Comedy Central Censors South Park After Death Threats From Muslims In US

Jon Stewart, 'South Park' duo tee off on network censorship and Muslim death threats - Yahoo! News

Jon Stewart, 'South Park' duo tee off on network censorship and Muslim death threats

Jon Stewart defended his Comedy Central colleagues, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of "South Park," in a 10-minute segment on Thursday night bashing a radical Muslim group for issuing a death threat against the rude-humor duo. You can watch the segment here (warning: some PG-13 language).

"I say this to anyone who's threatening death in the name of religion or politics," Stewart concluded, standing in front of a gospel choir for the second time this week, before offering his now-trademark bleeped-out sign-off, which begins with "Go" and ends with "yourselves."

"South Park," which has satirized just about every major religious and political figure, dead or alive, can still stir up controversy after more than a decade on the air. In last week's 200th episode, the creators ? mindful of Islam's strict ban on any visual depictions of the the Prophet Muhammad ? concealed the animated Muhammad character in a bear costume or in a U-Haul truck. So viewers never actually saw Muhammad.

Even so, a group called Revolution Muslim ? based in New York City ? issued a threat on its website alongside a photograph of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by a radical Muslim.

Not surprisingly, Comedy Central got nervous. Even with the figure of Muhammad tucked behind the word "CENSORED" in a new episode on Wednesday, the network took additional measures that went beyond Stone and Parker's intentions, bleeping out the prophet's name and some other selected dialogue. Stewart called out his own employers for altering Stone and Parker's script without their consent ? and the show's creators also issued their own statement expressing dismay over the network's actions.

"In the 14 years we've been doing "South Park," we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind," the statement said. "We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps."

"In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear," they continued. "It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."

When are we going to stop bending over backwards (and forwards) in order to appease Islamic groups? I'd guess never since it all has to do with a bizarre combination of fear and slow suicide by political correctness.

Where is the outrage? Seriously? What if a Mormon or Baptist organization had intimidated Comedy Central into a broad censorship....I mean REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just so sick of this....it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and......................

I watched both episodes, and by the end of part two, I was sick to my stomach. I was ready to vomit.
Comedy Central lost all my respect. Its absurd. We are AMERICANS, we stand for freedom,but if we keep letting these Muslim terrorists bully us around and cater to their needs, we will never be able to stop them. Its Comedy Central kneeling to the feet of Muslim terrorists, and its sickening.

Someone is gonna have to call their bluff. Because if not, where does it stop? When people find out that they can use intimidation and fear to get what they want on this kind of large scale, what is gonna stop Tom Cruise or Jews from using terrorism to stop being satired?

I love South Park, and watch a lot of Comedy Central, but I wish Stone and Parker would quit, give CC the proverbial Fuck You! and do their show online.

Gotch I agree with you 110% on this, its sad that we let them intimidate us like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

what is gonna stop Tom Cruise or Jews from using terrorism to stop being satired?

---

The thing that will stop them is that they are not muslims. We've argued over this before, but Islam teaches it's followers to do this exact type of thing, those who don't (and thankfully they are in the majority) are actually resisting the teaching of the religions founder and are acting counter to the way he acted.

Islam is a major threat to the world and to the lives of every individual alive today. R13 once down-played the dangers of Islamic extremism taking a strong hold here as it has in Europe and becoming a major problem due to issues of distance and numbers.

Well that was the exact stance of the America First movement before the start of WWII. "The Nazi's were Europe's problem, not ours, we need to stay out of it" they said. WELL HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR THEM? The same as our current politically correct tip-toeing is going to work out for us.

I agree with you on the main point, that is ridiculous that we, as Americans, let a group of TERRORISTS push us around. There is no excuse for that. I do not want to say its okay for us to be attacked, because it is not, but if something was to happen, we are the only superpower left, we can take care of it.

The situation between modern Muslims and extremists is a terrible situation. You cannot blame the Muslims who refuse to participate in atrocities, it would be like blaming Christians for those who murder abortion doctors. But the problem arises because fundamental Islam is huge, there are millions of followers across the world, while the people who murder abortion doctors or whatever are very small in number.

What is your solution? Are you in favor of eradicating all Muslims? Outlawing the practice of Islam? That is the slickest of slippery slopes.

I am sure you realize that if the U.S. were to try something like that, the most likely scenario is that the Muslims who are peaceful now would join the fundamental cause, meaning more terrorists instead of less.

And I do not want to derail this thread, we both agree that something has to be done with Islamic terrorists, but how can you continue to blame the religion as a whole, when the majority of Muslims are non-violent people?

The Qu'ran should not be taken literally, just as the Old Testament is not to be followed exactly, correct?

I am curious to hear your answer, but I worry about your comparisons to the Nazi's.
What these Muslims terrorists are doing is horrible and should be stopped at all costs, but the Nazis were rulers of a country, a dictatorship who sanctioned the capturing of all those who did not fit their "superior race".. The situation is not similar whatsoever.
The Nazi's killed anywhere between ELEVEN and SEVENTEEN MILLION people, including the gypsys, gays, Poles, Soviet POWs, USSR citizens, the disabled, etc.. in a 7 year period. The biggest genocide in world history. The eradication of approx. 2 million people a year.
To compare modern Muslims terrorists to the Nazi party, at this stage, is premature.

I do not advocate the outlawing of any religion. I also do not advocate genocide based on religion. I am at a loss to some degree to say what the answer is. I think a very good first step would be if the world press/media and public in general would simply stop bowing to their crazy demands.

Also people need to realize that all religions are not the same. Many Muslims are raised with a much different set of values than Hindus or Buddhists or nearly any other religion in the world.

The God of the Old Testament is supposedly the God of the Koran. The difference is the founder and "prophet". I know we have disagreed on this issue in the past but I want you to give this serious consideration:

What if? What if there was solid historical basis to believe that Jesus had sex if a 9 year old girl? How would your current opinion of the Christian religion change? Or would it change? What if there was solid historical evidence that Jesus orchestrated the brutal torture and very painfully slow deaths of a number of people including an elderly couple? How would your current opinion of the Christian religion change? Or would it change? Would you be a bit more concerned about people who place their spiritual faith in him?

I contend that Islam is the only major religion founded by a pedophile, a murderer, or a torturer, and yes, I believe that makes a difference in those who follow his teachings. I don't see that as "narrow-minded", I see it as having some common sense.

I stand by my comparison to the National Socialists. the current situation with Islam and the sharia movement within Islam in Europe today mirrors that of the Nazi's of the 1920's very closely. Keep in mind that it took the Nazi's less than 20 years from that point to become a major threat to the entire world. All the sharia movement needs is a charismatic leader and some more bodies.....exactly the same as the National Socialist movement in the 20's.

I agree on the solution, I see it as the only logical solution. If we dont empower their demands by bowing to them, then the threat will negate. Until that time, it will only continue to get worse. All it would take is a simple show of unity from the media, instead of being too scared to actually take them on.

Many does not mean all. I understand that many Muslims are taught very strict fundamentalist Islamic views from a young age, but not all turn into terrorists. I just do not believe it is fair to generalize a whole set of people because of the actions of some. Once again, there is no solution to this. Until the world works hard on eradicating fundamentalist Islam, there is no way out. There simply is no way to deter fundamentalist Muslims without attacking the Muslim religion as a whole, and that would only lead to more fundamental Muslims.

Yes, all historical evidence points to Mohammad having relations with A'isha, his 9 year old wife. I will not try and defend that at all, I do not condone it nor do I think its acceptable, but its worth mentioning that this was not a rare occurrence back then, nor is it now. Its deplorable, but it still happens all across the world. While its not rare, it is disgusting and revolting. I am not Muslim, I do not support this. But some Muslims can accept this because it was a common practice back then and to some extent now.

Now you get into some tricky territory, because many great historical figures over the years have been brutal murderers. Harry Truman was directly responsible for over 200,000 deaths. The God of the Old Testament is one of the most violent and unforgiving figures in history, often killing people for being gay, not following him with undying devotion, etc..

But to answer your question, Yes it does concern me to an extent. That people can follow a religion with all these terrible things that have been associated with Islam scares me. But all religious fanatics scare me. Christianity has been associated with many violent incidents over the years as well, so has Judaism, etc.. ALL fanatics are bad, not just Islamic ones. Islamic fanatics are more common, I recognize that.

Muslim is the only religion founded by someone who was a polygamist and a pedophile, but it is far from the only religion founded with violence, someone with your historical knowledge knows that.

That does not mean its okay to generalize all Muslims as terrorists nor does it mean that its okay to persecute Muslims because of the actions of fanatics.
Not saying you are, but I will admit you seem awful close to saying that you believe all Muslims are violent in nature.

I still don't believe its a valid comparison between modern Islamic terrorists and the Socialist movement. Just two entirely different situations. The Socialist party was about infiltrating politics, then using the new found power to create a dictatorship which will be used to round up non-Aryans and other "undesirables".
The modern Islamic movement is terrorist-based, using random acts of violence to try and get their point across, killing anyone that is in their way. Its not as much about persecution or genocide of a particular race as it is attacking the attackers of Islam, in their eyes.

