I have been a big fan of the show South Park for many years, so I am very happy to see a question pertaining to it on this blog. I was watching the episode about Mohammed when it first aired several Wednesday nights ago and the first thing I thought about was the Danish Cartoonist who received death threats after depicting Mohammed in a series of 12 cartoons. The Dane has been attacked several times by radical Islamists after the cartoons publications in 2005. I knew that this episode would cause a backlash from some factions of the Muslim community.

I can honestly understand why people of the Islamic faith would be upset by a depiction of Mohammed, even though I cannot understand the extreme actions into which their anger manifests. But I really cannot understand how South Parks actions this time around causing controversy. In the episode several weeks ago, Mohammed is always disguised. The shows intent is not to make fun of Mohammed, rather it is an attempt to make fun of the reactions that issues surrounding Mohammed have caused in the past several years. The death threats levied against Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker only go to validate the point they were making.

South Park has always made it a point to spare no one; they have poked fun at or satirized virtually anything you can think about. In fact, this wasn’t even the first south park episode to poke fun at the reaction incited by the depiction of Mohammed. The show produced an episode in 2006 in which the townspeople literally bury their heads in the sand to show Muslims that they mean no disrespect after family guy depicted Mohammed in an episode. I think that this brings up another good point relating to something we’ve discussed in class. People are always scared of being viewed as offensive and there is an almost compulsive adherence to political correctness by society. After this latest south park episode (the first in a two part series) incited multiple threats, the producers at Comedy Central bleeped even the mention of Mohammed’s name from the airing of the second episode. While I can understand that this was done by the studio to protect the show's creators, I also believe it was unnecessary and that we cannot allow the threats of Muslim extremists to dictate our actions. Censorship rarely leads to anything good.

This post really shocked me, like most others who responded to this video on the production and sale of “rape games” in Japan. I find it morally reprehensible and have a hard time believing how accepted they appear to be in Japan. I’m sure that many Japanese people are offended by these games and do want to see them removed from stores. However, the fact that they are easy to find and buy there does a lot to highlight social and cultural differences between our two countries. I do not believe these games should be illegal simply because I believe in limited government intervention and don’t think that the government holds the right to dictate what video games its citizens play. Also, video games where you can torture people, shoot prostitute and do other morally reprehensible games already exist and are sold widely, even in this country. Virtual crime is just that- virtual. Grand Theft Auto and several other games that depict these things and allow you to carry out violent crimes are some of the most popular games around and are played by many pre-teens around the country. These games are essentially no different from the rape games in Japan. Rape and Murder are both violent, illegal, morally sinful-and featured in many video games. This is not to say that I in any way support this game, in fact it’s disgusting. However, I believe that social pressures should be implemented to curb the games use and availability. In this country a game like this would not be illegal, nor should it be, but it would not be sold. The public outcry and pressure placed on the games producers would either shut down production or cause stores to refuse to sell the game. The fact that this public outcry is not seen in Japan shows our vast cultural gap. This is the way these issues should be handled, as public opinion should dictate to a certain extent, the action of the public. Since those in Japan don’t seem to be making too much of a fuss, the must have grudgingly accepted the games like we have grudgingly accepted Grand Theft Auto. Yes, this game is wrong. Should it be made illegal? No. Once you start restricting individual freedoms, you’re starting down a slippery slope. Ultimately people will play whatever video games they want, although I have no idea what type of person would want to play something like this.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that an issue like this is still causing such a stir in 2010. The school boards cancellation of the prom simply because a female student wanted to take another female student is a startling revelation of how much bigotry still exists in the world. Just a decade ago this wouldn’t have surprised me, but I thought we had made progress in addressing equality of treatment for all individuals. I mean, after all, freedom of expression and freedom from persecution are integral in our country’s founding ideologies. I could go on about the injustice of banning Ms. McMillen and her girlfriend from any event on the basis of sexual orientation, however, the fact that this took place in a school is just morally reprehensible.

Schools are supposed to be a place of learning, somewhere everyone should feel accepted and where that message of acceptance is constantly reinforced through the words and actions of those in charge of administering it. When the school board tells a student they cannot bring their date because they are of the same sex they are taking the position that same sex relationships are wrong. While I don’t expect everyone to agree with same sex relationships, I would like to believe that we would all like our children to grow up in an academic environment that espoused positive virtues like acceptance and pushed students to open their minds rather than close them.

Also, it is not the schools place to take issue with a student’s sexual orientation. This aspect of a student’s life has nothing to do with the classroom and should therefore be kept out of the equation. Obviously if classroom disruptions due to such a situation were to arise, they would need to be addressed, but they should be handled no differently than similar situations featuring students of opposite sexes. With that being said, If a school is enforcing the rules they undoubtedly put in place against sexual displays and acts such as kissing (I know my prom did), than the fact that one or more couples may potentially be members of the same sex should not matter anyway. The school reacted with the close minded mechanism of exclusion and then took the whole situation one shameful step further by cancelling the prom altogether when their barring of McMillen attending with her girlfriend caused a stir. Nothing they did sent anything but prejudiced messages to those students who are supposed to be under their guidance, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

The issue of languages disappearing throughout the world is one which I have mixed feeling about. On one hand, if all people spoke the same language, communication would be unhampered and many cultural walls and barriers held up by language differences would come crashing down. However, language holds special significance for its speakers, whose ancestors’ ways of life and integral cultural practices are deeply seeded in its roots.

Language is a means to communicate and exchange information about our surroundings our world, and our lives. If you want to know what a culture was like and what it valued and prized, you need only to look at the culture’s language. For example, the farming Haunoo people of the Philippines have words to describe 10 standard and 30 derivative types of soil. This allows them to communicate information in distinct ways that we, lacking these descriptors, cannot. With all of the significance and distinct cultural information embedded into the essence of each language we cannot allow them to simply disappear. The push towards globalization has not spared language. In fact, they are disappearing at a rate of one every two weeks! When you think about this, it is an absolutely staggering statistic. Many of the languages have survived for thousands upon thousands of years and are know dying out, leaving these languages and the people who spoke them covered in a cloak of obscurity. While many of these languages probably are “unnecessary” and do not need to be spoken or used daily, it is our responsibility to learn what we can from them before they are gone, and along with them, our opportunity.

While language holds much significance and information, much of this can be adapted and retained without holding on to the actual language itself. Global interaction between people of different nations, ethnicities and language groups has never taken place at such a high rate of speed or efficiency. However, it has been taking place since the beginning of civilization, and the ease of intercommunication we see today is partly the result of competition between languages spoken by these interacting civilizations. Since the average language is spoken by only 6,000 people, it is good to have languages like Spanish and English with large speaking bases to facilitate international trade and business.

The fact that France is even considering a ban on a harmless religious practice observed by only around two thousand fundamental Muslims is morally reprehensible and only serves to undo centuries of progress towards social and religious equality, and the freedom of expression. The French Revolution of the late eighteenth century was based largely on enlightenment beliefs that all humans have inalienable civil rights; it toppled an oppressive monarchy and sparked a movement throughout Europe towards the formation of democracies. With France having played an integral role in the spread of democracy and freedom, it is sad and disappointing to see them attempting to limit the freedoms of their citizens to practice their own religious beliefs.
The wearing of a full burqa by some Muslim women is nothing new; it is an established and controversial practice. While some women may feel pressured to wear the burqa other do choose to wear it and see it as an integral part of their religion. Using the allegation that people were coerced or pressured into wearing something to justify taking away their right to do so is counter intuitive, because you are doing the exact thing you are trying to stop. Also, because France is “supposed” to be a democracy where individual freedoms are tolerated, any women in fear for her safety for not wanting to wear a burqa has many places to turn for support to uphold her civil rights. When you start to limit freedoms, or even interfere with them, you remove these support channels and the women have nowhere to turn. Unfortunately the French people seem to have been swept up in a wave of post-9/11 anti-Islamic sentiment. Thomas Jefferson once said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This unfortunately seems to be the case with France. The video mentions that a recent poll found that almost 3 in 5 people support the ban. It is hard to believe that almost 60 percent of the populace supports such a blatant ban on personal freedoms. These people would certainly think differently if the issue at hand were the wearing of crosses or yamakas.

Natty