"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is nearly upon us!

It's May 20th for those who want to participate.  I know I will and I'll probably be posting my amateur art.

I'd like to address is some negative reaction that this has received.  I found a well written response by Ann Althouse, a law blogger.  She argues that while anyone is well within their rights to draw Mohammed but that doesn't make it a good idea.  I agree that not everything legal is a good idea.  She claims that it will do nothing but incite anger by being disrespectful and this is where I part company with her.

While it may not be respectful of Islamic law that is the very point.  Anyone who is not Muslim should not be expected to follow Islamic law.  Althouse then likens the act of drawing Mohammed to the art piece entitled "Piss Christ" in which a crucifix was photographed submerged in a jar of urine.  These are not comparable acts, though both are legal and valid.  With "Piss Christ" the artist did something that was not specifically breaking a religious law but was intended to be controversial by going against social graces.  Submerging any symbol in urine shows disrespect to the subject.  A drawing of Mohammed is almost the opposite.  It breaks a specific religious decree but does not violate social graces.  Simply drawing a symbol or person is not normally a sign of disrespect.

It is this point that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is supposed to express.  Doing something that is not normally rude and is not forbidden by someone's beliefs shouldn't be a problem simply because someone else doesn't want to do it.  A much more applicable comparison would be how Jews should react to the crucifix itself.

Assuming that Jesus is actually god then it counts as a a graven image of god, which is forbidden.  If Jesus is not god then it's idolatry which is forbidden.  Simply from a historical perspective Jews see people hanging up and wearing crucifixes as a group of non-Jews parading around the image of a murdered Jew.  That's pretty tasteless and cruel from a non-Christian perspective.

And yet when is the last time you heard of a group of Jews protesting the very existence of the crucifix.  I  can't think of an instance.  Why?  Because the people that wear this symbol are not Jews.  They are not bound by Jewish law.  If a Jew were to start wearing a crucifix they would surely be confronted about it.  If a Muslim were to being drawing images of Mohammed I would assume that their community would confront them.  But I would not expect a rabbi to give a Catholic a stern talking to nor do I expect an Imam to tell me that I'm breaking a law that binds me.

To be fair there are portions of every religious population that will turn to violence to get their point across.  Fundamentalism from any source will act violently to opposition.  Orthodox Jews in Israel (and New York or really anywhere for that matter) have been known to stone cars and people for violating the Sabbath.  Christians have been killing others for not being Christian or Christian enough since there was such a thing as Christians; from the inquisition to George Tiller.  Even some Buddhist monks have led mobs to destroy property and attack people.  In general if you piss off Jews you'd expect letters and protests.  Piss off Christians and you expect sponsorships pulled and protests and bitching on Fox news.  Piss off Buddhists and, well, no one really worries about that much.  Piss of Muslims and people get scared.  And attacked.

There was just a post on American Atheists that makes this point.  In the same South Park episode they portray Jesus watching porn and Buddha snorting cocaine.  And yet there's been no Christian or Buddhist backlash.   The only response that's feared is an Islamic one.  I know, there are violent Christian groups that aim to hurt and kill.  I also know that not all Muslims are violent.  It's not even a majority.  What I am getting at is that people keep fighting back when Christians kill doctors or counter-protest when the Phelps folks show up somewhere but there's a pre-emptive censorship when dealing with Mohammed and other Islamic content.  That is what needs to stop.  It's not the people making commentary and criticism that should be curbed.  It's the violent reactionaries who push their holy symbols as universally untouchable.

Which brings it all back to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".  I've personally done a web comic where "Christ-ee the cross" was a reoccurring minor character.  So I'm following, well...  That is interesting as well.  Molly Norris drew the original cartoon that's over at The Stranger's page but has since gotten cold feet and has pulled her cartoon from her own site.  So now it's really just rolling on its own.  I completely understand why she would get scared.  After all, if there ends up being some sort of response it's easier to attack one woman that the internet.  The ironic (real irony!) thing is that she's scared over her own protestation of the media being scared.

Rebecca Watson puts it very nicely in video form over here.

My perspective is that people should gauge how they control their speech based on respect, not by fear or force.  You can't make a decision to be respectful until you have the freedom to choose your actions.  So who's in on this?

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
Thursday, May 20th, 2010