Another attack on a cartoonist

[DataPacRat]

In case anyone is interested in updates on the story: In response to an artist making sketches of a figure that many Muslims believe it is inherently disrespectful to portray in any form, some extremists have responded by attempting to set the artist's house on fire.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/lars_vilks_attacked_again.php:

Like last time, I expect this news will set off another fusillade of dissenting opinions, but too bad. Extremists have vandalized Lars Vilks home, trying to set it on fire (original article in Swedish here).


In an undoubtably futile attempt to forestall what I expect will be common objections to this story here, I know that there are political ramifications to the cartoons of Mohammed. I know that many of them were motivated by racism and xenophobia. In this instance, though, I don't care. Vilks drew a sketch. His enemies set his house on fire.

I would encourage Muslims to respond in kind, with their own cartoons lampooning Vilks (it shouldn't be hard; the article about the arson has a picture of Vilks that looks rather deranged already). But when you respond to an insult to your beliefs with violence and destruction, you have moved beyond the boundaries of civilization, straight into barbarism, and you will get no sympathy from me.

Source: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/15/why-i-support-drawing-muhammad/

You never hear about Hindus walking into McDonald’s and telling the manager they’re not allowed to use beef products anymore.

If they did, we would laugh it off. We’d say that’s absurd because non-Hindus don’t have to follow their rules.

But what if the Hindu radicals committed a violent act against the manager? We’d be furious.

What if moderate Hindus said it was offensive for someone else to eat a Big Mac? We’d laugh it off.

In response to all that, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to stage a peaceful sit-in where all participants ate Big Macs.

It wouldn’t be anti-Hinduism nor would anyone be purposely trying to piss off Hindus by doing that. It would just be a show of solidarity by those who believe that only Hindus need to abide by their religious beliefs, not anyone else.

That’s what we’re doing by drawing these Muhammad images.

…

Lars Vilks, the man who drew Muhammad’s face on the body of a dog, was attacked a few days ago. And it has only gotten worse for him since then.

His house was set on fire. (Thankfully, Vilks is ok.)

The facade of the building was lightly damaged, a police spokeswoman told SR radio. Neither Vilks, nor anyone else was in at the time of the incident at the house in a secluded part of southern Sweden.

 

[جوري]

how come your sources are blogs mostly of the atheist variety?
I don't mind the news at all, I simply mind the source.. hope you can find more credible sources and frankly the end results won't change matters any... it is a positive reinforcement for these otherwise unknown cartoonists.. I am pretty sure that is why they do it!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

http://www.thelocal.se/26662/20100515/

 

[جوري]

pls.

with a home like that he'd probably setting it on fire himself to claim the insurance money...
he looks positively satanic.

all the best

 

[Skavau]

He's probably wealthy enough from selling his stories about his cartoons to the media.

He 'looks satanic', huh?

 

[TrueStranger]

First of all there is on one in the world today that knows how Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) looked like. We do not have a picture of the (Prophet Peach be upon Him), just descriptions. Just because some idiot picks-up a pencil and draws a man with a beard and labels him Mohamed does not in reality mean that is an accurate image of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

So why are we upset about an image that does not resemble in any form or manner our beloved Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). I'm most certainly upset about the notion that they have the audacity to make such lies as to say this is Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him).

We should not contribute to the popularity of these men that are potentially doomed to hell.

 

[جوري]

He's probably wealthy enough from selling his stories about his cartoons to the media.

He 'looks satanic', huh?

Is that what you too look like.. I always imagined you with bug eyes like that

First of all there is on one in the world today that knows how Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) looked like. We do not have a picture of the (Prophet Peach be upon Him), just descriptions. Just because some idiot picks-up a pencil and draws a man with a beard and labels him Mohamed does not in reality mean that is an accurate image of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

So why are we upset about an image that does not resemble in any form or manner our beloved Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). I'm most certainly upset about the notion that they have the audacity to make such lies as to say this is Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him).

We should not contribute to the popularity of these men that are potentially doomed to hell.

I totally agree!

 

[shuraimfan4lyf]

pls.

with a home like that he'd probably setting it on fire himself to claim the insurance money...
he looks positively satanic.

all the best

He does look satanic.. I wonder how much he would get for insurance money. I am sure he has a top insurance company covering his property.

 

[Woodrow]

Perhaps we are seeing the birth of the latest psychological phenomena.

Over the past 30 or 40 years there has been periods of episodic bizarre suicides. The first noted was "Suicide by 18 wheeler" during which time there was a rash of single occupant cars being involved in high speed head on collisions with semi-trailers. Later there was a rash of lone gun men being involved in shoot outs with police. This became known as "Suicide by cop" Suicides in which the committer is presenting a front of Bravery, being a victim or a hero.

