Reed Braden www

If it weren’t for the violent tendencies of angry, delusional racists it wouldn’t be a big deal, now would it? Who is the worse person: the guy with nothing better to do than to draw a turban on a horse’s ass and label it “The Prophet”, or the angry man driving a bus full of gasoline, gunpowder, and nails into an embassy over a news report about a drawing on a piece of notebook paper on the other side of the planet?

Posted: April 29th 2011

See all questions answered by Reed Braden

Daniel Midgley www

Last year, I drew Mohammed, and posted the video on YouTube. I did so because at the time, there was a serious threat of violence against some people who did so, and I didn’t think it right for members of a religion to impose that religion’s taboos on non-members.

I’m not drawing Mohammed this year because I’m not aware of any such threats, and my desire to provoke is moderated by my desire to, well, not be a dick unless necessary. I’ll let the issue go until I see the need to assert my freedom of expression in such a way again.

Posted: April 29th 2011

See all questions answered by Daniel Midgley

Blaise www

I like to think of it with an analogy. The stones in a river become smooth and safe as the water slowly wears away their jagged points. So too can the more barbarous beliefs be “smoothed out” by constant wear against them. If every day for ten years were “Everyone draw Mohhamad Day”, I suspect we would never again hear of violent outbursts because of such silliness…

Posted: April 29th 2011

See all questions answered by Blaise

SmartLX www

Good idea in principle.

The famous drawings of Mohammed (the spelling in English varies; there’s no “correct” variant) are portrayed as coming from a single source, which aggressive Muslims and their frightened “sympathisers” worked to punish as an example to others. If that were the end of it, it would be a nice clean victory for censors of Muslim blasphemy.

If everyone does it, on the other hand, there are two major effects.

  1. The oppressors are shown that the threats against and horrid treatment of the original cartoonist(s) were not an effective deterrent.
  2. They are faced with a choice: to embark on an equally violent campaign against each and every blasphemous artist, or to wage a lesser, more general campaign and implicitly admit that not every single offender must be silenced in the name of Allah. (There is a third option where they try to attack the entire non-Muslim world, but they wouldn’t get the whole Muslim world on board for that if drawings were the only reason.)

So I think it’s worthwhile.

Posted: April 29th 2011

See all questions answered by SmartLX

 

Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum