Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Wait, how did we get here? If I draw a picture of the Prophet, I'm not doing it to suggest that Islam be eradicated. Again, as I said, I'm criticizing one particular doctrine. And even then, I wouldn't be as inclined to criticize that one (since there are others, like killing apostates, that are probably worse) if not for the punishment people seem to think is warranted.
No one should delude themselves into thinking that 1.5+ billion people can be talked into giving up their firmly held beliefs. Certainly not through satire. At least the immediate goal should be reforming the structure of the religion to either reject beliefs that are harmful (i.e. anything demonizing jews) or rejecting the idea that religious prescriptions should carry any punishment more severe than stern disapproval. If the response to drawing the Prophet was a statement from Muslim leaders that this is offensive and the corresponding outrage from Muslims without any resort to violence or calls for the execution of the cartoonist, it wouldn't be as big a problem.
|
Yes agree with you here. What I'm saying is that just drawing more cartoons of Muhammed could be viewed as an attack on Islam itself, by those who are Islamic. Not by the people drawing them. It's easy propaganda for those on the other side push fence-sitters over the edge. "Look! America mocks us!!" It's unifying them around the common enemy. Whereas you could take the approach of alienating the ridiculousness of extremism, which, at the very least, they can't point to as a reason to join their fight. Obviously they think they are conveying the proper messages. But I think, especially when you're implement satire as a means of change, you have to really think about how the opposing view reacts. And the only way that this shows absurdity in the extremism is IF an attack happens. If an attack doesn't happen, their point isn't made. Whereas you can make your point without the need of a reaction by taking a different route and satirizing those who would do the attacking, not the religion itself. As attacking Islam in general could be viewed as a desire to rid the world of Islam, not to rid the world of extremists, especially considering the source (Texas).
To me it's provocation vs peaceful protest, which is what art should be. It should never hope or need to incite violence to prove it's point. it should prove it's point on it's own.
As to the analogy, I agree it's silly. But, honestly, this whole situation is silly to me. I can't believe that people take this seriously enough to drive them to murder.