Here's why I don't think drawing Mohammed is a great idea. (Sorry, Cal.)
I am not, it should be said at the outset, a deist, theist, anarchist, objectivist, absolutist, constructivist, daoist, or almost any other thing that ends in “ist” (with the possible exception of 'idealist' and 'absurdist,' but we'll leave those aside for now). Formal political and religious philosophies leave me cold, and so do their often-irrational demands: Don't draw Mohammed. Don't fund social programs (even to accomplish my stated goals). Don't drink alcohol. Keep your meat and milk in separate refrigerators.
However, for the most part even highly religious people keep their demands to themselves—glaring disapprovingly at me as I discuss alcohol doesn't impinge on my life if I don't give a damn what you think. (Growing up in Nashville gives you lots of practice in developing this mindset and its corollaries.) And when your beliefs impinge on my right to do—well, anything otherwise lawful—I'll exercise the privilege of doing what I damn well please while you and your overly-developed, irrational sensibilities (and I mean this in the kindest, gentlest way possible) sod off.
But that isn't the same as doing something one wouldn't otherwise do—something calculated to offend another's sensibilities—solely and only for that purpose. Because as much as I disagree with the political and religious idiocy that gets thrown about more freely every single day (and gets closer and closer to being religiopolitical idiocy every single day—must I keep reminding you people that the U.S. is not a theocracy?), I don't think that offending the people who profess a given creed in a way that's respectful of others right alongside those believers who are frothing-at-the-mouth crazy serves any useful purpose.
Specifically: Speaking as someone who has stood alone beside the exquisite screen surrounding Mumtaz' grave in the center of the Taj Mahal, I can say that the most conservative Islamic sentiments on drawing human forms (or rather, not drawing), which led directly to the juridical pronouncements (fatwa) on representations of Mohammed, have produced some of the world's greatest art. I defy anyone—South Park fan or no—to claim otherwise. While those sensibilities don't match Christian (or indeed most other) artistic sensibilities, there is no reason they should be purposefully trampled by those who wouldn't otherwise do so.
That doesn't include South Park, of course. Matt Stone and Trey Parker's raison d'être is the purposeful trampling of every sensibility in existence. They have made an art of it, and it is valuable and thought-provoking, and they should be left in peace to trample, while those whose sensibilities are currently being macerated come over and stand with the vast crowd of humanity who've suffered the same treatment at their hands.
Radical Islamists who threaten bloody, excruciating death to everyone and everything for so much as uttering the name of “The Prophet” in a louder-than-can-possibly-be-respectful whisper deserve inconsideration, disrespect, and a boot to the back of the head. These are the jackasses who took out a contract on Rushdie, after all (you'll pardon me if I hold that a greater crime, in artistic terms, than threatening Stone and Parker). But most of the people who share their faith don't.
Rational people don't break into tabernacles to grab communion wafers and stomp on them in response to the deranged pro-life morons who bomb abortion clinics. Not because the majority of humanity shares the belief that the consecrated wafers are the “Body of Christ”—but because 1) breaking into buildings is a crime, and 2) even if the church is sitting open, there are a lot of other people who'd be deeply offended—people who had nothing to do with the objectionable behavior.
Jackasses are always with us. I don't like being judged by idiotic behavior on the part of those who share what few beliefs I do cherish (especially since they're cherished partly because they don't lead to that sort of behavior). I very seriously doubt people acting to offend such idiots, knowing all the while that I had nothing to do with their behavior and that said actions would offend me as well, would win any sympathy or support from me.
So instead of “Draw Mohammed”, how about “Boycott Comedy Central for a day for being such gutless bastards”?
Or, if caution in the face of bomb threats doesn't seem bastardly to you (it does to me, since they could easily afford extra security, especially with all the ad revenue the extra hype would bring in), how about “Donate $1.00 to Matt Stone & Trey Parker to fund a one-time copyright buyout from Comedy Central, to broadcast a South Park site webisode on what utter wankers radical Islamists are”? It'd probably be the most-downloaded, most-shared, most-watched South Park episode in the world. In history, even. Given free rein, one can only imagine what those guys could produce. It'd be awesome.
It'd be even better if they mention Zachary Adam Chesser, better known as Abu Talhah al-Amrikee (http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/abu_talhah.htm)—despicable piece of cretinous, homicidal filth that he is. He's the guy who started the whole brouhaha in the first place, and who gleefully discusses slitting Parker and Stone's throats. Come to think of it, why not just crash his blog and his beloved “Revolution Muslim” site with huge amounts of well-timed “fan” mail? It is, after all, the kind of behavior these verminous imbeciles understand.
And best of all, not a single reasonable follower of Islam (I realize there are those out there drawing Mohammed who'd argue the phrase, but we all know what I'm talking about) would feel personally offended.
