Update on Wisconsin College Atheist Group Drawing Muhammad on Campus

You should have posted the obscene message. One wonders if the cows are lesbian cows or if the culprits of this charming bit of graffiti are confused about the nomenclature of bovine gender.

I would guess that systematically altering another group’s chalk drawing puts the MSA in violation of UW codes of behaviour for recognised student groups.

I know it’s not popular opinion, but I think it -was- a creative non-confrontational way for them to alter the images. Sans the whole cow sex thing. But really, I think a lot of people are forgetting that we’re exactly that. People. Some people have other beliefs than us, some of those beliefs happen to be completely ridiculous. But drawing stick figures of muhammad around campus to antagonize a certain group of people is still snotty self-righteous behavior, not befitting of a group of people who call themselves humanists.
Is it awesome? yes.
Is it hilarious? No.
Is it ok? Absolutely.
Does it illustrate the compassion that atheists so desperately want to see from others, who we as a “group” see as misguided sheep who can’t detach themselves from a ridiculous deity? Not at all.

Seeing as Muhammad Ali is a convert to Islam and is also suffering from physical disabilities, sparing the caricature of Muhammad (the prophet) nonetheless continues to insult the prophet’s name AND throw a turd at an athlete still remembered for his prowess?

Oops… in my comment, I meant that it WAS hilarious. Amazingly on both sides!

I know it’s not popular opinion, but I think it -was- a creative non-confrontational way for them to alter the images.

How is interfering with someone else’s right to free expression non-confrontational?

Clever way to counter the AHA. Mild censorship… though still censorship. Kind of reminds me of when I was at Michigan State and the MSU Pagans and Campus Crusade for Christ started competing for sidewalk space.

Hmmm though not as bad as actually trying to stop the event or erasing the pictures, I still see this as encroaching on free speech. They are censoring the message by changing it to something else. If I write a sign that says “Fuck the Pope” and someone writes “Fuck the people who hate the Pope” then my speech has been shut down.

Look at it this way, would it be a “celebration of free speech” for someone to write “Terrorist Loving” before “Muslim Student Association”?

The idea was clever, and more smooth than their original threat, but the upshot is the same: they can’t handle someone expressing opinions they find offensive and react by trying to shut it down. In short, they aren’t ready for modernity.

The beauty of the irony of people saying it’s the student’s right to free expression is that it was the MSA’s right to free expression as well. As backwards as they are.

hmm,

I don’t think this has much to do with converting people from Islam or converting people to atheism. This is about free speech. No one group has the right to stop another group from speaking, even if the speech is offensive to the first group. Blasphemy should never be censored, either by government action or the threat of violence.

I think everyone responses was appropriate. AHA drew Mohammad which was their right, and I must say they drew him in the least offensive way possible. MSA responded in kind, by chalking of their own and complaining to the dean, each action was within their right. The Dean of Students heard the MSA grievance, but did not act, which was its responsibility. If the Dean of the Students or if MSA prevented the AHA from chalking, that would have crossed the line.

@Holytape,
If the result of the Muslims actions was to undue or negate the message of the original chalk drawings, then they prevented free speech through an act of censorship.
If you can justify that, then I can justify going to the nearest mosque and blowing up their minaret when the call to prayer is being performed to prevent dissemination of a message I disagree with. Difference in degree, not kind.

But drawing stick figures of muhammad around campus to antagonize a certain group of people is still snotty self-righteous behavior, not befitting of a group of people who call themselves humanists.

Playing Tone Police and wagging your finger is also snotty, self-righteous behavior.

It was not intended to antagonize Muslims, as the AHA took great pains to illustrate with their open letter to the Muslim student group. It was an act of protest, which by definition is going to upset someone.

You might say that regardless of the AHA’s intentions, they ought to avoid offending others with their actions. Well, I find it extremely offensive that no one’s allowed to depict Muhammad. How do I decide whose offense deserves greater consideration?

@Jerry Priori,

Their counter-action just makes their petty faith seem more ludicrous than it already seemed.

And perhaps more dangerous than most of us are willing to admit?

@Bob,

I was only addressing the PR aspect of the problem, and not deconstructing inherent problems with Islam.

