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

[matttyl]

You have the freedom of speech....You also have the freedom to get your a** kicked if someone takes offense to what you say.

Getting your a** kicked is one thing. Getting slaughtered with an AK47 or blow up by a bomb is something very different.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This was all about, because they could.....not about if they should. Who attends this type of event? I'm picturing skinheads and KKK types.

An interesting question, for an aside. Were there any cartoons submitted by previously published political cartoonist? Did any of the submissions, if indeed there were some, make any point or encourage any dialog on topics of the day, or could they all be characterized as simply a message to demean? Others may know the answer, or even have a link to the submissions, but I have not looked into it at all.

I don't think the substance is relevant to the main argument here, but I do wonder if there were any attempts at serious messaging, you know, the best and highest purpose of good political cartooning, or was this entirely a low brow, lowest common denominator baiting.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

 

[timschochet]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

 

[timschochet]

About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

This is a good comparison.

I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.

I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.

I meant "taking shots" literally, not figuratively.

Ah. Well, since I'm neither a radical Muslim nor a lunatic, I don't shoot those who disagree with my POV. (Otherwise I'd be forced to take out 90% of the FFA!)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find it interesting no one has made reference to the nature of the cartoons. What did they depict? We're they mocking? Serious? Insightful? Fair? Funny?

Does that matter at all in your views?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I find it interesting no one has made reference to the nature of the cartoons. What did they depict? We're they mocking? Serious? Insightful? Fair? Funny?

Does that matter at all in your views?

Here are three that the organizer posted on facebook. I don't find them especially insightful but I'm no art critic.

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153318389802439/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153318087452439/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/photos/pb.193266897438.-2207520000.1430767145./10153316525732439/?type=3&theater

 

[TPW]

About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

This is a good comparison.

I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.

I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.

One key distinction, Westboro conducts deliberately provocative public protests at gatherings and locations where they were not invited.

What occurred in Texas was a self-contained, internally funded event which would have had received little or no attention had not a couple of would-be mujahideen tried to make a name for themselves on the way to their rendezvous with 72 virgins.

 

[timschochet]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

 

[timschochet]

About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

This is a good comparison.

I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.

I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.

One key distinction, Westboro conducts deliberately provocative public protests at gatherings and locations where they were not invited.

What occurred in Texas was a self-contained, internally funded event which would have had received little or no attention had not a couple of would-be mujahideen tried to make a name for themselves on the way to their rendezvous with 72 virgins.

Ah, so there was no attempt by Geller's group to publicize their little contest?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I find it interesting no one has made reference to the nature of the cartoons. What did they depict? We're they mocking? Serious? Insightful? Fair? Funny?

Does that matter at all in your views?

So, I'm a "No one"? Well Ma'am that hurts, and I don't think I want to take your abuse, and I know I don't want to take you or your luggage to the airport.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(Ha sorry man I should read through the whole thread....)

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

I don't know anything about the people who put this on, nor do I particularly care about what their viewpoint is. More than likely, they are ignorant bigots.

I don't condone burning the flag, I am not a fan of Robert Maplethorpe's "art" and I don't want to draw or look at offensive pictures of Muhammed. But I do want to live in a country where all of these things are allowed and protected. And I think it is worth celebrating the fact they are allowed and protected, even if the things themselves are uninteresting, ill-informed or even vile.

 

[General Tso]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

 

[TPW]

About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

This is a good comparison.

I also agree that it's a good comparison.

Kind of interesting that nobody has taken a shot at the Westboro people, but most of the folks in this thread seem to take it as a given that violence is the inevitable outcome of drawing a Mohammed cartoon.

I think I've taken shots at the Westboros about a million times, but they're wackos. What disturbs me about Pam Geller is that she gets attention on Fox News and is treated as some sort of hero for her Muslim baiting. It's disgusting IMO.

One key distinction, Westboro conducts deliberately provocative public protests at gatherings and locations where they were not invited.

What occurred in Texas was a self-contained, internally funded event which would have had received little or no attention had not a couple of would-be mujahideen tried to make a name for themselves on the way to their rendezvous with 72 virgins.

Ah, so there was no attempt by Geller's group to publicize their little contest?

Obviously there had to be a certain amount of organization required to pull off the event. However, if there was some substantial publicity campaign beforehand like most of Westboro's doings these days I for one most certainly missed it.

