Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

For these two, neither one were living in poverty.

For all extremists of course both are factors, but one is a dominant consistent factor (fervent belief in Islam) and the other is inconsistent (background of poverty). Therefore removing other variables, Islam proves out as a more consistent factor in producing extremism than poverty, when comparing the two.

You were talking in generalizations before. And do you have data to back your assertion in this quote. I'm particularly curious where you get your data around poor people who don't have Islam as their faith, yet still commit crimes like these. I'm assuming you have that to make claims like this as it's pretty much required.

This comes down to how we define things. How do we separate terrorism from crime? With crime as I define it poverty would be number 1 with any other factor a distant second. But you said "crimes like these" assuming you mean mass murder not connected to robbery or some other obvious material gains. For those crimes, if we are lumping together Aurora, Sandy Hook, ISIS killings, Boko Haram, GermanWings, etc, then I would guess (no I do not have data, this is all opinion) that when you add up all the dead bodies and group all like stated reasons together, Islam would still be the common factor with the highest body count.

However if you want examples, the Hedbo and Garland killers all come from non-poverty backgrounds. So the two latest and most high profile terrorist events outside the Mideast both do not fit the "poverty drives extremism" narrative.

This is a lot of words to simply avoid the question. I'd rather you just not reply. You'd achieve the same objective with a lot less effort on your part. If it's a genuine answer then some things of note:

1. Terrorism is crime. No need to make it more complicated than that.

2. I'm talking about all the events in the world, not just ones you decide to include. You didn't/haven't made a distinction through your posts so far, so your broad brush is what we can continue using.

Oh, and if we're going down this path I'll just say right up front that I understand completely there are exceptions to the rule. What I'll want you to show me is how the combo of religion and wealth aren't the general rule and it's simply religion.

 

[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.

I'm sure he was a white guy. Like Jesus.

Well, that'd certainly explain a lot with regards to the sensitivity towards pictures that's for sure

 

[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.

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.

This didn't used to be the case, in pre-modern times such depictions were quite common. Even today in Iran and other shiite areas and some other sects depictions of Mohammed are ok.

But in general if you want to see some very old imagined muslim images of Mohammed they are out there. There are also modern ones, in Iran they are available as postcards.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's a medieval depiction of Mohammed. You can buy it as a postcard as you want. Yes they also exist in closeup portraits...

http://www.zazzle.com/muhammad_destroying_icons_in_the_kaaba_postcard-239960780096742629

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is a whole raft of images in a published book. Note (if you can find it) it discusses how his image appears in a huge mural in Iran, it might be on that first page.

https://www.academia.edu/4061369/Images_of_the_Prophet_In_and_Out_of_Modernity_The_Curious_Case_of_a_2008_Mural_in_Tehran

Here's another book with more images. - Page 23 has a picture of Mohammed that can be bought in supermarkets.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pLfEClsscNIC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[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.

This didn't used to be the case, in pre-modern times such depictions were quite common. Even today in Iran and other shiite areas and some other sects depictions of Mohammed are ok.

But in general if you want to see some very old imagined muslim images of Mohammed they are out there. There are also modern ones, in Iran they are available as postcards.

I'm not saying pictures don't exist. They do and there are MANY variations over time. There isn't a commonly agreed to variation though. A big part of the reason in drop off of variations is the supplemental texts (usually coming from rather radical sects)

 

[rockaction]

Pamela Geller op-ed in Time magazine

http://time.com/3847453/pamela-geller-a-response-to-my-critics-this-is-a-war/

 

[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.

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.

This didn't used to be the case, in pre-modern times such depictions were quite common. Even today in Iran and other shiite areas and some other sects depictions of Mohammed are ok.

But in general if you want to see some very old imagined muslim images of Mohammed they are out there. There are also modern ones, in Iran they are available as postcards.

I'm not saying pictures don't exist. They do and there are MANY variations over time. There isn't a commonly agreed to variation though. A big part of the reason in drop off of variations is the supplemental texts (usually coming from rather radical sects)

Well isn't that natural? There are variations in depictions of Jesus and Mary too.

- ETA - I will also add, again, that Tim's assertion in this thread is also inaccurate because muslims do not feel uniformly on this subject.

 

[Parrothead]

they should put banners with Mo's pic on the drones

 

[General Tso]

Pamela Geller op-ed in Time magazine

http://time.com/3847453/pamela-geller-a-response-to-my-critics-this-is-a-war/

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you cannot criticize.

Many in the media and academic elite assign no blame to an ideology that calls for death to blasphemers i.e., those who criticize or offend Islam. Instead, they target and blame those who expose this fanaticism.

Hard to argue with any of that. The focus of her hatred / bigotry appears to be directed against jihad / Sharia Law rather than Islam in general.

 

[timschochet]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

 

[Van Dyman]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

At least they didn't post the winning image of a werewolf with linebacker fingers talking about how you can't draw him.

 

[Dr Oadi]

"Hey they shot Charlie Hebdo up for disparaging drawings of that there Mo-ham-med, lets have some fun and do the same here in Texas and see what happens"

(Said in your best redneck voice)

There should be more of these to draw out their 71 soldiers so they can be sent to their 72 virgins. In your best redneck voice let's mock southerners and make excuses for the Islamists.http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/isis_claims_to_have_71_soldiers_in_15_states_ready_to_kill_pam_geller_and_any_who_defend_her/

Now David Muir is saying there are hundreds ISIS here being told to kill kill kill Americans.

 

[Clifford]

For these two, neither one were living in poverty.

For all extremists of course both are factors, but one is a dominant consistent factor (fervent belief in Islam) and the other is inconsistent (background of poverty). Therefore removing other variables, Islam proves out as a more consistent factor in producing extremism than poverty, when comparing the two.

You were talking in generalizations before. And do you have data to back your assertion in this quote. I'm particularly curious where you get your data around poor people who don't have Islam as their faith, yet still commit crimes like these. I'm assuming you have that to make claims like this as it's pretty much required.

This comes down to how we define things. How do we separate terrorism from crime? With crime as I define it poverty would be number 1 with any other factor a distant second. But you said "crimes like these" assuming you mean mass murder not connected to robbery or some other obvious material gains. For those crimes, if we are lumping together Aurora, Sandy Hook, ISIS killings, Boko Haram, GermanWings, etc, then I would guess (no I do not have data, this is all opinion) that when you add up all the dead bodies and group all like stated reasons together, Islam would still be the common factor with the highest body count.However if you want examples, the Hedbo and Garland killers all come from non-poverty backgrounds. So the two latest and most high profile terrorist events outside the Mideast both do not fit the "poverty drives extremism" narrative.

This is a lot of words to simply avoid the question. I'd rather you just not reply. You'd achieve the same objective with a lot less effort on your part. If it's a genuine answer then some things of note:1. Terrorism is crime. No need to make it more complicated than that.

2. I'm talking about all the events in the world, not just ones you decide to include. You didn't/haven't made a distinction through your posts so far, so your broad brush is what we can continue using.

Oh, and if we're going down this path I'll just say right up front that I understand completely there are exceptions to the rule. What I'll want you to show me is how the combo of religion and wealth aren't the general rule and it's simply religion.

Yeah no. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[shadrap]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

What didn't you like about what she was quoted?

 

[poopdawg]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

What didn't you like about what she was quoted?

 

[rockaction]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

 

[General Tso]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".

http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

 

[squistion]

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Pamela Geller op-ed in Time magazine

http://time.com/3847453/pamela-geller-a-response-to-my-critics-this-is-a-war/

I agree with most of what she wrote.

 

[rockaction]

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

I'm feeling a touch hyperbolic these days. Not too much, but definitely a little.

 

[sho nuff]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

National treasure?

Ooof

 

[rockaction]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

National treasure?

Ooof

Close to it. She's reminding everybody who the real enemies of freedom are and sticking up for free speech in a political context. And she's willing to pick a fight with the progressive, acquiescent establishment that deep down has always resented the First Amendment and now hates her for it.

 

[Van Dyman]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".

http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

I never understand why people throw piss christ out there like it is something offensive. Why is that offensive? It's not like some dude found the real Jesus Christ, still alive, and dunked him in a vat of pee. It's a little doll and it probably looks more photographically interesting in pee than it would sitting on a shelf or whatever.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

National treasure?

Ooof

Close to it. She's reminding everybody who the real enemies of freedom are and sticking up for free speech in a political context. And she's willing to pick a fight with the progressive, acquiescent establishment that deep down has always resented the First Amendment and now hates her for it.

Very dramatic.

 

[rockaction]

It's an embarrassment that Time would give that woman a platform.

It's more of an embarrassment that progressives are calling her an instigator and calling for regulations of "hate speech," which I'm sure progressives will attempt to define.

God Bless Pamela Geller right now. An anti-establishment national treasure at this moment in time.

National treasure?

Ooof

Close to it. She's reminding everybody who the real enemies of freedom are and sticking up for free speech in a political context. And she's willing to pick a fight with the progressive, acquiescent establishment that deep down has always resented the First Amendment and now hates her for it.

