Did the Catholic League really call Parker and Stone "little whores"? Anyone else think it funny that a member of the anti-defamation league would defame people in a press release? Ahh, hypocrisy.
I'm just amazed that it was okay to air Jesus crapping on the American flag but not an image of Muhammad... but then again, who knows how those two would have used it.
Well to be fair, even radical Christians don't tend to riot in the streets in large numbers when their sacred icons are defecated, I mean, desecrated.
Comedy Central are wimps.
Sorry, but this statement is simply not true:
Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.
I thought the same thing. I think it's wrong for a couple of reasons. One, the Koran doesn't [i]explicitly[/i] prohibit the idolotry of Muhammed, but implicitly does.
Second, doesn't it just implicitly ban Muslims from portraying Muhammed, not all humans?
I may be getting this wrong, but this is my understanding. If the article is indeed wrong, I hope AP is real proud of itself messing up this story.
It's a common falsehood repeatedly stated in the media.
Mr. Mack - your first point is correct. Your second point, while correct for most of moderate Islam, unfortunately doesn't hold when applied to those who are more radical and do things like encourage riots in the streets after a cartoon character has been printed. Unfortunately, for them it's not like a Christian eating lobster while their Jewish friend sits across the table enjoying their kosher meal - for the radicals, it's their way or the IED-laden highway.
My main point is that there are many examples of the Muslim prophet Muhammed physically represented throughout the Musliim world.
Ah gotcha. I should have put myself in the mindset of the radicals when looking at that. Of course the media portrays all of Islamic law as grouped in with how the radicals feel. No shock there. ;)
Thanks for the clarification.
Second, doesn't it just implicitly ban Muslims from portraying Muhammed, not all humans?
This was brought up in the episode. I thought it was hilarious actually.
As for the story itself, I watched it last night when it was on. I knew, given the deadpan presentation of "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast the image of Muhammed on their network" that this was indeed not a hoax on Parker and Stone's part. They really got shafted and abandoned on this one.
Shame on everyone for dictating debate. The real loss here is that we, as Americans, no longer get to decide what to air. It's done by anyone who complain the loudest and most violently.
Maybe we should riot and burn @!$%# in response to this assault on our values as Americans?
Or we could just type about it and have a debate.
Oh wait, that would make us different from them. Ok, burn @!$%# in response it is.
No, we should produce our own cartoon that makes fun of their sacred values and beliefs,
as a response to their refusal to watch a cartoon that makes fun of other peoples sacred values
and beliefs.
Maybe we should riot and burn @!$%# in response to this assault on our values as Americans?
Why has no one brought up the context that the defecating Jesus was shown in? It was a cartoon by al Qaeda in retaliation for the Mohammed cartoon.
With some of the stuff that comedy central has let southpark get away with, now they have a problem with this? uhhhhh......
AP, please refrain from legitimizing scientology by referring to it as a religion.
You consider that the stamp of legitimacy? :)
Its a shame that a network has the balls to let them go after Scientology and Bush, as I think its free speech, so good for them. But then not to let them show Muhammad from the context it was in, and the social satire it was making is outright ridiculous.
I have the up most respect for religion (excluding Scientology cause as jellybones points out.. its not a religion.) But I highly doubt that radical Muslims and their clerics would have rioted over South Park. And if they would have... wow, I thought they were nuts before.
Great point - if people here in the U.S. saw the episode of South Park, and then saw radical Islamists rioting in the streets thereafter and calling for the beheading of Mr. Stone & Mr. Parker, it might just be a bit of a wake-up call.
South Park already featured Muhammed in the season five episode Super Best Friends. It's a pre-9/11 episode that was in regular rotation for years. I guess we can kiss that one goodbye. Pick it up on DVD before the stormtroopers burn 'em.
And I've no doubt that William Donohue called them "little whores". That guy is a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. Seriously. Christian's need to call for his resignation because he does more harm for their image than South Park ever could.
Actually, they have been showing Muhammed in the opening credits of the show this season, take a look
Good find.
Truthfully, I don't blame Comedy Central one bit for the censorship. We've already seen what some Muslims will do in such situations, why bait them? We've had enough terrorist damage in America, no need to invite more.
