Two gunmen killed at cartoon contest

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MattyC

This would be the case if these people were running around the middle east waving the cartoons. This was in Texas. Not sure your analogy applies.

This is the more like having a cartoon contest satirizing Captain Kirk, and having a small minority of Trekkies go on a murderous rampage over it. (and yes, I liken any religious figurehead to pretty much any popular fictitious character).

It's still purposely going out of the way to antagonize a religious/ethnic group. Let's not pretend that the Mohammed caricatures don't also have elements of racism in them.

The main reason why I am against them is because they don't just offend religious nutjobs. They also offend ordinary Arabs and Muslims in the West that want nothing more than to live in peace. It's not a productive thing for any society when one group goes out of the way to antagonize another.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It would be kind of like going into Harlem wearing a t-shirt with a blackface caricature on it. If the person was harmed, it wouldn't excuse it, but I think you could say that the victim in such a case was asking for trouble.

Also a good analogy, but swap get harmed with get murdered. We are nit talking about some getting a black eye over being a dick, we are talking about people committing murder over religious ideology.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think it's just a spectrum of willingness to follow through on doctrine... Some people are Christian only in so far as they self-identify as Christian. Some people are Christian to the point where they go to Church a few times a year. Some go every Sunday. Some go every Sunday, pray every night, participate in Church activities, and vote according to the religiosity of a particular political candidate. And some kill abortion doctors.

If you are religious, there are degrees to which your belief system affects how you live your life and how far you're willing to go.

With respect to doctrine, icons of the prophet are forbidden by the Qu'ran, but not specific punishment is provided. However, the Hadith, which forms the basis of much of Sharia and is also considered sacred, provide for a number of punishments and these vary based on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or not. If it is a non-Muslim, the majority view (among religious prescriptions, not among actual Muslims themselves) seems to be that your options are either to convert to Islam or be killed. Oddly, the Hadith seems to suggest that all pictures are bad (Angels don't seem to like pictures). I should note that this is just my understanding as I am not a Muslim.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The main reason why I am against them is because they don't just offend religious nutjobs. They also offend ordinary Arabs and Muslims in the West that want nothing more than to live in peace.

But they're perfectly entitled to offend people. This does nothing to prevent those people from practicing their religion. A lot of Christians are offended by people talking about evolution, but they're still perfectly capable of believing their own version of history.

Incidentally, and more importantly, identifying Muslims with Arabs is ignorant. Islam has over 1.5 billion adherents and is arguably the most ethnically diverse religion in terms of its membership on the planet.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But they're perfectly entitled to offend people. This does nothing to prevent those people from practicing their religion. A lot of Christians are offended by people talking about evolution, but they're still perfectly capable of believing their own version of history.

Incidentally, and more importantly, identifying Muslims with Arabs is ignorant. Islam has over 1.5 billion adherents and is arguably the most ethnically diverse religion in terms of its membership on the planet.

I'm not identifying Muslims with Arabs, but rather Mohammed with Arabs (he was an Arab). Therefore the cartoons are both offensive to Muslims from a general religious point of view regardless of race, but also Arabs from a specifically racial point of view regardless of religion (the caricatures usually have racial undertones to Arabs).

The evolution analogy also doesn't fit because teaching evolution is necessary. Drawing cartoons is not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The ability to draw cartoons absolutely is.Once you say, "well, this particular aspect of free speech is unnecessary and is kind of distasteful anyway so we can do without it", you've already lost your moral bearings.

People are free to draw cartoons. They are free to draw offensive cartoons. They are even free to draw offensive, racist cartoons. You and I are free to point out that those cartoons are racist and offensive and ridicule and shame those people for drawing them. Happy to do so.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's still purposely going out of the way to antagonize a religious/ethnic group. Let's not pretend that the Mohammed caricatures don't also have elements of racism in them.

The main reason why I am against them is because they don't just offend religious nutjobs. They also offend ordinary Arabs and Muslims in the West that want nothing more than to live in peace. It's not a productive thing for any society when one group goes out of the way to antagonize another.

I agree with this, the contest is very poor taste, and just because of where it's located and some of the attendees, that it was done in provocation. That is not okay and should be denounced as such.

There's still no reason to kill people. Bottom line. That's it.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think that there's a "but" that applies here.

as in

I get freedom of speech "But" they were spitting in the face of a religion and that's what happens.

