The Swedish affiliate of broadcaster Comedy Central has said it will not show two controversial episodes of US satirical cartoon show South Park depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume, Aftonbladet reports.
Two men arrested over fire at Vilks' house (16 May 10)
Arson attack on Muhammad artist’s home (15 May 10)
Vilks website hacked as cyber hate grows (13 May 10)
"Comedy Central has decided not to air these two episodes of South Park. It is a decision we've made with great reluctance. Comedy Central believes strongly in creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit.
"However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number one priority, and therefore we have decided to take these precautionary measures," the broadcaster explained in a statement released to Aftonbladet.
Spokesman Peter von Satzgerl told the Svenska Dagbladet daily that the decision came as a result of "international directives" from the channel's parent network in the United States.
The Muhammad joke formed part of a 200th anniversary episode screened in the US on April 14th, prompting threats of retribution from an Islamist group directed towards the notoriously irreverent show's creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
The warning, posted on the website revolutionmuslim.com and interpreted as a direct threat in much of the US media, cautioned Stone and Parker that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh", a Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 after making a film critical of Islamic society.
The pair appeared to heed the warning last week when the second part of the centenary show was aired, with the word Censored appearing after the Muslim prophet's name was mentioned, and with the bear-suited Muhammad replaced by Santa Claus.
The first episode contained typically mocking depictions of several religious figures and assorted celebrities, with Buddha at one point being chastised by Jesus for snorting cocaine. It is not the first time that Muhammad and other religious figures have featured on the show, having previously put in an appearance in the fifth season episode Super Best Friends.
The 200th episode tells the story of a class action suit filed by all the celebrities who have been mocked on the show. Tom Cruise promises to end the law suit if the town can produce the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
The South Park townsfolk in the end decide to hand Muhammad over to a group calling itself the Ginger Separatist Movement, to avert a threatened bombing of the town.
The original broadcast of the show was watched by 3.33 million US viewers but, following the Comedy Central decision, Swedish viewers will now have to find other ways to access the controversial episode of the smash hit show.
Of course. There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. We cannot claim with absolute certainly anything. You are complaining about the capacity to know things, not the scientific method.
Here you see you contradict yourself - first you say Science tells us what "is" but then you say "we cannot claim absolute certainity" - make your mind up will you. Thats what I'm complaining about - your confused statements.
If you go back to you the last page you'll see that you put this down
Science tells us what is, not ought.
Now you say something else.
You say this despite not knowing me, or anything about me? You've already got it wrong by assuming I derive what ought from what is (just as Zafran did).
You made a statement which shows that you think science tells you what "is".
Last edited by Zafran; 05-21-2010 at 01:50 PM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Here you see you contradict yourself - first you say Science tells us what "is" but then you say "we cannot claim absolute certainity" - make your mind up will you.
Science discovering what is, is not the same thing as declaring absolute certainty. How on earth could you confuse the two?
No-one involved in science will tell you that they absolutely without any section of doubt infallibly know something. That is not what science is about, and it cannot be about that. It is a progressive movement that adapts with new information.
You made a statement which shows that you think science tells you what "is".
Yes, and I have never ever said otherwise. Science tells us what is. The quotation you provided from me was merely me pointing out the naturalistic fallacy that you made several pages ago.
In fact, did you even read what I said properly? How does me declaring that science tells us what is mean I happen to be contradicting my claim that it does not tell us what ought?
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
Science discovering what is, is not the same thing as declaring absolute certainty. How on earth could you confuse the two?
No-one involved in science will tell you that they absolutely without any section of doubt infallibly know something. That is not what science is about, and it cannot be about that. It is a progressive movement that adapts with new information.
Yes, and I have never ever said otherwise. Science tells us what is. The quotation you provided from me was merely me pointing out the naturalistic fallacy that you made several pages ago.
In fact, did you even read what I said properly? How does me declaring that science tells us what is mean I happen to be contradicting my claim that it does not tell us what ought?
Science does not discover what is. We already know what is.
Legitimate science is science which builds technology. You are well encouraged to study who to build
this technology and even more encouraged to try and build better one.
However - science does not tell us anything about life and this is an illusion humanity has to
start waking up from (before it is too late). If we won't wake up from that we would live in one huge
formula with no emotions, compassion, love, family what so ever - just an endless array of faceless
offices.
The theory of relativity for instance is a perfect example of a seductive fallacy like that which is a
bunch of wide speculation leading to no useful technology - zero what so ever.
When in fact - I have not seen a good explanation to what is the invisible force that pulls an apple from
a tree (why it pulls the apple not how) - if you can answer me this question after 500 years of physics
I would be happy.
This just shows you that science is absolutely not interested in giving you answers - but rather
just with developing formulas.
Our technology is good - yet very problematic - we burn insane amount of fuel and natural sources in order
to sustain it - while the question if this is required is more than debatable.
Contrary to the naive view on science (as an adapting body of knowledge) - many people have suggested much
better ways in order to deal with this question - most of them ended up bankrupt and unknown at best.
As well - I can well supply you with examples of well respected physicists and natural scientists who tried to do
very well justified research in domains which do not fit the mainstream viewpoint and has been fired from their
universities (some even denied a Noble prize).
Also - did you notice that the two main physical theories simply cannot coexist (that is the quantum business and the relativity thing) - I am not very good in logic but to the best of my understanding it seems that there is something fishy going on.
Finally - did you know that through this process of accumulation of knowledge there are many things not being taken care of. For instance - the formulas of the theory of electromagnetisim (Maxwell's formulas) were developed under the assumption of an Ether theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is based on these equations - while disputing the
assumption of Ether - how is this possible from a logical standpoint?
Many gaps. Natural in any human endeavor - especially when not properly going outside criticism.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks