The Guardian is reporting that...
Two gunmen have been killed and a security guard injured during what appeared to be an attack on a contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb.
The gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland shortly before 7pm on Sunday where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) were hosting the exhibition and contest.
According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event was shot at before the men were engaged and killed by police.
Further...
A bomb squad was called in after reports of a possible incendiary device at the scene of the incident. Police said a "bomb container trailer" had also been deployed in which to place any suspect device.
A police spokesman said two males had been killed and their bodies were still lying outside their car hours later.
"Because of the situation of what was going on today and the history of what we've been told has happened at other events like this, we are considering their car (is) possibly containing a bomb," Officer Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland Police Department, said.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @08:23AM
I don't think that is the solution, but I do thing that you might be part of the problem. My sincere condolences go to all those who have lost a loved one in this event.
Whatever happened to tolerance? If a country is free - then people are free to chose whatever religion they wish to follow - including none. But they should not be forced to follow any particular religion. So your son's 'threat' to write to his rep (yeah - like that's going to happen) saying that those responsible should be 'disposed of in pig farms' is nothing more than a (poor) attempt to intimidate people who do not have the same views as yourselves to do as you would wish. Is that the 'freedom' you wish to export around the world? How is it different in intent from when others attempt to intimidate you to follow their religion? If you cannot lead by example, then you don't deserve to lead at all.
This event could only have had one outcome. If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object. And this event will be reported back to the terrorists whom you claim to despise to provide them with yet more evidence of US intolerance and the lack of freedom that America claims to be founded upon, providing yet more propaganda to help with their recruiting drive. I'm not asking you to curtail free speech - merely hoping that whichever idiots organised this use their brains a damn sight more and their mouths a damn sight less in the future.
'In God We Trust' doesn't specify any particular God. As another commenter has already asked - is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity? No, I thought not. Why did this event focus on Allah? Wouldn't it have been more fair to let the artists choose whom they wished to draw?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:34AM
"Whatever happened to tolerance?"
Real men and women, real Americans, don't whine that drivel about "tolerance". The treasonous left chants it routinely, trying to make everyone else feel guilty for failing to support evil.
Try some of this tolerance on for size. The man states clearly that evil must be vanguished, wherever it is found. That is the tolerance that I respect.
Salutes, Lieutenant.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/395572/jerry-yellin-world-war-ii-veteran-interview#.VUZkU_lVikp [dvidshub.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:50AM
real Americans, don't whine that drivel about "tolerance". The treasonous left chants it routinely, trying to make everyone else feel guilty for failing to support evil.
Um, yes we real Americans do, even us Republicans and libertarians (outside of Indiana). So what does that make you? Shlomo? That you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:48PM
There's definitely no true scottsmen here. Not a one.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @11:22PM
Is that a portmanteau of vanquished and extinguished?
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Disagree) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:19AM
This event could only have had one outcome. If you attempt to insult many millions of people then you shouldn't be surprised when a very small number of them object.
I'm not surprised, but if you're offended, you have absolutely zero right to resort to violence simply because someone expressed themselves in a way that you don't like. People should be free to insult any religion, person, or government.
providing yet more propaganda to help with their recruiting drive.
If someone is so touchy about their fairy tales, then chances are they are insane and ripe for recruitment anyway. A person who would become a terrorist to combat freedom of expression isn't a person who cared about freedom of expression to begin with.
'In God We Trust' doesn't specify any particular God.
No, but it shows a preference for religion/theism, which is intolerable.
is there another competition next week to draw cartoons of Christ, Buddha, or some other deity?
How much censorship is there in regards to those things? TV shows and other things have been censored (usually by companies cowering at threats) at the request of offended religious people, and for any religion where that applies, we should stand up for freedom of expression. Offend anyone you want.
I do see a lot of Christian morons trying to violate the separation of church and state (at least in the US), and that is where they need to be stopped.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46AM
I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond. I suggested that perhaps they ought to have left it to individuals to decide which God to depict, rather than stage something where the most likely outcome is exactly what we have seen. I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.
Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me. ....Or isn't that what you meant? Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.
Again, I agree. But I haven't claimed anything different in my previous comment.
But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion, almost as though they were trying to bait someone into reacting. The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM
I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond.
