In support of Draw Muhammad Day

Bomhard, your examples include variously garb worn by ordained priests and deacons only during liturgy; garb worn by religious sisters who chose to become brides of Christ; religious sects who wear traditional garments, whether those garments are part of their daily attire or whether all their attire is traditional and Burkas.

You lump together ceremonial attire with streetwear. Chasubles and Dalmatics should not be part of this discussion.

You also include those who choose consecrated religious life, and wear traditional habits of their order; the men and women in religious order should not be part of the discussion as it is their free will to join the order, knowing the habit is a requirement.

The Amish dress entirely archaically; however, my understanding is that children are not considered to be Amish until they're adults and have freely chosen to continue, which may entail going out into the world and learning about other options.

Additionally you include the attire of Orthodox Jews, of which there are multiple varieties; I don't know if you mean Lubavichers or the men who dress like everyone else but with a yarmulka and prayer rope or whatever it's called with the strings hanging out; please note that I don't intend this to be offensive, I have no idea what this is called. Women cover their hair and dress modestly.

With regard to Mormons, I thought they all wore the special underwear, and not just women?

Burkas are a problem for two reasons; basic law-enforcement says that people should be identifiable. Men are beginning to use Burkas as a mask for robberies and bombings. The second reason is more complex and in addition to having a religious component also has a cultural component; burkas are imposed by men, who, under the Koran, have complete decision-making power over their women, whether it's their mother, wife(s), sister, daughter, aunt or cousin and may impose their will.

Because men have the power to remove women in their care to a country that doesn't care what sort of punishment they make, you can't believe a Muslim woman if she says she wants to wear a Burka.

I encourage everybody to draw a digital version of Mohammed, save it, create customized stamps (zazzle.com, stamps.com, etc) with your drawing as the image, and mail a letter to RevolutionMuslim.com (and others who hate freedom) with your stamp on the envelope.

I agree with Herb's basic idea that one should be able to wear whatever one wants, except that concealing one's identity is unethical. I think that applies in all public places, not just when getting a driver's license. Suppose there were a sect that went around wearing ski masks everywhere? Wouldn't that be a public safety issue? Who was that stickup man?

EXPERIMENTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT, BUT PAKISTAN & INDIA ARE A RARE EXAMPLE. People of the same DNA and genes that share common languages, rituals, and cultures (e.g. Punjabi, Sindhi, etc..) are separated by religion. In just 60 years, there have been clear results. India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. Progress is seen in politics, economics, education, etc… India has had Presidents who are Muslim, Hindu, Dalit, female; Prime ministers who are Sikh, Hindu, female; Defense ministers who are Christian, Hindu, Sikh; powerful politicians are even Italian Catholics like Sonia Gandhi. More progress needs to made in many places in Indian society, but even in America Blacks had very limited rights till the 1960’s and now Obama is president. Tolerant peaceful societies make progress.
In contrast, Pakistan has become an increasingly intolerant and violent society. Pakistan used to have 40% Hindus, and now it is only 1%. The culture of Hindus of tolerance and peacefulness has made even Muslims in India relatively peaceful when compared with dominantly Islamic nations.

Pakistanis have no common identity – except hatred of India. The members of this society do not feel a common bond, which is necessary to make progress. All that is left is a false sense of unity and statehood, which has promoted Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. And this is a recipe for disaster

kingofkings

How about the folowing:

Draw mother Theresa in the most erotic pose?
Draw Jesus in funniest mode on the day of his crucifixion,
or

Draw the best cartoon of how life was fun for jews in nazi Germany.

Let the drawing begin......

Posted by: Kingofkings1
--------------------------------------------
A picture of the Virgin Mary, highly offensive to Catholics was hung in the Brooklyn Museum.

They protested heartily, and that was that. End of discussion. No Fatwahs, murders, screaming and screeching.

A picture of Jews in concentration camps also made its way into a museum. Jews protested. No Fatwas, no murders, no screaming and screeching.
-----------------------------
Moses, the giver of the law, ushered in the prohibition against idolatry. No craven images, no statues, etc. Judaism abhors idolatry.

Yet, all throughout the Justice Department there are statues of Moses, himself. This, to some of us, is anathema.

However, no fatwas, no murders, no screaming, no screeching, no threats.

No one can understand why muslims cannot simply behave the way the rest of us do in America.

To Yasseryousufi:

You may be right that no mainstream Muslim leader called for a jihad or other violence against the South Park crew, but did any mainstream Muslim leader denounce those "fringe" elements who did? I heard of none. To me that means that the "mainstream" Muslim leaders have abdicated leadership on this important issue of faith to the fringe -- which sort of begs the question: What is mainstream and what is fringe?

