Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Another point to consider. Within the United States, only a handful of American Muslims are terrorists. Only a very small minority hold extremist views.

So why is this? What separates most American Muslims from a much larger percentage (though still a minority) of Muslims around the world? Could it be lack of poverty?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

IMO, neither because at the end of the day, with human nature being what it is, the "power over you" approach isn't conducive to any long term positivity.

Completely agree. People will always seek to oppress other people, whether it be via the almighty dollar or the cross/star/your-religious-or-political-emblem-of-choice.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Another point to consider. Within the United States, only a handful of American Muslims are terrorists. Only a very small minority hold extremist views.

So why is this? What separates most American Muslims from a much larger percentage (though still a minority) of Muslims around the world? Could it be lack of poverty?

Lack of secularization?

 

[RCon]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

Fair point. Actually what I wrote, or at least what I meant to wrote, is that poverty and despair were IMO the biggest factor in causing extremist attitudes.

Of course, your own logic again betrays you. If the percentage of poor Muslims who become extremists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor XXX who become extremists, then that suggests the defining factor isn't poverty, but belief in Islam. Obviously, none of this is so simple as that, but you're attempting to use logic and statistics, and completely misinterpreting your own data.

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

I don't think you understand statistics and logic...

 

[timschochet]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

In terms of the First Amendment. I blame the shooters, and only the shooters, for their shooting. I don't think she's complicit at all. We disagree very strongly on that, and I've been a bit wowed by your utilitarian approach to safety regarding this event.

Legally you're quite correct. But ethically I take issue. She is not at allresponsible for the shooting but she is responsible for spreading hate and bigotry.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

I'm trying to see the objection of a first group of people who object to religion to an event that mocks a particular element of one religion which is a prime example that the first group likes to point to as what's wrong with religion.

(eta - kudos on Galatians but I don't know it so it would have been over my head, but if so impressive).

I don't know what objection you are referring to? You have a habit of confounding simple discussions.

I guess I was under the impression that you and Clavin believe religion is "stupid" and were also suggesting the event was "stupid" because it invited "consequences" by mocking one element of one religion, and that element is also a pretty prime example of why religion itself is stupid.

(Religion + Stupid) x 2 = people dying over cartoons.

Do you have any objection to the actual message or images in the cartoons? Do you basically agree with the message about the most extreme, Isis/AQ brand islam?

 

[Clifford]

Another point to consider. Within the United States, only a handful of American Muslims are terrorists. Only a very small minority hold extremist views.

So why is this? What separates most American Muslims from a much larger percentage (though still a minority) of Muslims around the world? Could it be lack of poverty?

They live in a society that is not driven by Islam in terms of culture, laws, etc. That is why. Last I checked there was not a substantial lack of poverty in the US.

Now we have a good deal of crime here that is driven by poverty. But it is crime driven towards a gain: robbing people for their wallets, stealing cars which can be chopped and sold, killing people to join gangs which will offer protection. All these crimes that are directly caused by poverty in the US have a realistic real-world potential gain.

Again your logic does not bear out. Maybe you need to consider the fact that the terrorists themselves might have a better idea about what really drives them than you do.

 

[The Commish]

Another point to consider. Within the United States, only a handful of American Muslims are terrorists. Only a very small minority hold extremist views.

So why is this? What separates most American Muslims from a much larger percentage (though still a minority) of Muslims around the world? Could it be lack of poverty?

The laundry list of "what it could be" is pretty long. I take exception with the bold though. It's as if you're assuming that "since Raju isn't acting in an extreme way he doesn't hold extreme views". That's a really flawed way of looking at this whole topic.

 

[Clifford]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

In terms of the First Amendment. I blame the shooters, and only the shooters, for their shooting. I don't think she's complicit at all. We disagree very strongly on that, and I've been a bit wowed by your utilitarian approach to safety regarding this event.

Legally you're quite correct. But ethically I take issue. She is not at allresponsible for the shooting but she is responsible for spreading hate and bigotry.

Answer this, because you really need to figure this out for yourself: was the winning cartoon spreading hate and bigotry?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You know what, I'm not doing that. I also think it's a slur and a strawman at conservatives in this thread.

But I think you're doing the flip side. And you're not the only one. I think everyone is assuming that all muslims in the US object to this event. I don't think that's true. First of all many shiites and other sects of islam feel it is ok to portray Mohammed, albeit respectfully, but the Isis/AQ theory is that any and all depictions of Mohammed are banned. The problem isn't what the cartoon says about Mohammed, it's that it's a depiction period. Secondly many, many muslims came to this country or their forbears did to get away from all that religious oppression.