I wonder if we may be seeing the rise of a new form of suicide and this is the start of "Suicide by Offended Religious Adherent"

It does seem that these sick cartoonists are getting the results they expect and want to happen, for some odd perverse reason known only to their own twisted inner self.

 

[DataPacRat]

how come your sources are blogs mostly of the atheist variety?

I use 'Google Reader' to keep up with my various newsfeeds - at present I'm subscribed to 1,552 different RSS feeds in it, though few make it into my actual daily "A-list", and I only even glance at about 250 articles a day, and read fewer than that. The top 11 sites I read in this fashion, with the most articles per day, are Metafilter, Boing Boing, Slashdot, Pharyngula, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, "Lawyers, Guns and Money", Greg Laden's Blog, FAILblog, Beyond the Beyond, kottke.org, and Friendly Atheist. Of those, so far only Pharyngula, which is run by a biology professor, and Friendly Atheist have mentioned the new attack. That is why I sourced this thread using those two articles... and I was very careful to include those articles' links to /their/ original sources, including the Times Online. That seemed quite sufficient attribution.

If what you are asking is why I'm subscribed to those particular blogs in the first place: I'm subscribed to a wide variety of blogs, and file them into such categories as webcomics, podcasts, cryptography, gaming, genealogy, ham radio, local news, medicine, military, outdoorsy & hiking, political, atheism, libertarianism, skepticism, rationalism, science, "people I disagree with", civil rights, human rights, online rights, science, science fiction, space, and a number of others - 75 different tags in all. Not counting Twitter feeds which I mostly ignore, there are about three dozen blogs in my 'atheism' section; 1500 feeds split into 75 categories means I have an average of around 20 feeds per category, so the number of blogs I pay atetntion to about atheism is above average, but not excessively so.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[DataPacRat]

It does seem that these sick cartoonists are getting the results they expect and want to happen, for some odd perverse reason known only to their own twisted inner self.

Actually, they are being very public and prominent with their reasoning - if you have not heard of it, then either you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately ignoring what they're saying. In case it's the former, here you go:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.

That's it. That's the whole point.

Or, if you prefer, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whether you think this ideal is a good one or a bad one, whether you're aware of the reasoning behind it or not, there are people who think it is /such/ a good idea that they're willing to place their life on the line for such a principle. People have been willing to place their lives on the line for the right to practice whatever religion they choose, or for the right to own property, or for the right not to be discriminated against based on their birth or heritage; the cartoonists involved here see themselves as being engaged in a similar resistance against those who would threaten their right to freedom of speech.


And in case anyone's curious about the events, here are some new updates from Lars Vilks' own blog, as translated by Google Reader:

Chased by Arsonists

Well, so it can go. An acquaintance told me that my kitchen window was shattered and that it had been trying to instigate a fire house on the wall. Through the window were the perpetrators (they were probably more) fire to the curtain that burned a black mark kitchen ceiling.

There is a certainly not an isolated event.

Husattentatet

Since the police did their investigation and for a time cordoned off the site as a crime scene could be further findings: A slightly curved, very beautiful knife that lay beneath the window that had been wrapped. More knife was given a second knife was found in the roadside. The question is why attack figures throw or possibly placing one of his daggers.

Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[جوري]

If what you are asking is why I'm subscribed to those particular blogs in the first place

I am not.. I like news from credible sources not blogs.. but did state that it wouldn't matter either way as per this particular subject matter.. it does seem like a topic of interest for atheists to have on their blogs.. I can't envision a better pastime beyond the passive aggressive relationship that they have with the other half or in this case 85-90% along with the usual moments of perceived clever cynicism which in their mind's eye sets them a bar above the rest of course meriting the usual self-congratulatory fests and inseminates the delusions of grandiosity.

all the best

 

[Woodrow]

Actually, they are being very public and prominent with their reasoning - if you have not heard of it, then either you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately ignoring what they're saying. In case it's the former, here you go:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.

That's it. That's the whole point.

Or, if you prefer, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whether you think this ideal is a good one or a bad one, whether you're aware of the reasoning behind it or not, there are people who think it is /such/ a good idea that they're willing to place their life on the line for such a principle. People have been willing to place their lives on the line for the right to practice whatever religion they choose, or for the right to own property, or for the right not to be discriminated against based on their birth or heritage; the cartoonists involved here see themselves as being engaged in a similar resistance against those who would threaten their right to freedom of speech.


And in case anyone's curious about the events, here are some new updates from Lars Vilks' own blog, as translated by Google Reader:






Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

Thank You,

I think most of the world, including a large percentage of us Muslims will agree with this statement:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.

Is it in compassion towards others that he chooses to spread this message by engaging in an activity that will be insulting to others, even the ones who will not act violently towards his insults? Who is the target audience he is trying to reach. It is not a very good method to solicit support, by insulting potential supporters. His goal does seem to go much deeper then the superficial vocalization that his goal is to show Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. something is flawed in the mentality that he can accomplish his goal by deliberately eliciting the behavior he condemns.

