Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thermopylae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
didymus said:
Sorry.
Click to expand...
At least mine was a historical piece. 😉

No, but I did the same thing with an illustration from Dante. Probably shouldn’t have…:o

…And what I mean by entirety from the previous post is exactly that -I’m not implying that the snippet has any value outside of the work as a whole. Just to be clear.
 
ringil said:
You may not see a problem with this but the Holy Father has spoken on purposeful efforts to denigrate the faiths of others.
Click to expand...
Is chapter 44 of the book of Isaiah now something that can be studied but not quoted to others? Quoting it to others could be seen as a purposeful effort.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the text of Isaiah 44. Does the text of Isaiah 44 denigrate a faith? You could say that it does not denigrate a faith, because idolatry is beneath faith and does not deserve to be classified as either a faith or an element of any true faith. However, you then have a difficulty. If others classify something as their faith and you refuse to recognize it as a faith, then are you not denigrating it? And what about classifying something as a heresy? Can you classify something as a heresy without denigrating it? Perhaps there is no longer such a thing as heresy.
[9] The makers of idols are all of them nothing, and their best beloved things shall not profit them. They are their witnesses, that they do not see, nor understand, that they may be ashamed. [10] Who hath formed a god, and made a graven thing that is profitable for nothing?
Click to expand...
[11] Behold, all the partakers thereof shall be confounded: for the makers are men: they shall all assemble together, they shall stand and fear, and shall be confounded together. [12] The smith hath wrought with his file, with coals, and with hammers he hath formed it, and hath wrought with the strength of his arm: he shall hunger and faint, he shall drink no water, and shall be weary. [13] The carpenter hath stretched out his rule, he hath formed it with a plane: he hath made it with corners, and hath fashioned it round with the compass: and he hath made the image of a man as it were a beautiful man dwelling in a house. [14] He hath cut down cedars, taken the holm, and the oak that stood among the trees of the forest: he hath planted the pine tree, which the rain hath nourished. [15] And it hath served men for fuel: he took thereof, and warmed himself: and he kindled it, and baked bread: but of the rest he made a god, and adored it: he made a graven thing, and bowed down before it.
Click to expand...
[16] Part of it he burnt with fire, and with part of it he dressed his meat: he boiled pottage, and was filled, and was warmed, and said: Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire. [17] But the residue thereof he made a god, and a graven thing for himself: he boweth down before it, and adoreth it, and prayeth unto it, saying: Deliver me, for thou art my God. [18] They have not known, nor understood: for their eyes are covered that they may not see, and that they may not understand with their heart. [19] They do not consider in their mind, nor know, nor have the thought to say: I have burnt part of it in the fire, and I have baked bread upon the coals thereof: I have broiled flesh and have eaten, and of the residue thereof shall I make an idol? shall I fall down before the stock of a tree? [20] Part thereof is ashes: his foolish heart adoreth it, and he will not save his soul, nor say: Perhaps there is a lie in my right hand.
Click to expand...
Link:
drbo.org/chapter/27044.htm
Click to expand...
To me, it seems clear that Isaiah 44 goes beyond denigrating a faith. It denigrates the people who adhere to the faith. (Of course, we again have to take a step back and determine what gets recognized as deserving the label “faith”.)

I think that it is very significant that a group that claims to be against Islam is not only called a “hate group”, but also given the label “anti-Muslim” rather than “anti-Islam.” However, if we examine Isaiah 44, then we do not have any dilemma to resolve. The text of Isaiah 44 denigrates some people and not merely an attitude or belief that those people adhere to.
 
Mr. William Donahue, whom I usually agree with, has the opinion that this cartoon contest was “taunting” an Islamic terror reaction. :hmmm: Yeah, I can see it that way BUT the burden is on the Islamic terrorist to NOT be taunted. We have freedom in the U.S. They are not allowed, nor will they be, to have their “caliphate” in America.

Behaving with consideration for others beliefs is good but if the “others” believe they will kill me and mine, consideration takes a turn. I do not appreciate nor will I defend pornography. Am I going to go after Larry Flynt who is a big Hilary Clinton donor because he has pedaled his filth to extreme filthy riches? NO. He has already been confined to a wheelchair by one of his associates. As they prepare for departing this earth, Islamic terrorists celebrate with pornography, prostitutes, etc. I would think the Flynt “porn king” has probably already featured Muhammad cartoons.

Mr. Donahue is missing a large point on this one. These terrorists were well prepared to release their “religious beliefs”. Soft targets are everywhere.

Americans will not give up a “smitch or a smidgen” of our Constitutional Freedoms!
 
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And it certainly doesn’t mean you have to. Some provocation serves no purpose other than to provoke people to violent anger and then say, “See?! They’re violent!” When people do this online, we call it clickbait. When people do this in real life, we’re supposed to call them heroes.
 
Siegehammer said:
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And it certainly doesn’t mean you have to. Some provocation serves no purpose other than to provoke people to violent anger and then say, “See?! They’re violent!” When people do this online, we call it clickbait. When people do this in real life, we’re supposed to call them heroes.
Click to expand...
How would you react to a Catholic shooting Chris Ofili for his degrading images of the Blessed Mother telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7093216/Chris-Ofilis-The-Holy-Virgin-Mary-returns-to-London.html? Would you blame the shooter or the victim?
 
