This is a response post to Redesine’s post here. It just got way too long so I decided to put it behind a break.
There are still a number of problems with this.
vforvodka submitted
Thanks loads for this. It’s cheered me up lots. That man is a legend, and so are you.
… But I’m not sure how I feel about it.
Despite my drawing being only lighty irreverent, most people would think I’m being abrasive, confrontational, and/or childish. However, it is absolutely not my desire to offend.
I drew Muhammad because I believe in freedom of expression, and utterly…
I think this crosses a line.
Sort of like a point you made in a previous post, I believe that everyone deserves the same rights insofar as they do not cause harm, directly or indirectly, to others. The harm does not have to be physical - it can be emotional or psychological. To that end, I would argue things like hate speech do not fall under the freedom of speech because it causes harm to others (psychological/emotional harm to the individuals as well as the indirect harm caused by things like systemic/societal prejudice based on beliefs instilled with hate speech) as well as the fact that it can incite physical violence.
Similarly, I believe that people’s rights also only go so far until they infringe on the rights of others. For instance, someone’s freedom of religion can not (or at least should not) dictate what half the population can or can’t do with their body in the event of pregnancy.
It is arrogant for anyone to think their freedom of X is more important than someone else’s freedom of Y. If you start arguing in those terms, the whole protection of basic human rights becomes moot as individuals and groups claim their superiority and more deserved place for their rights over others. It undermines the whole point to human rights to ensure that everyone is extended universal rights for their humanity.
While it doesn’t mean anything to you, it’s important to many Muslims that Muhammad not be depicted and your freedom of speech stops where their freedom of religion begins.
Not to mention, it’s kind of basic decency to not be a prat and go out of your way to do something that provides nothing for yourself and only seeks to antagonize someone else. I’d classify the kind of person who frequently does that as an asshole or a bully.
It should go without saying I would also be against any reactionary violence in response to drawing Muhammad.
Edited to add: I also find it disappointing and depressing to see the other replies to your post being so positive and encouraging you to desecrate someone’s faith. I can’t help but wonder if people lose sight of the fact that they’re infringing on other people or if they’re just really ignorant about what your post is about.
This makes me sad for two reasons:
First, the implication that I would be involved in “hate speech”.
Second, the fallacy that religious freedom includes the right to not be offended. No one on earth has this right. For a very good reason - what is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. Your suggestion about hate speech offended me, but you have not infinged on my freedoms and I don’t have the right to prevent you from saying it. But if I were to attempt to silence you by harassment or violence, that absolutely would infringe on your rights.
So it’s not an issue of weighing rights: no-one has the right to not be offended, and therefore no-one has the right to declare anything beyond criticism or portrayal and apply that rule to everyone on earth (regardless of their beliefs) under the penalty of death.
This is a real situation, where real people are sentenced to death for expressing themselves in ways that a small number of people are offended by. This offends me far more than any irreverent picture of any person ever could.
I drew Muhammad today…
… But I’m not sure how I feel about it.
Despite my drawing being only lighty irreverent, most people would think I’m being abrasive, confrontational, and/or childish. However, it is absolutely not my desire to offend.
I drew Muhammad because I believe in freedom of expression, and utterly despise the censorship, threats, harassment and even murder that surrounds this particular depiction. The way I see it is that the more people who draw Muhammad, the more people are protected from these abuses.
On the other hand, I’m well aware that it could be seen as an attack and make things worse. If people were hurt because of an event that I took part in, I would feel responsible.
I’m also aware that many of the “love and tolerate” followers of this blog would not be so happy. And I’ve already lost a few followers today. Heh.
So if you’d like to see it, let me know… it involves ponies.
You don’t believe in fairies? D:I just killed one, didn’t I? :/
Pft that kind of thinking is a myth. But I’ll have you know, I’m a fairy in REAL LIFE.
You know what they say about extraordinary claims? They say: pics or it didn’t happen! Or something to that effect.
Religious Freedom vs. Parental Responsibility
I was reading an article today about an Amish community in New York refusing to accept a court order on smoke alarms, and taking the case up to a federal religious freedom court. When a journalist asked one of the Amish men what he would think if he did not wake up during a fire and his children were burned to death, he replied: “If God does not wake us, well, that must be part of his plan.”
It’s a relatively tame case as these things go, and all too often children actually die because of their parents’ religious “freedoms” - such as the right to not accept medical care, or the right to beat children with plumbing equipment. Regardless of actual or hypothetical harm, the attitude that many religious parents have towards their children’s safety, health and mental well being is shocking.
As I see it, this same issue extends to education, with many parent’s declaring the “right” to decide what their children are taught in schools. Out of the situations I know a little bit about, I’m thinking mainly about creationism the US, but this is also a problem with curriculum-free religion classes in UK faith schools and the religious biasing in the Polish school system. (Though I personally feel this way about any indoctrination of children.)
So here’s a simple solution for those parents who feel that they have these kinds of rights:
You are free to believe whatever ridiculous fairy tale you want, but like all liberties we enjoy, those freedoms stop when the well being of other people is put at risk, including (and this should really go without saying) children under the age of consent.
You do not own your child, your god does not own your child. When it comes to the health, safety and education of your child, you do not have rights, you have responsibilities. Please act like it.
For one, atheism in a sense is just a religion of its own. And two, as many as there are people there are varietys of followers, not just a cut of angry / calm.
I feel like I should really correct the misconception here. Atheism is not a religion. Not even “in a sense”. It is not even a belief system or a world view. It’s simply a null-hypothesis, meaning “without god”. The word says nothing about a person except that they don’t accept theism.
If it were not for the popularity of theism, there wouldn’t be a name for it, just as there isn’t a word for not believing in an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The list of things I don’t believe in is huge, but in the same way that my nonbelief in fairies is not a religion, neither is atheism a religion.
So leading on from that, you are of course right that atheists are not defined by any trait (though they are not “followers” of atheism) and are extremely diverse in their opinions. But that doesn’t change the fact that many people who are identifying as atheists are unhappy with the status quo and would like to see things change. There are a lot of things to be angry about, and justifiably so.
I’m angry.
Lots of things irk me, but religion is right up there on my list of things to get properly fuming angry about. And there’s usually something to read on the subject that gets me angry at least once a day.
But I rarely talk about it openly, because I don’t want to seem intolerant or confrontational. It’s not that I believe that religion should be immune to criticism. On the contrary. It’s just that (if I’m honest with myself) I would rather someone else do the public criticising. And I’m very aware that I’m in a lucky minority whose exposure to indoctrination and injustice was relatively minor. So sometimes it feels like it’s not my battle to fight.
So this is why I found this talk about angry atheists by Greta Christina very inspiring. To crop a criminally short soundbite from a wonderful speech:
“Atheists are not angry because there’s something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there’s something right with us.”
Thanks Greta, from an angry atheist.
… Now I just wish I knew what I could do about it.
