Gunmen open fire on guard at controversial Muhammad exhibit; Vatican newspaper weighs in [CWN]
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ah…so we don’t actually have an Islamic terrorist problem. We have a provocative cartoonist problem.
It’s all so clear now.
It’s all so clear now.
It cleared it up for me, Randy. :nope:Ah…so we don’t actually have an Islamic terrorist problem. We have a provocative cartoonist problem.
It’s all so clear now.
Jon
E
Ender
Guest
According to other articles, the two gunmen were wearing body armor and had assault rifles, and were both killed by a single policeman who was in all probability armed with a hand gun. I guess the moral here is this: Texas is not a good place to shoot at people.
Ender
I
Ignatius
Guest
Yes, it is the artists, the State doesn’t defend offensive artist unless it is in a Government financed display of Andres Serrano “art”.Ah…so we don’t actually have an Islamic terrorist problem. We have a provocative cartoonist problem.
It’s all so clear now.
And the BBC actually announced “We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=650982&highlight=Draw+Mohammed
I
Ignatius
Guest
Motre on this:
Ignatius said:
L
LongingSoul
Guest
“The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative.”
I don’t think we should be defending the right of uneducated, mindless dumb dumbs like these characters. Do we really want to cede the moral high ground we hold over the crazy terrorists? How is that going to translate consequence wise to poke a black bear with a stick to prove a point?
I don’t think we should be defending the right of uneducated, mindless dumb dumbs like these characters. Do we really want to cede the moral high ground we hold over the crazy terrorists? How is that going to translate consequence wise to poke a black bear with a stick to prove a point?
I
Ignatius
Guest
It would be It would be more appropriate for the Islamic State Jihadi’s to engage in dialog.TEPO said:
As was pointed out above if the Islamic State chooses to violate the Law, The outcome of future Islamic State missions will be the same! Whatever happens is on those who perpetrate the violence, not on the cartoonists.
2 down 21 to go!
Sometimes attributed to Voltaire: " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now. "
I think it possible to defend their right to say, without defending what they say. ISTM this is just one differentiation between civilized human beings, and the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and ISIS. One of numerous.
Jon
I
Ignatius
Guest
Actually, the federal government has a history of promoting anti-religious art. . . . .
nationalreview.com/article/418201/first-and-half-amendment-victor-davis-hanson
As long as it’s anti-Christian.
In fact,Whenever Congress has attempted to curtail funding of offensive art, editorial pages, faculty lounges, and museum boards launched a nationwide elite freak-out.
nationalreview.com/article/418201/first-and-half-amendment-victor-davis-hanson
As long as it’s anti-Christian.
In fact,Whenever Congress has attempted to curtail funding of offensive art, editorial pages, faculty lounges, and museum boards launched a nationwide elite freak-out.
E
Ender
Guest
Without in any way defending the exhibit, it does pose an interesting problem: how are the people who are either silent or supportive of anti-Christian images going to express their opposition to events like this one? Unless they take the position the BBC (reportedly) has and state that they will condone all anti-religious acts except anti-Islamic ones, they really are in a pickle. They clearly disapprove of what was done in Texas but they have no rational way to express it.
More to the point, this creates a problem for government: how can they ban or restrict such events without extending the same restrictions to the anti-religious/anti-Christian expressions they have been loath to oppose in the past?
Ender
Never mind the fact that the federal government has no mandate under the enumerated powers to spend taxpayer money on the arts in the first place.
Jon
M
Mintaka
Guest
Either we defend free speech and freedom of religion; or we are establishing the right of one religion (Islam) to receive governmental protections that other religions don’t.
I don’t recall voting for Islam as the official religion of the US.
I certainly don’t recall replacing US law with Sharia law.
I don’t recall voting for Islam as the official religion of the US.
I certainly don’t recall replacing US law with Sharia law.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But we can’t defend hate groups or extend the right of free speech to those who seek to incite prejudice and violence.
J
JoeT777
Guest
Hate group?
Is the American Freedom Defense Initiative the new KKK? How many acts of violence has Pamela Geller committed compared to just one act in 2011? How would the statistics read, 4,000 innocent murdered vs 1 cartoon? Does the Geller woman carry an AK-47 while she threatens Muslims with a pencil and a cartoon?
You should feel threatened, but not by Mrs. Geller.
JoeT
“Extend the right of free speech”? No one has the power to “extend the right of free speech”. Free speech is a right, not a privilege to be extended or denied.
But that aside, who is to decide, then, who gets free speech, or what speech is deemed inciting prejudice and violence?
"It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - Barack Obama
Here is a familiar comment, which I believe was intended to incite prejudice. Should we not extend to the author the right of free speech?
Jon
I
Ignatius
Guest
If the Islamic State disagrees, they should engage in dialog, not violence.
When the Islamic State Jihadi’s choose to violate the Law, the results are on them.
The outcome of future Islamic State missions will be the same! Whatever happens is on those who perpetrate the violence, not on the cartoonists.
2 down 21 to go!
L
LongingSoul
Guest
America shoots itself in the foot with the concept of rights without responsibility. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were barred from entering the UK to preach because they are considered a hate group and their presence ‘not conducive to the public good’.
bbc.com/news/uk-23064355
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There are many limits to free speech written into law. Civil society depends on those limits. If people don’t get that free speech is not an inalienable right but exists within the bounds of a social contract, society will inevitably dissolve into a group of warmongering savages.
J
JoeT777
Guest
A short prayer sung by children in 1935 Germany went like this:
“Dear Lord God, keep me quiet, so that I don’t end up in Dachau.” (Lieber Herr Gott mach mich stumm / Daß ich nicht nach Dachau komm.)
When the tyrant is finished with Geller and Spencer maybe your brand of tea will become unconducive to his new “public good”. Who will draw the caricature of the injustice, your children?
JoeT
- Status