Despite claims to the contrary it's never been acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to most historical sources.

I clearly stated in an earlier post that the majority of Muslims are not a threat and pointed out that they must turn away from the literal text and the direct teaching of the founder of their religion in such cases.

All side stepping aside. Name me another founder and prophet of a major religion who was a warlord. Not the God of the Old Testament, not people carrying out atrocities in the name of Christianity 15 centuries after the death of the founder, not non-religious historical figures. Name me another founder of a major religion who was a violent warlord. That's the point, Harry Truman (although I disagree with him as an example) did not found a religion and does not have people living their lives according to his tenants.

The sharia movement in Europe is very much a political movement, it's leaders have made it perfectly clear that their goal is to some day be able to place the entire continent under sharia law. They have even publicly laid out the plan they intend to follow piece by piece and they are aware it could be a slow process. A few of the early steps have already been accomplished.

I love Jon Stewart.

This was amazing: "But I think for me the most striking thing as I ponder the difficult circumstance, our great and hilarious and intelligent and sweet comedy brethren Matt and Trey now find themselves in purely for expressing themselves is this. The threats that they received come from Revolution Muslim, a group located in New York City. Yeah.

This group, residing in the shadows, or should I say former shadows of World Trade Center are allowed to praised Osama Bin Laden, celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 and try to intimidate the creators of south park all while enjoying our lovely theater district, our many diverse restaurants including really the best Jewish delis you'll find and our new high line park. It's a park made out of an elevated train line. It's a super-thin park in the sky. Let's play frisbee. Little help.

And these numb nuts get to enjoy it all because of how much we in this country value and protect even their freedom of expression."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Despite claims to the contrary it's never been acceptable for a middle aged man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to most historical sources.

I clearly stated in an earlier post that the majority of Muslims are not a threat and pointed out that they must turn away from the literal text and the direct teaching of the founder of their religion in such cases.

All side stepping aside. Name me another founder and prophet of a major religion who was a warlord. Not the God of the Old Testament, not people carrying out atrocities in the name of Christianity 15 centuries after the death of the founder, not non-religious historical figures. Name me another founder of a major religion who was a violent warlord. That's the point, Harry Truman (although I disagree with him as an example) did not found a religion and does not have people living their lives according to his tenants.

The sharia movement in Europe is very much a political movement, it's leaders have made it perfectly clear that their goal is to some day be able to place the entire continent under sharia law. They have even publicly laid out the plan they intend to follow piece by piece and they are aware it could be a slow process. A few of the early steps have already been accomplished.

---

Did I say accepted? No, I said common and not unusual. I never once said it was an accepted practice, just that is was a common practice then, and it still goes on to this day.

I am curious, what are all these texts in the Qu'ran that teach violence? I thought it was generally accepted that the Qu'ran was not taken literally by the majority of the Muslim population and that the verses seemed to fit in historical context. I've read some about the passages you describe, Muslims who try and defuse the situation refer to them in historical context and metaphorically, while others see them as a call to arms and to be taken completely literally.

I am not trying to say that Mohammed was a peacful man nor am I trying to say that he was not a violent person. What I am saying is that great leaders all throughout history have committed violence acts. I am not defending Mohammed but simply pointing out that some Muslims can let it slide because many important figures have violent pasts. Abraham was gonna sacrifice his son, Paul claims he "violently persecuted" the "church of God" prior to his conversion. Violence in the ancient world was wide spread and everybody had their hands in blood. Except for Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, and Jesus Christ, both of whom were said to be completely peaceful and nonviolent people.

It still doesn't fit the mold of the Socialist movement in Germany. The Nazis goal was to gain control of the country then go after everyone that was in the perfect race. They did not use terrorism like the Muslim movement does, nor does it have a certain set of people whom they are trying to eradicate. The Muslim fanatics are out to use violence against any opponents of Islam, not a specific set of people. Osama Bin Laden sees Americans as the great evil, but not all fanatical Muslims feel the same way. The Nazis used concentration camps to achieve their genocide. The Muslim terrorists are not that organized, they use violence at any time and at any place.

The Nazis were not terrorists, but an army who had a goal of eradicating all the Jews. The Muslim terrorists are not at that stage yet. Is it possible for them to become what we know the Nazi party as? Absolutely, and its a real possibility if something isnt done to quell the rise in fundamental Islam, but at this point its premature to compare the two.

As I said earlier, the Nazis killed anywhere between 11 and 17 million people.

And I want to make it clear that I am not defending fanatical Muslims whatsoever, the exact opposite. I want to rid the world of fundamentalist Islam, but I do not want to persecute Muslims who preach nonviolence and acceptable in the process.