man and woman who commit fornication. Al-Saddi said, it was revealed concerning young people before they get married. Mujaahid said: it was revealed concerning two men if they admit it bluntly; a hint is not sufficient - as if he was referring to homosexuality. And Allah knows best."[12][13]

            Ibn al-Qayyim is reported to have said,

               Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise."[14]

            •  You're still generalizing... (18+ / 0-)

              You're assuming the way that they have interpreted Islam is the only correct interpretation.  You're assuming that the way some Muslims feel is the same way all Muslims feel.  That's not true.  It's so funny you point fingers at other countries that haven't given gays/lesbians rights, yet we live in a country that doesn't let them serve openly and won't let them get married.  Don't point fingers at other countries when we as a supposed secular country aren't giving them equal rights.  But if you want to talk about other countries, you're assuming those countries speak on behalf of all Muslims.  You can pull out as many quotes as you like, but as an American Muslim, I stand by other American Muslims like Rep. Ellison.  He's a firm believer in equal rights for the LGBT community.  Why ignore his voice?  Is what he says not relevant, because it doesn't go along with your narrative?  Don't assume that those that stand against LGBT rights are the only voices that matter or are the "voices of Islam."  

              •  Medina (12+ / 0-)

                You have my utmost respect for putting up with all of this nonsense and bigotry in as graceful a way as you do. I don't know if others here notice, but one of the funny things about dkos is that the Arab Christians here (like myself), the ones who have lived in Muslim majority countries, try our best to combat the anti-Islam sentiment to no avail. I'm sorry you have to put up with it, but I suppose, unfortunately, that you are more than accustomed to it at this point.

                •  With the bad comes the good... (11+ / 0-)

                  While there have been those that have been anti-Islam here on DKos, I've fortunately think I've talked to more people that are respectful of others.  It's interesting, because you never know when you might teach somebody something.  For example, gmgl decided to generalize Muslims, so rather than criticizing their argument and leaving it at that, I provided information that shows that generalization is incorrect.  And if gmgl doesn't care to check out those websites or to look at Ellison's video on same-sex marriage, then hopefully somebody else with those same generalizations will...and just maybe their generalization will cease.  I'm optimistic that people can break ignorance.  I've seen it happen before (I had a guy that was known as a racist in high school email me in 2008 after the presidential election to tell me how I changed him, helped him break his ignorance and it contributed to him voting for Obama!).

                  •  Bravo! U made my day! Thx! n/t (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Floja Roja, Rogneid, Aunt Martha, Alec82

                    "The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time." - Terry Tempest Williams

                    by your neighbor on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:15:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I think (5+ / 0-)

                    that what people are missing with the "freedom of speech argument" is the way it is mobilized, and the way it affects communities differently based on the social conditions of a particular society. So, I am all for "free speech" and the right to ridicule religion. For me, that's not what is at issue here.

                    The specific social context in the US is one in which Muslims are often targeted by the state, and where discrimination against Muslims for being Muslims is now being institutionalized through forms of surveillance. This is not even to mention the anti-Muslim propaganda that is fairly widespread in the media. So there is a different register when one disparages Islam, because it so easily collapses into the generalized anti-Muslim sentiment that is prevalent in the US. In other words, Muslims are a minority group, and as such, are not comparable to Christians in the US.

                    So if we're talking about a kind of neutral, equal society, where all groups are on equal footing, then perhaps I would be more sympathetic to the argument that making fun of Islam is just like making fun of Christianity. As it stands, most Muslims encounter such direct ignorance, and often discrimination, on a regular basis in the US, that it is irresponsible not to situate attempts to ridicule Islam within the context of Muslims being a minority. Just as negative portrayals of Judaism might make one pause to consider the possible anti-semitic effect, so should negative portrayals of Islam give people pause about what it means in this specific social context.

                    Other than that, my hope is that more Muslim Americans become politically active on sites like this, but judging by the ignorance they might encounter, I would not blame them if they stayed away.

                    •  Well this show... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...is not known for conveying socially responsible messages, or even using satire in a socially responsible way.  This is true whether the group being parodied is powerful or not, despised or not.  

                      I'm less dismayed by this episode of South Park than I am by the reaction to it here.  Although I'm not surprised in either case.

                      Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                      by Alec82 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:18:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I know I shouldn't be surprised, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sortalikenathan

                      but I continue to be, by people on this site who, when called out for the odious content of their comments, run out the "free speech" line, as if it only goes one way: their right to say what they want, not someone else's right to call them on it.

                      •  I think that's only partially right (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't think there's anyone here who believes that we shouldn't all have the right to say the most anti-Islamic shit we like. But while it's important to have that right in the larger context of free speech, there are also the facts that:

                        1. Having the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. Fred Phelps should have the right to make all his anti-gay remarks, but he shouldn't actually utilize said right, and;
                        1. There is no private right to free speech. I have the right to write, produce, say, film, etc. whatever I want. There is no requirement for anyone to air what I come up with.
                    •  I actually think they mean no harm to the Prophet (0+ / 0-)

                      Only to the criminals who perpetuate the ignorance that you shoudl threaton people who show a pic of hte Prophet.

                      I think tat as the point..

                      and they are right. Note below the day of resurection and the judgment are all by Allah NOT man.. these criminals are by thier threats claimgin to be Allah and that they are the day of resurction? sick

                      Proofs.

                      Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

                      "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

                      No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

                      Southpark would be judges but not now. ONLY on the day of resurection. Not before and not by man.

                •  I am not anti Islamic.. I read the Quran and (0+ / 0-)

                  have islamic friedns. However my right to freedom of speach and thier intoliarnce at satire etc is ignorant. The prophat was just a man. a MAN.. and NO ONE has a clue what he looked like.. So if I depict him as a woman in a photo deal with it.  its not realy him. I am sure he was a wonderful man.. I see him as a teacher and not some pefect person.. But I have no clue what the heck he looked like nore does anyone.. and no one can judge me from putting a pic of some stock photos face and put the words the Prophet Mohammad under it. Its art and the artist knows that all creation in art is pefect.  however its image is not a true reflection ever. These intollarent Islamic folks need to grow up a bit and realize art is art.. God has no care what Mohammed looks like at all.

                  •  Ah, yes. (0+ / 0-)

                    I am not anti Islamic. I read the Quran and have islamic friedns.

                    or, "Some of my best friends are islamics."

                    Sorry. I can't seem to find that sig-line. j1k1l

                    by Rick in Oz on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is what I am talking about am accusing those (0+ / 0-)

                      threatoning Southpark righters of not undersanding thier own religion. I.e. they are in sin. ONLY ALLAH can judge them and only on the day of resurection. They are positing themselves as God.. They are acting like the very infidel they judge. when South Park are only pointing to how silly the threats are.

                      Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

                      "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

                      No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

              •  How Muslims Feel != Islam (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DemocraticLuntz, eigenlambda

                Any more than "how Catholics Feel" = Catholicism.

                Catholocism is whatever the pope says it is, which is why the catholic religion DOES hate gay people, no matter how many catholics think in their secret inner heart that, "Well, I don't, so not really."

                There are authorities in Islam also, and if their concensus is that homosexuals are up to no good, then that's what Islam says about it.

                There are certainly enlightened and progressive people who consider themselves to be muslims, and the world is a better place for that.  But religions are defined by their rules and laws, not by the feelings of their followers.

                •  I would disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                  I know many Catholics who disagree with the Vatican on many issues, primarily the sex-related ones (birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality).

                  They are Catholics for fellowship and tradition, and it's likely they will not be in church except on Christmas, Easter, weddings, baptisms, and funerals.

                  The Polish-American community also viewed Pope John Paul II as a national hero in giving moral support to Lech Walesa and others fighting the sclerotic Communist state, even if they disagreed with other Church teachings.

                  9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                  by varro on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:29:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There Are Catholics Who Violate The Pope's Wishes (0+ / 0-)

                    Like John Kerry, who supports reproductive rights.  They handle this by trying to refuse him communion, etc.

                    The average Catholic is not high enough on the Pope's radar that he knows they are using birth control, or skipping mass on high holy days, or whatever.  But that doesn't change the fact that the central tenet of their religion doesn't make what they do "catholicism."

                •  You are very wrong... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  protectspice

                  Islam is not like Catholicism.  We don't have any hierarchy.  You are so wrong on that.  If you're talking about the "scholars," well there is not one that we all MUST follow.  They all have differing opinions and if you want, you can listen to them...if not, then it's not a big deal.  

                  There are authorities in Islam also, and if their concensus is that homosexuals are up to no good, then that's what Islam says about it.

                  You must know nothing about Islam.  We don't have any kind of hierarchy.

                  •  Well Then I'm a Muslim (0+ / 0-)

                    I mean I'm still an atheist, and I eat pork chops, and I'm gay...

                    but according to you Muslim is a state of mind and no authority gets to tell if you if you are one or you aren't one.  So I guess I'm one too.

                    Which direction do we bow in again?

                    •  We follow God... (0+ / 0-)

                      If you want to eat pork chops and you're gay, you can still be a Muslim.  And on judgment day, God is the decision maker.  There are gay/lesbian Muslims, ya know...and there are Muslims that eat pork, ya know.

                      but according to you Muslim is a state of mind and no authority gets to tell if you if you are one or you aren't one.  So I guess I'm one too.

                      I don't know if it's necessarily a state of mind, but the Qur'an is interpreted differently depending on who you speak to.  No authority can tell you that you are or you aren't.  And even if somebody tries, they're not God, so it's not up to them to decide who is adhering to what Islam is truly about.  I mean, I don't know how terrorists can call themselves Muslim considering they're killing innocent people.  But is there somebody that can determine whether or not they are really Muslim?  No.

            •  It is a *far* more complicated picture.. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kefauver, MBNYC, condorcet, JesseCW, MaikeH

              ....than the one you are attempting to paint with your post there.  I'm gay, and I'm an atheist, and I'm certainly no supporter of fundamentalist Islam or self-censorship under threat of death, but cutting and pasting from wikipedia isn't going to cut it.

              Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

              by Alec82 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:31:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Dude. (7+ / 0-)

              Ixnay. We gays are the corrupt other in just about every scriptural tradition known to man. Deplorable, and I'll never stop speaking up about it, but your precise argument here won't win us many friends.

              And if we in the West want to exert suasion on doctrines that conflict with our beliefs, I suggest it's not the best approach to get into flamewars with liberal American Muslims. Medina's on our side.

              It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

              by MBNYC on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:54:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  on our side? (0+ / 0-)

                I didn't know that whitewashing bigots was a gay-friendly behavior.

                Some religions, such as Unitarians, Anglicans, and Episcopalians, really are nice to gay people.  If you want to add your religion to that list, you need to actually change it, not just hope to get it changed some time in the next thousand years.

                Right now, much of Islam is in a medievalist age where teachers are accused of witchcraft for setting up barometers to predict the weather.  It happened before to Christianity, it happens to Jews (ever seen the expression G-d?  That's because Jews don't want you to write the name of God (that's actually יהוה) in a place where someone might come along and deface it.  Total medievalist bullshit.)

                So yeah.  We need less medieval thinking (if she weighs as much as a duck, then she's made out of wood), less stoning people for saying יהוה, and most importantly, less individual squeamishness for thoughts of homosexuality turned into religious proclamations against it.

