Nonsense.

I don’t think I’m making exceptions, I’m drawing a distinction between harm, which has to do with intent and consequence, and simple offense. Drawing a swastika in front of a temple most certainly is based on intent to harm (to cause fear) and has the potential consequence of encouraging discrimination (perhaps by giving implicit permission for others to openly act on their antisemitism). However, I can draw Mohammad without intending harm and, I’m arguing, without actually doing any harm, exactly as I can with Jesus or the Buddha.

Quite simply, being offended is not adequate grounds to claim harm. For example, I think that it is acceptable to draw crude images of Jesus as a way of criticizing Christianity, even tho doing so would offend some Christians. Hollywood makes many movies that offend Christians, but I imagine you enjoyed The Last Temptation of Christ and The Life of Brian. So, I think it’s equally as acceptable to draw even crude images of Mohammad…Muslims don’t get an exception.

Moreover, the issue at hand has nothing to do with judgments about Islam in contrast to other groups. If Jews decided, say, that drawing Abraham was deeply offensive and all people should stop, I would be making the exact same argument.

I posit that you drawing an image of Mohommed is roughly equivalent to you drawing an pornographic image.

I think this metaphor fails on several counts. One, there is no substantial disagreement over what pornography is, only how people should deal with it. Two, pornography is generally accepted as a private form of entertainment, whereas we are talking about an inherently public activity that is a protected and cherished feature of America, that of open expression. Three, an image of Mohammad is of no conceptual difference from a picture of any other religious figure, whereas a pornographic image is substantially different from a non-pornographic image (if someone claims that showing a women’s ankle is pornographic, we ignore or chuckle at him).

That Muslims react to an image of Mohammad as if it were (akin to) porno is their business…but I am not obligated to accept their standards of decency. Said another way, it is not proper for a religious group to enforce their standards on non-believers, especially when those standards are sharply at odds with how all other similar groups are treated.

Practically, it’s irrelevant which sacred cow is trespassed upon.

Unless that sacred cow infringes upon my right of free expression.

As a matter of courtesy, the fact that some people are outraged about something is enough to circumscribe such a thing from public communications: Carlin’s “Seven Words”, is a product of how this played out in American television.

Like pornography, there is no substantial disagreement that those words are “dirty”, only how and where they should be used. Again, those words are of a different caliber than other words, whereas a drawing of Mohammad is not conceptually different than a drawing of L. Ron Hubbard. A better metaphor would be a group saying that the word “hello” is dirty because it contains “hell” in the sound and claims offense whenever they hear it in public…I think you would join me in continuing to use the word.

Now then, on that note, I would not say hello to such a person directly if I knew and had another option. Similarly, I would not give a Muslim a drawing of Mohammad or plaster one up on a billboard across from a mosque. THAT would be needlessly provocative and rude. But putting one up in a general public place or on my website is not.

The Early Medieval Christian state had balkanized, and the use of graphic images was widely used to identify and attract people to reactionary and revolutionary groups.

I didn’t know about this history, so thanks. But then, I feel even less inclined to censure myself based on early medieval politics.

I would be shocked to find it could be easily dislodged. If you’re interested in attracting Muslims to your philosophy, maybe you should try to avoid poking at their sacred cows.

I don’t expect to dislodge it from Muslim culture…I don’t think anyone would. What we might accomplish is to dislodge it from non-Muslim culture (cf. South Park, of all fucking places). I want to challenge this idea that Islam is immune from public criticism or that they get a pass on demanding non-believers conform to rules that are unique to them.

Thanks again for your thoughtful critique of my positions. Always welcome!

Either verbal, textual, or graphic forms of expression are harmful or they are not. By making exceptions for stereotypes or propaganda, you defeat your own argument. The answer becomes, “because we don’t value or respect Muslim culture as much as we do Jewish culture, it’s okay to offend them.” This would seem out of character for what I know of you.

Further, you’re missing the point by arguing about why Muslims shun images. Let’s talk instead about one of the Western sacred cows: pornography. I posit that you drawing an image of Mohommed is roughly equivalent to you drawing an pornographic image. If you do it privately in your home, there is no question about your right to do it.

When you broadcast such an image on a public network, you should expect outrage from some and indifference from others. Practically, it’s irrelevant which sacred cow is trespassed upon. As a matter of courtesy, the fact that some people are outraged about something is enough to circumscribe such a thing from public communications: Carlin’s “Seven Words”, is a product of how this played out in American television.

The point, as I understand it, for the Islamic prohibition against graphic images is an entirely practical one, drawn from what had been at the time common knowledge. The Early Medieval Christian state had balkanized, and the use of graphic images was widely used to identify and attract people to reactionary and revolutionary groups. By eliminating the use of graphic propaganda, the Islamic leadership hoped to prevent internal corruption of their state.

Not that they were successful with this, but in any case, the ban against graphic images remains a long-standing and fundamental feature of Islamic identity. I would be shocked to find it could be easily dislodged. If you’re interested in attracting Muslims to your philosophy, maybe you should try to avoid poking at their sacred cows.