Siegehammer said:
Some provocation serves no purpose other than to provoke people to violent anger and then say, “See?! They’re violent!”
Click to expand...
Can we measure levels of anger and determine that some are high levels that go to the level of a “hate group” that might sponsor a cartoon-drawing event, and other levels are “violent anger” levels of people who create and carry out a plan of inflicting violence upon people who are attending an event sponsored by a “hate group”?

That makes no sense to me because I agree with the following:
Siegehammer said:
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And it certainly doesn’t mean you have to.
Click to expand...
If you were not hired as security for the event, then your ability to bring loaded weapons to the event does not mean that you should and certainly does not mean that you have to.

Emotion can be contrasted with planning and action. It is possible for a plan to be such that, when we contemplate carrying out the plan, we are contemplating violent physical confrontation. When we speak of an emotion as being “violent”, we are speaking figuratively. No emotion compels violence, especially if there is a time delay that requires one to make plans before one can act out violently against the object of one’s anger.
Siegehammer said:
When people do this online, we call it clickbait. When people do this in real life, we’re supposed to call them heroes.
Click to expand...
I thought that the label “clickbait” is a guess until after one clicks. After one clicks, one might reach the conclusion that clicking had unforeseen and unintended consequences. We need to ask: was the event what it was advertised to be? Did people arrive and discover that it was not what they were expecting, and then load their weapons with ammunition and blast away?
 
ISIS has officially taken responsibility for the shootong which is very odd considering that their mission was not accomplished and their operatives were killed. You would think they wouldn’t want that egregious failure on their “resume of terror” but I guess I was wrong. 🤷

Desperate Much?
 
elsker said:
ISIS has officially taken responsibility for the shootong which is very odd considering that their mission was not accomplished and their operatives were killed. You would think they wouldn’t want that egregious failure on their “resume of terror” but I guess I was wrong. 🤷

Desperate Much?
Click to expand...
No, it’s logical. They want to stifle any criticism or negative comments regarding Islam. Attaching their name to any and all violence supports their policy of intimidation (which is what terrorism is about), scaring people to follow the course of action the terrorist organization desires. Do things like blame the victim for speaking to ensure others will be intimidated— vice focusing the blame on the terrorist organization.

Pam Gellar is the bad guy because people will attack her and those around her because of her opinions. See how that works? Let’s get the societal consensus that criticism of Islam is bad and have them fall into line with the terrorist idea of what our behavior should be.
 
styrgwillidar said:
They want to stifle any criticism or negative comments regarding Islam.
Click to expand...
Does ISIS want to stifle any criticism or negative comments about the ISIS version of Islam?

The only way to do that would be to prevent news media from reporting to mainstream Muslims the exploits of ISIS.

ISIS itself criticizes the flavor of Islam associated with the governments of Syria and Iran.

We could imagine a political party in country XYZ that opposes the burning of the flag of country XYZ. That tells us nothing substantive about the political party. That tells us only about the treatment of symbols, not the treatment of people.
 
Noone wants to run afoul of a Jewish hate group.
If you get on their bad side, they will draw a picture of you.
 
TEPO said:
A “Jewish” hate group…? :confused:

…Really? 😃
Click to expand...
Indeed. A Jewish hate group. Please refer to the NPR blog post, which explains it well enough.

I have no idea what your smileys are trying to communicate.:confused:

Jewish hate groups exist. Muslim hate groups exist.

This event was deliberate, to whatever limited extent hatred can be called conscious.
 
“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, a cartoon of Muhammad was suddenly and deliberately drawn by crayon artists of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation …”
 
PseuTonym said:
“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, a cartoon of Muhammad was suddenly and deliberately drawn by crayon artists of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation …”
Click to expand...
Cool!👍 I always like it when analogies I cannot grasp still make me laugh out loud!

I suspect you possess the mind of a poet, by the way.
 
Iconodule said:
Every year the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri holds a Holocaust Cartoon Contest to challenge Western accounts of the Holocaust.

It doesn’t get much press, because the Jews don’t shoot it up.
Click to expand...
How horrible, however, I still don’t see the reason why we should draw pictures of Mohammed, there are no reasons to do so unless you are intending to mock and that I believe would be disadvantageous, i.e., if we want Muslims to realize that Jesus is the " the truth, the way, and the life" than we should exemplify or rather emulate Him.

p.s. I can see how doing so would bring a sort of immediate vindictive satisfaction, especially in light of what some Muslims do to Christians in the Middle East, but in the end it will only result in their suffering not ours.
 
ucfengr said:
How would you react to a Catholic shooting Chris Ofili for his degrading images of the Blessed Mother telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7093216/Chris-Ofilis-The-Holy-Virgin-Mary-returns-to-London.html? Would you blame the shooter or the victim?
Click to expand...
Firstly, such provocation should not lead anyone to violence, no matter how offensive or provocative someone intends to be, secondly, people like Chris Ofili are what I would call “**** disturbers”, i.e., they purposely seek out to be offensive because it will be bring them the publicity they need or crave. That being said, I do believe that such people deserve criticism, and will, in the end, be held accountable for their actions when they die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top