                Incidentally, in China, which is officially irreligious, homosexuality is one of the social relations of capitalism and isn't an issue under communism.  Sounds almost like Ahmadinejad.

                •  Who's whitewashing bigots? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alec82

                  This is about treating another commenter with a minimum of respect.

                  It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

                  by MBNYC on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:13:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Um... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC
                  1. Anglicans and Episcopalians are the same thing.  Episcopalians are American Anglicans, part of the global Anglican Communion, which includes the Church of England.  
                  1. China decriminalized homosexuality in the 1990s and removed it from the list of psychosexual disorders.  The government is fairly tolerant, all things considered.  I don't know that it has an official position on homosexuality and its relationship to Communism, although what you describe was a prejudice of Marx and Engels.  

                  Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                  by Alec82 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:36:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Someone has to fight fundies on the ground... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and the people advocating democracy in Iran, or a repudiation of the repressive baggage that has attached to Islam over the centuries, can do more than any outsider could ever dream of.

              Islam's Martin Luther isn't going to come from outside.

              9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

              by varro on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:24:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Thats nice. (0+ / 0-)

            No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

            While you're at it, maybe you can find some Catholics denouncing pedophilia?  

        •  Is it not possible to show respect for both (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gracian

          free speech and members of a religion? Just because I strongly believe in my right to crack Holocaust jokes during my rabbi's sermon doesn't mean I wouldn't be a shithead to take advantage of that right.

      •  Medina, you're missing the point. (5+ / 0-)

        this was not an issue in the western world AT ALL until the whole 9/11 war on terror stuff catapulted everything into the limelight.

        The posters on here who are saying the sort of thing above aren't attacking you, or Islam specifically--but responding to a provocation.  Basically, the extremists who have set this tone between Islamic/Western relations are being mocked, and rightly so.

        I mean look.  What would have happened 15 years ago if you saw a picture of the prophet in a paper?  Either nothing, or maybe you would have written a letter to the editor, or looked the other way.  Offense is a part of life.  Generally people deal with it, find ways around it, or if it's really egregious, respond to it.

        But this kind of thing, where it may be a big issue in the Islamic world, is simply not so in the west.  Feel free to speak out, but I would hope that society would not change its behaviour on account of some pepole feeling uncomfortable with certain thin gs.

        •  I've dealt with plenty of offensive stuff... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rogneid, protectspice, your neighbor

          Believe me, I can handle it.  

          But this kind of thing, where it may be a big issue in the Islamic world, is simply not so in the west.  

          I've always wondered, where is the "Islamic world" exactly located?  I've heard that used a lot, but not quite sure which parts of the world are included in that.

          Feel free to speak out, but I would hope that society would not change its behaviour on account of some pepole feeling uncomfortable with certain thin gs.

          If I find things offensive, I'll speak out against it.  I wasn't offended by this cartoon though.  And that little drawing wasn't offensive either.  It just had a mocking tone to it.  I simply don't want people to take things too far by offending all Muslims in their efforts to mock the crazy and hateful Muslims.  There are many things in society that will make us all feel uncomfortable.  Stopping everything would be impossible.  But fortunately, we live in a country in which we can speak out when we don't feel comfortable about something.

          •  'islamic world' (0+ / 0-)

            ..maybe Muslim cultural sphere, or something like that.  I'm Jewish so I use the term 'community' to refer to both local Jewish communities as well as the international community...but 'community' also suggests the relatively small size of the Jewish population.  Christian world or Islamic world I tend to associate primarily with size--i.e. over a billion adherents..

          •  When people say islamic world they I think (0+ / 0-)

            mean the diffrent culteral beliefs.. hajib or not, Burqka or not etc.. diffrent holidays on and on.. not a country etc..

            I thin that is what they mean.. most of us western Infidel types think 12th century forms and intolerance is idiotic and should be ridiquled. I personally would not be offended by a pic of the prophet. And I am not going to stop having my pic because some radical thinks it rude and wants to issue threats. They are crimminal and not living up to the standards of the very person they are trying to protect. sad.

          •  that's pigheaded (0+ / 0-)

            we all know that the Islamic world is the nebulously-described regions where people are mostly Muslim.  Kind of like how Christendom was most of Europe.  I think you're trying to argue that the term 'the Islamic world' is useless because there's so much diversity within it?

            Keep in mind that there's an 'Organization of the Islamic Conference'.  No other religion has such a thing- many countries have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, but when was the last time the Vatican brokered an agreement like the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam?

        •  I love Islam (0+ / 0-)

          I just do not want to be threatoned to do this or that. I will NOT SUBMIT. I am a proud infidel even though I think I could be a muslim wihtout any cultural stuff in it..  pure monotheism is fine for me. wihtout the hajib (which are pretty btw) and all other culteral taboos etc.. everyone is equal here in the US and equally able to be made satire of including religion. It does not asy anwhere in the Quran to kill people for pics of himself.. this is criminal  and a violation of the very phrophats words.

          •  although... (0+ / 0-)

            it does say in the old testament that if you make a graven image of the Lord you shall die.

            the issue is to what extent you take this stuff as literal, metphorical, guidance, story, etc.

            •  Well I am talking about islam and (0+ / 0-)

              the refrence you are quoting in the old testamen is about GOD not the prophet which is just a man.. granted perhaps blessed. but a man. So the old testament ref is not applicable to this topic.

              The islamic teezts on the subject do not give the right of man to punish for depicting the Prophet in any way.  ONLY god can and only on the day of resurection.

              Proofs.

              Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

              "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

              No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

      •  In the West, freedom of expression is as central (2+ / 0-)

        to culture, identity, righteousness, virtue and well-being as Islam is elsewhere.  
        You are not in the Orient.
        You are in the West.

        You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

        by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:32:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Its not about respect (0+ / 0-)

        Its about thier stunning ignorance of the teachings of thier very religion.  It is against this notion. ONly Allah can judge people depicting the prophat on and btw its not in the Quran its man made rules.. The judgment oof these folks can only take place by God and only on the day of resurection. to assert otherwise is an elivation of self to tthat of God. That is what the people threatoning south park writers are doing.. sin.. The criminals threatoning should bite thier lip and give to God what is Gods and not judge as it is not thier place. THey do not have to watch or buy anything on the show advertised.

        proofs below:

        Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

        "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

        No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

    •  Wow, Comments are Going Downhill Fast . . . (0+ / 0-)

      Not voting gets Republicans elected. Gloating about it on DKOS isn't helpful either.

      by kefauver on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:55:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow you're brave. Really risking life and limb (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice

      for free speech there, eh?

      ORGANIZE early, ORGANIZE often.

      by bicycle Hussein paladin on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:27:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NO because what this teachis is un islamic. (0+ / 0-)

        NOTE to criminals issuing threats. on the DAY of resurection.. YOU ARE NOT Allah. The criminals threatoning South park are asserting thier ignorance of Islam. And committing a crime.

        Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

        "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

        No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

  •  South Park Episode DELIBERATELY Censored (11+ / 0-)

    Man, I'm just glad that they didn't ACCIDENTALLY censor South Park.

    'Cause that would just be embarrassing.


    "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

    by Ray Radlein on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:10:01 AM PDT

  •  Disclaimers (6+ / 0-)

    Disclaimer

    Different people around the world are offended or upset by different things. Of course, South Park goes out of its way to find ways to offend people, too.


    "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

    by Ray Radlein on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:17:59 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations on your failure... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhonig, eigenlambda

    ...to think critically!

    YOU ARE BEING TROLLED.
    THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THIS.

    This whole thing is a reference to their previous censorship issues with CC.

    Congratulations, all of you getting pissed about this, for being gullible sheep.

    You can't spell TREASON without T-E-A.

    by The Panic Man on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:22:07 AM PDT

  •  Go Team Venture! (6+ / 0-)

    Tonight Hank and Dean solve the mystery of the network suits missing their spines.

    Krusty the Klown Brand Irate Emoticons (tm) So You Can Express the Hate You Didn't Know You Had!

    by brentbent on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:36:35 AM PDT

  •  Pssst ...Hey buddy...uncensored SP200 DVD.... (0+ / 0-)

    I wish. Could get an all new titanium spine, then retire and spoil the grandkids. A real Forest Gump happy ending.

    Welcome to the Corporate States of America ®, give us your money, then die quietly.

    by geez53 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:42:48 AM PDT

  •  *sigh* I hate religion (4+ / 0-)

    Say it's not about religion, say most Muslims don't advocate this, I don't care. Religion sucks.

  •  Comedy Central = Viacom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steaming Pile
    1. Disney (ABC etc)
    1. The News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch)
    1. Viacom

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Look kids, they LET you have South Park, Stewart & Colbert (& Olbermann & Maddow) because if they can keep liberals at home, waving their arms and yelling along with their TV's instead of getting up and DOING anything, they've won.
    TV = brain death.

    When the pod-thingies crawl out of the wreckage in one million A.D. and write the history of the fall of the United States, television will be central to the story. If your best friend told you that they "only" spent five hours a day shooting dope (80% of their free time) instead of reading to their children, taking a walk, READING, you'd call an intervention, huh? Five hours of television is AVERAGE for Americans - that's not the bad junkies. ADHD? Autism? Early-onset Alzheimer's? The evidence is all there in front of you - but you're not gonna see it on the Today Show or Dr. Phil, gee why not. Grow a cortex, dude.

    If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning.

    by David Mason on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:00:05 AM PDT

    •  Then what is Fox News? (0+ / 0-)

      Does that keep "conservatives" at home, waving their arms and yelling along with their TVs?

      This space intentionally left blank.

      by Steaming Pile on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:29:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lighten up, Francis. (0+ / 0-)

      More neurons have died reading any of David Foster Wallace's or Ayn Rand's over-rated crap than any time television is watched.

      The Internet brings interaction to the visual medium, as opposed to a one-sided medium like print or standard television.

      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

      by varro on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I drew this tonight to show my solidarity (7+ / 0-)

    with Matt & Trey.

    The prophet is not a doody-head, and muslims do not say "derka derka". It is a joke... like Buddha snorting cocaine and Jesus looking at internet porn. I respect religious folks, but I do not respect extremists threatening violence against those who would go against their rigid, fundamentalist beliefs. Eating meat on Fridays isn't a hell-worthy trespass, and showing a picture of Muhammed isn't going to hurt anyone.

    Likewise, I do not respect those who back down when threatened. That only demonstrates that threats work. That is the very definition of terrorism. I love Comedy Central, but I am severely disappointed by their repeated cowardice on this issue.

    Either everything is OK to make fun of, or nothing is.

    muhammed

  •  Now I wish that the Evangelical Churches would do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock

    a "Last Temptation Of Mohammed" showing him on the big screen everywhere,this BS the Terrorist are doing and the caving to them is outrageous.

  •  If this is true, can we finally stop treating (5+ / 0-)

    Islam as a holy cow of the Left and acknowlege that Islam, as it is being practiced today, is violent, anti-feminist, anti-Democratic, and is not compatible with the values of a free society?

    There might be forms of Islam that are different, and these forms should be cultivated in the Islamic world - but right now any peaceful, pro-democracy elements of Islam are just a small part of the larger religion.

    •  As soon as we say exactly the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jethrock

      about every other religion, sure.

