Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Warpoet]

Free speech is at the heart of what makes a free society free to begin with, and no one should be killed or harmed in any way for voicing their beliefs, nor should they be sent to jail for it. Aside from direct calls for or threats of violence, people have a right to express their opinions no matter how ugly.

That said, Pam Geller and her followers are trash. Pure, unadulterated trash motivated solely by hatred. They are no better than the David Dukes or Fred Phelps of the world. And they don't deserve attaboys or praise, nor is theirs an example for the rest of us to follow now that someone has responded to them with violence.

 

[Ford]

There were threats of violence when "Life of Brian" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" were released. And yet they did not keep it to themselves, and in fact advertised them heavily to try to get people to attend. Python members were quite proud of the fact that christians were offended. (I heard Graham Chapman say that in person at an appearance a couple years before his death.) If some of you had your way, "Life of Brian" would never have been released and the world would be a much worse place without "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

There were threats, but was there any actual violence?

I think the distinction you're missing here is that we've got a pattern of violence when it comes to offending Muslims that we didn't have with Christians. The Jesus freaks get their undies in a twist. The Allah freaks go out and kill people.

I'm all for satire and songs and poking fun at religion. I've repeatedly said that I think violence as a response to such things is wrong.

But this "cartoon contest" was not satire or hijinks or even performance art. The organizers knew that there was a likelihood of a violent response, since there has been a pattern of violent response in the past, and it is my position that they (at least secretly) hoped for a violent response. At what point does it stop being an exercise in free speech and start being an incitement of violence?


The overwhelming opinion here seems to be "never." Even if the speech in question is deliberately formulated to elicit a violent response.

 

[Axulus]

Why is it that icons of Islam are sacred and to be respected on this forum?

I can't speak for anyone else on the forum, but I personally don't hold "icons of Islam" to be sacred or respected.

I also don't think that the violent reaction to depictions of their prophet are in any way justified.

But this "cartoon contest" was just stupid. I mean, if I go into a biker bar, walk up to the leader of the local Hell's Angels chapter and call his mother a whore, am I exercising my right to free speech? Absolutely. If he hits me with a tire iron because of it, is he guilty of assault? Of course. Yet walking into a biker bar and deliberately provoking a person who might become violent is - 1st Amendment aside - idiotic.


By the way, if I were to do that, and earned a bunch of stitches in the process, it still doesn't mean everyone who rides a motorcycle is a violent sociopath.

Really poor analogy. There is a huge difference between going up to someone and provoking them directly and getting a violent response in return: they had no time to cool down, they are reacting on pure emotion.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between premeditated murder and a crime of passion which leads to murder?

Furthermore, the more plausible reason for the art event is not for the purposes of provocation but more so to take a stand for freedom of expression. They are pretty much saying "we have the freedom to do this, and we will not cower to threats of murder as so many do."

Can you point me to a single such Muhammad art event before extremists went on murderous violent rampages after the Danish cartoons?

 

[untermensche]

Great post!!

It is apparent that untermensche's ideas are offensive to many people therefore by untermensche's principles he should stop speaking them.

That's a second graders reading of my principles.

The right of lunatics to endanger others through incitements that have no inherent value is not something I have much support for.

Are you thinking of carrying out acts of violence because of my words?

Would any reasonable person see my words as direct incitement?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But this "cartoon contest" was not satire or hijinks or even performance art. The organizers knew that there was a likelihood of a violent response, since there has been a pattern of violent response in the past, and it is my position that they (at least secretly) hoped for a violent response. At what point does it stop being an exercise in free speech and start being an incitement of violence?

The overwhelming opinion here seems to be "never." Even if the speech in question is deliberately formulated to elicit a violent response.

Not "never", but the line would be far beyond this. The people who committed the violence here are the only ones in the wrong, even if they were deliberately provoked. If a thing is worth fighting for (and I see free speech as a thing which is) then when someone says not to do it, the response of "Fuck you, bitch. I will do it twice as loud just to make a point against you" is a perfectly valid and acceptable response.