You have to understand Geller's goals. [nydailynews.com] This shooting is her wet dream. The only thing that could have made her happier is if some of the people attending had been killed too. It will give her an immense out of cover to continue promoting her bigotry and she hopes it will raise her profile so that she gets her message out to many more people (and brings in some big dollar 'donations.') We can only hope it backfires.
I would be unsurprised to learn that she had directly targeted the two men who were killed - sending them mailers advertising the event in order to provoke them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM
I don't know about Christopher Hitchens, but I do know that Jesus said he came to bring **life**, not death. Is this a significant misunderstanding or is it just semantics?
Obviously this comment (and the preceding one) is quite ridiculously OT. Please feel free to down-mod.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:41PM
As with all extremists, those so-called christians who are big into things like the rapture pick and chose the parts of the bible that validate their own biases. Hitchens is talking about extremists, but you are not alone in thinking he's talking about mainstream religionists. Some of the more obnoxious atheists find that it validates their own beliefs and goals to encourage that confusion.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:54PM
I specifically quoted the sentences where Christianity is mentioned, because A) Hitchens is replying to a chrisitan and B) I wanted to show the similarity between Muslims and Christians - something that Hitchens is actually talking about. It is same with all the religions, otherwise they won't be popular. (You should see the video.)
But make no mistake - all Messianic Monotheistic religions are, at the core, about celebrating death. Jesus died. Final judgement will come only after every one is dead. There is heaven and hell - after death. You behave as per christian values or you will get punished - after death. Jesus brought life - and saved everyone from death for the last time! Everything about Christianity literally revolves around death.
Islam, when it was introduced, had more things to say about life than what bible says. But Europe has been through so many phases and revolutions, and due to a very complicated history Islamic world is just not there yet. There is a Islamic problem in the world. But one cannot argue away the fact that everyone knew some people are going to die that day. It was premeditated. If not on the ground then someplace else. And it were the christian fools who participated in that event who are to be held responsible because they thought the government will provide them security. The government provided security all right - to the organizers. They were the real enemy. But they got a bunch of people to focus on Muslims and get mileage from it too.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @01:31PM
I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.
I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.
Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me
It's not just Christians who draw Muhammed like this, but some of them are.
Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.
As I said, I seriously doubt that this will actually provide any aid. Someone's actions are their own, and these people were clearly insane to begin with.
But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion
This contest, yes. But I was speaking generally.
The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.
That's absolutely insane. Someone's actions are their own. No one forced these people to go insane and try to use violence to stop the event. The responsibility is solely on the people who took harmful actions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:03PM
I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.
Rights come with responsibilities.
It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.
Lets look at it another way.
It is entirely within the rights of the KKK to walk through inner-city black neighborhoods and make vicious racist comments to everyone they meet. If one particularly unstable person kills one of them in response, does that make it even more important to double-down and do it even more?
The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM
It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.
I didn't say otherwise.
The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.
I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:28PM
> I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.
That is exactly what the KKK think about making racist insults.
I hope you will reconsider.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @03:21PM
You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!
And I should have said that it was not objectively mean-spirited, because it is a subjective matter. People who are offended will of course not think highly of the people who are offending them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:36PM
You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!
No. Do not muddy the waters. We are talking about two specific things:
(1) KKK making statements they know will insult and provoke black people
(2) Islamaphoes making pictures they know will insult and provoke muslims.
This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM
This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.
Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone, yet you continue communicating knowing at least some people will be offended. And it matters that the situations are different. Were there people demanding that content be censored? Are there people who go insane when someone draws a certain something? Are you doing this for the purposes of freedom of expression? I don't know about this specific event; I'm thinking more along the lines of draw Muhammad day.
But I will say that all superstitious religious nonsense should be mocked, not just Islam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM
> Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone,
It isn't about "could be offensive" it is about "intended to be offensive."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:06PM
The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:17PM
The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.
ALL-Righty Then!
Now we are getting somewhere.
That is what I wanted to hear from you!
To bring this back around you are now supporting the idea that if some KKK go to black neighborhoods and deliberately insult people with racist speech and one unstable person is provoked to kill them that is all the more reason for the KKK to continue doing it.