      (I can already see people jumping to take my suggestion; at least those people will be intellectually honest bigots.)

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

      by Jyrinx on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:25:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When do we not? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burrow owl, Dittoz, DemocraticLuntz

        I'm no great fan of religion myself, but I have noticed a conspicuous enthusiasm for bashing Christianity among some DKos commenters. My best friend is a fairly devout individual, so I try to be careful to distinguish between the religious impulse and the evils done in the name of religion. Whether you consider it rational or not (I don't), the religious impulse, properly developed, can bring about considerable good.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:23:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm down with that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itsbenj, skidrow

        Although I can't, with intellectual honesty, consider myself a bigot for considering the vast majority of religious believers delusional to some greater or lesser extent.

        That's pretty much the definition of delusional - holding unprovable, irrational beliefs.

        Now, I can, obviously, understand why folks who hold such delusions would consider me a bigot.  It's part of their deluded worldview.  If their reality were in fact, reality, then my non-acceptance of their delusions would indeed be bigotry.

        I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:04:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not bigotry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skidrow, DemocraticLuntz

        When Islam promotes violence, the oppression of women, the repression of free speech, it needs to be challenged. Any religion that does that needs to be challenged.

        But for some reason, the American Left seems to have a knee-jerk reaction against challenging Islam in any way.

        Islam does have reform movements that make it compatible with democracy. These movements should be fostered. But we shouldn't just refrain from critiquing Islam altogether, uncritically.

        And yes, any religion that promotes violence, the oppression of women, the repression of free speech, etc., needs to be challenged to the extent that it does so.

      •  If you haven't seen (0+ / 0-)
        Christianity bashed on this site, you haven't looked very hard.  Happens almost daily.  So go ahead and knock yourself out.  It's only Islam that gets special treatment.
    •  It's not anti-democratic, (0+ / 0-)

      it is anti-western, and democracy is, whether Muslims will accept the reality or not, part of western culture.
      A central part of it, in fact, that includes freedom of expression.
      I just don't think depicting Muhammed is the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
      And I don't think any western-educated judge would think the same.
      Now the West could make a hard anti-Muslim turn if it does something like requiring five years of Latin study for every Westerner and immigrant and mastery of the history and development of Western Civilization, and of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, Caesar, the early Church fathers and Hypatia in schools for both adults and children.  
      Now that would be anti-Muslim for sure.  
      The rest of the world says American culture has no depth.
      It has no depth because Americans have not claimed anything that is less than four-hundred years old.  

       

      You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

      by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:41:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We have to start being honest about it. (0+ / 0-)

      There are people thinking they can control our thought and expression through vicious acts of violence. I don't care if that is a Christian or Muslim, we can not accept or defend that on any ground.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:46:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  While I believe that holy cows make the tastiest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gracian

      burgers, and I think there is certainly a subset of the left that has far more stringent standards on what we may say about Islam vs. Judaism & Christianity, you're painting with far too wide a brush. To wit:

      Islam, as it is being practiced today, is violent, anti-feminist, anti-Democratic, and is not compatible with the values of a free society

      Practiced by whom? Army Specialist Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan? Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson? I can't fathom how you make such a value judgment base don something adhered to by 1.2 billion people.

  •  Whenever South Park's rating are sagging (4+ / 0-)

    they do something to get themselves censored. The real indicator of American society is that every single episode they make is worthy of censorship -- yet most of them glide freely through our society.
    I don't think South Park is fucked up. America is.

    "Hey, don't blame me ... I only see the future, I don't make it."

    by fourthcornerman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:47:21 AM PDT

  •  I hope there will be someway to see this Episode (0+ / 0-)

    I DVR'ed it at the second showing and got some other episode instead so thinks for the warning otherwise I would have woke up the house with my vocal comments.

  •  they only temporarily pulled one episode from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DoGooderLawyer

    reairing before- the one with the bleeding statue of Mary.  I believe the network ended up reinstating it, but that was part of the impetus for the epic "Cartoon Wars" episodes.  (Cartman's whole "If you can get one episode banned, you can kill the show!")

    Obama 2012: Because even if you're pissed at him, try to imagine the alternatives

    by TobyRocksSoHard on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:57:51 AM PDT

  •  As a matter of personal policy (5+ / 0-)
    I have a low level of respect for any religion that makes a point of condoning the killing of pagans. As I am myself a pagan.

    That's not just Islam, that's Judaism (opposition to my religious beliefs is expressly included within the 613 mitzvot) and Christianity as well.

    In my eyes, there's little difference between Christianity and Islam... except for the double standard where you can mock Jesus as much as you want, but if you mock Muhammad even once then you're marked for death.

    "I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough" -Eugene V Debs

    by jabbausaf on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:06:22 AM PDT

  •  But YOU posted pix of Mohammed! (3+ / 0-)

    You'll get DKos bombed! All the electrons will be scattered everywhere!

    (snark!)

    Seriously - sometimes I wonder which is worse - censorship imposed by Puritans of any stripe, or self-censorship imposed by fear.

    Rule 62: Don't take yourself too damn seriously.

    by SciMathGuy on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:19:56 AM PDT

  •  The end of South Park (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dwayne

    I hope to see Matt and Trey quit over this. The suggestion that one can laugh about anything BUT this or that is wrong. Censorship is wrong.

    Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre Serrons le cou du dernier roi.

    by johnrhoffman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:38:08 AM PDT

  •  I thought that this was a joke, GRRR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox

    Tweetivism -- Tweet all members of the Senate on twitter at once, with one easy form. Push HCR, thats the current topic!

    by no puma on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:38:58 AM PDT

    •  It Obviously Was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bicycle Hussein paladin

      The whole plot of the last two episodes was Tom Cruise trying to extract powers from Mohammed so nobody could make fun of him anymore.

      The censorship would be an awfully big coincidence.

      Just imagine if Mohammed HAD been visible, looking the way he did on the Super Best Friends episode.  The plot of the WHOLE THING wouldn't have made any sense.  He would have been part of the joke, so how could he have the power not to be made fun of?

      The only bleeps I thought CC maybe added were on the actual name Mohammed, since they weren't there last week.

      •  not to mention the ENTIRE ending of the show. (0+ / 0-)

        after 2 minutes of straight beeping, i expected them to show Mohammad and/or say something along the lines of "fuck this mohammad shit" that would really set them in a frenzy.

        Tweetivism -- Tweet all members of the Senate on twitter at once, with one easy form. Push HCR, thats the current topic!

        by no puma on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:39:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  they knew exactly what they were doing. (5+ / 0-)

    this sensationalized response is exactly what they want.

    i find the whole thing bizarre.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:45:40 AM PDT

  •  This is NOT censorship. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Same As It Ever Was

    Government censor, networks merely enforce their own broadcast standards.

    The truth is that Matt & Trey can afford to be brave on this.  They have the means to protect themselves.  But this kind of stunt endangers a lot of people potentially.  And while it's a close call, I can understand why some network exec decided to be cautious rather than risk the well being of his employees.  (Remember 3 translators of The Satanic Verses faced assassination attempts-one of them died and another nearly so.  And a 4th would-be assassin blew himself up on the way to Rushdie's apartment.)

    "They don't think it be like it is, but it do. " Oscar Gamble, circa 1980

    by Spider Stumbled on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:46:18 AM PDT

  •  "deliberately censored"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl

    Isn't that an oxymoron?

    Isn't censorship - by its very nature - deliberate?

  •  Tom Lehrer's "Vatican Rag" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Tracker, klamothe, lazybum

    was aired in the 1960s.  Satire of religion has a long tradition in the US.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    •  Not much Catholic terrorism back then IIRC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      klamothe

      Well, of the deliberate, targeted, reactive sort, at least. The church actually liberalized in the 60's, as opposed to these days, i.e. Vatican II.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:10:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the link (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandbox

      I have fond memories of my partner and a friend of his singing this (after a few drinks) one evening many years ago in a very upscale San Francisco restaurant.

      I have never heard the full (nor on key) version before.

      A fool will lose tomorrow reaching back for yesterday.

      by kansasr on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:52:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I only have one independent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eigenlambda

    contribution to this thread:

    Quote:
    The religious wars began with overt hostilities in 1562 and lasted until the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It was warfare that devastated a generation, although conducted in rather desultory, inconclusive way. Although religion was certainly the basis for the conflict, it was much more than a confessional dispute.

    Muslims haven't had these.

    Here was the West's confrontation with modernity.
    It did not end until 1649 and entire regions were depopulated.
    You can dismiss us or learn from us.  Your choice.

    You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

    by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:01:09 AM PDT

    •  Um, it began in 1099 (0+ / 0-)

      First Crusade.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:08:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Wars of Religion were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eigenlambda

        not cursades.
        They were not fought by knights coming from far away.
        These were highly localized, civil struggles.
        Much more deadly than anything in the Crusades.

        You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

        by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:34:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who cares who fought them? (0+ / 0-)

          The Crusades were religious wars. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Pretty deadly.

          "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

          by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:39:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  good point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eigenlambda

            If we don't care about them, then we don't learn from them do we?
            Sorry, but history is my religion.
            The Crusades were not just religious.
            The Crusades were wars of conquest, domination and exploitation of one people by a group calling them "other," "infidel," and above all, "uncivilized."
            It simply galled Medieval Christians that they had to do their pilgrimages in Muslim-controlled countries like Granada and Palestine.
            Muslims were other.

            The Wars of Religion pitted brother against brother, father against son, and family against family within the community.
            And civil struggles are ALWAYS the most sanguinary.

            You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

            by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:10:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Religious wars are never just about religion (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              itsbenj

              Whether internecine or not. They are ultimately about power and empire, with religion being a convenient excuse. This was as true of the Crusades as it was of the various post-reformation religious wars. As it is true of today's "religious" wars.

              "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

              by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:20:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  hi, (0+ / 0-)

                Believe it or not, sometimes people fight wars that aren't about power or empire.  Sometimes people start wars because some guy tried to kill their dad or something.

                The wars we're talking about in this thread were between different Christian groups over whether you should believe different Christian doctrines.  Funnily enough, people really do care about these things enough to blow stuff up about them.  I know, it's stupid.  They can't really be doing that, can they?  there must be another reason?

                •  Rarely (0+ / 0-)

                  The vast majority of wars are started for conquest, booty and glory, not ideas or beliefs. The popes and knights who wentoff on the Crusades were just as corrupt and power and glory-hungry as today's leaders. Religion was just an excuse to start those wars, just as Jihad and democracy are today.

                  In terms of being driven by ego, Richard Lionheart = Oliver Cromwell = Hitler = Bin Laden = Cheney = Next year's vainglorious psychopath. Nothing to do with ideas.

                  "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                  by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:14:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe that. (0+ / 0-)

                If you look at the power structure of late Medieval and early Modern Europe, there was little to win.

                The Crusades had to do with a desire, first in the Byzantine Empire and then spreading westward, to dominate lands holy to Christians.
                There were no kings in Europe directly in control of lands taken in the Crusades.
                All of the campaigns were military failures; a classic example of how military might can be squandered for futile ends.

                There was nothing "various" or disconnected about the "Post-Reformation wars."  
                They were all of a piece, part of the same conflicts.
                Conflicts, the like of which, the rest of the world has rarely if ever seen.

