South Park creators threatened

[DonnieDonnie]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/19/sec urity-brief-radical-islamic-web-site-tak es-on-south-park/?hpt=T2

The radical Islamic Web site Revolutionmuslim.com is going after the creators of the TV cartoon series "South Park" after an episode last week included an image of the Prophet Mohammed in disguise.

Revolutionmuslim.com, based in New York, was the subject of a CNN investigation last year for its radical rhetoric supporting "jihad" against the West and praising al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its organizers insist they act within the law and seek to protect Islam.

On Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com posted an entry that included a warning to South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they risk violent retribution - after the 200th episode last week included a satirical discussion about whether an image of the prophet could be shown. In the end, he is portrayed disguised in a bear suit.

Threat here, site is now down:
http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/index.ph p?option=com_content&view=article&id=438 4

Quote:
"I wish i could slit their throats with a rusty knife,so it be more painful....May curse them and may Allah give me the strength to do that honour. How dare they insult our prohphets,they won't get away this time Inshallah."

What do you think about this?

[Jon-86]

At 4/20/10 07:21 AM, DonnieDonnie wrote: What do you think about this?

Who cares what the KKK of Islam are shouting about this week? Not me!

[Ericho]

This is just plain idiotic. Muhammad was featured in the episode "Super Best Friends" and no one complained about him there. They show Muhammad in a costume and somehow that is offensive? I guess it might be because wearing a bear costume made him look silly. I really hope they allow Muhammad to be shown in the next episode as this is just stupid.

[LordJaric]

I don't understand why these radical Muslims feel Muhammad should be free from comedy when all other religious figures are made fun of.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/20/10 10:55 AM, Ericho wrote: This is just plain idiotic. Muhammad was featured in the episode "Super Best Friends" and no one complained about him there. They show Muhammad in a costume and somehow that is offensive? I guess it might be because wearing a bear costume made him look silly. I really hope they allow Muhammad to be shown in the next episode as this is just stupid.

actually its to pay homage to that one lady in saudi arabia who named that teddy bear mohhamad a while back lol

[poxpower]

At 4/20/10 11:11 AM, LordJaric wrote: I don't understand why these radical Muslims feel Muhammad should be free from comedy when all other religious figures are made fun of.

Let's see.. oh yeah, because THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

They did exactly as south park predicted they would do, also threats by muslim extremists have been overused and are pretty empty at this point.

[SouthAsian]

Crazy people are crazy.

[The-universe]

At 4/20/10 12:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Let's see.. oh yeah, because THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS.

Muslims talk about truth, they aren't going to see much more than this quote.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/20/10 12:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Let's see.. oh yeah, because THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS.

At 4/20/10 12:27 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Crazy people are crazy.

exemplifying the obvious conclusions.
a little off topic, but it makes you wonder; even if they seem batshit insane, god knows how many people think either of those statements are even remotely reasonable.

while i haven't been looking for it, i get the impression this is one of the few threats from (semi)legitimate [they have a webpage; that counts for something, no?] sources. would it be too soon to give kudos for possibly growing tolerance towards Western irreverence of most things holy?

[lapis]

Interview with Trey and Matt conducted before this threat:

"Are you afraid that if the network allows you to unveil the prophet Muhammad, that you'll be bombed?"

"We'd be so hypocritical against our own mess[age], our own thoughts if we said: okay, well let's not make fun of them 'cause they might hurt us. Like, that's messed up, to have that kind of though process, you know. Okay, we'll rip on the Catholics 'cause they won't hurt us but we won't rip on them 'cause they might hurt us".

Comedy Central probably didn't allow them to show Muhammad (again) because they were afraid of threats. Now threats were uttered anyway. I really doubt that they'll allow Muhammad to be shown in the next episode, even though the fact that threats were uttered itself proves that it is necessary that Muhammad is mocked. This is a fight for freedom of expression, and I'm very happy that these guys won't surrender to violence. Too bad the network is too scared.

[AapoJoki]

At 4/20/10 10:55 AM, Ericho wrote: This is just plain idiotic. Muhammad was featured in the episode "Super Best Friends" and no one complained about him there.

That was before the Danish cartoon controversy, Comedy Central has been more sensitive since then. Appearence of the Prophet Muhammad was censored by Comedy Central in the episode titled Cartoon Wars Part 2.

I hope that Stone and Parker will turn these threats into their own advantage. Even if they're not going to show Muhammad, they can make a real farce out of these threats. The best way to deal with religious fanaticism is hysterical, remorseless mockery, even when your own life is at risk, in which case you'll simply make fun of the predicament.

[aviewaskewed]

I can understand people being aggravated when they're religion is lampooned but there is never an excuse to be able to make threats of this nature.

Plus I see the South Park side of it: If you're going to make fun of everyone else, then you have to be ready to have this be fair game too. I think the fact that you only hear about the more radical Muslim elements going batshit over such things vs. the rank and file of the religion pretty much says it all about how big this "issue" truly is.

I get not showing an image of Muhammad is a tenent of the faith and all, but that's THEIR faith, not that I expect preaching tolerance to extremists will get anyone anywhere on the matter.