I see him as either a masochist or having a death wish and is seeking the ultimate visualization that Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. He does seem to indicate he will not stop with the insults as long as he has the ability to make them.

He is setting up a self fulfilling prophecy with the message being the ultimate insult to us Muslims. He is not going to be happy until he can make us look like barbaric killers.


Sadly, he probably will eventually find somebody who is willing to oblige his death wish.

 

[DataPacRat]

I am not.. I like news from credible sources not blogs.. but did state that it wouldn't matter either way as per this particular subject matter.. it does seem like a topic of interests for atheists to have on their blogs.. I can't imagine much else of interest beyond the passive aggressive relationship that they have the other half along with the usual moments of perceived clever cynicism and self-congratulatory fests.

This is a classic example of the "argument by incredulity" - that just because you cannot imagine something, then it cannot exist.

Tell you what; why don't you subscribe to Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist for a week, and read the articles and comments posted there, and then let me know if you still hold this opinion?

all the best

What a bizarre three words to finish with after describing my online community as "passive aggressive" and the like.

 

[DataPacRat]

I see him as either a masochist or having a death wish and is seeking the ultimate visualization that Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. He does seem to indicate he will not stop with the insults as long as he has the ability to make them.

He is setting up a self fulfilling prophecy with the message being the ultimate insult to us Muslims. He is not going to be happy until he can make us look like barbaric killers.

I do not think he can "make" you do anything - he's not holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to, er, hold a gun to his head. His actions aren't creating new behaviour out of nothingness, or inducing you to behave in ways you cannot behave in otherwise; he is /evoking/ behaviours that are inherent in you. (For various definitions of "You".)

As for a death wish... do you think Mahatma Gandhi had a death wish? Rosa Parks? Nelson Mandela? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? The White Rose? Risking receiving violence, and even death, for a principle isn't usually considered a death wish, especially if taking that risk helps bolster that principle.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[جوري]

This is a classic example of the "argument by incredulity" - that just because you cannot imagine something, then it cannot exist.

Tell you what; why don't you subscribe to Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist for a week, and read the articles and comments posted there, and then let me know if you still hold this opinion?

In fact I joined a Dawkins forum at some point hoping for light scientific banter and didn't last very long, but did share with members here the onslaught of F bombs and condescension toward their fellow man and the sort of topics discussed to avoid them futile discourse.. I do think they have mastered one science and that is of pugilism and rivalry at who does best braying of a donkey.

What a bizarre three words to finish with after describing my online community as "passive aggressive" and the like.

I think that description sums my experience quite adequately or rather I should say the collective experience of theists! ..

all the best

 

[glo]

He 'looks satanic', huh?

Well, that raised eyebrow does look a little suspect!

 

[Skavau]

Is it in compassion towards others that he chooses to spread this message by engaging in an activity that will be insulting to others, even the ones who will not act violently towards his insults? Who is the target audience he is trying to reach. It is not a very good method to solicit support, by insulting potential supporters.

In this context, I would argue that it is the only way to spread this message. For me and many others there is no compromise on this issue. Free speech is just that important. This includes the right to mock, insult and ridicule concepts and ideas no matter who values them as sacred, or who declares them as exempt. The idea is to effectively show that they will not stop after receiving threats, and that the principle of free expression is worth defending that virulently.

The alternative is to accept a subjective and open to abuse system of censorship based on arbitrary whims such as 'offense' and 'insult'. Or bring back crude blasphemy laws (but extended to other religions) - which I also would not accept.

is goal does seem to go much deeper then the superficial vocalization that his goal is to show Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. something is flawed in the mentality that he can accomplish his goal by deliberately eliciting the behavior he condemns.

In some respects he would rather cynically illicit public sympathy for attempts of violence made against him. He probably in some ways hopes for a violent confrontation to achieve that.

 

[جوري]

He does look satanic.. I wonder how much he would get for insurance money. I am sure he has a top insurance company covering his property.

Not sure how much dated books of the far side variety and an ethnic wrap over the door would be worth and I won't lose much sleep over it..

 

[Woodrow]

In some respects he would rather cynically illicit public sympathy for attempts of violence made against him. He probably in some ways hopes for a violent confrontation to achieve that.

He most likely will achieve his goal of death by an angry person. Reminds me of Ambrose Bierce whose last news article was about the Mexican revolution in which he ended "To go to Mexico in these times is a fast form of self euthanasia" (or very similar words) After which he left for Mexico and was never seen or heard from again. He probably demonstrated visiting Mexico was not a safe move, but I doubt if over 2 people really gave a Tinker's dime.

May he achieve all he deserves.