Just like many Catholics and Christians who objected to the Crucifix in a urine filled jar situation, yes many muslims, maybe even nearly all might feel the cartoons are their Crucifix, they may very well object to the art, they may ask why must the state allow this, they may find it offensive, but many - very many - may also feel just like other Americans that such an event is well within the bounds of this country's traditions and so they respect it being underway.

It's remarkable that Isis/AQ seek to speak for all muslims, and here we are all just letting them do just that. It's the wrong assumption you're making, and it's wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

In terms of the First Amendment. I blame the shooters, and only the shooters, for their shooting. I don't think she's complicit at all. We disagree very strongly on that, and I've been a bit wowed by your utilitarian approach to safety regarding this event.

Legally you're quite correct. But ethically I take issue. She is not at allresponsible for the shooting but she is responsible for spreading hate and bigotry.

Answer this, because you really need to figure this out for yourself: was the winning cartoon spreading hate and bigotry?

Yes.

 

[matttyl]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

So, because only a small minority of the religion are radicals, it's improper to blame the religion? (I'm not saying I do, by the way).

Only a small portion of gun owners are radicals that end up killing people, but people blame the gun industry and are in favor of stricter gun laws.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

In terms of the First Amendment. I blame the shooters, and only the shooters, for their shooting. I don't think she's complicit at all. We disagree very strongly on that, and I've been a bit wowed by your utilitarian approach to safety regarding this event.

Legally you're quite correct. But ethically I take issue. She is not at allresponsible for the shooting but she is responsible for spreading hate and bigotry.

Answer this, because you really need to figure this out for yourself: was the winning cartoon spreading hate and bigotry?

Yes.

Would you say that people should draw Mohammed in a satirical fashion in order to exercise their right to free speech, or should they stop drawing Mohammed in a satirical fashion?

And would you stop all depictions of Mohamed, no matter how respectful, because that is what Isis objects to. not just allegedly disrespectful cartoons.

 

[The Commish]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

IMO, neither because at the end of the day, with human nature being what it is, the "power over you" approach isn't conducive to any long term positivity.

Completely agree. People will always seek to oppress other people, whether it be via the almighty dollar or the cross/star/your-religious-or-political-emblem-of-choice.

And this is the theme that will remain true for ever and ever. It doesn't matter if religion's around or not. The best that we can do is attempt to contain it and we do that by understanding that human life has value and we should protect that value at all costs. We have several examples of people who used a "power under" approach to living with great success. We need to be more like that whenever we can.

 

[Clifford]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

 

[RCon]

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Let me try this again...

If the percentage of poor Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor Christians (or Jews, athiests, Hindus, etc.)) that become terrorists, that doesn't necessarily prove that Islamism is the defining factor, but it does show that poverty is NOT the defining factor. It shows that, isolated to these two factors (poverty and religion), that the religion is more highly correlated to terrorism than is the level of poverty.

I suspect that, in addition, the percentage of wealthy Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of wealthy Christians (or other). If true, this would further show that the religion is much more correlated than the level of poverty.

 

[Clifford]

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Let me try this again...

If the percentage of poor Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor Christians (or Jews, athiests, Hindus, etc.)) that become terrorists, that doesn't necessarily prove that Islamism is the defining factor, but it does show that poverty is NOT the defining factor. It shows that, isolated to these two factors (poverty and religion), that the religion is more highly correlated to terrorism than is the level of poverty.

I suspect that, in addition, the percentage of wealthy Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of wealthy Christians (or other). If true, this would further show that the religion is much more correlated than the level of poverty.

You're doing God's work here Rich, but I think it's pointless. Tim has made up his mind and no amount of logic will ever convince him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

This is a major misconception in this thread - Isis objects to all depictions of Mohammed, not just satirical cartoons. The content has zero meaning to them, it is the sheer depiction.

 

[RCon]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

The winning cartoon isn't bigoted or hateful in any way, IMO. However, to be fair, I don't think the gunman was specifically incensed by that particular cartoon as much as the whole contest in general, which would include all of the cartoons. I'd be willing to bet that some of them were bigoted and hateful.

 

[timschochet]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

 

[timschochet]

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Let me try this again...

If the percentage of poor Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor Christians (or Jews, athiests, Hindus, etc.)) that become terrorists, that doesn't necessarily prove that Islamism is the defining factor, but it does show that poverty is NOT the defining factor. It shows that, isolated to these two factors (poverty and religion), that the religion is more highly correlated to terrorism than is the level of poverty.

I suspect that, in addition, the percentage of wealthy Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of wealthy Christians (or other). If true, this would further show that the religion is much more correlated than the level of poverty.