[Jon-86]

At 4/20/10 01:22 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i get the impression this is one of the few threats from (semi)legitimate [they have a webpage; that counts for something, no?]

Anyone and their granny can make a website so no it doesn't count for anything.

If that was the case I would have been doomed long ago: http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk

[SolInvictus]

At 4/20/10 03:27 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Anyone and their granny can make a website so no it doesn't count for anything.

If that was the case I would have been doomed long ago: http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk

that was the joke, pretty much. if only we could get accurate polls as to who believes this stuff; it would either be worth a good laugh or absolutely depressing.

[Jon-86]

At 4/20/10 04:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/20/10 03:27 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Anyone and their granny can make a website so no it doesn't count for anything.

If that was the case I would have been doomed long ago: http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk

that was the joke, pretty much. if only we could get accurate polls as to who believes this stuff; it would either be worth a good laugh or absolutely depressing.

I know it was a joke. Thats why I used it as an example. They should include it in the census and give people a few sites to checkout :)

[SadisticMonkey]

islam is incompatible with freedom and western culture

[Jon-86]

At 4/20/10 06:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: islam is incompatible with freedom and western culture

All religion is incompatible with freedom.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/20/10 05:29 PM, Jon-86 wrote: I know it was a joke. Thats why I used it as an example. They should include it in the census and give people a few sites to checkout :)

... i managed to read that the website was yours; i guess thats why i was a little confused.

[amaterasu]

At 4/20/10 06:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 4/20/10 06:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: islam is incompatible with freedom and western culture

All religion is incompatible with freedom.

Religious zealots* are incompatible with freedom

[Imperator]

it's seeing this crap that gives me the sudden urge to become a cartoonist.....

At 4/20/10 07:16 PM, amaterasu wrote:

At 4/20/10 06:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 4/20/10 06:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: islam is incompatible with freedom and western culture

All religion is incompatible with freedom.

Religious zealots* are incompatible with freedom

Religion is incompatible with tolerance.
That's the line.

Cause it doesn't matter which one you talk about, "their" religion is the only one worth tolerating. With religion, respect is a one way street. YOU respect MY religion, and because I have the RIGHT religion, I don't need to respect yours.

The way every religious person I have EVER talked to or met has acted. And I mean, every, single, last, one. All the religious people on NG act the same way. All of them. Yeah, I'm talking to YOU!

Islam just goes one step further by being incompatible with the 21st century as a whole.

Besides, not like mohammed hasn't ever been depicted before.....

[amaterasu]

At 4/20/10 09:18 PM, Imperator wrote: Cause it doesn't matter which one you talk about, "their" religion is the only one worth tolerating. With religion, respect is a one way street. YOU respect MY religion, and because I have the RIGHT religion, I don't need to respect yours.

The way every religious person I have EVER talked to or met has acted. And I mean, every, single, last, one. All the religious people on NG act the same way. All of them. Yeah, I'm talking to YOU!

Yep, because stereotyping every last religious person in the world to be an intolerant bigot is perfectly acceptable in your cute little reality.

[Jon-86]

At 4/20/10 07:16 PM, amaterasu wrote:

At 4/20/10 06:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 4/20/10 06:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: islam is incompatible with freedom and western culture

All religion is incompatible with freedom.

Religious zealots* are incompatible with freedom

Actually its the establishments and institutions within that are the downfall of all of this. You know, these organisations exists solely to control you, tell you how to think, how to act, how to worship etc etc.

If it were not for the organised nature of it people would be free to do as they pleased and probably wouldn't be so segregated the stronger their belief is for what ever reason that may be.

[amaterasu]

At 4/20/10 09:18 PM, Imperator wrote: Yeah, I'm talking to YOU!

Also further proof that you are simply seeing what you want to believe. Lumping me in with the "typical" religious person on NG simply because I've occasionally participated in the debates on their side. In most cases it's just to call bullshit on some of the bandwagon assumptions a couple of the users on here tend to make about religion. I'd just as soon defend atheists or agnostics or any "counter perspective" from similar attacks. Which I've also done in the past. So kindly R&R your attitude and correct your current configuration, which is pictured a few posts above.

At 4/20/10 09:31 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Actually its the establishments and institutions within that are the downfall of all of this. You know, these organisations exists solely to control you, tell you how to think, how to act, how to worship etc etc.

If it were not for the organised nature of it people would be free to do as they pleased and probably wouldn't be so segregated the stronger their belief is for what ever reason that may be.

You have a point, there are certain organizations that do preach certain things that inhibit on the freedoms of others. Take for example the Catholic organization, or the Southern Baptist Organization, or even some of the vocal Islamic groups. (Let's keep the terrorist groups out of this, their position in the world is obvious). They have historically had a stance on keeping gay marriage illegal, and some followers have carried these beliefs into the political realm, where it affects the freedom of others.

But do you really believe the majority of followers of these organizations follow everything their leaders say to the T? Especially those things that can infringe on the freedom of others? I don't.

[amaterasu]

Anyway, I'm going to rest my case at the point because this thread is getting derailed. Incoming "witty" and catty response from Imperator, and most likely a thoughtful counter point from Jon-86.