At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:51PM
At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.
You're welcome to reference this thread [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fleg on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:35AM
thanks for posting that link. a shame he didnt respond to your last post in that thread. especially the last couple of paragraphs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:47PM
The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.
The KKK should double-down on white power conferences with racist drawing competitions if they wanted to show that they will not be intimidated by violence.
Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM
> The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.
Since when? As long as you don't keep talking to someone who has told you to stop talking to them it isn't harassment.
> Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.
Again there is a difference between being protected and it being a good idea to do more of it because an unbalanced person over-reacted.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @11:08PM
The Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church are gratuitously offensive and make the world a worse place. However, I defend their right to exist in the spirit of Voltaire. The reason for this is quite simple. If they cease to exist then we've either fixed a large number of social issues, such as racism and religious indoctrination or we've got a larger problem where people cannot express dissent or alternative views.
I'd prefer that people weren't dicks. However, I'd also prefer that root causes were addressed because the alternative is tyranny.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @06:57PM
To me, it all depends on the reason it is being done, not just that it is offensive. What is it in reaction to? The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are. We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to drawings of Muhammed and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here, regardless of the individual person's intentions when making these drawings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:24PM
>The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are.
And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.
> We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to racial insults and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here.
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @07:39PM
And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.
No, it isn't. Your analogies are awful. Drawing pictures of Muhammed can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue. The fairy tales (whether they are Christian, Islam, or some other brand of fairy tale) deserve to be insulted, as they are pure nonsense. Racism itself is nonsense, so the situation is also different in that sense. It makes sense to criticize religion and theism and those who take it too seriously, but saying that's on equal rational ground with the KKK's nonsense is pure garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:50PM
> Drawing making racial insults can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue
FTFY
What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick. You are no different.
The one common theme is being a dick. No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks, you are all still being dicks because you think something else justifies it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM
FTFY
You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same debunked KKK analogy over and over again.
What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick.
What about people who realize the error of their ways? Therefore, it's not everyone and your statement is incorrect. Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it, especially since "good", "principled", and what constitutes being a"dick" are completely subjective, contrary to you seemingly pretending it's an objective matter.
Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.
No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks
And no matter how much you try to reuse the same illogical KKK analogy, it will be debunked and thrown aside like the trash it is. That tends to happen when you fail to use logic to justify your point and instead rely on extremely superficial similarities to shoe-horn an analogy in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:30PM
> You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same KKK analogy over and over again.
Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.
> Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it
No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.
> Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.
Yes, that is what it comes down to. You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration. That is practically the definition of dickhood. It is not subjective.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:45PM
Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.
No, it isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.
No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.
Who said anything about being a dick? You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled? And remember: What is good, principled, or being a dick is subjective.
You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration.
I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration. Maybe that seems 'unkind' to you, but I feel it is important for people to be rational, and believing in magical sky daddies without evidence is not rational. Islam is but one of many religions that needs to be criticized out of existence.
It is not subjective.
Please provide scientific evidence for the existence of the magical opinion fairy who has decided that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct. I could pick out subjective and arbitrary terms from just about any definition you can give.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM
> You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.
We are not talking about *any* argument.
We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.
> You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled?
Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.
> I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration.
Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.
You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. [theguardian.com] Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.
> Please provide scientific evidence
"Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions. Choosing to deliberately insult regular people who have not done anything to you is being a dick. If you think otherwise then you are the one living in a fantasy world.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:13PM
We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.
With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own? When do they stand against censorship and threats demanding censorship when it is speech they don't agree with? The KKK doesn't strike me as an organization that wants to respect people's liberrties.
Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.
Limiting it to two specific examples (that I feel have been debunked) is silly when I am trying to demonstrate that your silly logic can be applied to anything.
Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.
Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do. So yes, they *can* affect others. Maybe someone who believes in magical sky daddies isn't necessarily all-around irrational, but their irrational beliefs can beget other irrational beliefs and affect their decision-making in ways that aren't necessarily obvious, especially when the matter is directly related to their most sacred irrational beliefs.
And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture. You think they amount to nothing, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The best way to stamp these things out is with education and criticism.
You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.
You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.
"Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions.
