South Park vs Religion

http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/arti...21075&GT1=7703

I am seriously ticked off at Comedy Central for letting the Muslims dictate policy (make no mistake, that is truly the case here). I thought the protests over the Danish comic was over-the-top, and this is even worse. Comedy Central is run by a bunch of hypocrites and cowards.

First they pulled the Scientology episide, and now they force the show to censor out Muhammad "because Muslims find it blasphemous". How dumb.

It is really sad that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have the biggest balls in this country and seem to be in the minority for fighting for the Constitution of this country.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

I applaud Comedy Central in their decision. South Park is just taking it too far, and a blatant mockery of some very serious situations is not justifiable. Especially since it remains a sensitive issue and not one that people should inflame even more.

It's like asking a company to broadcast messages about the Holocaust right after it happened glorifying it. It's a bad idea any time, but even more so when issues are still very sensitive.

You're comparing showing images of Muhammad to the Holocaust? Say what?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Comedy Central made the right decision here, and frankly, the South Park creators need to learn a thing or two about the difference between freedom of speech and the moral and physical consequences of their actions, not just for them, but for in particular, other Americans living around the world whos lives are endagered by such arrogant stupidity.

They need to learn how to laugh at themselves and just take things in stride. It's not like any Muslim is getting hurt by these images. If anything, the appropriate response from them would be to retaliate in a like manner, which in this case would be by making Jesus cartoons and such.

Originally Posted by Skexis

A freedom is not an obligation, nor should it be.
Choosing not to show images of Muhammad for perfectly legitimate reasons is not a violation of free speech, nor is it abandoning it. It is deferring that right in light of extreme circumstances.

One of the worst things you can do in order to encourage reform is to start some kind of personal crusade.

"Why can't we show pictures of Muhammad?"
"Well, we consider it an imperfect representation of the prophet, and...actually, it's easier if I say 'just because.'"
"That's stupid! You're stupid! We're going to do it anyways!"
"Uh...why?"
"Just because!"

So wait, you think that because we're threatened with violence, we should cave in to specific demands? There's a word for that . . . What was it again . . . ? Oh, yeah, that's right, terrorism.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

While you do have a point, the argument presented by the episode was that caving into the threat of terrorism is what makes it work. That we're willing to change our ways of life so we can avoid another 9/11 essentially does mean that the terrorists have won.

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by dope

Let me get this straight, terrorists have won because because the media has chosen to enforce media ethics. Well ... this is merely one facet of it. Data mining, wiretapping, etc. are all really acts of the American government.

If indeed you concede that terrorism has won then you're conceding that America made the mistake of trying to protect the lives of its citizenry through stricter implementation of rules.

If you at it that way, then there's no possiblity of America being the victor. Scenario A: America loses because it caved in "terrorist" demands. Scenario B: America loses because it didn't take "terrorist" threats seriously and ended up being irresponsible.

Well, let's see . . . Have we lost freedoms because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. Have our lives changed because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. So, yes, the terrorists have essentially "won" here.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Or, we could have better security, instead of fewer freedoms. It's been 5 years since 9/11, and we still have terrible customs, and a widely-mentioned estimate of 12 million illegals in the country. If that isn't a testament to how "safe" we are from terrorism, I don't know what is.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is truly safe. Acts of terror can happen anywhere at any time. The best we can do to combat terror, is to target organizations that support it in its organized state. Random acts of terror, however, we'll always be subject to. Would the Patriot Act have stopped the Oklahoma City bombing?

You're a wise one, Bradylama. That is all exactly right. You don't limit freedoms to combat terrorism, you strike at its source. Or as the saying goes, it's not how many times you fall, it's how many times you get back up. We have to fight them, spit in their faces, and say "we won't let you run our lives". Will people die? Yeah, probably, but eventually we will win. The path we're going down right now in this country, this isn't the path to victory, this is the road to defeat.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

restrictions on freedom on citizens is about as useful as gun control laws; they only work on law-abiding citizens! As such, the only ones affected are law-abiding citizens. Terrorists are criminals (violent ones at that), and criminals, by their very nature, break the law and find ways around law enforcement. I deal with criminals every day, I should know. Laws that restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens have absolutely zero impact on criminals.