                Americans have, for the most part, forgotten about these wars-- they make the excuse:
                That was Europe, we are different.
                We are no different.  If anything, our own religious conflicts could lead to the same kind of slaughter easily.
                If we do not own it in history, we will surely suffer it in the present day.  The anti-modernists will kill and kill and kill . . . and feel perfectly righteous in the blood of it all.

                You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

                by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:08:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, Richard the Lionheart didn't hold lands (0+ / 0-)

                  in the Holy Land? News to me, Saladin and the Knights Templar.

                  "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                  by kovie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:16:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  The Crusades were fought at the behest of popes. (0+ / 0-)

        The Wars of Religion were fought at the behest of secular authorities.
        All the difference in the world.

        You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

        by vivens fons on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:35:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I Don't Think CC Added the Long Bleeps (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iowabosox, klamothe, Shaviv

    At the end.

    Especially the way it was drawn out.  Every episode of SP ends with an, "I learned something today," but it's usually just Stan or somebody.

    By thrwoing in Santa Claus, etc. to read lessons too I think they were just trying to amplify how long the bleeps were.

    I also assumed the bleeps CC "added" were over the actual name Mohammed, since you could hear it through the 200th episode (which was actually last week) and not this week.

    But even if CC did add it, it just contributed to the satire of how stupid the whole thing was.

  •  Why aren't the members of the Muslim group (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, DemocraticLuntz, sable, sandbox

    who threatened them arrested?

    Tweetivism -- Tweet all members of the Senate on twitter at once, with one easy form. Push HCR, thats the current topic!

    by no puma on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:18:08 AM PDT

  •  Hopefully Keith has them on tonight (0+ / 0-)

    "By the time an issue reaches my desk it's a hard issue. If it was an easy issue somebody else would have solved it." - President Obama.

    by hishighness on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:50:50 AM PDT

  •  Not all Muslims believe in this prohibition (3+ / 0-)

    It is incorrect to say that Moslems object to portrayals of Mohamad. Some branches of Islam believe in a prohibition against Idolatry, meaning that followers should not make pictures or statues of God, Mohamad, etc., to worship. But images and even statues of Mohamad for artistic and historical purposes were common in many countries, such as Persia, India and Turkey. There are parallel traditions in other religions - Jews, as well as some Christians, tend to avoid representing God, and many refuse even to write the name, reserving it as an unknowable mystery. But across all of those religions, the prohibition on Idolatry does not apply to non-believers. South Park is quite popular, but I don't think that representing Muhamad as a character would lead to Idolatry.

    If I had to guess (I am not Moslem) the issue is more that they don't want their prophet made fun of. This is understandable, but is not a particularly compelling argument in the context of a society founded on open debate among equals.

  •  I SO do not give a flying fuck (8+ / 0-)

    and I can't believe that you do.

    think it's hilarious that people think there's a principle involved here somewhere. "censorship!" oh, dearie me: imagine, a private, commercial television network exercises control over what it broadcasts....gawrsh, that's never happened before--other than on every channel in existence, 24 hours a day.

    fuck stone and parker, fuck their worthless show, and fuck this manufactured-for-marketing-purposes pseudo-outrage.

  •  Part of me understands.... (0+ / 0-)

    Trey and Matt were receiving death threats from extremists after the airing of the episode "200".  Comedy Central wants to protect their investment.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Trey and Matt quit Comedy Central over this.

    Mercy is for the weak. We do not train to be merciful here.

    by djtyg on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 05:54:50 AM PDT

    •  Wouldn't surprise me either (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      djtyg

      Trey and Matt could go online with it. They would be free of all forms of censorship. I would guess that almost their entire audience has internet access.

      Economics: The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today

      by yg17 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:00:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True... (0+ / 0-)

        except online shows don't make much money.

        My guess is that they go to another network if they don't quit.  There's a lot of network execs that would kill their mothers to get South Park on their network.

        This whole thing has made me so angry that I wanted to create a whole web page dedicated to showing pictures of Mohammed.  Then I found one that exists already:

        http://zombietime.com/...

        Mercy is for the weak. We do not train to be merciful here.

        by djtyg on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:05:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is a loathsome diary, completely pointless (2+ / 0-)

    and I don't care if this is a cliche, it's a Free Republic style shit stirring.

    NOTHING is at stake here. NOTHING. No principles that matter, no ideas, no human freedoms, NOTHING. Applying the word "censorship!" to this is utter and complete hyperbole.

    This affects NOTHING in the sphere of cognitive freedom. Quite to the contrary, hyperventilating about this meaningless event DESTROYS the space for actual discourse that ACTUALLY matters.

    I cannot believe Daily Kos is showing this much passion and interest over something so utterly meaningless.

    Sickening.

    •  You cannot be serious (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Common Cents, sandbox, Shaviv, Eric0125

      Nothing is at stake here? That's absurd. Even if you believe the last round of "censorship" was a total gimmick, the show itself directly and boldly tackles one of today's worst engines of oppression -- to the point that the show's creators are again receiving death threats.

      No one else will touch this stuff because terrorism has been so successful. Stone and Parker are among the very few who are challenging this culture of fear.

      Nothing is at stake here? No principles that matter??

      •  Oh, wow, yeah, I'm not "serious" (0+ / 0-)

        Not nearly as serious as the people who think this refers to a single meaningful thing in the real world.

        God, this is IDIOTIC.

        Focus on REAL threats to REAL intellectual and cognitive freedom, not some 10th degree from reality removed ridiculous "controversy."

        I cannot believe people think this has ANY meaning. And anyone who can't see the ultimate DESTRUCTION of ideas and freedom this kind of inanity causes is blind.

        I'm done. This shit is not for intelligent people.

    •  Our ability to live absent fear is at stake. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DoGooderLawyer

      If we can't even make cartoon shows for amusement because it might get people killed by muslim fanatics, then I'd say we are totally fucked and should rip up the Constitution and adopt Sharia Law.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:50:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, OK. Try this: (0+ / 0-)

        Walk in to any redneck or blue collar straight bar with a buddy and loudly talk about being gay.

        See what happens to you.

        How much freedom of speech do you REALLY have? YOU, I mean, not the fucking  characters you watch on television from the couch.

        Why not think about THAT for a while, human level freedom, not some corporate-level broad controversy that occupies serious stunted minds.

        •  According to you it all means NOTHING. (0+ / 0-)

          So I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying it is wrong to beat up people for being gay, but not wrong to threaten cartoonists for mocking your religion?

          If it is wrong in either case it is wrong in both cases to threaten people with violence. Believe it or not we could be outraged by both.

          "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

          by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:31:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So it's OK, nothing to be concerned about... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that gay people might be beaten to death in a redneck or "blue collar" straight bar?

  •  I believe that the universe is a beaver fart. (4+ / 0-)

    Lo, many moons ago (actually only about 2,000 years), the Great Beaver, Grootimus, wallowed in the mud... for he had to, as at that time there was nothing else.  One day he broke wind in the mud, and, lo, that was the birth of the universe.  The wily spider, Ezekimandis, drew the fart-bubble out with his web and, as the mud in the bubble settled, the planets were formed, and, from the strands of webbing, people were formed.  And now, if we are to escape the torments of Phletaris (a place of constant itchiness and uncomfortable seating) after we die, we need to eat pancakes at least once a week (to remind us the tail of Grootimus, The Great Beaver), and we also have to chant things about cheese, because Grootimus likes cheese.  Also, we need to put out offerings of dead flies in honor of Ezekimandis, The Spider (who, by the way, died in a great fire but grew back from his ashes, and this is why humans no longer have antlers the way they once did -- those antlered skulls, by the way, were hidden by an evil chipmunk to hide the truth from us and rob the Great Spider of his glory!).   Oh, and we're not supposed to wear polyester on Thursdays, or eat asparagus, which is cursed.  And there must never, ever be any drawings of beavers or spiders, or any positive images of chipmunks.

    This may all sound crazy to you (but it's not, because the only difference between this and other faiths is that I'm the only one who believes it, and the truth doesn't need statistics!), but, really, societal convention says you have to respect my beliefs.

    I'll expect your entire society to be restructured to cater to my whims by, oh, 2:00, 2:30 thereabouts.  

    Oh, and I don't have to pay taxes anymore.  Wheeeee!

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:18:34 AM PDT

  •  Religion: (3+ / 0-)

    still the stupidest fucking idea in human history.  We've got Islamic primitives on one side and Christian primitives on the other, doing everything they can to whittle down our freedoms to nothing.  What a depressing state of affairs.

  •  Depiction of Muhammad is OK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DoGooderLawyer

    There are plenty of depictions of Muhammad in Islam by Shiite artists and Shiites are in general more relaxed about their religion than the uptight Sunnis. So anyone who says they are offended by a non-believer's depiction of Muhammad should probably get on with burning down the great works of Persian art that depict Muhammad.

    Being a non-believing Hindu (wrap your head around that), I am afraid that a minority of Hindus have started exhibiting the same intolerant attitude of some Muslims towards artistic freedom. M.F. Hussain, India's best known artist was hounded by Hindu extremists for his nude depiction of Hindu Godessess. The unfortunate truth though is that such Hindu intolerance has been mainly a backlash against Islamic intolerance. India was the first country to ban Satanic Verses and India is still harassing Taslima Nasreen, a refugee from Bangladesh who had to leave her country for fear of her own life.

    •  I'm an atheist Jew (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lecsmith, Shaviv, iceweasel

      Being a non-believing Hindu

      that's normal to us. :)

    •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
      I side with freedom of expression/speech (as long as people tell the truth) and liberty of artistic expression, but you also need to examine, in good faith, the arguments made by those Hindus that are offended by his body of work and critique him justly from their persepctive. For example, here is an argument from a recent article:

      A Surya Prakash
      http://www.dailypioneer.com/...

      Here is the list of the eight objectionable paintings and the accusations made by the organisation. `Durga', in which the goddess is shown in sexual union with a tiger. `Rescuing Sita', in which the artist shows a naked Sita astride a naked Hanuman's tail -- "Hanuman's tail as a phallic symbol crosses all limits of decency." Lord Vishnu is generally painted with four hands holding a shankh, a padma, a gada and a chakra, but the hands of Vishnu are shown as amputated and his legs have been cut off -- a maimed, mutilated and exhausted Vishnu reclines on his spouse Lakshmi and his vahan Garuda. "Should the cutting of hands and legs of Vishnu be regarded as creative freedom or deliberate affront to Hindu sensibility?" Saraswati, whom Hindus regard as a goddess draped in a white and pure garment (ya shubhra vastravruta) is also shown naked. Goddess Lakshmi is shown naked and perched on the head of Ganesh, "a posture highlighting unmasked sexuality".

      Hussain's `Hanuman-V' shows a three-faced Hanuman and a nude couple -- "The identity of the woman is not in doubt. The erect genital of Hanuman is bent in the direction of the female. The obscenity is too obvious." Another painting, `Hanuman -13', shows a stark naked `Sita' sitting on the thigh of an equally naked `Ravan', while a naked Hanuman is shown attacking the latter. In `George Washington and Arjun on the Chariot' Washington replaces Lord Krishna in the famous chariot scene from the Mahabharat! Hussain replaces Lord Krishna with Washington because "in his eyes Lord Krishna is no god and stands denigrated and reduced to the level of a mere human being -- George Washington".