Then I hope you realize that your word definitions aren't nearly as objective as you think they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:22PM
> With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own?
If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.
They'll tell you that is even more important than freedom of speech.
This is all about perspective, you think you are better than them and they think the same about you.
The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.
> and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.
Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
Wow.
> And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture.
So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.
I'm pretty sure that is 100x more irrational than believing in fairy tales.
> You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.
Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:53AM
If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.
Exactly. They don't care about freedom in general; they care about their own freedom.
You're really stretching this KKK analogy.
The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.
Anyone who sticks up for freedom of expression is clearly just like the KKK. I heard Hitler liked puppies, too!
Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
Wow.
Must I tell you what you yourself said? Here: "Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want."
That is patently false. Irrational beliefs can lead to irrational actions, sometimes in very subtle ways. So in general, I support advocating that people discard these beliefs. I may not participate in draw Muhammed day and the like, but some people find that important.
So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.
It's more than 2 people. And again, I don't consider drawing a picture of some guy as "being shitty"; that some people do is truly pathetic. And can you present your scientific evidence that all 2,999,998 people find these drawings offensive? I'm pretty sure there are many muslims who simply do not care.
Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.
False dichotomy. Both can be tackled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:02PM
Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.
You know what is really irrational?
Thinking that if you insult people that will cause them to start agreeing with you on anything. Never once in the history of the world has that tactic ever worked.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:47AM
Presenting a set of beliefs as being nonsensical can make some people question their own beliefs. It's quite an extraordinary claim to say that no one has ever reevaluated their own belief system due to someone mocking it, being that billions of people exist and many more people have existed; only a single person would have had to do such a thing to prove you wrong.
Furthermore, if drawing a picture of someone is considered insulting, then that's rather pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM
Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult to my own personal religion, population one. I must therefore insist that you immediately cease and desist with this willful act of intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:56PM
> Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult
I'm pretty sure that if you had disease where you would die unless you drew an insulting picture of Mo, few muslims would feel put out if you chose life.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:53AM
So do you also believe the Freedom Riders must take responsibility for being beaten with baseball bats and tire irons?
Since you seem to be of the opinion that people should not exercise unpopular freedoms perhaps you should look into moving to a country which bans offensive speech. (Assuming you aren't already a proud, loyal subject of such a nation.)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 04 2015, @03:33PM
TV shows and other things have been censored (usually by companies cowering at threats) at the request of offended religious people, and for any religion where that applies, we should stand up for freedom of expression. Offend anyone you want.
Agreed. Which is why the Christian based censorship of TV and other media in this country should be ended immediately.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM
Yes. And that is especially bad because it is the government forcing the censorship on people, all while ignoring the constitution.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mth on Monday May 04 2015, @09:23AM
I'm from the Netherlands, so while I'm not familiar with Pam Geller, I've seen quite a bit of Geert Wilders, who was the main speaker there according to other news sources. From a PR perspective, this is a win for him: he is comfortable in the role of the victim and he gets to call Islam violent and uncivilized again (*). So it's possible he did use this brain and decided this event was a good idea for his agenda.
I feel sorry for the guards and the police, since they don't have a stake in this risky game but do get hurt.
(*) I haven't read anything about the background of the gunners yet, so while them being Islamic extremists is a likely theory, it is just an assumption at this point.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 04 2015, @01:10PM
Technically, the police do, as that's the job they agreed to do - to preserve law and order. There job is to ensure that mentally-ill murderous arseholes with neolithic beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom are not roaming the street.
Someone else set the honeypot this time, but they know it was such; if the outcome was so predictable, there should have been more of them, and they should have been better prepared. I hope they are next time. I hope the guard fully recovers.
There are 5 million Mormons in the US. Therefore Parker and Stone, both within and without South Park, have insulted many millions of people quite successfully without even so much as a clenched fist as a response. So yes, you should be able to insult millions of people. That's called freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I think all hindus, jews, christians, muslims, and all other followers of deistic and theistic religions either have a mental illness or are stupid (depending on whether they have reached a moderate level of scientific compentence or not). The day I don't have the freedom to insult them by telling people my beliefs is the day that the mentally ill and the stupid have won. Sometimes I don't think that day is that far away. Dark ages, take N+1...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:30PM
Freedom of expression means that it is not illegal to insult others. It does not mean that it is OK to insult others.