 

[matttyl]

I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.

What if watching a game and having a beer were deemed by a small sect of crazy people as an offense punishable by death? I guess it's all in where you draw your line.

 

[timschochet]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

I don't know anything about the people who put this on, nor do I particularly care about what their viewpoint is. More than likely, they are ignorant bigots.

I don't condone burning the flag, I am not a fan of Robert Maplethorpe's "art" and I don't want to draw or look at offensive pictures of Muhammed. But I do want to live in a country where all of these things are allowed and protected. And I think it is worth celebrating the fact they are allowed and protected, even if the things themselves are uninteresting, ill-informed or even vile.

Yes that fact is worth celebrating. The acts themselves are not.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.

What if watching a game and having a beer were deemed by a small sect of crazy people as an offense punishable by death? I guess it's all in where you draw your line.

What if eating was punishable by death? We can play this game all night.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Yes. My hope is that the 99% will help get the other 1% in line.

Also, I don't care that the 99% are offended. If I set my mind to it, I could find all sorts of things every day that would offend me. If you're the sort of person who is going to be seriously offended by a little cartoon, that is a problem with you that you need to fix. Maybe I'm doing you a favor by helping you build up a little immunity this sort of thing.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

I don't know anything about the people who put this on, nor do I particularly care about what their viewpoint is. More than likely, they are ignorant bigots.

I don't condone burning the flag, I am not a fan of Robert Maplethorpe's "art" and I don't want to draw or look at offensive pictures of Muhammed. But I do want to live in a country where all of these things are allowed and protected. And I think it is worth celebrating the fact they are allowed and protected, even if the things themselves are uninteresting, ill-informed or even vile.

Yes that fact is worth celebrating. The acts themselves are not.

Let's all be happy we have the right to push the envelope, but nobody should?

 

[timschochet]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

How about when South Park included an innocuous sketch of Mohammed alongside deliberately offensive drawings of other religious figures? Is that artistic bravery or scorn-worthy?

 

[timschochet]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

I don't know anything about the people who put this on, nor do I particularly care about what their viewpoint is. More than likely, they are ignorant bigots.

I don't condone burning the flag, I am not a fan of Robert Maplethorpe's "art" and I don't want to draw or look at offensive pictures of Muhammed. But I do want to live in a country where all of these things are allowed and protected. And I think it is worth celebrating the fact they are allowed and protected, even if the things themselves are uninteresting, ill-informed or even vile.

Yes that fact is worth celebrating. The acts themselves are not.

Let's all be happy we have the right to push the envelope, but nobody should?

See my point above about Rushdie. If you're truly pushing the envelope as part of artistic integrity, or political integrity, then I'm all for it. If you're pushing the envelope as a means to incite and enrage people whom you don't like, then no, I think that's just mean and stupid.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim American Muslims aren't even united on the offensiveness of Mohammed cartoons, it may be a very low number. In fact globally portrayals of Mohammed are ok in Iran and a whole host of othe places, largely Shiite. Images of Mohammed go back centuries. Nobody even showed up to protest the event. Some Muslims may even agree with the point if the cartoons. It's these ideological freaks who are presuming to speak for a whole religion.

 

[timschochet]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

How about when South Park included an innocuous sketch of Mohammed alongside deliberately offensive drawings of other religious figures? Is that artistic bravery or scorn-worthy?

The former.

 

[matttyl]

I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.

What if watching a game and having a beer were deemed by a small sect of crazy people as an offense punishable by death? I guess it's all in where you draw your line.

What if eating was punishable by death? We can play this game all night.

You started it!

Some are more likely than others - like woman showing skin above the knee or elbow.

 

[timschochet]

Tim American Muslims aren't even united on the offensiveness of Mohammed cartoons, it may be a very low number. In fact globally portrayals of Mohammed are ok in Iran and a whole host of othe places, largely Shiite. Images of Mohammed go back centuries. Nobody even showed up to protest the event. Some Muslims may even agree with the point if the cartoons. It's these ideological freaks who are presuming to speak for a whole religion.

My understanding is that images of Muhammad are considered offensive by a strong majority of religious Muslims. The radical ones are those who choose to do something violent as a result.

 

[Willie Neslon]

About 2 or 3 rungs above westboro baptist church people.

This is a good comparison.

