Seattle Cartoonist Declares May 20th as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”

While a Saudi lawyer is suing in England over the Danish cartoon controversy (here), Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Norris took the action after the shameful decision of Comedy Central to censor an episode of South Park after Muslims threatened to kill the creators of South Park for showing Mohammed in a bear suit.

Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.

She will have difficulty finding a publisher. While newspapers have supported the cartoonists in the Danish case, you will notice that no images of Mohammed appear in the leading papers, including pictures of the cartoon in articles discussing the controversy. While racist or sexist cartoons are often reproduced in news articles on such controversies, there is a virtual ban on the printing of the cartoons and Yale University Press shocked many in the United States by ripping out pictures of the cartoons from a book on the controversy (here).

For the full story, click here.

49 thoughts on “Seattle Cartoonist Declares May 20th as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day””

  1. Okay, Woot.

    Bring some logic next time. It might work out better for you.

  2. you said:”But if you just want to resort to simple name calling?” “Woot”

    now back to my statements….

    “Who the hell is francis and do you really think I attacked you or your faith?”

    and

    “I still don’t get the Francis thing, if it was another insult you’re an ass…”

    in response to you: “Did I attack YOUR faith? No. So lighten up, Francis. ”

    ?objective…

  3. Woot,

    As to your first response:

    Subjective is what your belief is:

    sub·jec·tive\(ˌ)səb-ˈjek-tiv\, adj.

    1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
    2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
    3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
    4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal (subjective judgments) (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background (a subjective account of the incident) b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli c : arising out of or identified by means of one’s perception of one’s own states and processes (a subjective symptom of disease) — compare objective 1c
    5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

    Whereas . . .

    ob·jec·tive\əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\, adj.

    1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind (objective reality)(our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff) — compare subjective 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena (objective awareness)(objective data)
    2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
    3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (objective art)(an objective history of the war)(an objective judgment) b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
    synonyms see material, fair

    If you wish to live your life ruled by the subjective interpretations of books written by men with a bias toward controlling other men, you knock yourself out.

    My stance is based on objective study of history, comparative religion, psychology, science and law. I differentiate between internal realities and the objective external universe all the time as I operate in the realm of the provable. It’s what I’m trained to do – divorce my feelings from the facts in analysis.

    Jefferson’s original draft of the DOI contains this language:

    He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]

    Example: I really subjectively loathe that Jefferson was forced to drop language from the DOI concerning slavery. That’s my subjective reaction to the inherent racism of some of the Founders. But the objective fact of it is that Jefferson was forced to compromise and we’ve objectively had as a consequence 200 years of social strife. Strife that in reality only started making headway towards true equality for all in the 1960’s whereas if we’d abolished the practice at the start of the nation, we might have seen the events of the 1960’s happen in the 1860’s thus rendering race a moot issue socially today.

    Reality is objective. Only one’s reactions and internally held beliefs are subjective. The moon exists whether you believe it does or not. That these two states exist independent of each other is evidenced by people with dissociative psychotic disorders. They are people trapped by their subjectivity be the cause genetic, chemical or rooted in cerebral structural malformations. The subjective world they see is so distorted from objective reality we as a society consider them to be insane.

    As to your second response:

    Awww. You don’t understand so you call me an ass. Isn’t that cute! I once saw an undergrad who didn’t understand differential equations call Leibniz a douche bag. It was funny then too.

    Stipulation: I have been playing nice. Ask any regular. They’ve all seen me NOT play nice. It’s much more brutal than this.

    But if you just want to resort to simple name calling?

    “I didn’t see that I was attacking you or anyone else…I hope I don’t come across in that fashion.” You do at times but it seems especially so when you cannot refute others assertions. Then get offended when you are taken to task.

    I’m the wrong dog to bark at, sport. Argue with me all you like, but if you want to make it personal, I’ll run you through the verbal shredder.

  4. I still don’t get the Francis thing, if it was another insult you’re an ass…

  5. “YOU reacted as if I had attacked YOUR faith.”

    no, not at all. I was simply pointing out that your judging religion as unsubstantiated by your methods is subjective, and you have a right to do that, but not to then suppose it as scientific fact for the rest of us…I did not make that clear, I can see that. My faith is personal and I have had all the substantiating that I need. I’m happy to share,but don’t need to, not averse to looking at it in a new way when new information becomes known. BTW….they found the Ark on Mt. Ararat 😉

    I have no idea what it would take to define G*d, I lean towards an interconnected cosmic consciousness and aspects of the Jewish tradition which teaches the true aspect of God is ultimately unknowable. As far as I know G*d is the space and movement between a proton and an electron. What I do know, by faith, is that there is more consciousness in the universe than we are probably aware of and it is awe inspiring. I wouldn’t pretend to know more….my thoughts were regarding how human beings are treating each other over this ultimately unknowable (on this plane ) issue. I didn’t see that I was attacking you or anyone else…I hope I don’t come across in that fashion.

