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

[Indy Texas]

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.

It's good to hear that you respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages and would equally condemn art like the piss Christ that offends Christians.

You know what's offensive to me? Anyone who would shut down free speech because someone might be "offended" by what they hear.  They, and those"offended" need to grow up and realize that there are people who won't always agree with them.

Let's say I call someone an @$$hole and they punch me in the face. It was wrong for them to punch me in the face, but it also wasn't very prudent of me to call them an @$$hole. This is one of those situations.

I think we can all agree that wantonly firing a gun at people in a non-defensive situation is wrong - it's also against the law.

Having a "Draw Mohammed" convention is not against the law (at least not in this country). That doesn't mean it's a "wise" thing to do.

Context matters and reminds me of a lot of the comments following the Charlie Hebdo shootings about the problem of "punching downward." Historically in Western art, literature and culture, the Church was a target of satire and parody. That made, and makes, sense. Christianity is our Establishment. Even in America, where it's not the official religion, it is one of the edifices of our culture that jesters and freethinkers will always "punch upward" at to question norms and hurl spears at those in power.

That kind of satire isn't funny when it's directed at Islam. It's just mean. Islam isn't part of the Establishment in the West. You're not mocking corrupt clergy, hypocritical pastors embezzling money and having affairs, or self-righteous politicians wearing their "Faith/Family/Freedom" on their sleeves. You're mocking people who by and large are living in a country they don't have a social support structure in and who, particularly in Europe, are socially and economically marginalized. You're not sticking it to The Man. You're spitting on the sort of people who drive you to the airport and give you your change at the gas station.

[Indy Texas]

I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Being Jewish and hearing someone call Israel an apartheid state isn't really an appropriate comparison.

Suppose it's the year 1950 (it would be fair to say the situation of Muslims in America today is comparable to that of Jews in America in 1950 -- not openly and brazenly attacked and discriminated against, but certainly subject to quiet, subtle, pervasive bigotry). Imagine a group of WASPs who think the establishment of the State of Israel was a harbinger of Jewish world domination and that they have put on a convention featuring, among other things: posters and signage depicting Jews as grotesque caricatures (huge hooked noses, gnarled teeth, bags of gold coins on their belts), and that they are raising money to send a delegation to Jerusalem to throw slices of ham and whole lobsters all over the Wailing Wall. I don't think there would be a shooting, but I seriously doubt Jews who heard about it or witnessed it would just shrug and say, "Well it is free speech."

[Indy Texas]

I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Being Jewish and hearing someone call Israel an apartheid state isn't really an appropriate comparison.

Suppose it's the year 1950 (it would be fair to say the situation of Muslims in America today is comparable to that of Jews in America in 1950 -- not openly and brazenly attacked and discriminated against, but certainly subject to quiet, subtle, pervasive bigotry). Imagine a group of WASPs who think the establishment of the State of Israel was a harbinger of Jewish world domination and that they have put on a convention featuring, among other things: posters and signage depicting Jews as grotesque caricatures (huge hooked noses, gnarled teeth, bags of gold coins on their belts), and that they are raising money to send a delegation to Jerusalem to throw slices of ham and whole lobsters all over the Wailing Wall. I don't think there would be a shooting, but I seriously doubt Jews who heard about it or witnessed it would just shrug and say, "Well it is free speech."

Then, the problem is racism, xenophobia and hatred of people.  I think that stuff is offensive and should be offensive to everyone. 

Depicting Mohammed, by itself, is not offensive.  Could it be offensive?  Yes, you could draw a racist, xenophobic or mean-spirited, hateful cartoon of Mohammed.  But, just the fact that you did something taboo for one religion is not offensive by itself.  It needs to be outside the bounds of general polite conversation for everyone.

But if you're doing something that is taboo for a given religion for no other reason than that it is taboo for that religion, are you telling me that's not needlessly hateful and provocative?

This isn't, "I'm going to make a mural of major religious figures and Muhammad is going to be in it too because he's also a major religious figure." This was, "Hehehehe, them Muzzlims sure do hate it when people draw their prophet. I know what I'll do. I'll draw their Prophet! That'll really piss the @#$%ers off!"

If Pamela Geller is so concerned about Islamic radicalism, why is she engaging in behavior that does nothing but alienate and antagonize Muslims who live here? If there is some Somali teenager sitting in his room contemplating joining ISIS or something and he hears about this, what is the message that he's getting? "You don't belong here. We don't like you. Our values and your values are different."

She is doing nothing more than fomenting a holy war and trying to provoke a clash of civilizations. She has made it quite clear through her behavior that she is a bigot with a visceral hatred of Muslims, as has everyone else who attended that event.

[Indy Texas]

I'm Jewish.  Would I be offended by conference of anti-Israel people who call Israel an apartheid state?  Yes.  Would I use violence or threaten violence?  No, and I would loudly condemn people who used violence.  Would I demand that they abstain from using mean words about Israel because it offends me?  No, I would just explain why I thought they were wrong.  I wouldn't be a baby who demands that other people censor themselves. 