You don't deal with bullies who are trying to curtail your freedom by being timid and meek stepping carefully to avoid offending them. Sometime you need to deal with them by punching them in the face. They punched the psychos in the face and they got the response that they wanted. That response has led to the people trying to curtail freedom being in a worse place today than they were yesterday. The fact that it was an asshole who nobody likes that punched them in the face doesn't make the result less effective.

 

[dismal]

It is apparent that untermensche's ideas are offensive to many people therefore by untermensche's principles he should stop speaking them.

That's a second graders reading of my principles.

The right of lunatics to endanger others through incitements that have no inherent value is not something I have much support for.

Are you thinking of carrying out acts of violence because of my words?

Would any reasonable person see my words as direct incitement?

So your freedom of speech is contingent on whether people are willing to kill you to shut you up?

You get to speak your opinion now because people don't want to kill you for it but if they did you'd have to stop?

 

[Axulus]

Would you be upset with someone having a "contest" to draw Jesus masturbating knowing that it would upset Christians?

Me personally? Absolutely not.


But if there were a cabal of terrorists that went around the world killing anyone who dared depict Jesus masturbating, and a bunch of idiots decided to have a contest where they'd display such pictures and say to the terrorists "hey, come at me, bro!"?

As a practical matter, that's not a terribly brilliant move.


So as a counter-question...the "Freedom Tower" in New York City. Built on the same ground as the World Trade Center. Do you think that we'd be wise to paint a giant picture of Mohammed sucking Abraham's dick on the side of that building?


I mean...it's art, right?

Interesting, so you are arguing we should cower to threats of violence and stop engaging in perfectly legal actions when those threats are likely to be carried out?

 

[Axulus]

This contest addressed no real world problem.

Only you would think that murdering people over cartoons isn't a real world problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

Me personally? Absolutely not.


But if there were a cabal of terrorists that went around the world killing anyone who dared depict Jesus masturbating, and a bunch of idiots decided to have a contest where they'd display such pictures and say to the terrorists "hey, come at me, bro!"?

As a practical matter, that's not a terribly brilliant move.


So as a counter-question...the "Freedom Tower" in New York City. Built on the same ground as the World Trade Center. Do you think that we'd be wise to paint a giant picture of Mohammed sucking Abraham's dick on the side of that building?


I mean...it's art, right?

Interesting, so you are arguing we should cower to threats of violence and stop engaging in perfectly legal actions when those threats are likely to be carried out?

It sorta makes it understandable how despots and tyrants can take over a nation doesn't it. There are too many people that are willing to accept any oppression and control to avoid offending the tyrant.

 

[Axulus]

I fully agree that the desire to harm others because they merely make a cartoon of a long dead religious icon is close to insanity. The idea that one has some mental connection to a god is close to insanity. But in most cases it is an insanity implanted into the most vulnerable by the people they care about most.

I have exposed that belief as absurd.

I can say whatever I want to say about it.

Unless people go on a murdering rampage, then you are saying we should cower to violent extremists and stop saying what we want to say about it.

 

[Axulus]

Blasphemy serves the important purpose of demonstrating that religious beliefs deserve neither deference nor respect.

As history has shown, society is far better off if religion has less power to control people's thoughts and actions.

The fact that some zealots try to enforce their religious rules with violence makes it all the more important to public defy them and deny them respect.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[dismal]

Blasphemy serves the important purpose of demonstrating that religious beliefs deserve neither deference nor respect.

As history has shown, society is far better off if religion has less power to control people's thoughts and actions.

The fact that some zealots try to enforce their religious rules with violence makes it all the more important to public defy them and deny them respect.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I reject the premise that my free speech rights are contingent upon someone else thinking the content of my speech has some valid purpose.

 

[Nexus]

Ironic part is, drawing of Mohammed is forbidden for muslims only. I mean logic was that drawings of people were forbidden because they were considered idols and such and Mohammed did not want that to happen to muslims

The irony for me is that despite my disgust of Muslims and their histrionics, I love Islamic mosaics and the geometric art that flourished during Islams ascent in the world due to the prohibition of human depictions.

 

[untermensche]

That's a second graders reading of my principles.

The right of lunatics to endanger others through incitements that have no inherent value is not something I have much support for.

Are you thinking of carrying out acts of violence because of my words?

Would any reasonable person see my words as direct incitement?

So your freedom of speech is contingent on whether people are willing to kill you to shut you up?

You get to speak your opinion now because people don't want to kill you for it but if they did you'd have to stop?

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

People of reason know that a tiny minority of Muslims can be driven to potential violence with certain kinds of direct incitements.

But lets pretend this isn't about direct incitement by fanatics, it's about freedom of speech.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ironic part is, drawing of Mohammed is forbidden for muslims only. I mean logic was that drawings of people were forbidden because they were considered idols and such and Mohammed did not want that to happen to muslims

The irony for me is that despite my disgust of Muslims and their histrionics, I love Islamic mosaics and the geometric art that flourished during Islams ascent in the world due to the prohibition of human depictions.

And I love Lego, but I wouldn't like to have President Business force me into a predefined role for the rest of my life. That's not actually any more ironic than liking Christmas carols even though you're against witch burning. Islam is a vast and multilayered thing with centuries of diverse history. There's both good and bad to it.

 

[Axulus]

My thoughts exactly.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I reject the premise that my free speech rights are contingent upon someone else thinking the content of my speech has some valid purpose.

Don't you think freedom of speech has a valid purpose? There needs to be a vigorous defense for freedom of speech, including more controversial speeches like blasphemy, etc.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So your freedom of speech is contingent on whether people are willing to kill you to shut you up?

You get to speak your opinion now because people don't want to kill you for it but if they did you'd have to stop?

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

People of reason know that a tiny minority of Muslims can be driven to potential violence with certain kinds of direct incitements.

But lets pretend this isn't about direct incitement by fanatics, it's about freedom of speech.

OK, take another situation.

Remember during the beginning of the Iraq War, there were a number of condemnations of the anti-war protests by the right wing because they were saying that they emboldened the enemy and put American soldiers' lives at risk?

Say that a few extremist fanatics took that concept too far and gunned down some people at one such protest because those Al Quaida loving traitors needed to die in the name of freedom. There were very clear calls in the right wing blogoshpere that this would continue, but the anti-war folks felt that they were making an important point and decided to continue protesting anyways. Sure enough, a few more of them got shot by extremists every now and again.

At what point is it that you feel the anti-war protests would simply become incitements to violence and protesting the war should be something that needs to be relegated to the privacy of one's own home and not something which can be done in public because of how angry the fanatics get over them?

 

[dismal]

So your freedom of speech is contingent on whether people are willing to kill you to shut you up?

You get to speak your opinion now because people don't want to kill you for it but if they did you'd have to stop?

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

People of reason know that a tiny minority of Muslims can be driven to potential violence with certain kinds of direct incitements.

But lets pretend this isn't about direct incitement by fanatics, it's about freedom of speech.

You have the second grader's rule here. You seem oblivious to the practical realities it presents.

Suppose there is a group of Neo-Nazi skinheads who starts killing people who give speeches or write books about the Holocaust as if it is a real thing.

How many people do they have to kill before your "direct incitement" rule kicks in and you start to argue that people should not give speeches about the Holocaust being real?

2? 3? 10?

Suppose their is a group of militant Catholics who decide to start killing people who give speeches advocating planned parenthood and condom giveaways.

How many people do they have to kill before your "direct incitement" rule kicks in and you start to argue that people should not give speak about planned parenthood and condom giveaways?

6? 13? 32?

Suppose their is a group of fascists who start killing lefty-anarchists for advocating lefty-anarchist ideas on internet message boards.

How many people do they have to kill before your "direct incitement" rule kicks in and you start to argue that people should not advocate lefty-anarchist ideas?

3? 6? 17?

I think it would be helpful to these groups to know exactly how many people they have to kill to silence the people they want silenced.

 

[Axulus]

The question is one of direct incitement.

Does this include political satire? If some members of fanatical political movement went into a violent rampage at their ideas being mocked, would you criticize those doing the mocking?

 

[Trausti]

It's a bit surreal that on an atheist/agnostic board there are members who would give cause to blasphemy laws.