You're doing God's work here Rich, but I think it's pointless. Tim has made up his mind and no amount of logic will ever convince him.

lol. Rich has changed my mind a lot on many issues. You haven't.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

Even more US muslims respect the right of others to make that portrayal though. Just like Jews and Christians and other religions.

It makes zero difference to Isis what the message says.

Also, Iran just held a 'cartoon the Holocaust' competition. Not some random small province, the national government. We are negotiating with them right now. That's as hateful and bigoted as it gets, and more than, and yet we as a nation are treating them with respect. We could provide the least for our own citizens.

 

[RCon]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

No, this is 100% wrong. That a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it so. Just because Muslims think certain drawings are offensive doesn't mean that they actually are offensive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

No, this is 100% wrong. That a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it so. Just because Muslims think certain drawings are offensive doesn't mean that they actually are offensive.

It also makes zero difference. It's not like Garland or Dallas area muslims flew off the handle and went in a posse to take out the convention center. Area and US muslims were almost entirely respectful of the group's right and did not act in violence.

 

[Clifford]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

First, I completely disagree with this bolded statement. And I don't think you have anything to back up this claim.

Second, if you really believe that choosing to be deliberately offensive to religion is bigoted and hateful, then you are saying that every single reform of any religion ever was bigoted and hateful. This list includes notable names such as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Galileo, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Salman Rushdie, etc.

Making a statement that intends to reform a religion is almost always offensive to a religion.

 

[timschochet]

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Let me try this again...

If the percentage of poor Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor Christians (or Jews, athiests, Hindus, etc.)) that become terrorists, that doesn't necessarily prove that Islamism is the defining factor, but it does show that poverty is NOT the defining factor. It shows that, isolated to these two factors (poverty and religion), that the religion is more highly correlated to terrorism than is the level of poverty.

I suspect that, in addition, the percentage of wealthy Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of wealthy Christians (or other). If true, this would further show that the religion is much more correlated than the level of poverty.

You make fine points here. But the point that I was just trying to make is that poverty, (caused by the Mongol invasions) has a lot to do with why IslIs the religion that it is today. Back when the Middle East was known as the Fertile Crescent, Islam was a very different religion. It was the world's strongest source of knowledge, scientific inquiry, enlightenment, and tolerance of other religions and secularism. Then the Crusades and Mongols combined to turn the Middle East into a desert, and Islam transformed into the harsh intolerant fate oriented religion we see today.

 

[timschochet]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

Even more US muslims respect the right of others to make that portrayal though. Just like Jews and Christians and other religions.

It makes zero difference to Isis what the message says.

Also, Iran just held a 'cartoon the Holocaust' competition. Not some random small province, the national government. We are negotiating with them right now. That's as hateful and bigoted as it gets, and more than, and yet we as a nation are treating them with respect. We could provide the least for our own citizens.

Of course it's more hateful. And of course this competition should be legal and protected. Never implied anything else.

 

[The Commish]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

No, this is 100% wrong. That a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it so. Just because Muslims think certain drawings are offensive doesn't mean that they actually are offensive.

This goes back to what I was saying about the culture and theology. The Quran doesn't address drawings in any fashion, but there are "supplemental texts" that say it's an absolute no no. One thing they all agree on is there is no real "visual tradition" (for lack of a better term) of what Mohammed looked like which I find sorta odd.

 

[RCon]

But poverty didn't turn other religions into harsh, intolerant religions, I don't think.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Let me try this again...

If the percentage of poor Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor Christians (or Jews, athiests, Hindus, etc.)) that become terrorists, that doesn't necessarily prove that Islamism is the defining factor, but it does show that poverty is NOT the defining factor. It shows that, isolated to these two factors (poverty and religion), that the religion is more highly correlated to terrorism than is the level of poverty.

I suspect that, in addition, the percentage of wealthy Muslims that become terrorists is significantly higher than the percentage of wealthy Christians (or other). If true, this would further show that the religion is much more correlated than the level of poverty.

You make fine points here. But the point that I was just trying to make is that poverty, (caused by the Mongol invasions) has a lot to do with why IslIs the religion that it is today. Back when the Middle East was known as the Fertile Crescent, Islam was a very different religion. It was the world's strongest source of knowledge, scientific inquiry, enlightenment, and tolerance of other religions and secularism. Then the Crusades and Mongols combined to turn the Middle East into a desert, and Islam transformed into the harsh intolerant fate oriented religion we see today.

When you speak of islam in the middle ages you mean the Ottoman Empire, not all of islam was as enlightened as you say.

