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

[cinyc]

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.

Sorry.  You and the other "punching downward" Charlie Hedbo apologists are simply wrong.  Everything is fair game for satire.  There are no protected classes when it comes to comedy.  You shouldn't get special privileges against criticism by being a member of a special "minority" group, with there being some unpublished, ever-changing hierarchy of which groups are more special than others.  Everyone is in a minority group in their own way, including religious Christians who you have no problem lampooning.  The sacred cows of "progressives" like yourself aren't everyone's sacred cow.

Just because you don't find satire funny when it is directed at Islam doesn't make it impermissible or imprudent.  Nobody is "spitting on the sort of people who drive you to the airport".  They are spitting on religious extremists' call to murder those who don't agree with them and their religion and convert to Islam.  Those people are "The Man" in parts of the Arab world and are more than fair game for criticism and satire.  Not that you have to be "The Man" to be subject to criticism, anyway.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If cartoons of Mohammed were only offensive to violent extremists, then this contest would be worthy of applause. But it isn't. It is also offensive to many, many peaceful Muslims, whose feelings are worth considering even though they should not lead to censorship.   

At the same time, when free speech is attacked, we should be unequivocal in its defense.

[bedstuy]

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.

Sure, you don't want to unnecessarily offend someone.  But, the purpose of defending free expression is a just cause for offending people.  The people Muslims should criticize are the people using violence and threatening people, and the groups like CAIR that try to bully people into accepting Islam's taboos.  If Muslims didn't react to these cartoons at all, they would go away because there would be no point.

Think of it this way, they sell shirts at Fenway Park that say "Yankees Suck."  I'm a Yankees fan,  but I realize that not everyone else likes my team.  Red Sox fans denigrating Derek Jeter or Micky Mantle might piss me off, but it's only annoying because I like the Yankees.  It's annoying, assuming you like the Yankees.  Just like Mohammed cartoons annoy people, assuming they're Muslim.

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.

   

I don't think that's how public discourse should work.  It easier for everyone to just realize that not everyone has the same favorite team, favorite God or the same customs and taboos.  If people don't observe your taboos, it's not a slap in the face to you, they're just different.  Part of living in a civil society is tolerating free expression, even when you don't like it.  Part of living in a civil society is having a thick skin and tolerating different beliefs and opinions. 

I'm not going to force Muslim women to dress in a western style, even though I find certain things like burquas are demeaning towards women.  I'm not going to be offended if a muslim refuses to try my home-brewed beer or my peach cobbler during Ramadan.  And, they should understand that if a non-Muslim draws Mohammed, it's not an attack on them personally.  It's that they just have different assumptions about religion and they should leave it at that.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So you think that a Pamela Geller hosted "Draw Mohammed" event was not an attack on Muslims? That's the hill you're dying on here?

[bedstuy]

So you think that a Pamela Geller hosted "Draw Mohammed" event was not an attack on Muslims? That's the hill you're dying on here?

Pamela Geller seems like an idiot, a fear monger, a racist and a general crank.  The same goes for many or even most of the people at that event.  I don't need to defend their specific point of view.

But, think of it this way.  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. 

Or, look at posts like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKaCS3CtsY

I found that really offensive and dumb.  Like, you don't understand there are thousands of people in those buildings and they have families.  I find that so sick and heartless and cold.  It's horrible.   But, it's like the Voltaire quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  I don't believe in lecturing people about how they need to respect my sensibilities.  If you want people to respect your sensibilities, you have to engage with them, educate them and ultimately respect their freedom of speech.  I don't want people to stop saying mean, dumb things because I forced them with violence or unreasonable demands, I want them to genuinely feel empathy and understand that I have a sensible point.

[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."

[bedstuy]

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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[ingemann]

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

This is a strange counter-factual. His career clearly isn't a performance art project. Even if Geert Wilders' political career was one long performance art project, I'm not sure how I would react because that would be utterly surreal. I'd like to think I would condemn him for promoting bigotry though.

I don't know what your point is ingemann. Are you irritated that I said "I wouldn't shed a tear for Geert Wilders"? That's pretty accurate, I hate him and condemn this project. Why do you think this means that I support terrorists?

What weird is that you make this distinction between why people mock others. That's it somehow more okay, if you think it's art. It seem more a way to be excuse violence than any deeply held ideal.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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."

It'd be far likelier those bigots would point to the establishment of the State of Israel was a step to the advent of the Antichrist prior to the Second Coming.  They'd also likely have bags of thirty silver coins rather than gold in their caricatures.

[CountryClassSF]

This is what the organizers wanted in order to prove their point.

To suggest that victims wanted it to happen is really below the belt.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, ISIS claimed responsibility for having 2 of their guys quickly shot dead?

[HAnnA MArin County]

This is what is wrong with all religions: killing justified in the name of abstract concepts.

Normally, I would say that the group has every right to hold a cartoon contest (regardless of how distasteful/offensive/etc.), but I know the right wingers (particularly the ones who relentlessly whine that there's a War on Christianity) would be reacting the same way had this been a Muslim group that was doing something "blasphemous" in the name of Christianity, so both sides are really to blame for this, in my opinion, but then again, I'm an agnostic. The same right wingers who keep getting their support hoses in knots posting pictures on Facebook of the protesters in Baltimore stomping on the flag and how "offensive" it is. Knife cuts both ways.

[Free Bird]

We just going to ignore that this ahniliates gun control arguments?

[Slander and/or Libel]

We just going to ignore that this ahniliates gun control arguments?

In what respect, Charlie?

[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.

[dead0man]

A couple of dudes attempted a massacre because of a cartoon.  THAT is the problem, not some assholes drawing pictures.  Even if it were illegal to draw the cartoons, murdering them would STILL be wrong in any civilized society.  Murdering people over a cartoon is not a very proportional response


oh, and a good guy with a gun prevented a massacre.  Again.

[bedstuy]

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.

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.

What is the purpose of that taboo anyway?  Is it to protect the feelings of Muslims?  No.  It's to prevent people worshiping Mohammed as a God figure or an idol.  That is the purpose behind the taboo, it's a religious purpose, within the Muslim religion.  So, this taboo should only be observed by Muslims and everyone else is free to depict Mohammed as they want. 

Non-Muslims don't need to follow Muslim customs, Non-Jews don't need to follow Jewish customs and non-Christians don't need to follow Christian customs.   

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

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Do you really not know who Pam Geller is and what her history is with regards to Islam? You're talking like you don't.

[bedstuy]

Do you really not know who Pam Geller is and what her history is with regards to Islam? You're talking like you don't.

Honestly, I already responded to this several times.  I don't know much about that lady.  She seems crazy and I've seen her ads on the subway which seem pretty bonkers.  Why do I need to endorse her to have the position that I do?