I got that already. My point is that we have larger and more pressing issues to deal with than to contemplate whether or not the barbarians standing outside our front door with a sledgehammer are using proper or effective PR techniques. Let’s be glad they aren’t.

@Godless:

Granted. I work in television news, so it’s all about presentation to me.

We need to boil this ostensibly complex issue down to its most basic form. I can’t really add anything to this discussion aside from pointing out (once more) that, inasmuch as any of us atheists are abiding by their prohibition to depict Mohammed, we are in fact lending credence to their archaic beliefs. In truth, however, we are under no obligation–moral or otherwise–to respect any aspect of their faith whatsoever. If we were, then would we not be Muslims ourselves? (I know from experience that I can respect an individual without extending that courtesy to what s/he imagines to be ultimate truth.) Further, speaking as a gay man, I am well aware that–as a whole–Muslims most certainly do not often respect my rights, not even on the most fundamental level: my right to exist. Just look how many gays and lesbians are put to death in those ass-backward countries where Islam has a stranglehold on the law. It’s truly horrific.

I think it was a brilliant response. If you play Go or Chess or any sport, sometimes you just have to admit that the other guy just played well.

To those who are calling it censorship I call bullshit. The same who are comparing it to the billboard vandalism or blowing up a mosque.

Chalk drawings are graffiti of a benign sort but still graffiti. No one has a right to have their graffiti go unchanged for any period.

Mark says: Chalk drawings are graffiti of a benign sort but still graffiti. No one has a right to have their graffiti go unchanged for any period.

Do you say this out of knowledge of the UW code of conduct for student groups, or are you just talking out your *ss?

@richard

…the same kind of direct action that the atheists are…

Use of identical media (chalk)does not make their actions identical.

the alterations could be seen as a DIALOGUE

At some point a line must logically be drawn or this would quickly escalate into a “I know you are, but what am I?”, Tit-for-tat game. I have difficulty calling it dialogue. By your definition, a swastika scrawled over a synagogue’s Star of David with chalk could be construed as dialogue.

I think the students drawing and labeling them as Mohammed did a public service. It is important to desensitize people about criticism of their religious beliefs.

Chalk drawings on public property are part of public dialogue. They can be changed by any member of the public for any reason. Defacing private property, such as a billboard, is another issue entirely.

Next time they should try labeling the drawings with “Guess which Mohammed this is!” It’s not ok to draw him, but it is ok to name millions of mere humans after him?

Whether it was legal, clever, humorous or not, I am scratching my head at the idea that the AHA weren’t being censored by the MSA.

I like trying to find analogies to less volatile subjects than religion, so how about this:

Someone writes ‘I LOVE YOU’ in the sand on the beach, and a rival for the woman’s affections sneaks along behind and adds: ‘R MUM’ to it.

I think their alterations in opposition to free speech are cute. I mean, they can utilize their freedom of speech to disagree with freedom of speech if they want to. I mean, you can tell that the Ali bit was added by someone else. The aha’s sentiment is still there.

I love it.

It’s a public forum, so the arguments comparing it to a billboard defacement fall flat. They used a different color so that it’s clear that the final image isn’t the work of a single author. They avoided using force (i.e., the university government) to solve their problems and instead found a creative way to address their issue via direct action.

Meanwhile, AHA responded playfully in a few ways that got their key point across, and probably did so more strongly than if they had just chalked their original design without the help from the MSA. The modified designs, the figures labeled “CENSORED,” and so on are all going to encourage more discussion than the original stick figures would have. And best of all the peaceful way in which both groups got to say what they wanted to say underscores the fact that we are (well, most of us are) interested not in attacking Islam but in promoting the value of free speech on all topics and by all sides, no matter what.

This is how people are supposed to resolve their differences, tolerate disagreements, and express their ideas in a free society. Props to both groups.

@The Godless Monster:

If the result of the Muslims actions was to undue or negate the message of the original chalk drawings, then they prevented free speech through an act of censorship.