Very dramatic.

Highly emotional rhetoric. Peggy Noonan-esque, even.

 

[General Tso]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

I never understand why people throw piss christ out there like it is something offensive. Why is that offensive? It's not like some dude found the real Jesus Christ, still alive, and dunked him in a vat of pee. It's a little doll and it probably looks more photographically interesting in pee than it would sitting on a shelf or whatever.

So you think a picture of a Jesus figurine submerged in urine is less offensive than a picture of Muhammad telling an artist, "You can't draw me"? Yeah, ok.

 

[timschochet]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

 

[FlapJacks]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

How does that make her different from Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins?

 

[timschochet]

Piss Jesus was offensive. I wouldn't have paid to see it, and if I owned a museum, I wouldn't have allowed it. I really don't see that as art. I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

 

[rockaction]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

It's certainly qualified praise. "At this moment," "right now," etc. I don't go to her motive in this instance. I'm not a dupe. She may very well be an odious person with odious beliefs. If I seriously studied her history, I might agree with you. But right now, I'll take it as two ships passing in the night, nodding in agreement, with the potential to be future intellectual enemies.

eta* I'm also not unaware that people often cloak themselves in the rhetoric and language of higher and better causes when their instincts and true feelings are baser than they would have us believe. I wouldn't worry about my sanction of this event, nor her op-ed, nor her response to those that believe that inoffensiveness is more important than the act of expression.

 

[timschochet]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

How does that make her different from Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins?

This is a good question. Let me give you two differences that come immediately to mind:

1. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins ever protesting the construction of a church, and warning that it will be used to promote terrorist activities.

2. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins calling for the forced internment of Christian Americans.

If Geller spent all her time speaking and writing the way she does in the Time article, then I would have no problem with her. But she is far far more extreme than that.

 

[Otis]

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.

This is pretty much the right answer.

You can typically exercise free speech without obviously baiting violence.

 

[timschochet]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

It's certainly qualified praise. "At this moment," "right now," etc. I don't go to her motive in this instance. I'm not a dupe. She may very well be an odious person with odious beliefs. If I seriously studied her history, I might agree with you. But right now, I'll take it as two ships passing in the night, nodding in agreement, with the potential to be future intellectual enemies.

eta* I'm also not unaware that people often cloak themselves in the rhetoric and language of higher and better causes when their instincts and true feelings are baser than they would have us believe. I wouldn't worry about my sanction of this event, nor her op-ed, nor her response to those that believe that inoffensiveness is more important than the act of expression.

You remind me of the liberals during World War II who were so delighted that we were allied with Josef Stalin that they gave him lavish praise. They called him a "treasure" too.

 

[rockaction]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

How does that make her different from Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins?

This is a good question. Let me give you two differences that come immediately to mind:

1. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins ever protesting the construction of a church, and warning that it will be used to promote terrorist activities.

2. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins calling for the forced internment of Christian Americans.

If Geller spent all her time speaking and writing the way she does in the Time article, then I would have no problem with her. But she is far far more extreme than that.

When did Geller call for forced internment of Muslims? I just looked for it, and couldn't find it.

 

[timschochet]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

How does that make her different from Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins?

This is a good question. Let me give you two differences that come immediately to mind:

1. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins ever protesting the construction of a church, and warning that it will be used to promote terrorist activities.

2. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins calling for the forced internment of Christian Americans.

If Geller spent all her time speaking and writing the way she does in the Time article, then I would have no problem with her. But she is far far more extreme than that.

When did Geller call for forced internment of Muslims? I just looked for it, and couldn't find it.

You're going to have to trust me on this one. The very first time I saw Geller, during the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, she was being interviewed by Michelle Malkin who was a guest host on Fox. Geller praised Malkin for her book, written after 9/11, called In Defense of Internment, in which she (Malkin) justified the internment of Japanese Americans during WWIII and suggested that it might be necessary for Muslim Americans. Geller stated that she had been "informed" by that book and agreed with it 100%.

 

[timschochet]

Here's a long article on Geller and her organization from the Anti Defamation League, from 2011:

http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/stop-islamization-of-america-2013-1-11-v1.pdf

 

[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.

This is pretty much the right answer.

You can typically exercise free speech without obviously baiting violence.

In a typical world, with typical circumstances, I'd agree. But we've tried that approach. Charlie Hebdo says hello, as does Salman Rushdie. Sometimes you have to punch the bully right in the face..

 

[rockaction]

You know rockaction, I understand and very much admire your passion on this issue, and I agree with everything you've written in a general sense.