What we need to do is to convince the Westboro people to picket using signs with Muhammad cartoons on them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

How about when South Park included an innocuous sketch of Mohammed alongside deliberately offensive drawings of other religious figures? Is that artistic bravery or scorn-worthy?

The former.

Then how are you so sure that this is any different?

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm not advocating any law preventing freedom of expression. I'm just saying if drawing pictures of a religious character makes some people try to kill the person who drew it, then I'm fine with never drawing that particular religious character. If drawing a banana was deemed by a small sect of crazy people an offense punishable by death, guess who has two thumbs and will not be publicly drawing bananas? This guy. If that makes me less of a patriot than you, congratulations on being more american than me. I will drape the flag over your banana casket at your funeral and then I will go home, watch the game and have a beer.

What if watching a game and having a beer were deemed by a small sect of crazy people as an offense punishable by death? I guess it's all in where you draw your line.

What if eating was punishable by death? We can play this game all night.

You started it!

Some are more likely than others - like woman showing skin above the knee or elbow.

Not here it's not.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim check your facts on that, early on Squiz posted a piece by American Muslims supporting the right to draw Mo cartoons. Most American Muslims are trying to escape this bs.

 

[timschochet]

Tim check your facts on that, early on Squiz posted a piece by American Muslims supporting the right to draw Mo cartoons. Most American Muslims are trying to escape this bs.

No, what that article said is that they choose to ignore it. They didn't want to take the bait that Geller offered. (Very wise, IMO.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't offend them. As far as the right to do it, that's a whole different issue. The vast majority of American Muslims, being American, support our free speech guarantees.

 

[timschochet]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

How about when South Park included an innocuous sketch of Mohammed alongside deliberately offensive drawings of other religious figures? Is that artistic bravery or scorn-worthy?

The former.

Then how are you so sure that this is any different?

Because of what Geller said, and because of her actions in the past.

 

[ROCKET]

It's not like people are persecuted in the Middle East for worshiping Christianity? Screw those Islamic lunatics. It's nice to see them actually confront someone with a handgun that knows how to use it and not have an open shooting gallery for once.

They had superior firepower and body armor but the cop still got off two head shots. Bravo. F' the terrorists. The only problem I see here is we need more people out in society armed and able like the cop was when sh%t like this goes down. The next Islamic whack-o might think twice if this was the norm. GB Texas!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good god Tim that applies to us all. Muslim Americans are like the rest of us, seeing and hearing offensive sht constantly in this country and respecting the right and not doing anything about it. Exactly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Because of what Geller said, and because of her actions in the past.

When South Park ran the episode with Mohammed, what point do you think they were trying to make?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And Tim keep in mind it wasn't a couple average Muslim blokes who just flew off the handle. Simpson was a known terrorist and had pledged himself to Isis. The offensiveness of this exhibit, like Andres Serrano's exhibit with Catholics, passed without incident fir the ordinary US Muslim.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Groups that believe they are somehow above or immune from criticism are the ones that I like to see skewered.

Of course I mean skewered in a figurative sense.

 

[sho nuff]

What is the upside in hosting a muhammad comic contest? Who thought that was a goods idea?

It's called free speech, and a big middle finger to all those who can't handle it.

You can wear what you want too but a jacket made of meat is not a good choice for a jungle hike.

The folks who put this on knew exactly what they were doing. They were making a point, and they knew full well it would probably elicit a terrorist act by some Muslim whack-job who doesn't realize he lives in a country where free speech is part of the territory. And now there are two less of those whack-jobs. There's your upside I guess.

And a security man was wounded. And police had to put themselves at risk. And the public was put at risk. And in addition to all that, it will probably cost the local government thousands of dollars before it's all done, if not more. All to supposedly protect freedom of speech. Which I don't even believe. I think they're deliberately trying to insult Muslims and incite violence. It's stupid and callous IMO.

I think we should have done more of this to be honest. There's not many things worth making a point of, or fighting for. Freedom of speech is one of them.

I think there needs to be a campaign explaining freedom of speech to some people.

what do you mean?

Nobody is saying they dont have the right to hold such a contest. They are saying its stupid to do so. As is their own right to free speech.

 

[roadkill1292]

What if you worked for a small town newspaper and the editor-in-chief comes in one day and says, "from now on we are putting a Muhammad cartoon on the front page of every edition.

At the small town newspaper where I worked this would have unleashed an unceasing torrent of biittching, whining and recreational drug use.

