I Don't See South Park Pulling Their Jesus Jokes

[Barry]

But Muhammad is apparently another story. Wouldn't want to wind up dead, after all:

"South Park" airs censored episode after threat
By Alex Dobuzinskis
Wed Apr 21, 10:30 PM PDT

Satirical animated TV show "South Park" beeped out the words Prophet Muhammad and plastered its Wednesday episode with the word "CENSORED" after being issued a grim warning by a U.S. Muslim group.

The irreverent comedy show on Comedy Central also substituted a controversial image seen last week of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear outfit with one of Santa Claus in the same costume.

It was not immediately clear if the move was a bid to tread carefully following the warning against the "South Park" creators, or if they were poking fun at the fuss.

The little-known group RevolutionMuslim.com posted a message on its website earlier this week warning creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker "that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show."

The website posted a graphic photo of Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was killed in 2004 by an Islamic militant over a movie he had made that accused Islam of condoning violence against women. It also posted a link to a news article with details of a mansion in Colorado that Parker and Stone apparently own.

Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam as offensive.

The website warning followed the first in a two-part episode of "South Park" a week ago in which Prophet Mohammad was depicted in a bear outfit.

"South Park" has a history of biting satire against politicians, celebrities and the media. The two Colorado filmmakers are known to often work on "South Park" until just before they air, enabling them to react to current events.

In Wednesday's new episode, Jesus Christ was depicted watching pornography and Buddha was portrayed snorting cocaine.

The head of Revolution Muslim, Younus Abdullah Muhammad, 30, defended the Web posting by his group.

"How is that a threat?," he told Reuters earlier on Wednesday. "Showing a case study right there of what happened to another individual who conducted himself in a very similar manner? It's just evidence."

According to U.S. law enforcement officials, the federal government rarely prosecutes threat cases. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives broad protections to free speech, and what constitutes a threat is often subject to interpretation.

Muhammad described his group as an alternative media outlet with about 20 active posters to the website. He said the group "didn't tell anyone to go to their houses and conduct violence" against Parker or Stone.

Comedy Central, a unit of Viacom Inc, has declined to comment on the controversy.

http://tv.yahoo.com/south-park/show/492 ... rk_muslims

[Wallingford]

As a Christian, I never was offended by Parker-Stone's depictions of Jesus; what Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane does with him's quite a different matter, but he's still entitled.....

[RebLem]

Of course, RevolutionMuslim is doing this cutesy little charade. No, its not a threat. We're just warning them that, realistically, bad things are going to happen to them, and they should take precautions. But, no, we're not going to do it. We are horrified at the prospect.

Yeah, right. That's why they printed all the addresses of places these people frequent and are associated with. So people could send them letters commiserating with them, don't you know.

But lets face it. They learned this tactic from the extremists in the "Christian" Right to Life Movement, who do the same thing regarding abortion providers, publishing their names and addresses.

There's an old saying, especially popular in the black community, but by no means confined to it that applies here: What goes around comes around.

[JackC]

But lets face it. They learned this tactic from the extremists in the "Christian" Right to Life Movement, who do the same thing regarding abortion providers, publishing their names and addresses.

There's an old saying, especially popular in the black community, but by no means confined to it that applies here: What goes around comes around.

That's absurd. Did Osama Bi Laden steal Tim McVeigh's playbook too
Islamic radicals have their own playbook, and it wasn't developed by studying the tactics of the "Right to Life" movement.

You obviously have no basis for this, nor does that concern you. So why hold back? Why not just blame George Bush - or the "repugnants" - for it. That would make just about as much sense, and you will feel better.

[Barry]

My point for starting the thread wasn't to bash Muslims or compare Muslims to Christians.

I did it to highlight the fact that some of our insitutions (colleges, entertainment industry, etc.) are allowing themselves to be bullied into backing down from one of the central principles of U.S. culture and society (not to mention the law); that being the notion that the first amendment right to free speech comes before the right to not be insulted, or more specifically, not have our religion insulted or poked fun of.

The notion that hate or even some unpleasant speech should be banned by the government to avoid problems may pass water in some European countries and even Canada, but it never has in the United States. It still doesn't legally, but is it much better if we allow ourselves to be bullied into censoring ourselves so that we can speak in certain ways about some reigions, but not others?