If you have ever wondered why countries tend to become more authoritarian: One reason is that people have trouble to distinguish between legal and OK, thinking that everything that s legal also is OK. With the result that there's a drive to make everything that's not OK also illegal. Which is bad because things which normally are not OK are often not only OK, but actually required under special conditions. But those special conditions are impossible to codify in law because you never can foresee all of them.
That's why it is important for people to understand that just because something is legal does not mean it is OK. All it means is that you cannot be punished for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:32PM
> "Legal" is a much more objective measure than "OK." "OK" is completely subjective.
Yes it is. But people are not robots, we are fuzzy, analog creatures.
The law defines the boundaries for worst cases, expecting anything more of it is to fundamentally misunderstand the roll of law in society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @11:58PM
If you have ever wondered why countries tend to become more authoritarian: One reason is that people have trouble to distinguish between legal and OK, thinking that everything that s legal also is OK.
No, I don't buy that at all. Instead, it's a standard mindset of anything that isn't subjectively OK should be made illegal. It is the duty of the authorities to enforce a particular moral order.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:01AM
There's no such thing as absolute morality, or at least, no one has been able to scientifically demonstrate that such a thing exists.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:03AM
So, if people have such a mindset, then they are being rather illogical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:38AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:04AM
With the result that there's a drive to make everything that's not OK also illegal.
[...]
That's why it is important for people to understand that just because something is legal does not mean it is OK.
That will not happen. It's important to understand here that a direct consequence of freedom are both the freedom to do something wrong or stupid and the statistical fact that with a large enough population someone will eventually do that wrong or stupid thing. If your freedom depends on others always doing the right and smart thing, then you will not remain free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:22PM
There job is to ensure that mentally-ill murderous arseholes with neolithic beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom are not roaming the street.
Does that mean murderous arseholes with modern beliefs and no respect for human life or freedom should be allowed to roam the street?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:47PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/12/mormon-women-receive-death-threats-for-wanting-to-wear-pants-to-church/ [patheos.com]
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/canned-food-mama-and-me/ [ancientfaith.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528650/The-super-hoarders-Utah-Inside-huge-warehouses-used-feed-states-insatiable-desire-disaster-preparation.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy [wikipedia.org]
They are bottling up their anger and saving it for the end times. Once enough of them believe that the end times are happening, they will become extremely dangerous. I can't wait to see their reaction to a cure for aging.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:56AM
Whatever happened to tolerance?
The Quran happened.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
The Muslim is not your friend.
3:73 And believe not save in one who followeth your religion - Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the guidance is Allah's Guidance - that anyone is given the like of that which was given unto you or that they may argue with you in the presence of their Lord. Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the bounty is in Allah's hand. He bestoweth it on whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.
The muslim doesn't trust a word you say.
3:149 O ye who believe! if ye obey those who disbelieve, they will make you turn back on your heels, and ye turn back as losers.
The muslim doesn't follow your laws.
3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom.
The mulsim wants to kill you.
Religion of peace my ass. More like the religion of abusing guilable ignorant oversensitive western morons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @12:08PM
I could easily pick similar texts from the Bible to counter your claims.
The enemy isn't a specific religion, but a minority who have twisted the teachings of that religion to support their own extremist views. Until we can accept an individual's right to choose any religion whatsoever then we are no better than those that you seem to be accusing of being the cause of the problems.
Of course, no one has ever distorted the Christian Bible to further their own ends or for personal gain, have they? Well, not if we ignore several monarchs who have had the Bible rewritten to ensure that their own position was safe within the church, crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity, and more modern churches which seem to condemn many people that their own 'God' has seen fit to allow to be born.
Remember that most religions are based on documents whose origin is disputed, by individuals whose views were limited by the extent of their ignorance, and that they have been rewritten, translated, rephrased, and re-interpreted continuously by followers of that particular faith to support their current views every since.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:37PM
I could easily pick similar texts from the Bible to counter your claims.
Not only is it a red herring, but it's also false. I dare you to try to find a passage in the bible which promotes unwarranted violence by it's followers, and is not repelled by the new testament.
The enemy isn't a specific religion, but a minority who have twisted the teachings of that religion to support their own extremist views.
This isn't about enemies, it's about a religion whose core tenets promote violence.
Of course, no one has ever distorted the Christian Bible to further their own ends or for personal gain, have they?
But you don't need to disort the Quran. Not unless your geal is the opposite at any rate.
crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity
Oh please, that meme has long been discredited. The crusades were the result of concious decisions by secular kings whose actual goals were entirely non-religious (primarily proffit and expansion). Sure, they cooperated with the pope to feed "gott mit uns" to the masses, just like every despot ever has abused "For $IDEOLOGY!".
and more modern churches which seem to condemn many people that their own 'God' has seen fit to allow to be born
The problem with Islam is not the existence of crazy. If something like the modern skeptic movement can attract crazies, then it's safe to assume that pretty much any ideology can. The problem with Islam is that it explicitly promotes violent crazy, which results in much greater concentration of violant crazies than other religions. Only one religion has contemporary militiant theocratic states, no points for guessing which one.
Remember that most religions are based on documents whose origin is disputed, by individuals whose views were limited by the extent of their ignorance, and that they have been rewritten, translated, rephrased, and re-interpreted continuously by followers of that particular faith to support their current views every since.
That is factually incorrect. The only mainstream modern religions based on an canonical holy books are Christianity, Islam and Judeism, and while the former two are the two largest groups, they are hardly "most" even if you only count Hidnu, Confucian and Budhism.
Furthermore, out of the three, we have fairly complete pre-AD sources for the first two, where as the later was written to justify the actions of one cruel warlord. I'm not sure of the autenticity of the later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:11PM
> try to find a passage in the bible which promotes unwarranted violence by it's followers, and is not repelled by the new testament.
What is your definition of unwarranted?
Jesus did not repeal the old testament:
Matthew 5:17-18 --
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday May 04 2015, @06:16PM
This one is right from the new testament: Matthew 10, 34-39 [biblegateway.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:29PM
Like every quote the islamafoes pull from the quran, context completely changes the meaning of that quote. He's not talking about violence, he is referring to youth picking up christianity versus the judiasm of their parents.
But I'm not going to make the effort to track that one down again in order to back up my claim.
Christians have a couple orders of magnitude more people to defend them on the english web than muslims do, I'm sure at least one them will step up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:35AM
How is this inciting violence in any way?
The book talks about how the divisive nature of Christ's prophecy will set parent against child, and that children should follow him (to salvation) over their parents. In context, it implies a civil that will occur after his coming, and the reasons for it are (undefined) sins committed by the residents. We don't know the reasons behind it, which I assume is purposely done to let the reader "fill the blanks" so that the reason of the conflict if always justified in their head, but that's just my personal baseless opinion.
The "wielder" of the sword is stated quite clearly earlier:
10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
So yes, the coming of Christ will promote violence, but it's hardly worded as code of conduct like "The Family of Imran" and it's position on unbelievers (spoiler: converted or dead).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:55PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:46PM
Again and again. It is not a minority. Even in western countries the majority of Muslims support Sharia including the nasty stuff like beheading infidels and stoning rape victims to death. We are just lucky that they are a minority. In every country where Islam has become the majority, these things happen more, not less.
We do. They don't. The problem is not their religion, but their actions in service to their religion.
And I am sick of this one sided nonsense. If you want citations from me, you will have to back up your claims first. No more of this null hypothesis being peace. The null hypothesis is right there in the news story.
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday May 04 2015, @02:29PM
crusaders who happily slaughtered thousands in the name of Christianity
Actually, the Crusades were a reaction to the preceding violent expansion of Islam [islam-watch.org].
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:38PM
> Actually, the Crusades were a reaction to the preceding violent expansion of Islam.
If you think anything that happens on such a massive scale is the reaction to a single thing, then you haven't been paying attention to world you live in.
That's like saying the invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11.
Yes it was. But it would never have happened were it not for the trillions of dollars that defense contractors stood to make, among other reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:42PM
To be fair, with that attitude, soylent would never have the disk space to handle just one discussion about any geopolitical move.