Just like criminals can still get guns as easily today as they could a hundred gun control bills ago, so too can terrorists communicate as well today as before all this nonsense got started.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The biggest mistake you keep making however is that this is a governmental ban. It's not, its a company deciding that it doesn't want to get involved in a very, very contentious issue.

I never said it was a governmental ban.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Stop acting like a company exercising common sense means the US has caved to terrorist demands. It's nothing of the sort, its merely the company being logical and sensitive when its an issue that triggers such responces.

How is it not caving in to terrorist threats? Cartoons mock everything from Catholics to the President without threats of "we want to destroy you" and riots. Why should the Muslims be treated differently? What makes them so special that they should get special treatment? Jesus is as sacred to Christians as Muhammad is to Muslims, but the most they do is gripe about things and such, they don't fill the streets in protest. The worse Christians ever do is boycott something into the ground (like they did with Book of Daniel), while the Muslims want to see us tarred and feathered for it and would like to see us destroyed (not just for this, mind you, but still, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here).

So why, pray tell, do they deserve special treatment?

Originally Posted by Skexis

I will make this very easy for you since you are obviously some kind of robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions.

Terror.
Deference.
Respect.

Are people always this hostile and so quick to toss out attacks around here? Your attempt was decent, but there's no meat to it.

Originally Posted by Skexis

And none of this yet has addressed the fact that people are printing Muhammad not for any legitimate reason, but because they want to. Even the first cartoons were done "just because." The only reason it's become an issue is because people don't like hearing that others would prefer they not do something. It's the mentality of a 4 year old. Tell them to stay out of the cookie jar and it immediately puts the thought into their head.

It also seems to me that a lot of people had their chance in the beginning to avoid violent conflict, but by appearing to encourage disrespectful behavior, (duh) things escalated.

No legitimate reason? These people use their religion as an excuse to hate us, with a good chunk of them wanting to see us destroyed. The Danish comics just illustrated the ignorance of such thinking. As for the South Park episodes in question, it was making a statement against censorship, nothing more, nothing less. You may not think that's important, but it is. This is the Constitution of the United States we're talking about here. Freedom of speech is part of the 1st Amendment, meaning the founding fathers must have thought it was mighty important. By treating them differently, we're literally caving in to the demands of a specfic group of people.

It's like Kyle said on the episode (and it did have an important message, more important than any dumb reality show ever has): if we let this group have their way, then we have to let the next group have their way, and so on and so forth. Soon everyone else is running the show instead of the creators, and freedom of speech thus perishes. Caving in to these demands, as such, is just not right.

Many people have died protecting these freedoms we have. I myself lost my father at a young age in war. I myself would be willing to die to make sure these people don't win and don't put their personal beliefs on us. You simply can't make light of that, sorry.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Am I the only one here that finds the idea of wronging another (inflamatory media) to be ok, and the offended should just 'deal with it' attitude amusing? It's like, I can punch you in the nose, but there is nothing wrong with that, as you have the right to punch me right back. See? Everybody is happy in the end! Huh? What do you mean I didn't have a reason to punch you in the nose? I wanted to.

Physical assault is harmful, satire is not. Do you not see the difference?

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

Didn't we already see the same development with african americans? It is bad to say nigger but at the same time, blacks are still the usual suspects when it comes to petty crime, deprived of equal career chances and so on.

First off, you should know that, historically speaking, it is absolutely true that blacks are more likely to commit petty crimes and whites are more likely to commit the overly heinous crimes. That would be why the average crook is black more often than not, but the average serial killer is white more often than not. This is simple use of statistics here. It is not racist in the least, it is about trends. If history shows someone being more likely to do something than someone else, of course they are more likely to be suspected. Thing is, we in law enforcement may use these trends to get initial suspects, but we use the evidence to find the final answer.

On your second point, I really am sick of people saying blacks (and women) are deprived of equal pay and equal opportunities. Racism still exists, sure, but it is not as widespread as it used to be. I have plenty of black co-workers, and I can say beyond a doubt that they are not held back. Also, as a woman, I definitely can not complain about my opportunities and pay. This is 2006, things are not quite as severe as they used to be. There is still unfair bias (such as people who do not know me thinking I am not that tough because I am a woman), and sure it takes extra work to prove yourself, but hey, that is life. I have no problem with it. In fact, I have to admit that it is quite entertaining to prove people wrong about me.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

As was said above, its not religion, its foreign policy. Read what they say, they aren't attacking the US for being non-Islamic, on the contrary, they don't really give a damn, so long as the US stays out of their affairs. It's because of the US's support of Israel and the way it uses its army in the Gulf that causes problems.

If Islamic countries would stop trying to obliterate Israel, we might be compelled to stay away. If Palestine would stop being so hypocritical by doing things like speaking of peace and then electing Hamas members to a majority of their "parliament", we might be compelled to stay away. Sadly, that is not the case.

Honestly, if it were up to me, I would sit down with the Israelis and the Palestinians and say: "Look, start getting along or maybe we will just have to take over to make you get along. The United States gets along well enough as a melting pot, so why is it you people seem unable to freaking share?" Israel has done its fair share of wrong, but as of right now, I believe Palestine has done a greater share of wrong.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Being represented on South Park is considered an insult. I'm sure you can understand that.

Listen closely. South Park is fiction. South Park is a cartoon. South Park is not real. Anyone who gets lambasted by it, I say "get over it". To get hostile over a joke is just dumb.

Originally Posted by Skexis

I don't think I stated anything that was particularly venomous, just pointing out that you are overlooking a large part of this argument.

Really? You called me "robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions". I certainly consider that "venomous". I doubt there are many people out there who think more independently than I do.

Originally Posted by Skexis

You heard right. The cartoons were made to test the waters.

Wrong. The cartoons were made to send a message, a message that censorship in fear of retaliation is equal to caving to terrorism. That message is, well, right on the money.

Originally Posted by Skexis

To ask whether or not there would be a large response to Muhammad in a cartoon. once it was made clear that yes, people didn't like it when the prophet was put in the newspaper, and no, they especially didn't like having the whole thing flaunted in their face by the Danish prime minister refusing to meet with Arabic envoys, and other papers "championing the cause of free speech," just because they can, well I think we lost all claims to legitimacy.

Championing free speech just because is precisely why free speech exists. You know that, right?

Originally Posted by Skexis

You don't need to preach to me. I understand what the first amendment means. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot differentiate between what we have the right to do and what we have the obligation to do, or respect from cowtowing to demands.

Again, it was a cartoon, a work of fiction. Now if President Bush went on the air crapping all over Muslims, yeah, that would be a bit disrespectful, but this is a cartoon full of toilet humor that tries to entertain while sending messages Rush Limbaugh style (demonstrating obsurdity by being obsurd). They have no obligations, and censoring them because a bunch of people might throw a fit is indeed cowering to demands.

Originally Posted by Skexis

And stop calling it "caving in."

Well, by definition, that is precisely what it is. Why not call a spade a spade?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

The point of my argument was that going out of one's way to hurt or provoke another *for no reason other than to piss them off* doesn't seem like a great way to use one's freedom of expression. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it could very well be.

It is fiction. I can not stress this enough. Besides, they were sending a message, not trying to insult people for no reason.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

That you or I don't feel that those insults are on par to an attack on one's person is immaterial by the way. My example was *supposed* to represent something that we could all agree is a dick move, since we can't adequately grasp how the mohamad pictures affect someone with such strong beliefs. But you instead take the opportunity for a 'Haha, they get mad at dumb stuff, not the not-dumb stuff that we would get mad at.'

Um, no, you compared an action that is "insulting to a single religion" to what is a criminal offense in most countries. Ironically, punching a woman in the face is accepted in Islamic Fundamentalist countries if the woman in question does not follow the letter of religious law.

Better yet, since I am highly offended by the Muslims' gross human rights violations and their blatant mistreatment of women, should I go and threaten to blow up their homes and businesses and such in an attempt to force them to change? I mean, if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, right?

I thought not.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

The motivations of the cartoonists are at the heart of the issue. If they are really trying to get across a message, then great. If they are just trying to start shit, then not so great. Either way, they should have the right to do so, and the network sucks for their stance on selective censorship.

Either which way, we have freedom of speech in this country. Their motives matter not. I would be far more interested in stopping white supremicists from rallying in public than censoring South Park, giving the relative severities of the actions in question. Yet we allow white supremicists to rally in public. Why should we give anything to the Muslims when we allow hate groups to march freely? If I were to censor anyone, they would be at the top of the list.