      But, is Hussain's iconoclasm uniform? Far from it. Hussain is the very epitome of reverence when it comes to non-Hindu subjects. He paints Fatima, Prophet Mohammed's daughter, as "the embodiment of serenity and grace" and fully clothed. The artist takes no liberties here. He takes no liberties also while painting his daughter and mother. His painting of Mother Teresa is "an outstanding piece of art" which brings out the compassion of the Mother, says Mr Sinha. If this be so, why does he depict Hindu gods and goddesses in such a repulsive manner? The answer lies in yet another painting -- a panel depicting Einstein, Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung and Hitler, in which only Hitler is naked. Can we then conclude that characters about whom Hussain feels repugnant are depicted in the nude by him?

      I am hardly offended by artistic nude renderings of Hindu gods (and I am curiously intrigued by Hussein's work), but I think its a legitimate question to ask he paints only Hindu religious symbols in the nude (that too in a raunchy manner in some pieces) while not doing the same for other religious' figureheads. Don't you agree?

      Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

      by iceweasel on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:14:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  C'mon, this is America. Not surprising at all... (0+ / 0-)

    tragic, just not surprising. The America I grew up in began dying in 1980 and is now just awaiting burial.

    Plus, censorship on Comedy Central is childish in the extreme. We are now just a nation of babies.

    Here is an example of how we treat our children nowadays:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    It's a comment I made a short while ago on open thread.

    "The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no living man with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams

    by The House on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:26:24 AM PDT

  •  This is not censorship (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treg, Red Sox, Giles Goat Boy, wwjjd, susanala

    Comedy Central is the client.  They decide what gets put on the air.  This is hyperbole dude, making a lot out of little.  They can still say what they want in any other venue that they control.

    They just don't control what their client wants.

  •  I doubt Matt and Trey's sincerity here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bicycle Hussein paladin

    I love the show, but these guys do not seem like would be free speech martyrs to me.

    Outside of South Park they could post or say whatever they wanted about Mohammed and put themselves in the position of having a fatwa against them like the Danish cartoonists, but they don't do that.

    They could do a Team America II featuring Mohammed and put it on You Tube. I'd give them $20 against the production costs, it would probably be hilarious.

    That Comedy Central doesn't want to put their corporate interests and other employees at risk is a regrettable, but entirely understandable decision.

    Matt and Trey's insistence on making a big issue about this "censorship" seems more like Cartman's whining to his Mom than Lenny Bruce getting arrested to prove a point.

    In fact, given that they like to skewer Al Gore, the Clintons and mock liberal causes as much as conservative ones (the Smug episode, ManBearPig, etc.), they're probably laughing their asses off that this is even on the rec list.

    God DAMN It! YOU SUCK!! - Tiger Woods about himself

    by roguetrader2000 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:45:29 AM PDT

    •  Comedy Central is a business. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boisepoet

      I hate that CC is doing this, but I understand it.  What other network would air even a fraction of what CC has aired?  And Stone and Parker certainly have other avenues to poke sticks in the eyes of Muslims.  It's unfair that Islam is the only religion that can't be satirized, but Baptists don't (yet) tend to blow up as many buildings and people when they get angry.  Maybe if Christians become more violent, they wouldn't get made fun of as much.  Being violent certainly gets Muslim extremists what they want.

  •  How will Com Central react when (0+ / 0-)

    Matt and Trey do an episode about a certain comedy network that block parts of shows they don't happen to like?  Will they show it?  Will they block it?  I hope they make it and skewer Comedy Central good.

  •  My suggestion has been to set aside a day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shaviv

    And call it "Your religion is wrong" day.

    This is the day when Christians are supposed to tell Jews Jesus is the Messiah.

    And Muslims tell Christians Jesus was not the son of God.

    And atheists mock everyone.

    And pagans perform ritual insults of atheists.

    And, yes, we can insult Mohammad as part of the day.

    Just one day a year where everyone has to man up and listen and acknowledge that other people think you are wrong, and deal with it.

    Just one.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:52:22 AM PDT

  •  I think the "deliberateness" (0+ / 0-)

    of the censorship makes it all so much worse.

    Holy crap this is silly.

    "Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why." - Kurt Vonnegut

    by Wayneman on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

  •  congrats terrorists (but you're still assholes) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DoGooderLawyer, richiedoc

    Drill, Barry, Drill. How Republican of you.

    by The Dead Man on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:07:39 AM PDT

  •  This is not a big deal to me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, Shaviv, jtown

    I was more pissed when Cartoon Network censored a Boondocks episode which made fun of BET.  That was bullshit.

    climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

    by GN1927 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:09:58 AM PDT

  •  More importantly... (5+ / 0-)

    Cartman's half-brother is SCOTT TENORMAN!?!?!?!?!?!?

    A gin and orange, a lemon squash and a Scotch and water, PLEASE! -6.75, -4.36

    by zkg on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:15:14 AM PDT

  •  inciting violence should be censored. (0+ / 0-)

    Bravo to Comedy Central for standing up against incites to violence.  

    •  You are fucking insane. (4+ / 0-)

      So now all anyone has to do is threaten violence if they are satirized and before long no one will be able to be mocked. Funny that you blame the satirist and not the person threatening to hurt those that use satire.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yelling 'fire' is not satire either. (0+ / 0-)

        This is a problem a fraction of the left has.  Its the belief that everyting is ok, so long as we do it.  Its like, if people are free to say whatever they want, then why are Goldman Sachs not free to promote their troubled assets?  Can't they hide behind the banner of freedom like everyone else does?

        I see this disconnect everywhere in American society.

        The people who say Comedy Central is bad to censor, and the same people say Fox News should censor their commentators who frequently call for the death of political figures on the left, are hypocritical.  Why is one calling for violence good, and the other bad?  Hypocricy is the only answer.

        I am always careful not to let myself fall in that trap.  It may not be poplular here to defend censors of South Park.  It may be more popular here to call for the censorship of Fox News and their lies, but I am going to do it anyway despite the unpopularity of it.  The reason why?  Because its the truth.

        •  Not much on context are you? (0+ / 0-)

          RE: Your Fox example...South Park is a cartoon that makes biting social commentary via satire, the other is a 'new network' that often distorts facts or issues opinions in the name of reporting the news. When you watch one you know you are not supposed to take it seriously, the other attempts to pass itself off as reality.

          Do you not see the difference in context?

          "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

          by Boisepoet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:21:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  dosn't calling me insane violate the rules? (0+ / 0-)

        Common Cents should get HR'd.  However, like with the whole point of the censorship argument, its only worth censoring if it goes against the party line of the group that has the power to censor?

        Thus, Common Cents will only get the HR if DailyKos supports calling me insane, despite the rules that expressly forbid namecalling.

    •  Satire is not violence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shaviv

      You are punishing the victim.

    •  fear wins with you (0+ / 0-)

      you should have voted for GWB.

  •  This is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. (0+ / 0-)

    It should be censored, the constitution supports these bans.  Religious kooks freak out at these cartoons, its not too much to ask for, to have their favorite prophet to not be depicted in an image.

  •  Comedy Central is so chickenshit. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, Shaviv, gayjustice

    I love South Park and I can't believe how the fundies and Comedy Central are playing right in their hands. They've got Buddha snorting coke and the only people upset for Islamic Fundamentalist and the chickenshit people afraid to offend them.

    Hint: You can't appease the Islamic Fundamentalists unless you completely surrender or die.

    Pick a side.

    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

    by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:35:59 AM PDT

  •  As a 3/4 Hindu, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bicycle Hussein paladin

    I have no objections to anyone making fun of Krishna, or Shiva or any of the zillion gods in our pantheon.

    However this is a different story. Firstly Islam as followed by 1.6 billon people prohibits the image of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). Is it too much to ask for us to respect that? If the image is shown in as part  of scholarly research on the life of the Prophet (PBUH, I can understand. But this is meant to ridicule him.  The only beneficiaries are the creaters or South Park who will be laughing all the way to the bank with the directors' cut edition DVD.

    Is it too much to ask people to respect customs and practices of other people, customs and practices that they may not understand or agree with?  

    Having said that, it is irrational of this so called group to get all hot and bothered about this episode and it is more irrational for people here to claim that  Comedy Central is censoring the episode. They made a business decision, pure and simple. There was more to gain by not showing the episode than by showing it.

    But I am not surprised at the intolerance shown and by the language used at this site by some.

    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

    by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:36:59 AM PDT

    •  Is it too much to ask for not violence? (5+ / 0-)

      I mean really? One group is mocking another. The mocked group is threatening violence. There is no equivocation here. People can make fun of things if they want. You can't kill others if you want. There is a huge difference.

      "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

      by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:39:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it's too much (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, DoGooderLawyer, sandbox, sirclown

      What's next?  We all stop eating pork as a sign of "respect"?  We stop criticizing anything done under the name of Islam?  Hell no.  No religion has the right to be excluded from satire and parody, not in a free world.  And when it gains that right, we are no longer free.

    •  Respect is great. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, DoGooderLawyer

      I think it's a good idea for people of all faiths to show respect to people of other faiths, and to their faiths as well, within reason of course.

      I don't think it should be required by any law or regulation.

      I think a broadcaster censoring as "offensive" a show which is designed to be offensive, whose producers' money was accepted by the broadcaster with full knowledge of the offensive nature of its content, is foolishness.

      CC made a statement by agreeing to air South Park that they were willing to take a stand and say, "We believe obscene and offensive material can be funny and we are willing to broadcast it with our name attached." So, while I don't watch South Park, and its humor tends to leave me cold, I feel like this is CC going back on its implied statement.

      "You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams." -- Dr. Seuss

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:43:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it is indeed too much to ask. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, DoGooderLawyer

      do you know how much literature you'd end up purging if you were to apply your standard to everyone who feels offended/ridiculed at something?  Why should Muslims get special treatment?

      •  Did anyone demand that books be purged? (0+ / 0-)

        A lot of strawmen running around today!
        I defend  the right of the creators of South Park to make a fast buck by ridiculing anyone one anywhere.

        I also believe that CC has the right to allow or deny anyone to broadcast their channel.  
        There is a difference between a right and a privilege. CC has the RIGHT to give  the creators of South Park the PRIVILEGE to broadcast on their network. Or Take it away!

        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

        by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:01:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh one more thing.... (0+ / 0-)

        it is indeed too much to ask.

        .. I was brought up by my parents to respect and tolerate other cultures and beliefs. I guess that is that where you and I differ.

        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

        by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, in my new religion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Caj

          it is offensive to tolerate kowtowing to religious threats.  Are you going to respect my religion or theirs?  Because you have to pick one.

          Also, my new religion states that anyone questioning my beliefs must buy me beer.  I expect you will not want to offend me and my beliefs, so please be sending a nice six-pack of microbrews expediently.

          •  What a conicidence! (0+ / 0-)

            We are co-religionists!  (the beer part!).
            Lets exchange!

            Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

            by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:35:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

            If a religious fundamentalist believes that you should obey his rules, then he has chosen to opt out of this whole "respect other religions" concept.

            The fundamentalist has decided that it is disrespectful if you don't observe his religion's rules.  Thus a request for "respect" is essentially a request for everyone else to worship.

            But in doing so, the fundamentalist refuses to respect other religions, or secularism.  