The fact they allowed the defecation scene featuring Jesus told me it wasn't an issue of censorship per se, just a matter of common sense/preventive medicine. There were still plenty of digs at Muslims, so it isn't like Comedy Central made the whole religion off-limits.
I think the entire point of the episode should be obvious and horrifically telling with respect to the current world situation on a number of levels. For one, that we live in a country where an image of JC defecating on GW can air is in itself a testament to our freedom of speech. Two, and the obvious point, that JC deficating on GW is not censored while an insulting image of Muhammad is censored is most telling. Three, comedy's role, in my opinion is to point out the inequalities, foibles, inconsistencies that are present in our current humanity. That is the source material. That this cartoon has triggered such sensation is indicative of both the hypocrisy within media and the current danger that intolerance presents. South Park is a satire. It is supposed to point out inequities in our culture and world events.
Flagg, I'm not certain if you watched the episode or not, but they make a very clear point in the episode (and I agree with them) that letting the threat of violence change the way you do things is a pretty @!$%#ed up way of living your life, and only lets those who threaten violence win.
...letting the threat of violence change the way you do things is a pretty @!$%#ed up way of living your life, and only lets those who threaten violence win.
And as we all know, winning is the only thing that matters.
Ever have a bully steal your lunch money every day at school? The threat of violence changing the way you do things - Everyday, just before lunch hour, get your wallet out and get ready to be slammed into the nearest locker.
Because winning doesn't matter. Neither does eating lunch - I mean, our nation has an obesity problem anyway.
Fun. Or, you can act like they did in Part one of this South Park episode and just bury your head in the sand - about as effective, I'd say.
Fire!
I think the point is that standing up for your principles, even in the face of violence, matters too.
Of course it does.
My point is that its up to you to choose your battles. You need to weigh the benefit of doing something against its possible consequences, whether those consequences be legitimate or not.
For example: no one (even my wife) would argue that it is my right to look appreciatively at attractive women, but when I am with my wife, out of deference to her feelings, I don't. Usually.
Personally, I found the fact that Comedy Central censored South Park amplified the point Parker and Frey were trying to make.
Doh! That should have been "Parker and Stone".
Double Doh! I meant to write :
"no one (even my wife) would argue that it is NOT my right to look appreciatively at attractive women, but when I am with my wife, out of deference to her feelings, I don't. Usually."
In America, we like to pretend we walk the high moral road. We do not. We boast constantly of freedom, yet every day we seek to put more restrictions upon it. We consider the rights of our citizens superior to all others on the planet, and we die to bring it to those we consider less fortunate, but when it comes time to support that very ideology we succumb to doubt. It's more than a little sad that a cartoon about singing pieces of $#!% and Canadians who fart too much has to point out things like this.
Absolutely! Restrictions of our fundamental freedoms due to terrorism is letting terrorism win. Think of the snowball effect mentioned in the episode: in we succomb of terrorists on one simple issue, what happens on the next one? Do we stand up for what is right, or do we bow down to the pressure? We can't let the fear of terrorism shroud or rights an Americans- and as humans.
Damn straight, even if that right is something seemingly trivial, like making a cartoon character out of a man whom some believe was a great prophet of God/Allah/etc.
Part of the American POV that I don't think Americans quite understand about themselves is that the same fiery, passionate streak that has lead to their individualism also leads to a tendency to want to boss other people around, including one's fellow citizens. The American attitude often seems to be "Hey, leave ME alone, let ME do what I want, and while you're doing what I tell you, here's some other things I think you should be doing.... ". Bossiness and rebelliousness are two side of the same coin.
The truth is, maximizing freedom for all requires constantly keeping our urge to mind other people's business in check. There's a lot of give to live and let live.
While this is somewhat true, I am not sure if it applies here. The point of these episodes were that Muslims were trying to enforce their beliefs on the rest of the world, and there were many people willing to go along with that under the banner of "tolerance". South Park showed both the problem and hypocrisy of that.
Oh, I agree. Sorry, my comment was a bit of a tangent, really. :)
Though it did spark my latest column , at least.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |