Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest

[Mopsus]

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

[Mopsus]

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way.

 
I try to let my actions be dictated by my convictions, not by community standards. In this case, my conviction is to avoid unnecessarily offending people, and to urge others to do the same.

Also, your post inadvertently justifies the criminalization of Muhammad depictions in majority-Muslim countries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, just as you would avoid denigrating the Red Sox because you dislike it when people do the same to your favored sports team, you should avoid denigrating Islam... except that the impetus in this case is even stronger, as the attachment that people have to religion is (presumably) far higher than the attachment that people have to sports.

[Mopsus]

Sure, you don't want to unnecessarily offend someone.  But, the purpose of defending free expression is a just cause for offending people.

Caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad is unnecessarily offensive. There are ways to express solidarity with the murdered Charlie Hebdo artists that don't involve offending people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If people stopped caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad just to be offensive, these attacks would go away, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By and large, Muslims accept that non-Muslims don't find anything particularly holy about the Prophet Muhammad. The contention here is not over that fact, but over the fact that certain people need to be actively disrespectful to him in order to feel edgy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that when non-Muslims draws Muhammad, it almost always is an attack on Muslims personally.

[Mopsus]

This is part of a bas-relief sculpture at the US Supreme Court.  The person who created it probably had no idea about the taboo among muslims and it's in the context of other historical figures. 

Is this offensive because it depicts Mohammed?  No.

If all contemporary depictions of Muhammad were as respectful as the one on the Supreme Court, I wouldn't feel inclined to criticize those who were responsible for them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already stated that it's not the failure to adhere to Islamic standards that offends people, but failing to adhere to Islamic standards in such a way as to deliberately offend Muslims.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is exactly the attitude I can't get on board with.  What does it say that using violence gets people to be sensitive to your concerns and gets people to censor themselves?

It's rewarding violence, rewarding censorship and chilling free speech. 

What if Muslims just nicely said, "we want everyone to obey our customs about depicting certain religious figures.  Please remove the sculpture of Mohammed from the Supreme Court and don't show pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling on TV."  People would ignore them.  But, start setting fire to embassies and assassinating people and people start paying attention. 

That's why people should keep doing these cartoons.  You don't reward violence or attacks on our basic freedoms with obedience.  When someone attacks your freedom of speech or uses violence, that's the last person you should meekly acquiesce to.  Is depicting Mohammed important by itself?  Of course not.  But, freedom to say whatever you want about religion is incredibly important.  Religious bullying of free speech is never acceptable.   

This establishes a precedent, we complain and use violence, you comply.  Today it's depictions of Mohammed, tomorrow it's criticizing the religion of Islam or their religious figures.  And, some people might say, "oh, who cares?  Just don't say anything negative about Islam, is it that hard to be nice to them and observe their customs?"  That's the free speech case for these cartoons.
[/quote]

My claim isn't that we should cave in to terrorists so that they'll stop terrorizing us. My claim is that if certain people showed basic respect for other people's beliefs, there would be less terrorism. Is that trade off really so objectionable?