[DavidRoss]

...is it much better if we allow ourselves to be bullied into censoring ourselves so that we can speak in certain ways about some reigions, but not others?

Probably not. I don't know about South Park or its creators, having been appalled by the pre-adolescent crassness (imagining itself to be sophisticated irreverence) of the segment I once saw. I do know, however, that among perpetual adolescents craving acceptance by the "enlightened" elite (most of the "entertainment" industry?), it's long been politically correct to disparage Christians and Christianity--and Israel (but not Jews!)--while sympathizing with the claims of Islamic militants.

But Buddhism usually gets a pass, since it's not Christian, has no concept of God, and has been embraced by some notable Hollywood celebrities, like Richard Gere and Paris Hilton!

Hmmm...if they're intimidated by murder threats by Muslims, one wonders if they would even consider, let alone dare, making fun of Scientology...?

[RebLem]

But lets face it. They learned this tactic from the extremists in the "Christian" Right to Life Movement, who do the same thing regarding abortion providers, publishing their names and addresses.

There's an old saying, especially popular in the black community, but by no means confined to it that applies here: What goes around comes around.

That's absurd. Did Osama Bi Laden steal Tim McVeigh's playbook too
Islamic radicals have their own playbook, and it wasn't developed by studying the tactics of the "Right to Life" movement.

You obviously have no basis for this, nor does that concern you. So why hold back? Why not just blame George Bush - or the "repugnants" - for it. That would make just about as much sense, and you will feel better.

I'm getting a little tired of your trying to hang me with the use of that construction, Jack. In response to your last attempt to do so, on 25 MAR 2010, I posted the following:

I have always believed that groups have, within reason, the right to be called what they want to be called. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers, for example. There are people on both sides of the controversy who try to insist that the other side be commonly referred to with a more oppobrius label. I have never felt that way. While the terms these groups have chosen may, to those on the other side, appear to conceal too much, they are within reason. What is not within reason? One thing is calling the estate tax a death tax. If there were truly a death tax, it would have to be paid on everyone who dies. But the so-called death tax only hits about 1% of the population, and considering that Andrew Carnegie advocated estate taxes of 50% as a minimum, I don't think that's too outrageous.

I am a member of the Democratic Party. The other party insists on calling us the Democrat Party, leaving off the "ic," implying that its not really democratic. They have done this ever since the late 1950's or early 1960's. Meanwhile, Democrats, for that same 40+ years, have been scrupulously polite, referring to their opposition as Republicans, so much so that Republicans have rejected the Golden Rule--they apparently believe that they have a right to expect the respect of members of the Democratic Party without giving them the same respect.

I decided a couple of years ago that disabusing Republicans of this notion was going to be part of my life mission. I experimented with various insults, among which were "Repugnant" and" Repugnicant." I ultimately decided, however, that insults like that were a bit over the top, and not proportional, so I decided on two milder derogatory terms--goper, which is taken from GOPer, but which associates itself in many minds with the term "goober," which means, pretty much, a simpleton, and Republicant. For I believe the last year or so, I have used only those derogatory terms, and have eschewed the use of the more severe insults, and plan to continue to do so.

The fact is, I used the term "Repugnants" exactly twice, on 09 SEP 2008 and 10 SEP 2008. I also used the term "Repugnicants" four times, all also in 2008--on 12 SEP, 26 SEP, 06 OCT, and 14 NOV. If you do a search on the term "Repugnants" you will find well more than a dozen references since then, but they almost all represent your tawdry little attempts to hang me with the use of these terms on six occasions in 2008.

Its time for you to grow up, Jack, and stop acting like a Junior High bully. How can I say it? Cut the crap. Knock it off. NOW!

Oh, btw. This is yet another good reason for Management to avoid deleting Archived material--so we can do research to defend ourselves. In fact, I am going to send a copy of this post to Lance and to Corlyss by PM, just to make that point, you understand.

[Cyril Ignatius]

Oh Please!! - What a monstrous liar you are Reblem!. Any minimal study of violence by religion shows where the violence is coming from. The real problem here is the wimps - those particular politicians, professors, TV-Film makers, Clergy - in Western Nations who soft pedal Islamofacism! These people are perhaps a bigger disgrace than the butchers from Islam because they really should know better.