        •  now THAT'S (0+ / 0-)

          a strawman!!

          •  Not really... (0+ / 0-)

            ... unless I misread you.

            I asked..

            Is it too much to ask people to respect customs and practices of other people, customs and practices that they may not understand or agree with?  

            and you replied...

            Yes, it's too much

            .

            In effect.. You replied that it was too much to ask (your words) people to respect customs and practices of other people, customs and practices that they may not understand or agree with

            I used the word RESPECT, not FEAR or CAPITULATE or GROVEL. And you disagreed with the word RESPECT.

            Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

            by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:41:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely too much to ask (3+ / 0-)

      It is intolerant to expect people outside a religion to follow the religion's rules.  
         
      It also misses the whole point.  You observe religious rules as a personal, earthy sacrifice to get closer to the divine.  Part of the point of following the rule is that others don't.  If everyone observed the rule by default, there would be little meaning in following it---that's why nobody gives up time travel for Lent.

      Respect and tact does require that I don't violate someone's religious rules in their temple or at a Seder or Christening or whatnot.  It does not require us to obey another religion's rules in day-to-day conduct.  It does not require restaurants to stop serving meat on Fridays, it does not require colleges to remove Coke machines.

      A similar example of this came up a few years ago when some Mormons tried to remove a Wikipedia article about the Mormon temple garments.  Mormons have a taboo against depicting or openly discussing them, and some of them took this rule to mean that non-Mormons should not do so either, i.e. that it should be removed from an encyclopedia.

    •  I don't think you understand South Park (0+ / 0-)

      South Park makes fun of everyone. I don't think there is a race, religion or ethnicity that hasn't been ridiculed by them. Why should Islam be exempt (which was the message of the past 2 episodes)?

      Economics: The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today

      by yg17 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yes, censorship (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Swampfoot, Noamjunior

    it's a TV program run by the company that owns it. they can censor it if they want.

    also south park sucks. they routinely make fun of minorities in the name of anti-pc when they're really just intellectually lazy, libertarian cartoonists. they can shove it.

    * insert rec-list astonishment *

    •  I'm not a fan of South Park, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, megisi, Common Cents

      when cartoonists are threatened with death for plying their trade, no matter the politics of those cartoons, that's not okay.

      I think that's the story here, more than anything Comedy Central might do.

      "You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams." -- Dr. Seuss

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:49:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the story is nothing new (0+ / 0-)

        muslims don't even paint each other.  they don't believe human representations in art because they think a part of the soul is lost of the person painted (?) so of course depicting muhammad in any way would be blasphemous. it's nothing new.

        what's new is dailykos is falling for a marketing ploy by these morans. they knew what would happen if they did this. they can't respect other cultures because they're too full of themselves at the moment. be sure to catch next week's thrilling conclusion to farting canadians and gays who shove hamsters up their asses. must see tv!

        •  I guess I am not sure... (0+ / 0-)

          ...Well, no, I am sure.

          I think the story here isn't what CC did or didn't do, it's what Revolution Muslim did.

          "You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams." -- Dr. Seuss

          by Shaviv on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:52:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  great show, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

      I love it.

      hate pc with a vehement passion.

      •  i dislike it, obv. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KateG

        prefer stewart & colbert because they actually have brains.

        anti-pc is fine if you actually care about the ideal it proposes. when you tear it down, then tear the down groups it protects, its just stupid. i am not a fan, and i hope this leads to more censorship. such as cancelling. then the teenagers will just have to watch glenn beck or whatever to get their anti-pc socks off.

        •  it doesn't protect everyone equally...though... (0+ / 0-)

          and that's a myth.

          it's the groups who yell the loudest, have the most money, have the most influence who get to be protected...not the others.  I think if any of these things are applied they should be applied across the board--HOWEVER when you apply PC--or let's say the freedom-from-offense, you stifle an inordinate amount of creative thought and satire.  there goes Mark Twain.  There goes JK Rowling.  THere goes all-in-the-family.  There goes Eddie Murphy, or Jackie Mason, or other people satirising themselves--as some may be offended.

          the pro-PC argument is an absolute fallacy, as is the pro-censorship argument.

          •  subtlety, friend (0+ / 0-)

            one can ridicule PC while advancing a compassionate narrative, even questioning PC in the process. many satirists do it daily, such as stewart and colbert. when your target is solely PC, you end up tearing the whole thing down and leaving groups exposed to ridicule and stereotype. if you don't believe in protecting those groups (gays, blacks, jews, etc) then you'll have a lot of fun reverting all of them to stereotypes. and some will think it's hil-a-rious. others will flip the channel.

            i'm not sure what you mean about PC protecting groups with money (blacks, women, gays, mentally disabled - really?) and power. that's quite the contrary to what PC does. maybe you don't understand it.

            •  I don't believe in protecting (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rimjob, Boisepoet

              groups from stereotype, as you can tell.  so obviously I'm against PC at its core.

              However, I do believe that even if you do believe in its merits, it completely gets coopted by groups with influence, such as those you mentioned.  I don't think it protects everyone equally at all, and if it did, entertainment would be very antiseptic.

              That said, I DO believe in being nice to people.  I DON'T believe that being nice to people should be institutionalised in this manner.

        •  by the way.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lefty Mama

          South Park is highly intellectual.  It's raunchy and mean yeah...but it's flat-out satire.  If you see it as dumb comedy you're really missing the point, even if you don't like it.

  •  officially hate Islam now. (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  re: update: which reruns were pulled? # 201? (0+ / 0-)

    or the pre-11September2001 episode that mocked various religious figures?  (or both?)

  •  From The Preface To Animal Farm..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    megisi, Common Cents, jazzence, Eric0125

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

    -George Orwell

  •  You know, I've learned something today ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, Eric0125

    ... but, screw you guys.

    I'm going home.

  •  They've been offending people since (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daveusf

    they've been on air. LOL, why start censoring them now?  

    -------
    We can't have nice things can we? Because we have to legislate to the craziest and the dumbest among us.
    ~Jon Stewart 4/13/2010
    Also.

    by Muzikal203 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:03:40 AM PDT

  •  Comedy Central Has Done This Before..... (6+ / 0-)

    About 4 years ago, Matt & Trey complained after Comedy Central decided not to re-air the Scientology episode ("Trapped in the Closet") after Tom Cruise reportedly threatened Viacom with not helping to promote 'Mission Impossible III' if the episode wasn't pulled.

    Comedy Central eventually relented & re-aired the episode.

    The show’s co-creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, were told in May that the episode was pulled from the schedule to appease Cruise and his partners in "Mission: Impossible III," according to reports.

    "If they hadn’t put this episode back on the air, we’d have had serious issues, and we wouldn’t be doing anything else with them," Stone said in Wednesday’s edition of the trade paper Variety.

    •  That's ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dss, protectspice

      By showing this cartoon equating muhammad/islam with violence. You're just helping the rightwing conservative neocons of the world and their zealous radical islamic counterparts.

      Who are you in solidarty with? The Network that stands to make more money out of the controversy, the makers of south park becoming even more popular? Just asking.  

      Don't be a tool. These images have been politicized by extremists only, I dont see how repeating their crude, offensive and racist generalizations helps anyone along.

      A couple of overzealous religious freaks threatened a major network over a cartoon, big deal. By overreacting we just play into the hands of political radicals.

      •  Ask Theo Van Gogh if it is no big deal. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sandbox

        This is more than just a few nuts. Check out the riots and the violence.

        Ask Rushdie if they are just a few isolated incidents.

        This is not about left wing or right wing. It is about not being intimidated by thugs.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:48:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems you're mightily intimidated already (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          protectspice

          I worked at the neighbourhood council where Theo van Gogh was killed at the time, and had a small role in managing the aftermath and keeping the broader community(muslim and non muslim) together and personally interviewed many radical muslims as part of a university research into radicalization. I also have a muslim background. So I think I can  asses the dangers of radicalism and bigotry as well as anyone else.

          Why any progressive would want to cheer for a louzy superficial hatefull cartoon published in a very rightwing danish magazine is beyond me. I think we can have a more productive discussion without piling up on the prejudices against islam and muslims from the left. How does equating the religion of islam with violence and backwardness help anyone really?

          I agree it's about not being intimidated by thugs but it seems the extremists on both the islamic and right wing side have gotten to you already.

          •  I'm intimidated because I oppose them? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boisepoet, sandbox

            That is an odd connection. It would seem those intimidated are the ones rationalizing their behavior and supporting censorship to avoid angering them out of "respect" for their belief that they can kill.

            No one is tying all of Islam with what is happening anymore than they are connecting Christianity to the nuts killing abortion doctors.

            But the extremists cannot be reasoned with and cannot be bowed down to. It matters not all if you think a cartoon is lousy or not. They don't deserve to be killed. Violence is never tolerable in these circumstances. No appeal to their beliefs or background will ever justify it.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:13:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  duplicating the cartoon does (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Boisepoet, protectspice

              exactly that; it ties the religion of Islam with violence. As such the cartoon is a tool of propaganda and fearmongering as much as the depiction of the dead body of van Gogh is in the threat uttered by those muslim zealots. The cartoon whas specifically designed for that purpose.

              Now I'm not saying that there's not a serious discussion to be had on the theological background of modern muslim political extremism, but do we as progressives really have to resort to duplicating the crudest superficial right wing propaganda cartoon to further the discussion.
              If you think you can put a stop to political islam by alienating moderate and progressive muslims by using rigthwing memes and imagery, well;good luck with that.

    •  Yah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice

      lets just go to the  image of swarthy muslim terrorists now.

       And then we can discuss the movie they made where they gave the liberal group the title " FAGS" (film actors guild)  Wasn't that hilarious!!  We should do more of that here don't you think. Try that in a thread here!  Oh wait, there might be community censorship.

      I guess push comes to shove I don't believe in the censorship, except for the safety issue.  

      However I sure the hell don't think they are funny and I sure don't like the tone of some of these comments.  There is no heart in their word -  and the best comedy always has heart in my opinion.   Even satire.  Personally they remind me more of the chatter on the Trade Channel at World of Warcraft.

      •  Threatening violence sure isn't funny. (0+ / 0-)

        There is a big difference between satire and killing people. I'll always stand with the satirist over the murderer.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well like I said (0+ / 0-)

          I don't believe in the censorship in the end.

           I just think that satire should take us to a different place than where it takes us in their work.  It doesn't take away our prejudices..it reinforces them.  But you protect speech no matter what, eh.

          •  I also disagree with your view on South Park. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think it does the things you claim it does. But that is not important. I don't think either of us have the authority or desire the authority to tell artists what satire should do. The artists can figure that out and audiences can choose to consider it or not.

            But what is not acceptable to you or I is the idea of killing people or threatening to kill people because they do satire a different way.

            I am not an absolutist on free speech, but rather an absolutist on the matter of violence. There is no call for resorting to it in this matter.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:06:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes...you protect speech no matter what. (0+ / 0-)

            I hate the perpetuating of the myths that all religion provides, but goddamn it, they have the right to spread their myths no matter how much it might offend me. AND no matter how much it offends me I will not threaten those purveyors of falsehoods with violence. Now if only some adherents of religion could be that way too.

            "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

            by Boisepoet on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:43:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Classy (0+ / 0-)

      Wish I had my TU back right about now...

    •  I am sure you could have made your point .. (0+ / 0-)

      ... without posting this awful picture.
      Arent you ashamed of yourself?

      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

      by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So we can do things like this here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dss

      but absolutely NO GODWIN VIOLATIONS allowed.

      Got it.

  •  Dogmatists never understand irony. (0+ / 0-)

    If they had never made publishing images of their prophet an issue no one would do it. Poor stupid fucks.

    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

    by Common Cents on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:46:52 AM PDT

  •  Today hell froze over... I agreed with a fahtwa. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yg17, protectspice

    A Kelly Clarkson concert in Indonesia was cancelled after an Islamic council issued a fahtwa stating that the main advertiser/funder of the concert was a tobacco company, and that it was an unhealthy product that was marketed to children and therefore an unethical event. I was speechless at the common sense of it all...  

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:48:32 AM PDT

  •  People without a sense of irony (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DoGooderLawyer, Gracian

    Take the time to comment on a diary saying how little they care about the issue raised in the diary.

    I CARE SO LITTLE BUT I FEEL COMPELLED TO PROCLAIM IT.

    On topic, I'm was expecting Viacom to overreact once that threat was put out.  I really wish they had the balls to run the entire episode uncensored just to a prove a point.  Nobody thinks the people threatening violence are members of the mainstream muslim community and caving to the threats of a few belligerents does no good to anyone.

    •  Yes.. (0+ / 0-)

      Nobody thinks the people threatening violence are members of the mainstream muslim community and caving to the threats of a few belligerents does no good to anyone.

      Yousef al-Khattab, wasn't born a muslim,  wasn't born an Arab!

      The group of 5-10 members devoted to Abdullah el-Faisal was run by Yousef al-Khattab, born Joseph Cohen, an American Jew who converted to Islam in 2000 after living in Israel and attending an orthodox rabbinical school there, then returned to New York,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

      by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pussies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by jazzence on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:09:26 AM PDT

  •  Damn extremists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    Fuck all of them no matter what they believe in.

    "I don't mean to sound vile, bitter or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out." - Bill Hicks

    by Moon Mop on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:15:00 AM PDT

  •  Smell like a PR stunt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beelzebud, dss, protectspice

    ...and who gives a shit.

  •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DoGooderLawyer

    We thought it was done by Stone and Parker to make a point and laughed at the bleeps and black bars.
    Not so funny now if it was done by CC instead....

    I'm Enjoying That Hope and Change Just Fine...Thanks for Asking

    by vintagejulie on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:18:57 AM PDT

  •  No sense of humor? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, CherryTheTart

    South Park rips on everyone and everything and that's what makes the show funny. I mean they showed Buddha snorting lines of coke for Christs' sake! You don't see Buddhists making death threats. Why do Muslim extremists have to be so sensitive? And why do Western censors have to be such cowards?

  •  comedy network Canada showing 200 (0+ / 0-)

    watching episode 200 now on thecomedynetwork.ca and seems no censorship at all.  Only one I see is the image with a black box on it.  But words are not censored.

    Episode 201 is not available, but I am not sure if it has aired or not. (sometimes we have to wait for airing in Canada)

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:33:12 AM PDT

  •  Umm (0+ / 0-)

    If a network chooses not to air its own content, that's not censorship.  Self-censorship, perhaps, self-restraint definitely, but not censorship.  

    And second...it's just a teevee show.  Of all the things to get upset about...there's nothing more worthwhile?

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Private organizations cannot 'censor' anything - censorship being the use of force in preventing publication or broadcast. Only governments can 'censor'.

    They can, of course, 'edit' or 'modify' or 'control' whatever they like - being private entities and all.....

    Just as no one can force Kos to publish whatever THEY want to read on his site.

    I wish people would stop using the word 'censor' when it does not apply.

    Comedy Central is free to control its content in any way it likes. And if one is unhappy, one can find their entertainment elsewhere.

    I am now officially BOYCOTTING all CLEAN ENERGY SPONSORS - until I am no longer forced to watch their commercials on DailyKOS!!

    by GayIthacan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:49:16 AM PDT

    •  That is not the issue (0+ / 0-)

      The issue is that Comedy Central "edited" South Park because of threats of violence.

      Changing behavior through threats of violence is the textbook definition of terrorism. The issue is that Comedy Central is proving terrorism to be effective.

  •  My only question (0+ / 0-)

    is the "Breaking" tag necessary for this diary?

    "The people have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want & the courage to take." - Emma Goldman

    by gjohnsit on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:51:47 AM PDT

  •  This is censorship (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boisepoet

    censorship: suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

    This is also a case where the slippery slope argument works. The only reason why South Park would have possibly been censored is because of the recent threatening letter to the creators of the show.

    By allowing terrorists to dictate what will or will not be shown on a television programs we show our willingness to compromise our values when threatened.

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

    by deviant24x on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:24:03 AM PDT

  •  More about Yousef al-Khattab, Revolution Muslim (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    businessdem, protectspice

    The group of 5-10 members devoted to Abdullah el-Faisal was run by Yousef al-Khattab, born Joseph Cohen, an American Jew who converted to Islam in 2000 after living in Israel and attending an orthodox rabbinical school there, then returned to New York,[1][3][4] where he is said to have worked driving a taxi,[5] operating a pedicab,[6] or running a restaurant.[7] In December, 2009, al-Khattab said he would be temporarily outside of the United States during a protest outside his home in Woodside, Queens planned by the Jewish Defense Organization, after al-Khattab expressed support for Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of the Fort Hood shooting. On December 12, 2009 al-Khattab posted a video on the group's website announcing that he had retired and that that the group would be run by Abdullah as-Sayf Jones.[8]. However in April 2010 Abdullah as-Sayf Jones, now known as Abdullah al-Amin, left the group after openly proclaiming that he had embraced the Ashari Aqeedah and had become a practitioner of Sufism.[9]

    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

    by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

  •  To those who do not know that .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    ... Muslims can laugh at their religion and customs.......

    Watch this HIT SHOW  from Canada!

    The series focuses on the Muslim community in the fictional prairie town of Mercy, Saskatchewan (population 14,000). The primary institutions of the community are the local mosque, presided over by imam Amaar Rashid and located in the rented parish hall of the town's Anglican church, and Fatima's Café, a downtown diner run by Fatima Dinssa. The community patriarchs are Yasir Hamoudi, a construction contractor who originally fronted the money to establish the mosque under the pretense that he was renting office space for his business, and Baber Siddiqui, a college economics professor who served as the mosque's temporary imam until Amaar was hired.

    http://www.cbc.ca/...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

    by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:34:02 AM PDT

  •  Hey FUCK THAT. Trey, Matt, buy a BIG VAN.... (0+ / 0-)

    ... put the image of BigM all over it, and have it driven across country to every major city, and park it outside Viacom headquarters.

    We don't "let terrorists win". I hereby volunteer to be the driver....100% serious.

    In fact, hey Mr President.... leaflet the Tribal Areas with copies of Southpark's depiction... just to piss them off. Fuck me? No FUCK YOU!!! Fire up the B52's and leaflet the shit out of AQland and maybe the right heads will esplode from the outrage.

    •  My My..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dss, protectspice

      How brave! belong to the Fighting Keyboardists (Airborne Division?)

      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

      by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:41:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Poster child for what is wrong here.... (0+ / 0-)

      I could care less about South Park but people have to realize that this is red meat for some out there. Just like the vile posters we see of Obama at tea bagger rallies.

      Maybe you could drive your big van around behind Palin on the Tea Party express? I think that you should get as much exposure as you can possibly get.

      The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

      by dss on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 01:31:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't care who anything is "red meat" for. Comparing me to "teabaggers"... bite me.

        The POINT of the situation is that acts of terrorism... aka KILLING PEOPLE or threatening to KILL PEOPLE... over some words or a cartoon drawing is utterly unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The correct response to such behavior is to do the very thing they are upset about IN THIER FACE. Not to cowar in fear and hide under a rock because some religious psycho's might be offended.

        Worse, as Lizard points out in the comments:

        The irony of this all is that Muhammad discouraged the use of his image so they would not idolize him and instead worship god.

        The very fact that there is such violent outrage over a depiction flys right in the face of what Mohammed himself wished, and precisely what he was trying to AVOID. He saw the abuse of Jesus' image even then, and Buddha and Krishna, etc. And his worst nightmare comes alive. By fighting this headon in the open we are NOT insulting Mohammed, we are actually carrying out his wishes, an act of RESPECT not derision.

        As usual when anything religious is involved, the followers go off on a tangent and miss the entire point of the very thing they claim to worship... in this case, out of pure unadulterated ignorance, an utter failing of the teaching of Islam in the first place, to... the Islamic "teabaggers".

  •  I think Trey and Matt are just as full of shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RationalMan

    as Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, and every other thing they attack on their show.

    I stopped giving a shit about Trey and Matt when I read the article in which they proudly talked about their signed photo of Saddam Hussein.   American military played South Park the movie 24/7 in Hussein's jail cell, and forced him to sign his picture so they could meet these two assholes.   And they're PROUD that their work was used as a form of torture.  

    While bands like Nine Inch Nails have law suits against the government for using their artwork in this matter, these two asshats are PROUD of it.  

    Fuck them.   They already knew Comedy Central didn't want to fight this battle, and the only reason their doing this is for cheap publicity, as their ratings have slipped the past few years.  

    And for the record, this isn't about defending Islam for me.   Fuck them too.   Any religion who's followers are fine with murdering someone for making a piece of art they disagree with are fucking insane.   I just don't think the SP guys are really taking a stand on anything here other than bolstering their own ratings.  

    Republican Healthcare Plan: Chickens For Check-Ups!

    by Beelzebud on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:48:01 AM PDT

  •  Ok, E. Maji, ...Time for an Update... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss, protectspice

    ..Lets assume that you were ignorant of the origins of the MUSLIM REVOLUTION group when you started the diary. Lets assume that you were genuinely outraged by outraged Viacom's actions and didn't start the diary start a round of Muslim bashing, though you have brought the bashers out raving and ranting.

    Now that we know more about the MUSLIM revolution Group. why dont you update the info....

    here is a link ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yousef_al-Khattab

    The group of 5-10 members devoted to Abdullah el-Faisal was run by Yousef al-Khattab, born Joseph Cohen, an American Jew who converted to Islam in 2000 after living in Israel and attending an orthodox rabbinical school there, then returned to New York,[1][3][4] where he is said to have worked driving a taxi,[5] operating a pedicab,[6] or running a restaurant.[7] In December, 2009, al-Khattab said he would be temporarily outside of the United States during a protest outside his home in Woodside, Queens planned by the Jewish Defense Organization, after al-Khattab expressed support for Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of  

    The ball is in your court, ElectronicMaji

    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

    by RationalMan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:49:17 AM PDT

  •  it was funnier (0+ / 0-)

    with the entire ending bleeped.

    I think it was pretty close to perfect as is.