To me if we say that then how can we then separate Islam from radical Islam.

The US and other Western democracies are countries that worship the freedom of speech, and of expression, they embrace the ability to create satire and debate things politically.

So is it maybe distasteful to have that cartoon contest? Absolutely, but is it a fundamental part of their package of rights? big time.

When the use of violence comes into play and the threat of violence to attack a fundamental, defining right, there can't be a "but" to justify it.

You can't surrender your rights due to fear of violent reprisals that shouldn't be justifiable in any way. Its the classic victory for these monsters if you're willing to give up your freedom to do satire, or speak your mind, or be gay or whatever, in the face of not upsetting them and creating a violent response.

The goal of terrorists if to chip away at your sense of security, and your sense of being able to do what your entitled to do and to fundamental change your society to their way of thinking.

And once they see success, they'll double down. If tomorrow the President or the Prime Minister came out and made it illegal to make fun of create images of the prophet, the fundamentalists aren't going to stop, lay down their arms and join society, they have a long checklist of things that need to change for them to accept society. They'll move on to woman's dresses and conduct in public. They'll attack homosexuals, and people that say bad things about Islam. They'll push for those things that we in an open society find reprehensible.

Yes, you can attack the core issues of poverty and education and thin their pipeline, but they'll always be extremists, whether its religious, or environmental, or political, and the best solution is to root them out and either kill them, or force them to occupy their time in just trying to survive.

But there is no "But"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I agree with this, the contest is very poor taste, and just because of where it's located and some of the attendees, that it was done in provocation. That is not okay and should be denounced as such.

There's still no reason to kill people. Bottom line. That's it.

Poor taste is not a criminal offense, having an event like this isn't a death penalty, its basically part of your freedom rights.

If we suddenly say, no you can't do these, and you can't draw pictures of a long dead prophet, then you're selling out for security, and I think that we can all agree that that's something that we don't want.

You're basically denouncing someone for practicing their rights.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're basically denouncing someone for practicing their rights.

Yeah but you can do that. You can denounce someone for practicing their rights in a particular way. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If someone gives a speech in which they claim that homosexuality is unnatural and should be re-criminalized, that's an exercise of free speech. I denouce the speaker for using that right in that particular way. Nothing inconsistent about that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The ability to draw cartoons absolutely is.Once you say, "well, this particular aspect of free speech is unnecessary and is kind of distasteful anyway so we can do without it", you've already lost your moral bearings.

People are free to draw cartoons. They are free to draw offensive cartoons. They are even free to draw offensive, racist cartoons. You and I are free to point out that those cartoons are racist and offensive and ridicule and shame those people for drawing them. Happy to do so.

Being free to do something, doesn't mean that it is automatically moral either. I would say that someone doing something just because they are free to do so, but knowing that it will offend people and potentially even cause harm to bystanders, is someone who also lost their moral bearings. The Westborough Baptist Church exercises a lot of freedom as well, but it doesn't make anything better.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah but you can do that. You can denounce someone for practicing their rights in a particular way. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If someone gives a speech in which they claim that homosexuality is unnatural and should be re-criminalized, that's an exercise of free speech. I denouce the speaker for using that right in that particular way. Nothing inconsistent about that.

I agree with that, that's again a fundamental right to do that.

Plus I would think in this day and age a large majority of people would in fact say "Your views are stupid"

But unless the anti-gay activist is rallying people to the cause of murdering or harming homosexuals (which is inciting hate to a violent end) that's where it ends.

To me I guess this is fundamentally different then you're argument.

Are they arguing that Islam should be criminalized?

Are they arguing that people who practice Islam as a whole are fundamentally evil? nope

Instead they're standing up in the face of the slaughter in France and saying they aren't cowed by the threat of violence.

And violence nearly found them, and that's the real evil here, not a bunch of yahoo's drawing art.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Being free to do something, doesn't mean that it is automatically moral either. I would say that someone doing something just because they are free to do so, but knowing that it will offend people and potentially even cause harm to bystanders, is someone who also lost their moral bearings. The Westborough Baptist Church exercises a lot of freedom as well, but it doesn't make anything better.

Suddenly it becomes very easy to label things as immoral if you have that position.