This is quite a challenge. I wonder if those who profess to value freedom of expression have the guts to stand up for their convictions. I wonder if I do. The jury is still out and we will just have to see if a small group of fanatics can control the expression of all humanity. If they can they will have all the world's women in Burqas and all the worlds men off their Budweisers.

what about photos of our troops coming back in coffins?

One of the most bizarre prohibitions of all time - a digital camera would have made a lot of human stupidity impossible.

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

Full support.

Here is my submission:

>8-(>

How's that? I think it's a pretty good likeness.

The burqa is not worn voluntarily. It is a lie to say that it is. To persist in the lie is to reduce the further religious credibility of the liar.

A few years ago, there was a big to-do made about people voting in Saudi Arabia for the first time, in local elections, but only men were allowed to vote. The official defense of this was that men and women had to vote separately, and they did not have time to set-up separater voting places for women.

So? Why not let women vote, and make men wait for next time, when "things" are all set-up? Ladies first, right?

But no; I think that dogs and cats will be allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia before women are allowed to.

Sorry, screwed up the link by trying to be too cute:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405123.html?hpid=sec-world

I'm not usually big on promoting secularism by doing religion backward. Instead of using free speech to prove we can, let's show how it improves society. Like sending music into Muslims lands on the model of the old Radio Free Europe:

"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405123.html?hpid=sec-world">Somalia Bans Music on Radio

I am Mohammad!
This is a picture of me:

(|| : >( >

Death to me!

Talk about making mountain out of a mole hill~! Name me one mainstream muslim cleric that condemned the South Park Cartoon. Its not even news in the muslim community. Just because a fringe fanatic muslim organization made up off former Jews and Christians posted threats doesn'y mean that they spoke for muslims. You can have all your EDMD's. There are plenty of racists just ready for these kind of events in Europe and America. Muslims get insulted and humiliated everyday. If it condenses to just one day I'll be more than happy~!

On Faith: Limits to religious liberty, South Park, and the burqa
America prides itself on the view that every individual has the freedom to express themselves as he or she chooses. Still, there is a line between freedom and public safety. As the old expression goes, one person’s freedom ends when it interferes with the freedoms of another.

People do not have the right to be free from being offended. This is at the heart of this issue. As individuals, we choose what offends us and while we may have reasons from our outrage, we could just as easily choose not to be offended.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://bit.ly/cvUgMy

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

How about the folowing:

Draw mother Theresa in the most erotic pose?
Draw Jesus in funniest mode on the day of his crucifixion,
or

Draw the best cartoon of how life was fun for jews in nazi Germany.

Let the drawing begin......

I think it is far more likely that a western man would condone wearing a burqa and find it voluntary, than would a western woman. I'm surprised that you do, Dr.Silverman. Of course men never wear burqas or would wear them, so that's a spurious argument. Do you draw the line at female circumcision, or is that voluntary, too?

Wearing a burqa in public is no different, in my mind, than the garments worn by others for religious reasons. Here, I am thinking about vestments worn by clergy (priests, choir boys, etc.) during certain services or rites, the garments worn by certain orders of nuns, the special attire worn by ultra-orthodox Jews, the turbans worn by Sikhs, the distinctive attire of the Amish and the female members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, etc. In a society that values freedom of expression and cherishes diversity, such attire should be tolerated as long as it does not infringe upon others and as long as coercion is not involved in forcing conformity upon co-religionists. Moreover, wearing such attire should not in any way impede proper identification of an individual when there is a need, for example, to have one's picture taken for a driver's license or passport.

On another note, no society should be held hostage by the religious superstitions of those who use threats, bullying, and acts of violence to impose their beliefs on others, as in the case of cartoons depicting religious figures. This is an intolerable abuse and should be strongly and vociferously resisted by all who cherish freedom, honesty, and openness.

"I wouldn't ban any attire as long as it is worn voluntarily and doesn't present potential harm to other individuals."

The burqa is not worn voluntarily. It is vile injustice, and the women who think they are OK with it have another think coming.

The burqa does not generally harm others, but it unquestionably harms the wearer. For example, it prevents exposure to sunlight, which is extremely deleterious to one's health.

There is no question that the burqa is a bad idea. It is stupid and evil from beginning to end. The question is what to do about people who force others to wear it.

Not the wearing -- the forcing. I would bet a million dollars that 90% of the time this involves violence, or the credible threat thereof. The answer, therefore, is to make it illegal to beat one's wife or daughter. But of course this is already illegal. So the next step is to disabuse ourselves of the notion that violence is sometimes justified if you have a religious reason for it.

They must be arrested: not the women who wear burqas but the men who beat them for refusing. When we start doing this we will be living in a better world.

Mr. Silverman,
Thanks for the article.
My cartoon was of a fictional 'poster'.
I did not make a 'call' for EDMD.
Someone else started a facebook page using my drawing.
I can't wait for May 20 to be overwith!!!
Molly Norris