Originally Posted by dope

Should there be special treatment for Muslims? Hmm... the first question is: should they be judged using American standards? Considering that they're in a way different culture I don't this wholly applies. The freedom clause to them is an insult to their race and class. They don't see it as expression due to their very different culture and environment.

Well I have a definite problem when a culture is so open about human rights violations and mistreatment of women. That is a bit personal for me. That, however, is real. South Park is not. See the difference? If South Park made fun of women (which it has), then fine, I have no problem with it. It is a work of fiction. I am far more interested in stopping cultures that commit real atrocious acts against women in reality than I am in stopping a cartoon from hurling insults.

As the saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. In the case of Muslims, those stones kill women who violate religious law.

Originally Posted by dope

I couldn't believe that there was an earlier generalization that majority of Muslims wanted to destroy Americans. This is the exact sentiment that Muslims and people around the world are against. It's racial prejudice in action. And no matter how much people rally nothing would be resolved.

That is not racism, it is reality. If it were not, how would Hamas, a known terrorist organization, get such a strong following in Palestine, which happens to have the full support of the rest of the Islamic community? The proof is in the pudding, as it were. If they want to stop giving off this "die die die" vibe toward us, they need to stop blatantly backing terrorist groups!

Originally Posted by Atomic Duck

Seriously... with the way things are going a few years down the road people will be able to claim racism unless you say nothing more than "hello" and in at least five different languages, but then they can still claim racism because you didn't include theirs. If you're going to worry about who's offended, why the hell even bother at all? Why even have anything on tv past the weather channel?
Everyboy Loves Raymond could be deemed offensive by people who think life should be taken too seriously for jokes. Star Wars could be deemed racist because entire movies in the series had no black people and the one black character it did have got killed. Monkey Ball could be deemed offensive as it has monkeys trapped in balls. Football could be deemed sexist as very few women play.
Might as well not teach World War 2 in history anymore either. I'm sure Italians or people with Italian heritage might get offended over hearing about what their great country took part in. Same goes for Germans and Japanese.
Also, I don't like hearing bad news. Maybe that means all news stations in the Cleveland area should shut down? I know I'm only one in millions of people who live around here, but hey, who cares? One person doesn't like what's being said.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and the only way to truly be fair is to either allow everything or allow nothing at all, and free speech is too vital to deny.

This is a place where when things got started the general idea was that just because a single group of people were opposed to something didn't mean that it automatically had to be censored. I guess we sure raped that one up the ass, didn't we?

I may be more or less Atheist, but AMEN TO THAT!

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Skexis

I think free speech is intended to give us the choice of whether or not we have need to say something, and if we do have need to do so, then we may do so with the understanding that ideas are not foolproof, and the reality of a situation may demand a fair bit more caution than our ideological flamboyancy and tendency to become born-again patriots the second we think our rights are coming under fire would normally give.

I don't think you fully understand tyhe 1st Amendment in that case. It's a right and has nothing to do with necessity.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Censoring them is not my goal, but what really do they want to accomplish except to inflame hatred among the people they would conceivably most want to convince? This comes back to the reality of the situation. You keep talking about Islam as if saying "They're going about things the wrong way." Well, okay, I'd definitely have to agree. But you're well aware of what the probable reaction will be. So how are you going to respond? Are you going to rhetorically scream in their face, or attempt some kind of dialogue that doesn't involve an imperialistic view of the world. Don't treat it as the white man's burden and you might find more open ears.

I think the terrorists have already shown their unwillingness to negotiate or take part in diplomacy. They always want everything their way!

Originally Posted by Skexis

See, this is why I called you a robot. Not because you can't think for yourself. You're still treating this as if it was a black and white discussion, with us or against us, roe vs wade, coward or freedom fighter. You keep refusing to note that in any human interaction there is a spectrum of results, and not an A or B choice.

"Any" is quite a far-reaching word, you know. I don't agree with you on this point. While most situations do have many shades of gray, this, quite frankly, isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Skexis

You can't say South Park has no meaning and can't harm anyone, but carries a solemn and informative message at the same time. Either you acknowledge that the show has intentions, which may be misconstrued, taken out of context, or aggrandized, or it is "just fiction."

Wait, you don't think a work of fiction can have a message? Haven't you ever heard of a "moral of the story"? Works of fiction have messages all the time. That's the case here with South Park.