Not so. If the Westboro Baptist church tries to hold a demonstration, but gives up because a larger counter-demonstration joins them with signs bearing messages like “God hates figs” and “I am holding a sign,” then both sides got their free speech, even if one side got the result it wanted and the other side didn’t. Or, recall the last U.S. election cycle, in which Palin claimed that her free speech rights were being violated when journalists pointed out the stupid things she said. Free speech in no way means that everyone else has to shut up while you’re talking.

If the authorities continue with their fence sitting by refusing to step in and do their job, physical confrontation over attempts by “moderate” Muslims to censor free speech will eventually be unavoidable. … [Their counter-action just makes their petty faith seem more ludicrous than it already seemed.] And perhaps more dangerous than most of us are willing to admit?

Let’s parse your argument there: if the “authorities” don’t do what I want, then I’m going to start a physical confrontation with Muslims. Therefore, Islam is dangerous.

Right…

Sorry, but if that’s the best the Muslims can/are going to do in their alleged fight against free speech, then I’m more worried about your actions than about theirs.

@Miko:

You’re right, of course. I know better. I’m actually quite well read on (feminist) issues pertaining to Islamic societies. I must have been trying to sound cool or something.

Interestingly, what I mean by ‘media’ is atheist blogs or twitter feeds, because that’s pretty much the only “news” I read right now.

I think that this response is pretty harmless and not overly inappropriate. You are upset by chalk images, you respond by altering them in what is, in your opinion, a humourous manner and report what you percieve to be an offensive action to the appropriate university official. That’s not violent, radical, or even atypical. Reporting to the Dean of Students is standard operating procedure when a student or group complains of discrimination. The dean of students at my university is involved in the discussion of changing a sexist policy that I objected to.

I absolutely agree that being offended by a stick figure with a name is silly, but I can’t see anything about this that is outside of the range of normal response to other types of offensive behavior.

Also, free speech laws apply to the government, not other groups. I think that this action is a bit childish, but it is not a violation of anyone’s rights.

GM>> You’re obsessing on the minutiae and missing the point(s) being made completely. There are underlying principles at work here…you do get that don’t you?

The question is do you? Should moslems not respond? Does chalking a sidewalk somehow give someone dibs on that surface?

The AHA chose the forum and medium, chalk and sidewalks. The MSA didn’t show up with buckets of water and scrub brushes. They responded in the same forum with the same media. Calling it censorship is bullshit (a common idiom for rhetorical excess).

GM>>only serves to make you look like a silly, angry kid.

Let me introduce you to the kettle.

@Miko

Not so. If the Westboro Baptist church tries to hold a demonstration, but gives up because a larger counter-demonstration joins them with signs bearing messages like “God hates figs” and “I am holding a sign,” then both sides got their free speech, even if one side got the result it wanted and the other side didn’t.

Not a good analogy.

A better analogy would be if the counter demonstrators joined them, took WB’s signs, and changed/added words to them. Then both groups left the area, leaving the signs behind stuck in the ground with no explanation of what took place.

Not so much ‘both sides got free speech’ there, though.

If the MSA had drawn their own stick figures alongside each one, then it wouldn’t have been a bad analogy. It also would have failed to do what the MSA wished to achieve.

I just want to say quickly that I don’t really have any strong emotions either way on the rights and wrongs of this. Personally I think the MSA have come across as very childish, but that’s about it as to my emotions as regards this incident. Like I said earlier, however, I am left head scratching by claims that no censorship was going on here. I just can’t see it.

I suspect that people may be claiming that no censorship was taking place merely because they are aware of what actually happened. (Eg they are aware that the AHA were planning this, and they are also aware that the MSA didn’t like it). But knowledge of what happened just means that the censorship failed to work on the person in the know, not that it wasn’t attempted, nor that it hasn’t succeeded with other people (people who had not had access to blogs like this one, for example, and had no inkling that this was going to happen).

Incidentally, for those that haven’t looked at the link to the blog page, the (currently) last comment on it, by Jan, suggests that the MSA didn’t just add ‘Ali’ and boxing gloves to the pictures. (Apparently they also tried to make the ‘Muhammad’ illegible on some of the later figures, and this morning some people (who may or may not be of the MSA) merely washed out the word ‘Muhammad’.)