At this point we might as well ban debate clubs in school because debating makes someone feel bad.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Being free to do something, doesn't mean that it is automatically moral either. I would say that someone doing something just because they are free to do so, but knowing that it will offend people and potentially even cause harm to bystanders, is someone who also lost their moral bearings. The Westborough Baptist Church exercises a lot of freedom as well, but it doesn't make anything better.

Yes, and to the extent that the WBC preaches actual violence against people I'd say that's where the line gets drawn. However, outside of that, they are not immune to criticism on the basis of morality. I think you'll find that I didn't come close to suggesting that "being free to do something means it's automatically moral". All speech should be subject to criticism.

That being said, doing something just because you are free to do so in full knowledge of the offense it will cause is not necessarily immoral. It may be a demonstration in favour of the importance of that particular right. In the current context, that's a perfectly defensible thing to do. I'm not saying that was what was going on here; maybe the organizers of this thing legitimately just wanted to provoke people into trying to kill them. But in theory, the idea of a contest like this could well be laudable.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Instead they're standing up in the face of the slaughter in France and saying they aren't cowed by the threat of violence.

And violence nearly found them, and that's the real evil here, not a bunch of yahoo's drawing art.

If the first sentence here is the case (if that was really the point of this) then I agree. I definitely agree with the second sentence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There's still no reason to kill people. Bottom line. That's it.

You really hit the nail on the head with this.


There is no reason to kill people.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Poor taste is not a criminal offense, having an event like this isn't a death penalty, its basically part of your freedom rights.

If we suddenly say, no you can't do these, and you can't draw pictures of a long dead prophet, then you're selling out for security, and I think that we can all agree that that's something that we don't want.

You're basically denouncing someone for practicing their rights.

Yeah, denouncing isn't really the right word. I totally agree with you. I'm a cartoonist myself and of course feel as though I can and should be able to draw anything I please without fearing a bullet in the back of my head.

I just mean this was obviously specifically targeted. It wasn't a satirical cartoon contest. Or even a religion-based cartoon contest (which would probably yield plenty of anti-Islam cartoons on it's own). And I wouldn't put it past them actually hoping something like this would happen just to "prove the point". That's what I have trouble with. It's not targeting the right thing. Mohammed is not the problem. The extremism is the problem.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Mohammed is not the problem. The extremism is the problem.

I tend to disagree. Mohammed is sort of the problem. This isn't a Jesus figure; the guy was a warlord. And when you set such a person up as the epitome of human behaviour, problems will result.

[Tiger]

Would this be more of a hate crime then a freedom of speech thing? It seems like there intent was to be racist is the disguise of freedom of speech.

It is funny to see how people in general respond to this or topic such as these cartoons and say it is freedom of speech. But when it comes to topics like sexism, there is a lot more angst and no freedom of speech talk.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Would this be more of a hate crime then a freedom of speech thing? It seems like there intent was to be racist is the disguise of freedom of speech.

In order for there to have been a "hate crime", there must first be a "crime". For example, assaulting someone for being black has the "crime" element in the assault, and the "hate" element in the motivation.

Where was the crime here?

It is funny to see how people in general respond to this or topic such as these cartoons and say it is freedom of speech. But when it comes to topics like sexism, there is a lot more angst and no freedom of speech talk.

This doesn't even make sense. No one has stated that people should be killed for being sexist, or even sanctioned by law except where sexist behaviour demonstrably harms someone. If you think all women should be making babies and sandwiches I think you're an a$$hole and I'm happy to tell everyone you are, but you're still entitled to be an a$$hole.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Would this be more of a hate crime then a freedom of speech thing? It seems like there intent was to be racist is the disguise of freedom of speech.

It is funny to see how people in general respond to this or topic such as these cartoons and say it is freedom of speech. But when it comes to topics like sexism, there is a lot more angst and no freedom of speech talk.

How is it in any way racist?

They're not drawing pictures of all Muslims having sex with children, or anything like that, they're drawing a caricature of one person who is the prophet of the religion.

Unless I missed something, this wasn't a convention where they described all people who aspire to that religion as terrorists or monsters or worse.

You're getting things confused here.

Its becoming way to easy to label things as racism or symptomatic racism.

Making fun of the prophet isn't racist, making fun of Christ or Ghandi or any religious diety isn't racist.

Saying that all Muslims for example are of low intelligence and predisposed to random acts of violence is, and I don't believe that was the message there.