To wit, the content itself is fiction and should not be taken seriously, but the underlying message is still there, under the fiction. That's how such messages work.

Originally Posted by Skexis

See, you're not anywhere near reality. The only important thing you said is that you have to draw the line somewhere. But that doesn't have to mean some kind of polarized America, where everyone is a fucking jerk to one another because hey, if I said your face looked like it had been run over by a truck, I had the right to say it.

If you told me that, I'd just laugh at you. I've been called plenty of names in my day. Bitch, slut, cunt, psycho, whore, you name it. Sometimes they were true, sometimes they were offensive, but never once did I assault someone for saying such things, nor have I threatened to do so (at least not that I recall, although I might have when I was a kid).

Basically, there is no shade of gray here. The Muslims are overreacting, and badly. Those overrations are causing companies to make decisions they would not otherwise make, decisions being made out of fear. Basing decisions on fear for reprisal is the very definition of terrorism. So yes, in this case, I do believe it's black and white.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

But by seeing the issue in black and white, you are advocating the same mentality. No negotiation, no compromise, no consideration for others. They are wrong.

I believe they are wrong. Their human rights violations are absolutely terrible and their treatment of women is completely over the line. Still, that does not mean we should invade them, but neither does it mean we should give in to their demands.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Sure Muslims over react to things, but what do you suggest to change this? If someone is offended when you do a thing, does doing it over and over again really improve things? I'm just wondering what you hope to have changed and how.

The point, the thing this tries to change, is this absolutely ignorant self-censorship nonsense. So what if they could be offended? Let them complain. Oh, I forgot, their idea of "complaining" is to cheer on terrorists as they blow us up! So yeah, they are in the wrong. They answer insults with violence, and that is unacceptable in civilized society. If I had blown up every person who ever called me a name or offended me, I would be in the same boat as John Wayne Gacy or Charles Manson.

Let them complain, but do not bow down to them. If they then attack us, then we attack them back and show them where the power lies. I guarantee if some guy attacked me for insulting him, I would put him in the morgue in the blink of an eye. That, my friends, is self-defense. The bottom line, though, is that you do not answer insult with violence; violence is only acceptable when the target does something, well, violent. South Park is not harming anyone, period, that is fact. As such, threatening violence would be crossing the line. I say let this stuff air to send a message to all Americans: do not be intimidated. Let them try their worst, and when they do, they will regret it.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Skexis

Messages, like the political cartoons, like the complicity of some of the news organizations that printed the cartoons, do not always have their intended effect, nor does the person on the receiving end always understand implicitly what was meant in the first place. We are all witnesses to that fact. I am advocating patience, not submission.

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." In reference to patience, that is. What you're describing as patience fits the dictionary definition of submission.

Originally Posted by Skexis

So, let's say you laugh in my face when I call you a dirty name, or tug on your pigtail, or steal your pencil, or whatever you want to equate this to. I really don't care, as long as you acknowledge that the religious undertones of this dispute do, in fact, matter, so it's not as simple as "ignoring it." So anyway, I keep doing it. And doing it. And making sure that you know that I am doing it. In fact, I make sure everyone else knows I'm doing it, and that you can't stop me even if you tried.

Wanna bet? Given your example, it sounds like the setting would be in a school, correct? In that case, I report you to the teacher, and you get a recess taken away. To use a proper Fullmetal Alchemist term here, I'd consider it "equivalent exchange". You keep it up, you keep getting punished. Eventually, you either get it through your head that you need to cut it out, or I start laughing at you for being a dumbass and getting all your recesses taken away.

Doing things your way, I would grab you by the collar, push you against the wall, and say "Leave me alone or I'm gonna bash your head in with a brick!", and you stop out of fear of retribution. Is that acceptable behavior? Hell no!

Originally Posted by Skexis

Let's be honest here. Your solution is to continue bullying Islam as a whole until they see the light or you send them to it.
Does this strike you as somewhat odd and egomaniacal, or are you so committed to the prospect that actions do not have moral significance

Who is doing more bullying here? People making fun of others via cartoons, or people threatening to blow other people up in response? I'd say the latter myself . . .

Oh, and as for actions having moral significance, I've never said they don't. I'm saying words don't have moral significance. I know a lot of women will turn red if you call them cunts, but me, I would just return the favor and call you a jackass. Eye for an eye. You call me a name, I call you a name, I don't decapitate you and feed you to rabid monkeys. Making cartoons with a message, that's words, not actions.

Originally Posted by Skexis

that you think anyone should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't break section 38-C of statute 411 of California penal code?

Hahaha, don't get me wrong. I may work in a branch of law enforcement, but that doesn't mean I'm a gung-ho legalist. There are plenty of laws I disagree with. Heck, some laws I disagree with so much that even if I do witness the law being broken, I do absolutely nothing about it. Granted, that doesn't happen often in my line of work (I'm not a beat cop or a detective or anything, and I don't deal with "mundane" crimes), and a lot of the time it is outside my jurisdiction, but I do have the authority to do something about it in such cases, and if I disagree with the law, I admit it, I ignore it. I really am disgusted when people in similar lines of work go so much by the book that they don't see the stuff going on right under their noses; I keep my eyes open for truly important stuff.

So no, I'm not about going by the book, I'm about doing what's right and caring about what should be cared about. People making cartoons thousands of miles away, that's not important, that's a blip on my radar. The people who threaten to blow people up in response, though, that'll get my attention. Giving in because of that possible retribution is, of course, the dictionary definition of submission, and their actions follow the dictionary ddefinition of terrorism. To me, it's that simple.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Parker and Stone long ago pushed the limits of what MOST people find acceptable. The problem here is that they did something that a select few violent people find unacceptable. Do you really think most americans give a shit if Mohammad is portrayed in a cartoon? Are you saying most Americans think Jimmy and Timmy beating the crap out of each other in a cripple fight, or jesus being beaten up by the devil or a talking piece of poo are just fine but a cartoon Mohammad, well damn, thats over the line? Why did Comedy central use this as the stopping point. Are they afraid of violent retribution or are they being as politically correct as the rest of the media and granting a special protected status upon islam?

Exactly. QFT.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Why is it that all of the sudden Mohammed is a hot topic? This is insanely stupid. South Park blasts other religions, and its funny, but all of the sudden Mohammed is over the top? This is stupid.

I define censorship as the following:
Some people are too simple or closeminded to be able to see things from other people's perspectives, so they simply say BAN IT for their own moral conscious.

Bingo. Also QFT.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Your example seems to be quite similar to what has happened. That being, in order to keep two parties from acting poorly, a third party (teacher, or TV network) stepped in to difuse the situation.

The biggest difference between my example and what's going on is that the people "making fun" (South Park, in this case) aren't doing anything wrong (which would not be the case in a school setting), and yet are getting "punished" anyway.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Also, by your example you imply that there isn't, nor should there be, a ruling body (or common ground regarding issues) to stand between the Muslims and those that wish to insult them. You also go on to explain that without that ruling body shit turns ugly that didn't have to turn ugly. So it really seems like you want to push things until violence does ensue and then see who wins in a fight. Now sure, this will 'solve' things for a while, but is this really what you are trying to advocate in Muslim/non-Muslim relations?

That would certainly be better than caving in to them, yes. Sure, no specific threats were made, but given how they reacted to pretty much the exact same thing in the past, it's quite a safe bet that their reaction this time would be the same.

Anyway, yes, I would rather let South Park "insult" them and let them start a fight and then have to fight than just cave in to the possibility of being attacked, yes, because otherwise, what the heck good does the Constitution do for us? To censor South Park because of the possibility of backlash is un-American; don't get me wrong, I'm no hard-headed patriot, but in this case, the word fits.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

So if you find something that pisses off another, the only responsible course of action is to press their button.

That's not what this is about.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I mean, if there was something that pissed you off, it'd only be natural to expect that people would do their damndest to do it. And hell, you'd deserve it too, because your beliefs would be laughable and dumb.

But seriously, I still want to know what antagonising and taunting them is supposed to accomplish.

The goal here is to get these crazy people to realize that their ways are not acceptable in civilized society, plain and simple. On top of that, we're trying to show them that hypocracy is also unacceptable. As a previous poster stated, these zealots have no problem trashing Jews. Well, I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. There are plenty of catchy phrases that fit the situation.

Either way, giving in to them is not an option. Too many people have fought for and died for this country for us to give way to a bunch of raving lunatics now.

Most amazing jew boots