Muhammad Cartoon Ad Blocked From DC Metro

Jo Ankier and Nik Zecevic | (The Lip TV) | (Video) |-

“A Prophet Muhammad cartoon ad has been blocked by Washington DC’s transport authority who voted unanimously on Thursday to suspend advertisements it describes as “issue-oriented” on the subway after the The American Freedom Defense Initiative, founded by Pamela Geller, campaigned to display the cartoon sparking a free speech debate. The cartoon that was in question won first prize at the Garland, Texas event earlier this month that was attacked by two gunmen. We look at the story on the Lip News with Jo Ankier and Nik Zecevic.”

TheLipTV: “Muhammad Cartoon Ad Blocked From DC Metro”

5 Responses

  1. The original intent of not drawing Mohammad was so that people would remember to worship God and not Mohammad. Yet the effect of this rule could be seen by non Muslims as having an effect exactly the opposite of that which was intended. Yet Muslims could reply we are not worshiping Mohammad by making a special rule that applies to him and no one else. We honor Mohammad we do not worship him.
    OK good, if a Sunni Muslim, especially a Salafist, can understand that then they are capable of understanding that Shias and Catholics do not worship saints they honor saints. If Sunni Muslims do not worship Mohammad then Secularists do not worship Plato, Thomas Paine, or Charles Darwin, or Kemal Attaturk, they might respect them.
    What this boils down to is that some Muslims, those who take offence from seeing Mohammad drawn, should learn is that freedom of speech is more important than God’s messenger because to make Mohammad more important than freedom of speech hinders people from finding God.
    Sadly, I do not really expect any of those people who need to learn the lesson to actually learn it. I have seen a comparable problem in the USA with those who get really upset with flag burning. For such people in the USA the symbol is more important than what the symbol should stand for. If the stories that were recently printed here on informed comment are true, Mohammad put up with a lot of abuse during his early ministry with out retaliation. That sounds to me like a person who would not have wanted to become a symbol more important than the values that he wished to spread. Would he not say if he were here today that the values of truth and fairness are more important than my reputation?
    That question might seem like a good place to end my comments. But a further consideration must be included in the name of full disclosure. There can be limits on speech. Proposing aggression clearly is a legitimate limit.
    Speech that is insulting clearly is has not crossed the thresh hold of legitimate censorship. But there can be a legitimate exception to this rule. That is insulting speech which is promoted by the government. An example of this rule is the flying of flags which commemorate the confederidiocy from state government buildings.
    Is the display of a drawing of Mohammad on a city owned bus or subway the same as flying the stars and bars from a state capitol building? I will wait to see some responses before i try to answer that question myself.

  2. There’s a marked tendency ,especially among the anti-Islamic portion of our population, to misunderstand or misrepresent theMmuslim faith for instance Jihad generally refers to the personal struggle to remain faithful.

  3. Obviously what’s needed is a draw Jesus contest and then post offensive images on public transport. I can’t even imagine the mayhem that would cause. You’re not even supposed to mention the name of the god of the Jews so there’s some mischief that could make them mad too. Get everyone riled up and have to walk to work.
    If these folks want to post their pictures they have the right to post them on their own property.

    • Some very good comments, Steven.
      I am still deeply troubled by this dilema. I have heard it said that attacking Islam in the USA is a petty, even a cowardly activity, as Islam is not powerful in the USA. Yet in the world Islam is very powerful. Although certianly not as powerful as the forces of western imperialism. Furthermore monotheism is powerful almost everywhere and Islam is a branch of monotheism.
      Therefore I think that Islam is fair game for criticism, along with Christianity and Judaism. All three of these religions, along with every other religion and Secularist philosophies, are for the MOST PART forces for evil in the world. There may of course be many individual people who belong to any of these groups, or even entire sects (or schools of thought), that are not forces for evil. These people somehow manage to succeed despite the foul indoctrination that they are subject to. To increase the number of properly indoctrinted people I think that it is best to attack the most powerful forces of stupidity first.
      All of that was just to establish Islam as a fair target for harsh criticism. At this point my discomfort sets in.
      It seems to me that if we do not allow someone or a group of people to BUY advertising space on a bus used for public transportation the government is actually protecting Islam. If this is true then a next question could be does Islam need protecting?
      But then what if someone wanted to buy advertising promoting the shunning of gays and the boycotting of gay owned businesses? Do gays need protecting? What if someone wanted to buy advertising calling members of the US military war criminals and weddng bombers and good samaritan assassins do the members of the US military need protecting?
      If any of these ads were put on a bus the buses then the passangers that ride them would then be subject to greater risks as it would not be unreasonable for Muslims, or gays, or members of the US military to try to sabotage the buses. I know that the members of all three of these groups will cry foul and say that I am implying that Muslims, and gays, and members of the US military can not control their passions. They can cry foul until the Moon turns red as there are people in all three of these groups that can not control their passions.
      Yet when one group of people try to change another group of people it usually can not be done with out at least initially antagonizing the hell out them. Therefore it seems reasonable to me that sometimes the individual members of society have to be subject ot increase risks to be able to live in a society that can change and therefore improve, or possibly decay depending on ones point of view.
      Finally and least of all, what if the buses used for public transportation are operated by private companies under a contract with a city or county government, does that change the ethics of what can or can not be posted on such buses?

Comments are closed.