  6. Mike A,

    Right on.

    Woot,

    Learn to read better.

    YOU reacted as if I had attacked YOUR faith.

    “Well doesn’t that in itself demonstrate something? Like a lack of readiness or ability to engage in that manner of act/react sans violence discourse? and “…something so unsubstantiated as a religious belief…” , unsubstantiated to who? you? are you G*d? I am not an atheist although I do enjoy a good conversation with those of that ilk….my faith is mine and you can say whatever you want to about it, it isn’t touched.” That last part is voided by your childish “are you God” bullshit. No, I’m not a god. By the same token, neither are you and no one – no one has he/she/its personal phone number. Obviously your “faith” was touched or you wouldn’t have mentioned it.

    I clearly stated what unsubstantiated beliefs meant. “A belief – especially a religious one that require belief without empirical proof – is by nature unsubstantiated. Substantiated beliefs – i.e. you have evidence for said belief that can withstand critical scrutiny – are facts.” You believe what you choose. I’ll stick to evidence and proof as a better yardstick by which to measure the universe.

    I have no faith for you to attack. I don’t believe in any version of an anthropomorphic god but especially one that acts like a semi-psychotic bi-polar child with passive aggression issues. “I love you unconditionally but I’m going to torment you forever if you don’t do as this clown says.” Or “Kill the infidels! Our loving and just god commands it!” Yeah. Right. I never thought ventriloquism was funny but especially when done by the internally logically inconsistent or the manifestly insane.

    Jesus (himself – a lot of clowns have written stuff “in His name”) was a wise teacher as was the Buddha but neither were literal gods. Physics still applied to them. A god by definition would be beyond physical restraints and beyond understanding by any being within the universe, let alone humans (who according to some still think digital watches are a neat idea). A being within the universe simply does not have a proper frame of reference to understand a god. Philosophy or ethics is one thing. They have logical and reasoned underpinnings. There is no underpinning for religious belief other than wishful thinking. “A burning bush told me so!” Really. Well, I can play that game too. My dog said your burning bush is an asshole. If we’re making things up, hey, go all out.

    A human telling another human that “I know what God wants you to do” is completely and utterly full of shit. I don’t care what you name your god. A con man or a delusional is still a con man or a delusional. No and’s if’s or but’s. A liar who wants to sell you their lie. They want your money and/or to control you or, worse, they want to spread their non-rational psychosis. Misery loves company.

    A god wouldn’t need a human to carry out its will. It would just make it so. This is one of the reason I think going to war for any religion is simply retarded.

    If you didn’t get the Francis reference, watch “Stripes”.

  7. Who the hell is francis and do you really think I attacked you or your faith?

  8. The reaction created by Ms. Norris’ short-lived venture into the politics of confrontation is probably quite surprising to her. But I believe that it touched a nerve that needed to be touched. As a nation of immigrants, it is part of the national character of this country (except for certain residents of Arizona and several southern states) to accommodate arrivals from every corner of the globe. However, the United States is not for everyone. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reminds us that this country is intended only for those “longing to be free.” If the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution conflict with one’s religion, political beliefs, moral values, customs and traditions, or simply with one’s personal sensibilities, it may be necessary to relocate because the law trumps everything else. And those who insist upon tearing down the ramparts separating church and state ought to heed the lessons of the Comedy Central debacle. Enlisting the power of the state to enforce my religious views is merely the same form of tyranny under which I will suffer when my views no longer prevail.

  9. Did I attack YOUR faith? No. So lighten up, Francis.

    A belief – especially a religious one that require belief without empirical proof – is by nature unsubstantiated. Substantiated beliefs – i.e. you have evidence for said belief that can withstand critical scrutiny – are facts. So unless you are God and have ID or some better proof of your existence than I’ve seen to date, I’ll stick with systems based in empirical proof over magical thinking from ancient and misused books. Misused, I might add, for Earthly purposes by mortal men for their personal gain. That wasn’t an attack on your religious beliefs either but rather an attack on the idea of religious beliefs period. When it comes to intellectual dishonesty, religion is the original three card monty game. If that offends, forgive me. Or not. But if you want to threaten me because I don’t believe as you do? Well ridicule is the minimum you can expect for your efforts. If you want to change my mind, use logic first, because violence (or the threat thereof) merits a proportionate unpleasant response. The right to self-defense is not Constitutional. It comes with merely being alive.