Secondly islam crumbled because the Ottomans crumbled from within, it was the Ottomans who turned off the light of knowledge and enlightment because they became despotic. Think of what the Roman church and the inquisition did for years, that's what happened there.

The Crusades were a bump on the Ottomans//caliphs/ butts, it was the loss on Vienna that turned the tide and the Western world became more technologically advanced because they stopped outlawing technical knowledge and science while the Ottomans' started outlawing it.

How do you the west got that position by 1914? Superior technology. When the Europeans started taking over the ME there were areas where clocks were outlawed because the only permitted way to tell time was the muzzin's prayer.

 

[jonessed]

If you poke someone, don't go crying when they poke back.

Really that simple.

Should drawing a cartoon be considered poking someone? Not to a rational person. Unfortunately religion isn't bound by rational thought. Looking at the groups history, it is pretty obvious this wasn't just some innocent exercise of free speech - it was poking at another religion. Stupid people baiting stupid people + religion = awesome.

You think what happened was awesome because the people involved were religious? That's ####ed up.

 

[timschochet]

But poverty didn't turn other religions into harsh, intolerant religions, I don't think.

Sure it has. To cite one example among many, it was the biggest reason for the historical struggles between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[timschochet]

But poverty didn't turn other religions into harsh, intolerant religions, I don't think.

Sure it has. To cite one example among many, it was the biggest reason for the historical struggles between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

Even more US muslims respect the right of others to make that portrayal though. Just like Jews and Christians and other religions.

It makes zero difference to Isis what the message says.

Also, Iran just held a 'cartoon the Holocaust' competition. Not some random small province, the national government. We are negotiating with them right now. That's as hateful and bigoted as it gets, and more than, and yet we as a nation are treating them with respect. We could provide the least for our own citizens.

Of course it's more hateful. And of course this competition should be legal and protected. Never implied anything else.

The point was that muslims respect that right to. You are also letting Isis speak for all muslims.

What specifically do you object to in the winning cartoon as hateful? The depiction of mohammed, or the message that 'you must not draw me' / 'that's why I must draw you', or both?

 

[matuski]

If you poke someone, don't go crying when they poke back.

Really that simple.

Should drawing a cartoon be considered poking someone? Not to a rational person. Unfortunately religion isn't bound by rational thought. Looking at the groups history, it is pretty obvious this wasn't just some innocent exercise of free speech - it was poking at another religion. Stupid people baiting stupid people + religion = awesome.

You think what happened was awesome because the people involved were religious? That's ####ed up.

Yes, I think this was awesome. I mean what is better than dying over religious cartoons, amiright?

 

[Clifford]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

 

[rockaction]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

They're really trying to become a self-parody, aren't they?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

You know it's funny, I can't imagine our president sending an envoy to the KKK but we will shake hands and share tea with the most bigotted of nations:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-holocaust-cartoon-contest-draws-hundreds-of-entries/

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Are we still blaming Islam for a group of dillweeds having a disparaging cartoon contest about their prophet.

 

[rockaction]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

Some people are simply determined to be idiots.

I was thinking the same thing. Being so obtuse and politically shrill just takes…effort. Real effort.

 

[Clifford]

Nope, just blaming two dillweeds for attempting mass murder and acknowledging the obvious fact that the reason they did was because of their fervent belief in Islam, not poverty.

 

[jonessed]

Are we still blaming Islam for a group of dillweeds having a disparaging cartoon contest about their prophet.

I think we have moved on to The Crusades being the primary cause.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

Fawstin, who said he is atheist...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

Even more US muslims respect the right of others to make that portrayal though. Just like Jews and Christians and other religions.

It makes zero difference to Isis what the message says.

Also, Iran just held a 'cartoon the Holocaust' competition. Not some random small province, the national government. We are negotiating with them right now. That's as hateful and bigoted as it gets, and more than, and yet we as a nation are treating them with respect. We could provide the least for our own citizens.

Of course it's more hateful. And of course this competition should be legal and protected. Never implied anything else.

The point was that muslims respect that right to. You are also letting Isis speak for all muslims.

What specifically do you object to in the winning cartoon as hateful? The depiction of mohammed, or the message that 'you must not draw me' / 'that's why I must draw you', or both?

Tim, is this an easy one or a tough one?

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

 

[rockaction]

The cursor is too sensitive.

Try drawing cartoons of it.

This didn't get enough spinning laughy guys.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

 

[jonessed]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

Fawstin, who said he is atheist...

Matuski is going to be disappointed.

 

[Rove!]

SPLC to add winning cartoonist to their list of hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

I can't think of any greater example of the far-left being completely fascist in their mentality.

They really have become a joke...