    All liberal values can be summed into a single issue: The dismantling of the American Middle Class. Publicly Funded U.S. Politics NOW!!!

    by innereye on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:50:29 AM PDT

  •  operative word=official (0+ / 0-)

    Editors can add and delete, but they can't censor because they aren't officials. Censorship is what officials do. When editors do it, it is choice, not censorship. What's the difference? The Supreme Court doesn't hold with censorship, allows it in only tiny tiny cases. OK?

    censor
    noun

    1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

    Elizabeth Warren: My first choice is a strong consumer agency. My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.

    by mrobinson on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

  •  my two kids watched it, apparently uncensored (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RationalMan, abrauer

    from the South Park Zone website. My autistic son has been talking about how they used to be able to show Mohamed's face but now they can't, etc. (He tells me about every South Park episode!) Anyway, I was a little concerned because I happen to like Islam and don't want misinformation spread. He seemed to think that Mohammed was one of the good guys, and I relaxed a bit. I bet South Park's Jesus has South Park's Mohammed's back. Mohammed would probably even drive Jesus home if He drank too much at the South Park bar. But anyway, we got a little lesson in about various ways to interpret the second commandment in three different religions.

    I guess today we will learn a little bit about censorship. I'm sure that won't make too much sense to him.

    In a democracy, everyone is a politician. ~ Ehren Watada

    by Lefty Mama on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:58:52 AM PDT

    •  You get to control what your kids watch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RationalMan

      but it's not called censorship. Censorship is the evil that government officials do and the Supremes don't like it.  What you do is choice.

      Elizabeth Warren: My first choice is a strong consumer agency. My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.

      by mrobinson on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:02:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish I could control what they watch (0+ / 0-)

        I've gleaned that South Park is ok, but I'd happily destroy every episode of Family Guy! They watch that too, even though I've told them I don't like it and think it's trash.

        The only way to really control what they watch would be to stay with them all of their waking hours, lock them out of the internet, etc. It isn't really feasable. I think that's one of the things that really bothers ultra-conservatives, and we shouldn't take that too lightly. I bet there's a lot of controlling conservative parents that believe in free speech - and they are frustrated themselves that there's no easy answer.

        In a democracy, everyone is a politician. ~ Ehren Watada

        by Lefty Mama on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Everybody needs to chill (0+ / 0-)

    It's a cartoon. It's not running for political office, and therefore has no obligation to act in a politically correct manner.

    Censorship = Censorshit

    "The Bible's blind the Torah's deaf the Koran is Mute. If you burned them all together you'd get close to the truth." - Bright Eyes

    by prdrums77 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:06:47 AM PDT

  •  This is retarded (0+ / 0-)

    It wasn't even an issue until the New York Times decided to make it one.

    A cartoon bear cannot be compared to the CALCULATED literary smears against Islam by self-identified nihilists, who then get attacked by desperate crazies. Sorry warmongers.

    What if we took every threat from whacky rw bloggers seriously? There'd be no time to talk about anything else.

    And obviously the 'blogger'(or was it just a commentor, lol?) was just talking smack, the 'blog' was taken down almost immediately and if you believe there's a following I have a bear suit to sell you.

  •  Sad and ludicrous (0+ / 0-)

    that people feel the need to censor a cartoon-while others feel the need to threaten the lives of the creative minds behind South Park.

    I mean-death threats?

    Really?

    Pitiful.

    Absolutely pathetic.

    Liz Cheney-Livin' off handouts from the Pentagon-cadillac drivin' Warfare Queen!

    by lyvwyr101 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

  •  Really, I can't blame them. You say something (0+ / 0-)

    against Mohammad, they cut your fucking head off.  It's not like slamming the Pope.

    Why do you think Richard Dawkins stays away from attacking Islam.  Better to stick with Christians.

  •  the irony is that M&T are republicans (0+ / 0-)

    so while i like the show, i usually do not take anything what they say that seriously (I thought Team America was way too pro-war and some south park episodes (e.g. cartman kills hippies) struck me as anti-liberal.)  In this particular instance of course, they are completely right.

    •  Irony? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sure they figure tweaking the noses of Muslims is part of their patriotic duty or something.

      The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

      by Panurge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 08:19:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So anyway (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss

    who was monitoring this website with a grand total of FIVE members, waiting for them to say crazy false flag shit? And why.

    There have been too many lure-psyops lately; the media fluffs their ratings, the fear increases, mission accomplished.

    There should be yawning here people, not 'oh noes teh censerships!'

  •  ancient ottoman art had depictions of Muhammad (0+ / 0-)

    either in full
    http://zombietime.com/...

    or with a veil over the face
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Wikipedia article

    In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in Wikipedia's Muhammad article.[33][34] An online petition claims to have collected over 450,000 signatures in three months (December 2007 to February 2008). The petition was started by Faraz Ahmad of Daska, Pakistan, resident in Glasgow, formerly editing Wikipedia as "Farazilu".[35] The petition specifies opposition to a reproduction of a 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript image (MS Arabe 1489) showing Muhammad as he prohibits intercalation.[36] Jeremy Henzell-Thomas of The American Muslim deplored the petition as one of "these mechanical knee-jerk reactions" which:

       are gifts to those who seek every opportunity to decry Islam and ridicule Muslims and can only exacerbate a situation in which Muslims and the Western media seem to be locked in an ever-descending spiral of ignorance and mutual loathing.[37]

    tell me, for which of these ancient rendering of Mohammad, done by Muslims, themselves, were they killed over?

    As heard on the Stephanie Miller Show - yeah that singer is me

    by Clytemnestra on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:32:29 AM PDT

  •  Why... (0+ / 0-)

    Do we let groups make these threats?

    The little-known group RevolutionMuslim.com  posted a message on its website earlier this week warning creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker "that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show."

    The website posted a graphic photo of Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was killed in 2004 by an Islamic militant over a movie he had made that accused Islam of condoning violence against women. It also posted a link to a news article with details of a mansion in Colorado that Parker and Stone apparently own.

    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.-- Anon.

    by ekyprogressive on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 11:35:59 AM PDT

  •  the irony meter has flipped over one too (0+ / 0-)

    many times and has imploded on itself.

    Not only is Muhammad himself rolling over in his grave over the continued blatant misinterpretations of the Quran, but under no circumstances would he have ever wanted this kind of attention focused on him as a person.

    And these violence-threatening fundamentalists of course think its okay to repeatedly stretch the First Amendment within an inch of its life, but its torture and death to anyone who does not completely and strictly adhere to their own holy scripture (or their own personal INTERPRETATION of scripture).

  •  OK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss

    so it would seem there only about 4 people here who understand wtf this is about. I'm out.

  •  "We’ll be Drawing Old Muhammad on the Wall" (0+ / 0-)

    That's the name of a little song I wrote a while back, in support of the Danish cartoonists, and in particular Kurt Westergaard, who was attacked by an axe-wielding fanatic in his home four months ago.

    You can see the song here:
    http://ltuasoo.wordpress.com/...

  •  I want a t-shirt with Mohammed on it (0+ / 0-)

    South Park did an episode years ago with the "Super Best Friends" which included most of your major religious figures, including Mohammed.  They should put out a t-shirt with the "Super Best Friends."  I would buy one and wear it.  We could even declare some random day as the "wear a shirt with Mohammed on it" day.

  •  No good guys. (0+ / 0-)

    As usual.  How about we just let them all have at each other and leave the rest of us in peace?

    The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

    by Panurge on Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 07:07:03 PM PDT

Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, easong, Timaeus, casamurphy, Thom K in LA, Doctor RJ, Snuffleupagus, alisonk, Powered Grace, BigOkie, emal, Bob Love, bosdcla14, karlpk, lobbygow, DR RD, John Campanelli, TX Unmuzzled, DFWmom, marjo, DigDug, FreedomFighter, hubcap, zeitshabba, Scott in NAZ, Mr Teem, Shadan7, OCD, Loquatrix, CatFelyne, boilerman10, mkfarkus, Transmission, Decih, UK LibDem Dave, Iberian, wader, iowabosox, tomephil, psnyder, hangingchad, Dittoz, jlynne, pat bunny, grannyhelen, NYFM, defluxion10, AbsurdEyes, Democratic Hawk, cevad, djtyg, Sembtex, randallt, Lefty Mama, tomjones, lyvwyr101, bablhous, cartwrightdale, vivens fons, My Philosophy, Big Tex, Dirk McQuigley, Bluesee, Tarindel, Tinfoil Hat, jrooth, m16eib, skidrow, klamothe, PBen, Alice Venturi, Flint, DoGooderLawyer, Bouwerie Boy, boofdah, aaraujo, gerardbellavita, chasewho, simplicio, SoulCatcher, martini, Sanuk, tommymet, cybersaur, Junkyard Dem, richiedoc, sleipner, Marcus Tullius, megisi, MJ via Chicago, justalittlebitcrazy, Doctor Frog, real world chick, Unitary Moonbat, Pilgrim X, Turbonerd, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz, PoxOnYou, bstotts, Picot verde, Johnathan Ivan, mr science, Temmoku, The House, andrewj54, ammasdarling, bigchin, BoyBlue, lightfoot, Loudoun County Dem, Deadicated Marxist, gloriana, Wino, DoubleBarrellBunnyAnger, Common Cents, HeartlandLiberal, newpioneer, ubertar, Uberbah, SeaTurtle, millwood, Moderation, Jack the R, pioneer111, JML9999, Zydekos, Captain Nimrod, Unlabled, sable, Predictor, Empower Ink, mconvente, VelvetElvis, ShadowSD, Boisepoet, scooter in brooklyn, canoeist, rikyrah, Involuntary Exile, sandbox, elwior, Laughing Vergil, Kevin Holsinger, rubine, mofembot, pragprogress, o the umanity, Troubadour, Zulia, Nica24, Simply Agrestic, statsone, legendmn, greywolfe359, FudgeFighter, maggiejean, SciMathGuy, Pris from LA, 1BQ, jjackso1, Ran3dy, JohnKWilson, An Affirming Flame, FinchJ, Partisan Progressive, h bridges, DrFaustus, cn4st4datrees, member of the msm, Daily Activist, Carakav, TobyRocksSoHard, Corneliusmingus, COwoman, Keith Pickering, histOries Marko, Joeytj, Petey2, sfarkash, notksanymore, ArthurPoet, Tortmaster, spicecakes69, deviant24x, Leftcandid, ratmach, Varlokkur, Larsstephens, cezariusz, brentbent, methinshaw, the bipolar bear, angry liberaltarian, TFinSF, The Jester, NJpeach, Jess27, jethrock, fidellio, BFSkinner, skyfox, trixied13, kinkistyle, HartfordTycoon, ebbv, Mariken, DailyDrew, Earth Ling, melfunction, elengul, science nerd, progdog, dwayne, JanG, slice, rmabelis, hishighness, Eric0125, no puma, Colorado is the Shiznit, alizarin, ozsea1, ems97007, Korinthios, sowsearsoup, Cintimcmomma, BlackQueen40, BillyElliott, ebirch1, Jed Lewison, Cinnamon Rollover, theone718, felldestroyed, moldyfolky, evilgalblues, Mother Shipper, merrily1000, lizard people, CherryTheTart, gayjustice, MinistryOfTruth, VTCC73, cap76, erichiro, TrahmalG, curtisgrahamduff, Hector Gonzalez, daveusf, Tom Seaview, Georgianna Darcy, PrometheusUnbound, nutbutter, sjterrid, Flying Goat, TheLizardKing, Dismalest Scientist, IndieGuy, FreeLancer, colonel ingus, DrinkingJameson

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.