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

[Torie]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever. 

 

Putting up images of Mohammed are blasphemous or something like that in the Muslim religion, with cartoons presumably being more so. But I suspect you already knew that.

[Torie]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand. Even if I hated Islam (I don't), I would dislike this event because I think that public trolling is undignified garbage that isn't fit for polite society.

In what circumstances do you think it's OK to offend someone's religious views -- is it not OK to question their belief system or how they apply it to public policy or moral decision-making?

(I also think these people are dicks, but the line isn't as clear-cut as "this offends people so it's inappropriate.")

Don't you think doing gratuitous acts to offend the precepts of another religion is offensive? I mean, it is not the taking of a public policy position that offends someone else's theology, it's doing acts for the sole purpose of being offensive to another religion. Of course, it is, and should be,  protected free speech.

[Torie]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.

[Torie]

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.

Well, Mr. Lawyer, isn't the legal definition of "offensive" an objective definition, based on community standards, rather than a subjective standard, based on the subjective feelings of the person complaining?  I would think so, right?  

And, I personally think it's more offensive to muslims to normalize the behavior of the people who are offended or take to violence.  I think most American Muslims don't care about these cartoons, because they understand free speech.  This isn't about those majority of Muslims in my mind.  It's about the Muslims who use violence and threats to silence people, and their fellow travelers.  That group of muslims who hate the western world, our cosmopolitan free countries and cling to fundamentalist religion, we should offend them.

I don't know whether American Muslims are offended by the cartoons or not for sure. I suspect that many or most of them are, just as many Christians were offended by the piss Christ image. Sure, most respect the right to free speech, and would agree with the rest of us that what happened here was attempted murder. What I said is that the conduct was offensive to me, and I suspect it would be offensive to many other non Muslims in this country, because it is gratuitous, involving an aspect of theology that really does no one else any real harm, unlike say to the extent it is the case, what the Muslim religion has to say about gays or the role of woman, or as some see it, the role of Jihad, and so forth. I also think that prudentially even if it were not offensive in our society to gratuitously offend the sensibilities of another religion on some aspect of their theology that has no real public policy import, it's just counterproductive to do the equivalent of waving a red handkerchief at an angry bull. Why do it? To make the point that you don't like the religion, or aspects of it?  Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. Obviously we will not be changing either of our opinions on this. Opinions don't change much on this forum about much of anything do they?  

[Torie]

I responded to the gay people holding hands hypo above. By the way, partner Dan and I hold hands walking by a mosque a block away frequently. We do it because we like showing affection for each other that way, and it's on the route from our home to the main drag in town. We don't do it for the purpose of offending its denizens. If we did it for that purpose, I think that conduct would be "offensive."