Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[bigfield]

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And ... that means we shouldn't do it? That we should give into the demands of terrorists because we might get hurt if we don't?

Which other of our freedoms do you feel we should we sacrifice because we're busy cowering in a corner to hide from violent bullies?

If you want to label the mentally unstable as terrorists you may.

But back in the real world they are merely unstable humans who have been brainwashed since birth.

This contest was a means to incite a terrorist act, nothing more.

It served no other real world need.

People can freely draw pictures of Mohammed in their homes now.

How many do you think are secretly doing that?

How many have any desire or need to do that?

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place.

Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

 

[barbos]

You just gave an idea for the next Mohamed drawing contest.

Great I may enter it. I don't have much use for any religion but believe that all religions deserve equal derision. Although I am piss poor at drawing but I could submit a stick man abusing himself.

Actually, according http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_masturbation that would not be that insulting
Yes, I googled "prophet muhammad masturbating"

 

[wally]

Ok so now we know that drawing a likness of the prophet muhammad is going to upset some Muslims.

What other things can be done to show muslims, christians and other religious belivers that they need to lighten up a little?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place. Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

Great post!!

 

[dismal]

Do you get just as upset over art that is intended to offend Christians? If not, why not? Do you think that the National Endowment for the Arts should stop funding modern art?

I'll ask again...


Do you really think this "draw Mohammed" cartoon contest is a modern art movement?

Why does this matter? Why do you keep concocting ridiculous and irrelevant distinctions?

If a cartoon is motivated by X it's OK to kill the cartoonist?

If a cartoon is not modern art it's OK to kill the cartoonist?

How about a simple "it's never OK to kill a cartoonist"

 

[skepticalbip]

Great I may enter it. I don't have much use for any religion but believe that all religions deserve equal derision. Although I am piss poor at drawing but I could submit a stick man abusing himself.

Actually, according http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_masturbation that would not be that insulting
Yes, I googled "prophet muhammad masturbating"

That has to have the folks at the NSA that are monitoring your computer usage scratching their head. Now we need to get thousands of people to google the same key phrase. That should cause mass confusion among our "protectors".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What? No one posted the winning cartoon?

View attachment 2908

Love it!

 

[barbos]

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place. Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

Great post!!

I second that.

 

[barbos]

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 Clearly this does not apply to non-muslims or anyone nowdays. In reality of course Mohammed merely tried to ban other religions at the time.
If these cretins want to be more consistent they should protest any pictures of humans. So they should go and trash all paper/magazine stands. One word - cretins.

 

[barbos]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

 

[untermensche]

If you want to label the mentally unstable as terrorists you may.

But back in the real world they are merely unstable humans who have been brainwashed since birth.

This contest was a means to incite a terrorist act, nothing more.

It served no other real world need.

People can freely draw pictures of Mohammed in their homes now.

How many do you think are secretly doing that?

How many have any desire or need to do that?

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place.

Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace.

I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics.

We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

 

[barbos]

Caricatures do not excite violence

 

[skepticalbip]

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place.

Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace.

I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics.

We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

Damn, what a strawman. Can you really not recognize a protest against fanatics killing newspaper writers and film makers in the name a Allah for daring to present anything that would "offend" religious fanatics - even though there is plenty that needs to be talked about that "offends" their delicate sensibilities.

 

[untermensche]

Caricatures do not excite violence

In some they do.

In the most disturbed individuals out of a billion they do.

This has to be looked at in the context of the times. Which means looking at it in the context of a very recent and massive military campaign in Muslim lands that directly and indirectly led to the death of about 1 million Muslims, with the displacement of millions more and the destruction of an entire nation.

You can't attack millions and terrify millions for years and expect no blowback.

You can't beat a hornets nest with a bat then complain some of your neighbors got stung.

- - - Updated - - -

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace.

I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics.

We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

Damn, what a strawman. Can you really not recognize a protest against fanatics killing newspaper writers and film makers in the name a Allah for daring to present anything that would "offend" fanatics - even though there is plenty that needs to be talked about that "offends" their delicate sensibilities.

This activity was carried out by disturbed fanatics.

No, I don't recognize their right to deliberate put people in danger to satisfy their sickness.

 

[skepticalbip]

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace.

I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics.

We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

Damn, what a strawman. Can you really not recognize a protest against fanatics killing newspaper writers and film makers in the name a Allah for daring to present anything that would "offend" fanatics - even though there is plenty that needs to be talked about that "offends" their delicate sensibilities.

This activity was carried out by disturbed fanatics.

No, I don't recognize their right to deliberate put people in danger to satisfy their sickness.

Yes disturbed fanatics killed people. Islam obviously has a lot of them, ISIS for example. Reasonable people have a right and a duty to voice their concern. Reasonable Muslims should understand and agree.

And some reasonable Muslims are risking death in their attempt to show the absurdity of Islamic fundamentalism:
http://www.queerty.com/gay-muslim-risks-death-filming-secret-documentary-on-pilgrimage-to-mecca-20150430

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace.

I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics.

We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

Let me ask you a question. The local mafia wants their candidate to win a union election so they can siphon off a bunch of money from the various projects around town. In order to facilitate this, anytime that there's a campaign rally for a competing candidate, they send in a bunch of thugs to beat up the people who are attending it to send a message that supporting these other candidates is not acceptable to them. If someone plans a campaign rally for another candidate anyways because they do not want to give in to mafia intimidation, you are of the opinion that they are the bad guys because they are engaging in an activity which they know has a good chance of inciting violence as opposed to peacefully submitting to the intimidation?

As I'm reading your posts, it sounds like this is the argument that you're making. Is that correct or incorrect interpretation on my part of what you're saying? If it's incorrect, what is the difference between that scenario and the one in the OP which makes you draw a distinction between your attitudes towards them?

 

[Harry Bosch]

You want the right of fanatics to incite violence to trump the rights of people to live in peace. I won't support twisting a society to merely satisfy the childish whims of a tiny group of fanatics. We lock up people for inciting violence all the time.

I wonder if your belief in anarchy is the reason for your preference for "peace" over freedom of speech? However I don't think that long term peace is possible without certain rights such as speech.

 

[Artemus]

Not the same thing. They did not go into a mosque and start drawing. They went to a private location where anyone who didn't want to see it didn't have to.

Right. And they didn't try to publicize it at all. Just had the contest at a private space, tried really hard to keep it to themselves, and when someone found out that the contest was happening they went out of their way to explain that it was not meant to offend, provoke, or otherwise cause a disturbance.

Which is not the same thing as going into a mosque and insulting them directly to their face with no warning.

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."

 

[dismal]

I find this attitude despicable. Our right to be able to say offensive things is vastly more important than other people's rights not to be offended. Free speech doesn't need to have a positive message in order to be valuable, it's something that's valuable in and of itself. Whether the people in question are unstable, evil or anything else, curtailing our rights to free expression in order to avoid getting them angry makes the world a worse place. Do you also think that we should only criticize the government in the privacy of our homes because some partisans might be crazy and overreact to our criticism? The entire point of such criticism is to have it be happening in public. It's the same with this. It's a stupid and childish way for them to make their point, but making it in public is the entire rationale of doing it. We can't limit our defence of free speech solely to that speech which we agree with.

Great post!!

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