    Now your statement vis a vis “lack of readiness or ability to engage in that manner of act/react sans violence discourse”. Nonsense. Being a pacifist merely means one will indeed try every non-violent solution first but it doesn’t mean one needs be either a door mat for those who threaten you or to not defend yourself. This means “words first”. Matt is using his words first so why don’t you take that supposition as to the rest of his motive to him. I provided his public statement and if that’s not good enough, you’ll have to take it up with him. If that was meant for me? Personally, I’ll talk all you like, but if you want to threaten me? I’m perfectly able (and willing under the right circumstances) to fight back. Across the spectrum from mere argument to killing in self-defense or the defense of others. This doesn’t mean I’m not a pacifist. This means I walk a peaceful path until others give no other option. This means also I’m not taking any shit off anyone who wants to use violence or intimidation against me. This can range from passive resistance to killing the intractable opponent (if and only if necessary). When you kowtow to terrorists demands, they have won your mind and ergo the conflict. “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” – Sun Tzu. And yet somehow giving in to terrorists threats does not equate to defeat? I’m pretty sure Sun wouldn’t have seen it that way.

    Second – You proposition also fails logically because it has a composition error: it assumes that both parties are reasonable and/or sane and thus capable of reaching accord of some sort through dialog. Some opponents are indeed intractable. One cannot argue with a lunatic (be they mentally ill or merely dangerously foolish) anymore than one can argue with a rabid dog. Fundamentalist zealots (from any tradition) are indeed lunatics. Unless you think the continual threats over an invisible and unprovable “God” and flying planes into buildings is the work of the mentally stable. Or killing abortion doctors and starving children to death for not saying “amen” is the work of sane people.

    Well you feel free to try to talk to the rabid dogs all you like. I’m going to kick them in the head if they try to bite me. Repeatedly if need be.

    Third – Yin/Yang. The Tao is simply the way of things and to resist it is to invite disaster. It cannot be defined with precision but merely is what it is. One is not “becoming” anything other than what they are – which according to Taoism is a blend of yin and yang. Some are just more of one than the other. And that “whole world of hate and fighting”? It’s contrasted with a whole world of love and compassion. Both exist simultaneously. In any given neighborhood, you’ll have a house full of domestic tranquility and a house full of domestic abuse. Yin and yang. That’s simply the Tao. Peace comes when the yin and the yang are in harmony. Your use of the term(s) in this context is a non sequitur.

    However, if you expect that humans will someday not have internal conflict as a species, you will be disappointed. Strife and conflict is the way of the world. DNA didn’t get to where it’s at today by “taking it easy”. The best one can hope to accomplish is a more peaceful world, but perfect peace is simply impossible. And in this battle, one will run into intractable opponents. In those instances, it becomes that whole object in motion versus an immovable object. One will be damaged/destroyed. And an immovable obstacle to peace is exactly what fundie zealots are. They exemplify exclusionary thinking because their “belief” (which is usually the product of organized religion) requires either an enemy or a scapegoat. After all, you can’t raise money if you can’t “make the teams” and charge membership dues to both sides.

    As to Matt’s case against Viacom? I never mentioned suing Viacom. However, I’m going to give Matt the benefit of the doubt and say he’s not nearly stupid enough to sign a contract abrogating his Constitutional Rights. More than likely, being a distributor, there is a clause in the contract that allows Viacom to refuse to distribute (in which case they should have pulled the whole damn episode and not censored it in part). You’ll have to ask him or Viacom.

  10. “If terrorist want to accomplish their goal through fear and intimidation, the best way to fight it is to essentially give them the finger every chance you get and live your life as if they were of no influence whatsoever.”

    So you become the Yin to their Yang? …well, that makes a whole world….it’s just that then it’s a whole world of hate and fighting…..

  11. “How can ever persistent and repetitive threats to kill others over words yet alone something so unsubstantiated as a religious belief not be expected to draw exactly this kind of response?”

    Well doesn’t that in itself demonstrate something? Like a lack of readiness or ability to engage in that manner of act/react sans violence discourse? and “…something so unsubstantiated as a religious belief…” , unsubstantiated to who? you? are you G*d? I am not an atheist although I do enjoy a good conversation with those of that ilk….my faith is mine and you can say whatever you want to about it, it isn’t touched.