[Imperator]

At 4/20/10 09:22 PM, amaterasu wrote: Yep, because stereotyping every last religious person in the world to be an intolerant bigot is perfectly acceptable in your cute little reality.

You know, I was gonna type something about a sarcasm button, but re-reading it, I can completely see you interpreting it the way you did.

But that was the joke: Generalizing my personal (subjective) experience for the larger (objective) world.

The "That means YOU" line was supposed to be seen as general, I wasn't addressing anyone in particular. But considering my post preceeded yours, I can see how you thought otherwise.

My bad, poorly placed sarcasm on my part.

back to the issue:
The very definition of religion seems to be the Highlander (there can be only one), so while qualifying all religious people as intolerant bigots is indeed a head-up-ass move.......it's not without a grain of truth.

Christians believe Christianity is the path to heaven, as Jews believe Judaism, Hindus believe Hinduism, and Muslims believe Islam are the paths to their rewards. And they believe them to be the one and only path to salvation, or perhaps I've just not met the Christian who believes Buddhists will go to heaven......

All religions are exclusive in that aspect. I don't think that's debatable really.

So yeah, maybe all religious people are intolerant.....except panentheists I guess....

[Imperator]

back to the issue issue:

I don't understand why there's such a pressure to CAVE to these threats.

Is it because Al-Qaeda and the like have proven themselves capable of making good on their threats that people back down?

Because it's not like death threats have never been issued for equally stupid reasons, but in those cases it never seems like that stops the publication. How many authors have gotten death threats because of a controversial book? How many journalists over a controversial article or interview?

I don't understand why the issue of defending free speech isn't being enforced here.
Why is Mohammed the exception?

Mohammed has NO EXEMPTION from criticism. I don't care if it's insulting to the culture or not (again, like they're the only group who's ever endured criticism and degradation). If Mohammed is censored, why aren't all criticisms against every other religion censored?

Is it really because they're sending death threats, or because there's that undercurrent of Islamic terrorist groups in our day and age that's doing it.

As already stated, Mohammed has already been shown on South Park already, "Super Best Friends" episode, without problems.

Is it because we live in the cliched "post 9/11 world"?
Or did people become afraid of doing what they used to do because of the fear?
Because if Comedy Central doesn't have the nuts, even though they've already done it once before, they're giving credence to the very definition of terrorism: The use of fear to manipulate people into doing what they want.

When we change what we're doing because fear motivates us? Yeah, pretty sure that's the entire goal of "terrorism". Hence why it's not called "fluffy bunnyism".

So showing Mohammed on South Park has become news, despite it already having been done.....
Awesome......

Maybe next week someone can start a Crusade.

[amaterasu]

At 4/20/10 11:52 PM, Imperator wrote: back to the issue:
The very definition of religion seems to be the Highlander (there can be only one), so while qualifying all religious people as intolerant bigots is indeed a head-up-ass move.......it's not without a grain of truth.

Christians believe Christianity is the path to heaven, as Jews believe Judaism, Hindus believe Hinduism, and Muslims believe Islam are the paths to their rewards. And they believe them to be the one and only path to salvation, or perhaps I've just not met the Christian who believes Buddhists will go to heaven......

All religions are exclusive in that aspect. I don't think that's debatable really.

So yeah, maybe all religious people are intolerant.....except panentheists I guess....

Thank you for clearing that up. I definitely agree with you that based on the idea behind those religions, that is indeed their general mindset. The whole "I have an exclusive ticket to awesomeness because of my beliefs and you don't, neener neener" idea.

By definition, intolerance is the unwillingness to recognize and respect the differences in opinions or beliefs. So if you consider the idea of your ideology as a ticket to some balleriffic afterlife and dismiss others as heading to some less desirable existence, I guess there is some truth in what you are saying.

Sincerely, touche sir. It saddens me that a portion of people truly feel that way. Probably one of the main reasons I abandoned organized religion a long time ago. I just hope that what you can take from my perspective, is not all religious people feel that way.

I digress though. Back to the topic at hand.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/20/10 07:16 PM, amaterasu wrote: Religious zealots* are incompatible with freedom

well I know some people who are batshit insane Christians and yet they're government hating libertarians

even still, no other religion holds a torch to islam in terms of being a threat to freedom and democracy

[poxpower]

At 4/21/10 12:10 AM, Imperator wrote: back to the issue issue:

I don't understand why there's such a pressure to CAVE to these threats.

I guess it's a lot of things.

If anything ever does happen, no one wants to be to blame for it. Like if Comedy central was the only station to show it and some school got bombed as a result, then they'd probably get sued up the ass and even if they'd win, they don't want the trouble.

Other times it's probably for personal safety. I'm guessing most public figures don't want to report the news with a picture of Mohamed plastered next to their heads just in case the one loony muslim lives near their house and decides to go apeshit just that weekend.

It's definately 100% fear-based though and all the "let's git the terrists" news stations pussied out INSTANTLY because nothing gets the terrists like caving in to the insane demands and threats of people with no high school education and a desperate need for beard trimmers.