Of course, RevolutionMuslim is doing this cutesy little charade. No, its not a threat. We're just warning them that, realistically, bad things are going to happen to them, and they should take precautions. But, no, we're not going to do it. We are horrified at the prospect.

Yeah, right. That's why they printed all the addresses of places these people frequent and are associated with. So people could send them letters commiserating with them, don't you know.

But lets face it. They learned this tactic from the extremists in the "Christian" Right to Life Movement, who do the same thing regarding abortion providers, publishing their names and addresses.

There's an old saying, especially popular in the black community, but by no means confined to it that applies here: What goes around comes around.

[JackC]

Its time for you to grow up, Jack, and stop acting like a Junior High bully. How can I say it? Cut the crap. Knock it off. NOW!

Or you will do exactly what??

You've been spouting your bigoted crap against Republicans here for years. You don't make the rules on when you are "pure" again.

[RebLem]

Its time for you to grow up, Jack, and stop acting like a Junior High bully. How can I say it? Cut the crap. Knock it off. NOW!

Or you will do exactly what??

You've been spouting your bigoted crap against Republicans here for years. You don't make the rules on when you are "pure" again.

Yeah, I know, Jack, you do.

So tell me, what are your rules?

Forget about Lance and Corlyss, they don't have anything to say about it, what are your rules? How many years am I going to be condemned for using a word 6 times in 2008, and not at all in the last year and a half? What is my sentence, during which you will feel free to try to humiliate me for having said it six times in 2008? Two, four, six, eight years? Or perhaps when you have mentioned it 100 X, or 200 X, or 1000 X more often then I used it? Tell us, Jack, just vicious do you want to be? What are your rules, since you're determined to be the one making them?

After all, even a murderer is given the courtesy of being told what his sentence is.

[JackC]

So tell me, what are your rules?

Forget about Lance and Corlyss, they don't have anything to say about it, what are your rules? How many years am I going to be condemned for using a word 6 times in 2008, and not at all in the last year and a half? What is my sentence, during which you will feel free to try to humiliate me for having said it six times in 2008? Two, four, six, eight years? Or perhaps when you have mentioned it 100 X, or 200 X, or 1000 X more often then I used it? Tell us, Jack, just vicious do you want to be? What are your rules, since you're determined to be the one making them?

After all, even a murderer is given the courtesy of being told what his sentence is.

Stow it already, you don't play the role of of poor "humiliated" victim very well. You've made enough personal attacks on me and some others on here that I could hurl them back at you for another 5 years and we still wouldn't be even.

Why don't you move on to something important like trying to defend to stupid remark that Christian Right to Lifers wrote the playbook for Islamic fanatics now trying to threaten people these days.

[Barry]

NY Times

Not Even in South Park?

By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: April 25, 2010

Two months before 9/11, Comedy Central aired an episode of “South Park” entitled “Super Best Friends,” in which the cartoon show’s foul-mouthed urchins sought assistance from an unusual team of superheroes. These particular superfriends were all religious figures: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Mormonism’s Joseph Smith, Taoism’s Lao-tse — and the Prophet Muhammad, depicted with a turban and a 5 o’clock shadow, and introduced as “the Muslim prophet with the powers of flame.”

That was a more permissive time. You can’t portray Muhammad on American television anymore, as South Park’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, discovered in 2006, when they tried to parody the Danish cartoon controversy — in which unflattering caricatures of the prophet prompted worldwide riots — by scripting another animated appearance for Muhammad. The episode aired, but the cameo itself was blacked out, replaced by an announcement that Comedy Central had refused to show an image of the prophet.

For Parker and Stone, the obvious next step was to make fun of the fact that you can’t broadcast an image of Muhammad. Two weeks ago, “South Park” brought back the “super best friends,” but this time Muhammad never showed his face. He “appeared” from inside a U-Haul trailer, and then from inside a mascot’s costume.

These gimmicks then prompted a writer for the New York-based Web site revolutionmuslim.com to predict that Parker and Stone would end up like Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered in 2004 for his scathing critiques of Islam. The writer, an American convert to Islam named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, didn’t technically threaten to kill them himself. His post, and the accompanying photo of van Gogh’s corpse, was just “a warning ... of what will likely happen to them.”