The causational chain is as long and as broad as all of the universe. All we can do is choose a context to limit the scope and at this point we are no longer arguing about a single event but how broad we want to go in interpreting cause. While interesting it is also not an effective way to understand anything at a human level.
(Score: 2, Touché) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @05:04PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:18PM
Well, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [youtube.com]
Religions are simply another form of tribalism or nationalism that can be used as a justification of violence against the "other". They have no place in a civilised society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:11PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:43AM
Time for everyone's favorite bullshit check - the Godwin substitution:
Whatever country you are in you're surrounded by millions of
moslimsmuslimsneo-nazis and completely unafraid of your safety. Take a look outside, the picture you are painting iscompletlycompletely wrong.<sarcasm>So there is your proof: nazis don't really mean to hurt anyone! The small number of nazis who hurt people are just extremists and don't represent the average non-violent nazi.</sarcasm>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:13AM
Christians are taught forgiveness and tolerance. Their god in Christ let himself be tortured to death instead of laying a hand on his false accusers.
Buddhists, seriously? The most violent thing proper Buddhists have ever done to anyone else was light themselves on fire in order to show that they disagree in their presence. The second most violent thing is choosing to smile a little less.
Compare to some Muslims, quick to murder over lines on paper that they have never seen all in conformance with their religion just as forgiveness and passivity are with respect to your other examples.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @11:54AM
Just for the LOLs, complete this sentence... ;-)
The most violent thing proper Christians have ever done was...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 04 2015, @06:23PM
Nah, whoever did it clearly was no true Christian. [wikipedia.org]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday May 04 2015, @12:16PM
Actually, Buddhists are commiting genocide all over Asia, mostly against Muslims. All religions have assholes and extremists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:54PM
Hell of a claim. Where is the missing race? Where are the millions dead? Where is the link to Buddhist monks with AK's gunning down fleeing children through 2/3rds of the planet's land mass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM
> Where is the link to Buddhist monks with AK's gunning down fleeing children
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray-0 [hrw.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:13PM
That shows nor implies either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:47PM
Buddhists, seriously? The most violent thing proper Buddhists have ever done to anyone else was light themselves on fire in order to show that they disagree in their presence.
Which is why the Dalai Lama endorsed killing Osama bin Laden. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @01:50PM
Saying "if something is serious … you have to take counter-measures" (taken right from that link), is not at all like murder, or killing, or even any sort of violence at all. In fact what I am doing right now is more violent in that I am directly refuting an action instead of condoning someone else doing something in response.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 04 2015, @09:08PM
Horseshit, pal. Christianity is all about "Wait till My Father gets home. He'll torture you all FOREVER."
Just because individual Christians, plural, are told not to be violent, doesn't mean the religion isn't itself hideously violent and evil. At this point, I don't know who to be more afraid of, Muslims an ocean away or Christians here in the US.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:00PM
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday May 04 2015, @05:09PM
Allah is the Arabic word meaning "God". The same God that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul and all the rest worshiped,
Muhammad was just one of God's prophets, like Moses and Jesus.
I totally agree with the rest of your comment and your last point is dead on otherwise. There are not going to be any "Draw Moses" contests.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:32AM
"There are not going to be any "Draw Moses" contests."
Because nobody would care...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:14PM
The only ones who lost loved ones are the next of kin of the would-be jihadis.
Yes, and that freedom includes the right to not observe another religion's proscriptions against blasphemy. Or were you under the mistaken impression that your views on religion (or the views of a certain religious minority) were somehow binding on the rest of us?
I disagree with this. While the outcome was foreseeable, it was not at all inevitable. The Muslims of the world could have merely grumbled about feeling insulted and peacefully gone on about their business. Or they could have taken out a full page ad in the local paper the next day to decry this mean-spirited insult. I could at least respect that.
I have no problem with Muslims objecting to the insult. I have a big problem with the violence.
I am pretty sure that the reason they have singled out Allah for this drawing competition is precisely because they know it will get a strong reaction. This is an itch which just desperately needs to be scratched. It will continue to get scratched at least as long as the violent reactions continue.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:17PM
The Muslims of the world could have merely grumbled about feeling insulted and peacefully gone on about their business.
Out of the 3+ million muslims in the US alone, at least 2,999,998 of them did just that.