 

[squistion]

Tim American Muslims aren't even united on the offensiveness of Mohammed cartoons, it may be a very low number. In fact globally portrayals of Mohammed are ok in Iran and a whole host of othe places, largely Shiite. Images of Mohammed go back centuries. Nobody even showed up to protest the event. Some Muslims may even agree with the point if the cartoons. It's these ideological freaks who are presuming to speak for a whole religion.

My understanding is that images of Muhammad are considered offensive by a strong majority of religious Muslims. The radical ones are those who choose to do something violent as a result.

I was told from someone who is Muslim that according to the Quran, any depiction of Muhammad, whether positive or negative is considered blasphemy. In fact any artistic depiction of Christ (who Muslims consider a prophet) would also be blasphemy, which is why you don't see Muslims doing cartoons of Jesus in retaliation. A bit from a CNN article after the shooting in France:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/

The prohibition again illustrating the Prophet Mohammed began as a attempt to ward off idol worship, which was widespread in Islam's Arabian birthplace. But in recent years, that prohibition has taken on a deadly edge.

A central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed was a man, not God, and that portraying him could lead to revering him in lieu of Allah.

"It's all rooted in the notion of idol worship," Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic Studies department at American University told CNN. "In Islam, the notion of God versus any depiction of God or any sacred figure is very strong."

In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ, not as a man but as a God. They didn't want the same thing to happen to Mohammed.

"The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him," Ahmed told CNN. "So he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' "

 

[General Tso]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

Good article on freedom of speech and the "fighting words" exception: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

I particularly like this part:

[The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment.

 

[General Tso]

What is the upside in hosting a muhammad comic contest? Who thought that was a goods idea?

It's called free speech, and a big middle finger to all those who can't handle it.

You can wear what you want too but a jacket made of meat is not a good choice for a jungle hike.

The folks who put this on knew exactly what they were doing. They were making a point, and they knew full well it would probably elicit a terrorist act by some Muslim whack-job who doesn't realize he lives in a country where free speech is part of the territory. And now there are two less of those whack-jobs. There's your upside I guess.

And a security man was wounded. And police had to put themselves at risk. And the public was put at risk. And in addition to all that, it will probably cost the local government thousands of dollars before it's all done, if not more. All to supposedly protect freedom of speech. Which I don't even believe. I think they're deliberately trying to insult Muslims and incite violence. It's stupid and callous IMO.

I think we should have done more of this to be honest. There's not many things worth making a point of, or fighting for. Freedom of speech is one of them.

I think there needs to be a campaign explaining freedom of speech to some people.

what do you mean?

Nobody is saying they dont have the right to hold such a contest. They are saying its stupid to do so. As is their own right to free speech.

Apparently two dead terrorists said it.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

Good article on freedom of speech and the "fighting words" exception: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

I particularly like this part:

[The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment.

Nobody is arguing against this.

 

[General Tso]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

Good article on freedom of speech and the "fighting words" exception: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

I particularly like this part:

[The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment.

Nobody is arguing against this.

Of course they are. You think just because they are couching it in non-legal terms that it's any different? It's a distinction without a difference.

If the last words out of the terrorist's mouths last night was, "We support the proposition that the organizers of the event aren't breaking the law" does that exempt this from being an attack on free speech?

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.

But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.

I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

Good article on freedom of speech and the "fighting words" exception: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

I particularly like this part:

[The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment.

Nobody is arguing against this.

Of course they are. You think just because they are couching it in non-legal terms that it's any different? It's a distinction without a difference.

If the last words out of the terrorist's mouths last night was, "We support the proposition that the organizers of the event aren't breaking the law" does that exempt this from being an attack on free speech?

No? Nobody is defending the people who attacked the cartoon contest people. Nobody is in favor of limiting freedoms of expression. all i said was on earth in 2015 drawing these cartoons can get you killed (so i'm ok with me not drawing them). Sadly that is reality. I'm not saying it's right, only that it is reality.

 

[timschochet]

When people say nobody is arguing against free speech, General Tso, I think they're talking about here. They're not talking about what the terrorists think. Nobody here is defending the terrorist POV.

 

[Willie Neslon]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Because of what Geller said, and because of her actions in the past.

When South Park ran the episode with Mohammed, what point do you think they were trying to make?

That there's a conspiracy to allow Muslims to take over America and impose Sharia law?