But this woman is not worth your praise. Whatever she says now, her history in terms of her regard towards Muslim Americans, and Muslims in general, indicate that she is being disingenuous about her motives. Her mission in life is not to protect free speech, but to promote her own skewed view of Islam as the enemy of western values (not radical Islam, but all Islam). She is the definition of a religious bigot. I don't like to see you or any other reasonable person get taken in by her.

How does that make her different from Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins?

This is a good question. Let me give you two differences that come immediately to mind:

1. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins ever protesting the construction of a church, and warning that it will be used to promote terrorist activities.

2. I don't recall Maher or Dawkins calling for the forced internment of Christian Americans.

If Geller spent all her time speaking and writing the way she does in the Time article, then I would have no problem with her. But she is far far more extreme than that.

When did Geller call for forced internment of Muslims? I just looked for it, and couldn't find it.

You're going to have to trust me on this one. The very first time I saw Geller, during the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, she was being interviewed by Michelle Malkin who was a guest host on Fox. Geller praised Malkin for her book, written after 9/11, called In Defense of Internment, in which she (Malkin) justified the internment of Japanese Americans during WWIII and suggested that it might be necessary for Muslim Americans. Geller stated that she had been "informed" by that book and agreed with it 100%.

Could be a million reasons. I'm really not concerned about it. I have nothing invested in Geller (I remember the Ground Zero controversy and thought she was also right to protest it back then) except for our agreement on this particular issue at this particular time.

As Rich Lowry just wrote, "For better or worse, we live in a society in which nothing is sacred. If we are to accept the assassin’s veto, the only exception (for now) will be depictions of Muhammad, which would be perverse. A free society can’t let the parameters of its speech be set by murderous extremists.

Give her this: Pamela Geller understands that, whereas her scolds don’t. Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/why-wont-pamela-geller-shut-up-117716.html#ixzz3ZW1CJ1d3

 

[Willie Neslon]

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.

This is pretty much the right answer.

You can typically exercise free speech without obviously baiting violence.

In a typical world, with typical circumstances, I'd agree. But we've tried that approach. Charlie Hebdo says hello, as does Salman Rushdie. Sometimes you have to punch the bully right in the face..

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper. Rushdie is an author. They were doing what they do. The people at that contest were just a group of irresponsible rabble-rousers.

 

[timschochet]

Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers.

See this is just crap. Rich, and several people here, are creating a straw villain. I haven't heard anybody say that or anything close to that. This is that old conservative BS, you're either with us or against us.

I detest Pam Geller, but she is not a murderer, and she is a million times better than the evil ####### terrorists who kill innocent people. But I can still detest her for all that. Fair enough?

 

[General Tso]

Piss Jesus was offensive. I wouldn't have paid to see it, and if I owned a museum, I wouldn't have allowed it. I really don't see that as art. I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

I don't understand your logic here Tim. What does Christian restraint have to do with the act itself? Because somebody isn't going to respond with violence means it's ok? You seem to have a different standard in judging an act based on the depravity of the person being offended. Just trying to understand the moral basis for such an approach.

 

[rockaction]

Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers.

See this is just crap. Rich, and several people here, are creating a straw villain. I haven't heard anybody say that or anything close to that. This is that old conservative BS, you're either with us or against us.

I detest Pam Geller, but she is not a murderer, and she is a million times better than the evil ####### terrorists who kill innocent people. But I can still detest for all that. Fair enough?

Not really. He's using examples from the news. This headline from the WaPo is particularly egregious. The Washington Post ran an article on Geller headlined, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

[SIZE=15.600000381469727px]Wat? [/SIZE]

And you're more than welcome to hate her. That this became about Pamela Geller obscures the [SIZE=15.600000381469727px]real[/SIZE] issue, which is the right to hold an event, the right to speech, and the right to expression without attempted murder.

 

[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.

This is pretty much the right answer.

You can typically exercise free speech without obviously baiting violence.

In a typical world, with typical circumstances, I'd agree. But we've tried that approach. Charlie Hebdo says hello, as does Salman Rushdie. Sometimes you have to punch the bully right in the face..

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper. Rushdie is an author. They were doing what they do. The people at that contest were just a group of irresponsible rabble-rousers.

You got the first half right. I used those two examples to disprove the statement that we could have exercised free speech without baiting violence.

 

[General Tso]

how is what Pamela Geller did any different than the Baltimore protests, or any other act of civil disobedience for that matter? You could make the argument that the Baltimore protests were baiting a violent response from the police, no?

 

[Van Dyman]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

I never understand why people throw piss christ out there like it is something offensive. Why is that offensive? It's not like some dude found the real Jesus Christ, still alive, and dunked him in a vat of pee. It's a little doll and it probably looks more photographically interesting in pee than it would sitting on a shelf or whatever.

So you think a picture of a Jesus figurine submerged in urine is less offensive than a picture of Muhammad telling an artist, "You can't draw me"? Yeah, ok.

I wasn't comparing them but, since you asked, the werewolf Mo gets the point for "most offensive from a religious perspective" because they actually have holy texts that say that is bad, where I don't think Christians do. From an ick factor perspective, Piss Jesus wins because it is a picture of urine. It's a tie.

ETA: Piss Jesus really is a stupid topic here. Not sure why you brought it up but I won't be commenting on it any further.

 

[timschochet]

Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers.

See this is just crap. Rich, and several people here, are creating a straw villain. I haven't heard anybody say that or anything close to that. This is that old conservative BS, you're either with us or against us.

I detest Pam Geller, but she is not a murderer, and she is a million times better than the evil ####### terrorists who kill innocent people. But I can still detest for all that. Fair enough?

Not really. He's using examples from the news. This headline from the WaPo is particularly egregious. The Washington Post ran an article on Geller headlined, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

[SIZE=15.6px]Wat? [/SIZE]

And you're more than welcome to hate her. That this became about Pamela Geller obscures the [SIZE=15.6px]real[/SIZE] issue, which is the right to hold an event, the right to speech, and the right to expression without attempted murder.

You keep saying this, but who is denying that right? Maybe some idiot progressive somewhere, but nobody here. Of course she has the right to hold the event, and of course we should protect her from attempted murder. I'm not seeing a lot of issue with that.

 

[timschochet]

Piss Jesus was offensive. I wouldn't have paid to see it, and if I owned a museum, I wouldn't have allowed it. I really don't see that as art. I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

I don't understand your logic here Tim. What does Christian restraint have to do with the act itself? Because somebody isn't going to respond with violence means it's ok? You seem to have a different standard in judging an act based on the depravity of the person being offended. Just trying to understand the moral basis for such an approach.

It has nothing to do with the act itself. I was simply making a distinction between the two cases-- when I use the word "case" it includes all aspects, which covers reaction.

 

[General Tso]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

I never understand why people throw piss christ out there like it is something offensive. Why is that offensive? It's not like some dude found the real Jesus Christ, still alive, and dunked him in a vat of pee. It's a little doll and it probably looks more photographically interesting in pee than it would sitting on a shelf or whatever.

So you think a picture of a Jesus figurine submerged in urine is less offensive than a picture of Muhammad telling an artist, "You can't draw me"? Yeah, ok.

I wasn't comparing them but, since you asked, the werewolf Mo gets the point for "most offensive from a religious perspective" because they actually have holy texts that say that is bad, where I don't think Christians do. From an ick factor perspective, Piss Jesus wins because it is a picture of urine. It's a tie.ETA: Piss Jesus really is a stupid topic here. Not sure why you brought it up but I won't be commenting on it any further.

Piss Jesus is entirely relevant in the context of this discussion. There is certainly a difference in that Piss Jesus was truly done in the context of an artistic rendering, whereas the Draw Muhammad Contest was done almost entirely to prove a point. But one could make the argument that art is all about making a point, only in a more subtle manner. But in both instances you have a clearly offensive situation that enrages people of faith. In one instance a Governmental institution actually paid out a monetary award to the Piss Jesus artist. In the other instance, the President of the United States denounced the contest. I'd like to know what's at the heart of the hypocrisy. Fear? Politics? Misguided compassion? Are we really going to let these lunatics set the parameters around our freedoms?By the way, Allan Dershowitz brought up a good point tonight on Fox. Martin Luther King did the same thing during the Civil Rights Movement. He intentionally went to the hotbeds of racism like Selma, Alabama and provoked what he knew would be violent responses to bring the issue to the fore.

 

[rockaction]

Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers.

See this is just crap. Rich, and several people here, are creating a straw villain. I haven't heard anybody say that or anything close to that. This is that old conservative BS, you're either with us or against us.

I detest Pam Geller, but she is not a murderer, and she is a million times better than the evil ####### terrorists who kill innocent people. But I can still detest her for all that. Fair enough?

Real AP headline and tweet: "Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad contest that ended in two deaths."

The two deaths? The jihadists.

And they haven't done anything close to what Lowry is talking about??



Geller is responsible for jihadist deaths! Damn her!