Being Jewish and hearing someone call Israel an apartheid state isn't really an appropriate comparison.

Suppose it's the year 1950 (it would be fair to say the situation of Muslims in America today is comparable to that of Jews in America in 1950 -- not openly and brazenly attacked and discriminated against, but certainly subject to quiet, subtle, pervasive bigotry). Imagine a group of WASPs who think the establishment of the State of Israel was a harbinger of Jewish world domination and that they have put on a convention featuring, among other things: posters and signage depicting Jews as grotesque caricatures (huge hooked noses, gnarled teeth, bags of gold coins on their belts), and that they are raising money to send a delegation to Jerusalem to throw slices of ham and whole lobsters all over the Wailing Wall. I don't think there would be a shooting, but I seriously doubt Jews who heard about it or witnessed it would just shrug and say, "Well it is free speech."

Then, the problem is racism, xenophobia and hatred of people.  I think that stuff is offensive and should be offensive to everyone. 

Depicting Mohammed, by itself, is not offensive.  Could it be offensive?  Yes, you could draw a racist, xenophobic or mean-spirited, hateful cartoon of Mohammed.  But, just the fact that you did something taboo for one religion is not offensive by itself.  It needs to be outside the bounds of general polite conversation for everyone.

But if you're doing something that is taboo for a given religion for no other reason than that it is taboo for that religion, are you telling me that's not needlessly hateful and provocative?

This isn't, "I'm going to make a mural of major religious figures and Muhammad is going to be in it too because he's also a major religious figure." This was, "Hehehehe, them Muzzlims sure do hate it when people draw their prophet. I know what I'll do. I'll draw their Prophet! That'll really piss the @#$%ers off!"

If Pamela Geller is so concerned about Islamic radicalism, why is she engaging in behavior that does nothing but alienate and antagonize Muslims who live here? If there is some Somali teenager sitting in his room contemplating joining ISIS or something and he hears about this, what is the message that he's getting? "You don't belong here. We don't like you. Our values and your values are different."

She is doing nothing more than fomenting a holy war and trying to provoke a clash of civilizations. She has made it quite clear through her behavior that she is a bigot with a visceral hatred of Muslims, as has everyone else who attended that event.

If the intent was purely to make them feel unwelcome or persecuted, that's horrible.

If the intent was to show solidarity with the people who have been killed, attacked and threatened by Muslims for no reason besides using their right to free speech, that's something else.  This idea that Muslims are the ultimate victims here is just preposterous.  We can't create special blasphemy rules for one religion, I'm sorry.  This is a cosmopolitan diverse society, everyone needs to deal with that.

There are a lot of ways you can do that without also making them feel unwelcome or persecuted, which this particular event had a very high likelihood of doing.

How would you react if a bunch of Iraqis in the mid-2000s who were frustrated by their country being occupied by Western Christian countries attacked a bunch of statues of Jesus with hammers? And then they got all indignant and insisted that they don't hate Christians. You wouldn't find that a bit illogical?

[Indy Texas]

Regardless, I think it's very clear what Enver Hoxha would have done in this situation.

[Indy Texas]

If the intent was purely to make them feel unwelcome or persecuted, that's horrible.

If the intent was to show solidarity with the people who have been killed, attacked and threatened by Muslims for no reason besides using their right to free speech, that's something else.  This idea that Muslims are the ultimate victims here is just preposterous.  We can't create special blasphemy rules for one religion, I'm sorry.  This is a cosmopolitan diverse society, everyone needs to deal with that.

There are a lot of ways you can do that without also making them feel unwelcome or persecuted, which this particular event had a very high likelihood of doing.

How would you react if a bunch of Iraqis in the mid-2000s who were frustrated by their country being occupied by Western Christian countries attacked a bunch of statues of Jesus with hammers? And then they got all indignant and insisted that they don't hate Christians. You wouldn't find that a bit illogical?

I'm sure these people missed the mark in terms of respectfully criticizing Islam and I never defend this event per se.  I just said that it's not offensive merely because people depicted Mohammed.

And, I draw a distinction between depicting someone and burning someone in effigy, or vandalizing, or destroying, or setting on fire, or pissing on.  It's very different. I also draw the distinction between a Mohammed cartoon meant to be xenophobic or racist, and a Mohammed cartoon meant to show solidarity in the battle over free speech.

It's different because of cultural norms; there's no universal, eternal rule that makes those things inherently offensive.

Burning something or urinating on something is disrespectful to it because we as a culture say it is. Drawing a picture of a religious figure is disrespectful in another culture because that culture says it is.

Criticism and mockery aren't the same thing. These people weren't working on a documentary exposing honor killings or having a roundtable discussion of The Satanic Verses. This was a bunch of bigots wrapping their bigotry in the banner of free speech. No one is suggesting they don't have a right to be hateful bigots. No one is suggesting hateful bigotry is grounds for being summarily murdered. But I think any reasonable person will argue that being a hateful bigot isn't a good idea. You people seem to think it's something worth being martyred over.