    “This is what Matt Stone had to say about the censorship:

    “I think Comedy Central totally fucking pussed out. Now, they weren’t any different than anyone else, so it’s not like you can single them out. But I think it would’ve been an important statement for one media outlet in America to stand up.”

    Here’s what I say about Matt Stone…he is welcome to call Viacom on their drecht. He may have a case. It may also blow up on him if he and Trey were acting outside of their contract w/Viacom and without giving them a headsup on the story board. Maybe when they get off the corporate tit they will think twice before they have expectations of someones reaction to a situation when they were dragged in without informed consent….(if that was the case….) Meanwhile…there are a lot of Matt and Trey fans drawing some really nasty nasty stuff.

  12. “rcampbell
    1, April 25, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    Tootie

    Perhaps you should revisit the Biblical story of Job. It tells us that his two daughters deliberately got him drunk and took advantage of his stupor to seduce him believing they were the last people on earth after the alleged destruction of Somdom & Gommorah. Of course it was he who was coherced. Those girls, his daughters, who plied him with the wine to satisfy their evil lust.”

    1. Your first post – Kudos. Well said, sir. Well said.

    2. I posted very same example you posted above to Tootie Frootie last week, when he, she, it, blathered on and on about the same thing. I also reminded Tootie Frootie that it was common in early Jewish, and Christian cultures for older men to marry young girls shortly after thier first periods. I also mentioned that Adam and Eve’s kids had to reproduce … somehow since they were the ‘only people on earth’ at the time. Needless to say, the silence was deafening.

  13. I just posted this in another thread…the responses on the site are very interesting and the civil discourse actually looks pretty civil….
    ‘Woosty’s still a Cat
    1, April 27, 2010 at 3:21 pm
    So here is a straaaaange turn of events…

    this morning on Facebook there were a number of pages devoted to drawing the prophet Mohammed. Needless to say some of the drawings were benign but most were disgusting. So nooooow, there are a handfull (when search is done) ‘Ban draw mohammed on May 20th’ pages.

    Even more intersting is what you see and read on the new ‘ban’ pages..

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=120989617916358&topic=38

    less vitriole, more civil discussion, and yes, even a few pictures of Mohammed.

    …perhaps all was not in vain?’

  14. How can ever persistent and repetitive threats to kill others over words yet alone something so unsubstantiated as a religious belief not be expected to draw exactly this kind of response?

    This is what Matt Stone had to say about the censorship:

    “I think Comedy Central totally fucking pussed out. Now, they weren’t any different than anyone else, so it’s not like you can single them out. But I think it would’ve been an important statement for one media outlet in America to stand up. That was one of my most disappointing moments as an American–the American press’s reaction to the Muhammad cartoons. It was completely wimpy. Cartoonists, people who do satire–we’re not in the army, we’re never going to be fucking drafted and this is our time to stand up and do the right thing. And to watch the New York Times, Comedy Central, everybody just go ‘No, we’re not going to do it because basically we’re afraid of getting bombed’ sucked. I was so disappointed.” [emphasis added]

    So clearly, the episode is a response to the never-ending threats of Fundies. Matt saw it as his duty to ridicule terrorists instead of kowtowing. Responses are not always generated by specific episodes of behavior but rather to the overall environment. If terrorist want to accomplish their goal through fear and intimidation, the best way to fight it is to essentially give them the finger every chance you get and live your life as if they were of no influence whatsoever.

  15. @BiL,

    “But it is precisely freedom.”

    OK, yes, that is freedom. And like better than me have said before…freedom ain’t free. and I’m a freedom slut, truth be told, BUT
    I’ve also heard it said that your right to ‘free’ stops where your fist (or your actions, if they stink)meets my nose.
    I think it is important to walk in this world with a gentle appreciation and tolerance. We as a Nation are in a sticky entanglement…no one is in the dark anymore on this subject…the right to speak must be weighed against the potential harm it can create. There is a whole world between the points of tolerance and oppression. I said it before, the cartoonist that drew Mohammed with a turban/bomb head was responding to an actual event. I am not sure that the current SouthPark thing does. If it does, (and the more I read, the more I must agree with calling the fundies on their stuff)THEN I’ll be on board…till then, I don’t believe in pre-emption where assumption is involved.

  16. Apparently a loose italics tag has chosen to wander onto this thread.

Comments are closed.