“The Qur’an has some pro-violence passages and some pro-peace passages, and in about the same proportions as the New Testament (both of which look like peaceniks compared to the Old Testament). Like the Bible, the Qur’an can be twisted to say whatever someone wants it to say.”

Interesting…what does the islamic rule of abrogation have to say about this subject? Nobody here knows? I’m shocked…

It’s still disappointing that these Muslims believe that their religious prohibitions should apply to others. Of course, this is hardly unique to Islam. Scientologists have been silencing people for years via lawyers. Christians always want their sexual prohibitions enforced by law. Etc.

Jeez… Next some overly sensitive group will start crossing out God from their money. Oh wait…

@The Godless Monster

Interesting…what does the islamic rule of abrogation have to say about this subject?
Nobody here knows? I’m shocked…

Sigh.

The next time someone starts chalking stick figures, they need to chalk them in pairs, with the caption “Only one of these is Mohammed”.

Nakor says: “It’s true that the Muslims had just as much legal right to do as they did as the seculars had to take their actions.”

Do you say that out of knowledge of the UW code of conduct for student groups, or are you just talking out your *ss?

I can see why it is worth discussing free speech here… but I think the little Muhammad Ali is super cute. Still can’t be all powerful if he didn’t make it rain right away, though.

When you say “It’s a silly rule the rest of us don’t have to abide by…” you say it as if it’s an absolute truth, not you own opinion.

While I share that opinion, it’s my impression that many Muslims would not agree. The Koran appears to teach that a good Muslim has the duty to kill you to prevent this.

I see this as a fundamental difference of “axioms” that makes a rational discussion impossible.

I’ve been promoting the “Mohamed Smiley” for some years now, although it has yet to catch on:

0:-{= [Mohamed]

If one wants to be particularly ironic, one can add a fuse to the turban:

~0:-{= [Mohamed]

But be aware that if you do so, some follower of the religion of peace may threaten, assault or attempt to kill you.

People of reason should issue an ultimatum to violent religious nutjobs of all faiths: the ridicule will continue until the killing stops. You quit bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors, quit knee-capping people you don’t like in Northern Ireland, quit stoning women who’ve been raped… and we’ll stop making fun of you. In the meantime, it’s open (humorous) season…

This was really stupid of the atheists and agnostics to do, why does it bother them so much that people believe differently than them? They are becoming just as intolerant as the people they criticize. =/

So after scrolling a hundred plus comments here this is what I understand. A bunch of {college) kids, or undergrads, or degree challenged individuals, or whatever, drew some pictures on the sidewalk. Some other (college) kids, religious dudes, Muslims, fanatics, them, whatever, messed with their sidewalk drawings by adding stuff. Next all sorts of folks got in a huff because someones free speech or religion or whatever got stepped on. Dear (fill in appropriate superior figure or deity), this sounds frighteningly like a free speech democracy is trying to establish itself. Good work at defending against it and protecting the status quo.

All accommodationist horseshit from Jess.

They tried to blow up a car in Times Square this week. Screw your “leave them alone”.

I think the whole thing was clever. If the AHA is going to go around campus drawing pictures of Mohammed, then OBVIOUSLY there’s going to be a reaction. The MSA did it in a way that got their message across without obscuring in any meaningful way the AHA’s message. But now everyone’s getting up in arms about the AHA being censored and whining that their free speech was impinged upon, and we’re calling the MSA the ones with thin skin? Sounds like the AHA can dish it, but they can’t take it. Honestly, people, it was sidewalk chalk on a university campus. Let’s pick our battles here.

If you are asking for your personal rights to have a freedom of speech and be respected, why can you not offer the same respect to Muslim students. This is apparently a very important topic to them and its not just that non-Muslims cannot create an image of Muhammad no human can. Your actions to outwardly challenge a very important part of their faith is completely disrespectful. If you talk about this as a first amendment right issue, why would you as an atheist ever want to create an image of the prophet Muhammad. It’s almost like a five year old touching a hot stove just because his parents told him not to. You’re creating a hostile environment for the Muslim students at the university and leading to more antagonistic events later. I would hope that we could seek to grow closer together and learn through our differences to make a better union in our communities and our country. This petty arguing and conflicting is pushing people further apart. The AHA should be ashamed of themselves and apologize.