Parker: On one hand, we’re thinking, “We’re living in a pretty different time now. All this stuff’s getting pulled off the air.” On the other hand, we’re thinking, “Well, the Virgin Mary is shitting blood on the Pope.”

Re: “There may be some novelty in a film where the central character doesn’t appear but it greatly restricts the kind of story that could be told. (The only films I’ve seen that use this technique are pornographic in nature.)”

I suggest first watching Mustafa Akkad’s film “The Messenger” as I mentioned earlier before equating it’s cinematographic technique with that of porn. Lol. Then let’s talk. I NEVER said that the central character never “appears.” He’s there. It’s filmed from his perspective, his “lens.” But, no, you never see his face. On one level, it’s weird that a movie could still “work” like that. On another level, the whole point of the religion was not to glorify it’s messenger, who was supposed to only be that: a messenger. Dude, sorry, but it’s not cool to negate or cheapen it’s filming technique by equating it to that of pornography before even seeing it – not that porn techniques are sucky fucky.

Re: “Also, don’t you think it somewhat strange that you insist that the “Muslim World” is “NOT a monolith” but then declare that the film didn’t “offend any practicing Muslims”?”

Islam instituted the “don’t ever depict the Muslim prophet” rule as a means to avoid turning him into a god, like how they witnessed with neighboring Christian Arab tribes at the time. Islam believes that Jesus was a Jewish prophet, not a god, and therefore wanted to ensure that the Islamic MESSENGER would not be elevated to a god-like stance as what happened with Christianity. Obviously, it happened anyways, because there are a few million Muslim dudes who try to “look” like him and “emulate” his life, and think by doing so that they are being more pious. Nevermind that the Muslim prophet preached against Islam becoming a static monolith stuck in time. He preached that changes would be necessary as time is not static, and that such changes couldn’t go wrong as long as they were by democratic consensus. Has this actually happened? Lol. Many wish. Anyway, by “looking like him,” I mean, these “pious” dudes grow their beards long and cut their hair short, as he reportedly did – even by “secular historical” accounts. (NYU offers a secular historical class on Islam and it’s messenger if you live in NYC.)

Also, what do you not get about being raised Muslim vs. being a practicing Muslim? How many people in this country call themselves “Jews” but then don’t observe jack shit about their Jewish religion, except to be gung-ho Zionists? My mother was raised Catholic, but is not practicing. She thinks all organized religion is pretty fucked up actually, but still has a minute sentimental affinity toward the Catholic faith because of her upbringing. And same goes for some non-practicing Muslims. They’re still gonna be pissed to see some practicing Muslims being wrongly discriminated against. Believe it or not, at least half of the Middle East are non-practicing of whichever Abrahamic faith they were raised. And just because European/American colonialism imposed a bunch of tyrannical kings and dictators when they divided and conquered the Middle East, it is NOT the peoples’ fault for living under these mostly Western created repressive, authoritarian, patriarchal, tyrannical regimes that censor shit like there’s no tomorrow.

Again, I FIRST was introduced to SP while an exchange student in the Middle East many years ago. People find a means to watch and read cool shit – despite the risk of being beaten and jailed. These little acts of resistance happen ALL of the fucking time in the Middle East, but white-ass Dick and Jane aren’t gonna cover those stories… nor probably even know that they exist, since most American reporters do NOT learn Middle Eastern languages, do NOT live a substantial amount of time in the Middle East (except bad-ass Robert Fisk via The Independent UK), let alone formally study it’s culture, history, and politics before reporting on it. That’s why in my Middle Eastern journalism classes at NYU, the visiting reporters/producers we had each week (especially the ones from BBC) insisted that “American media is content-less because American reporters are ignorant of the content they are covering.” I remember the BBC journalists’ visit the most because they were bluntly unapologetic in insisting that most American reporters of the Middle East are pretty frickin ignorant, arrogant, and prejudiced about the content they are covering. Instead, they’ll show another pic of a bunch asses raised up in the air. Try reading Edward Said’s seminal book, “Covering Islam,” to really get what I may not be breaking down well here. He really breaks down Western coverage of the Middle East and Islamic peoples. Btw- he was a Palestinian-American Christian, who was the Chair of Comparative Literature at Columbia in NYC, but despite being a “secular-minded Christian” he saw that Western coverage of Muslim peoples is some fucked up, prejudiced, and inaccurate shit.

We Americans are so frickin ignorant of history – and I mean contemporary history as well. It’s a bummer, man. It’s why I’m embarrassed to identify as American and find myself apologizing profusely for how greedy, racist, hypocritical, and war-monger we appear to the rest of the world. See, unlike us dumb-shit Americans, the rest of the world still remembers our Oklamhoma City bombing, our WAACO tragedy, and our hurricane Katrina disaster. And that’s just a few of some of our tragic domestic experiences – that our own media and collective conscience could mostly give jack shit about. Just look at how our media FRAMED the healthcare “debate.” What ended up being passed was essentially the same Republican half-ass legislation that was introduced a decade ago by the Republicans. The fact that our media could frame the basic human right of access to healthcare as a threat to the private insured, demonstrates how censored our own media coverage is in general. So, it’s not just those “crazy Muslim countries” that censor, dude. At least they flat out admit to censorship. Here, we pretend our first Amendment rights are stronger than ever. How can that be when our corporate media censors the war? I was disgusted to hear American journalists who visited my classes of journalism/Middle East at NYU on a weekly basis admit that they “dumb shit down,” if not straight up “censor ground realities,” especially in Occupied Palestine, because otherwise, their stories “won’t get past their editors and won’t get published, and they have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed and put through school.” So the “American dream” excuses us from not providing accurate coverage of our fucking wars and our client-state, Israel? Great. Ever wondered why Viet Nam was the LAST time we got to actually SEE what our wars looked like on the nightly news? Our uncensored media coverage of Viet Nam sparked the anti-war movement, dude. Sorry, if this all seems tangential or disconnected… I just woke up from a nap, but I sincerely was trying to connect the dots here. Edward Said does a better job. I sincerely recommend reading his book I mentioned, “Covering Islam.”

Re: “I agree with you that Islam (and all other religions) should be ridiculed, but I see no reason why it should be proportionate. Or indeed how.”

Earlier, I suggested a Black Jesus to drive the point home that Jesus was most likely NOT a blond/blue-eyed European-looking Viking, but rather was basically Palestinian, and probably looked more like whatever the Muslim prophet looked like since the Arab tribes were descendants of the Canaanites and the coastal peoples, ie: Phoenicians, etc, were actually coastal Canaanites.

Re: “What level of ridicule could come close to being proportionate to such absurdity as the claim that an illiterate caravan robber received messages from God and went to heaven on a flying horse?”

Dude. Why do you have to be sounding like a bigot? Even academic secular historical studies of the Muslim faith and messenger respectfully say that Mohammed was a genius poet, at the very least. There is no religious nor secular historical claim that he was a “caravan robber.” Lol! Where did you get that idea? Wow. Good way of demonizing him for sure. And likewise about “went to heaven on a flying horse.” WTF, dude? Wow. You really hate that religion. Anyways, many native tribes/peoples in various locales of the world would be offended by your ignorance and arrogance toward the respected native tradition of oral narratives. In Islam, they actually have a systematized means of authenticating which stories came from where/whom and via which “chain of narration” as a means of relegating which ones are “strong stories” and which ones are “weak stories.” But you obviously don’t give a shit about learning true aspects of the religion you hate so much. From a secular historical perspective, Christianity has been the most violent and murderous Abrahamic religion from the fucked up Crusades to Christian Europe’s genocide of European Ashkenazi Jews/homosexuals/disabled peoples, etc. to the Christian-American belligerent “collateral damage” of millions of Iraqis we’ve killed via sanctions and wars. Go Christian Team USA! Woohoo! And please don’t talk to me about bullshit “separation of church and state” here. I wish. “In God We Trust.” AND “One nation, indivisible, under God.” A to the motherfucking men. (Amen.)

why is it sad that “we need two guys who make a cartoon to be the voice of reason?” why not? zealous politicians, blowhard talk-show hosts and eccentric celebrities are often seen as the “voice of reason.” why not two guys who don’t take themselves so seriously? sometimes the true voice of reason comes from unexpected places and i’ve seen much more reason displayed in episodes of south park than in many political debates. at least matt and trey aren’t pandering to lobbyists or fearful of being voted out of office. they generally make a case for both sides of the issue du jour, albeit in a funny, absurd or shocking way, but if you look past the comedy to what they’re actually saying, it’s usually a more level-headed and even-handed approach than most other talking heads offer.

just my two cents.

I’m more religiphobic than anything else (my new word).
Intolerant? I’m certainly intolerant of those who would label me as kufar or infidel and who believe a woman’s place is subordinate.
Prejudiced? I’m definitely prejudiced against beliefs in the supernatural pretending to have equal footing to those based in reality.

By not showing the prophet (pss b pn hm) that film has already shown itself to be lop-sided.
We should not be afraid to display the true lunatic nature of all of these so-called holy men, muhammed, jesus, moses and of course the most insane of them all, abraham, who convinced his people to cut off the tips of their own cocks ‘cos god told him they should (this after almost slaying his own son).

I see no shame in showing intolerance to bronze-age ideals of a perfect society.
We have a geoid-shaped earth now, not a flat one. Let’s discard the myths and legends shall we? And stop going out of our way to be offended because someone depicts an egomaniacal butcher in his true colours.

Also, the sadness in my last line is obviously not directed at Matt and Trey (and the fact that they are the voice of reason), but rather at all the other possible sources of “the voice of reason” in our society. You mention a few in your response.

In other words, I am saddened that politicians and journalists are not reasonable voices. I am not saddened that the creators of South Park are reasonable voices, which, of course, they have every right to be.

Perhaps, if your reading comprehension improves, you will be able to better understand the evil perpetrated on our society in the name of security.

Again, there’s enough fucked up shit about that religion and other religions that there’s no need to try to demonize them via falsities… unless it’s via a parody on SP, of course. Goodluck to you, dude.

Peace out.

Are you a Zionist or Evangelical by chance? Is that why you are such a bigot toward the Muslim faith and propagating lies?

Look dude, I was frickin raised Muslim here in LA, and speak and read Arabic. I formally studied various “chains of narrations”– the validated ones AND the Qur’an, in addition to taking the historical secular study and critical feminist study of Islam/Qur’an/Muslim messenger classes at NYU. So, I think I know what the fuck I’m talking about, homie.

Regardless, I think all religions generally suck and are extremely problematic. However, it doesn’t mean I’m gonna be an intolerant bigot toward those who are religious, nor am I gonna make up silly shit about their religions.

There’s enough fucked up shit about religions– especially the Judeo-Christian patriarchal tradition of which Islam is totally an offshoot of– that it’s totally unnecessary to make up invalidated and prejudiced crap.

I will no longer engage with you as you are totally full of shit, bro.

Peace in the Middle East, yo!

s… wht hs th “vl prptrtd n r scty n th nm f scrty” tkn frm y?

I, for one, find myself completely unable to consider how the plot points are going to be resolved, when I can remember clearly how South Park’s first cliffhanger ended.

That you did not understand (or perceive) what I wrote is the entire point of my previous comment. I then went on to question your ability to understand the more complex issues of national security and the abuses of government and industry.

Pointing this out does not make me a snarky dick. It makes me someone who values precision in language, and someone who fears a populace without critical thinking skills.

The fact that I enjoyed it is what makes me a snarky dick.

hy, hw’s tht rspns t my qstn rgrdng yr cvl rghts bng tkn wy cmng lng?

Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Trapped-War-Terror-Ian-Lustick/dp/0812239830/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271180877&sr=8-1

I don’t want to say anything against a (possibly) local gal gettin’ her report on with a comedic duo that blessed well speaks for a portion of a generation. . .

BUT: why the Muhammed thing? A super quick one-shot. You could’a brought up ImaginationLand. . . or Joseph Smith. . .Or the excellent post 9-11 Bin Laden episode. . .

But the one episode (out of 200!) you choose to publicly critique and interview. . .is the one. . .well. . .fatwahs have been spit for less.

Are you trying to KILL the comedic duo I respect so much???

Abbott and Costello: Dead.

Laurel and Hardy: Dead.

Matt and Trey: Still Alive.

Let’s try and keep it that way shall we. . .

And let’s face it: Religious Super Friends is NOT one of the best episodes

for Santa’s sake

I find the Mohammed issue really interesting. Both in terms of western fear of offending the muslim world, and in terms of how the muslim world seems to vary in its reaction to such portrayals (I don’t seem to recall riots or fatwas after the last relevant SP episode, does anyone?).

Rulers of the underworld (timmay)
darkness fills my heart with pain (t-t-timmay)