This passive-aggressive death threat provoked a swift response from Comedy Central. In last week’s follow-up episode, the prophet’s non-appearance appearances were censored, and every single reference to Muhammad was bleeped out. The historical record was quickly scrubbed as well: The original “Super Best Friends” episode is no longer available on the Internet.

In a way, the muzzling of “South Park” is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions’ cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. It’s no worse than the German opera house that temporarily suspended performances of Mozart’s opera “Idomeneo” because it included a scene featuring Muhammad’s severed head. Or Random House’s decision to cancel the publication of a novel about the prophet’s third wife. Or Yale University Press’s refusal to publish the controversial Danish cartoons ... in a book about the Danish cartoon crisis. Or the fact that various Western journalists, intellectuals and politicians — the list includes Oriana Fallaci in Italy, Michel Houellebecq in France, Mark Steyn in Canada and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands — have been hauled before courts and “human rights” tribunals, in supposedly liberal societies, for daring to give offense to Islam.

But there’s still a sense in which the “South Park” case is particularly illuminating. Not because it tells us anything new about the lines that writers and entertainers suddenly aren’t allowed to cross. But because it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all.

Across 14 on-air years, there’s no icon “South Park” hasn’t trampled, no vein of shock-comedy (sexual, scatalogical, blasphemous) it hasn’t mined. In a less jaded era, its creators would have been the rightful heirs of Oscar Wilde or Lenny Bruce — taking frequent risks to fillet the culture’s sacred cows.

In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.

Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.

For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opini ... uthat.html

[jbuck919]

In a way, the muzzling of “South Park” is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions’ cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. It’s no worse than the German opera house that temporarily suspended performances of Mozart’s opera “Idomeneo” because it included a scene featuring Muhammad’s severed head.

Not that it is to the point, but what on Earth was such a thing doing in Idomeneo? The last I heard the supposed events of that opera occurred 1400 years before Muhammad lived.

On the other hand, do you suppose they think twice these days before presenting Entführung at all?

[SaulChanukah]

My point for starting the thread wasn't to bash Muslims or compare Muslims to Christians.

I did it to highlight the fact that some of our insitutions (colleges, entertainment industry, etc.) are allowing themselves to be bullied into backing down from one of the central principles of U.S. culture and society (not to mention the law); that being the notion that the first amendment right to free speech comes before the right to not be insulted, or more specifically, not have our religion insulted or poked fun of.

The notion that hate or even some unpleasant speech should be banned by the government to avoid problems may pass water in some European countries and even Canada, but it never has in the United States. It still doesn't legally, but is it much better if we allow ourselves to be bullied into censoring ourselves so that we can speak in certain ways about some reigions, but not others?

Comparing the two is delusional.

Those Christians who are against abortion, are against murder, the abortion doctors are murderers according to the Laws of the Torah. But these Muslims organizations are threatening to murder innocent people , not those who murder babies in their mothers' womb....

How can't you see the difference?!

[Neytiri]

Has anyone seen Jon Stewart talk about this? The video contains jokes about Buddhists, Jews, Christians...

http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/jon-stw ... ntroversy/

[Barry]

My point for starting the thread wasn't to bash Muslims or compare Muslims to Christians.

I did it to highlight the fact that some of our insitutions (colleges, entertainment industry, etc.) are allowing themselves to be bullied into backing down from one of the central principles of U.S. culture and society (not to mention the law); that being the notion that the first amendment right to free speech comes before the right to not be insulted, or more specifically, not have our religion insulted or poked fun of.

The notion that hate or even some unpleasant speech should be banned by the government to avoid problems may pass water in some European countries and even Canada, but it never has in the United States. It still doesn't legally, but is it much better if we allow ourselves to be bullied into censoring ourselves so that we can speak in certain ways about some reigions, but not others?

Comparing the two is delusional.

Those Christians who are against abortion, are against murder, the abortion doctors are murderers according to the Laws of the Torah. But these Muslims organizations are threatening to murder innocent people , not those who murder babies in their mothers' womb....

How can't you see the difference?!

I'm not sure where you're picking up that comparison in my above quote.

[BWV 1080]

last night's Simpsons opening