Two gunmen killed at cartoon contest

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are Mormons Christian? They believe all of this, but a lot of Christians would say, no, Mormons aren't Christian.

Anyway, I don't think it's a useful argument. I don't really care what label you put on a set of beliefs so much as the beliefs themselves.

Mormons are not, IMO, Christian.

But I agree this isn't, like religion it self, useful.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

MattyC, I agree with your overall point, but I'm not sure I agree with this:



The cartoons target one particular doctrine of Islam - anti-iconography and the prescribed consequences thereof. They don't target Islam as a whole (at least not without knowing their contents). This contest would not exist if there were not people willing to kill you (or do other bad things to you beyond denouncing you) simply for creating an icon of the prophet. That's a particular doctrine that is a bad thing for people to believe, and is in itself "extreme" at least by my definition.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a religion - a set of religious principles - and look at individual principles and say, "this is a bad thing to believe".

I don't think they do target it. I think they THINK they do, because as you say, the whole point is that we shouldn't be killing people for drawing cartoons of a prophet.

But I personally don't think that just drawing more cartoons of him is the right approach. I think you should parodying those that find it offensive enough to murder someone over it. And I know that this is their way of doing that, I just think it's the wrong avenue to take. I think showing cartoons of those who are killing people for such a ludicrous reason would be more impactful.

We should be trying to get to the point of "Wow, people are killing in the name of MY beliefs because they made fun of our prophet? That's completely ridiculous." instead of "Look, they're making fun of our prophet, I guess we should renounce Islam." Because the second one doesn't work and isn't the end game. It's an attempt to eradicate Islam vs showing people of that mind why killing people over this is ridiculous. Continually prodding the initial provocation I don't think will ever work.

Lets say you continually poke your brother to the point that he snaps and breaks your leg with a bat, obviously taking it way to far. Do you think it would be better to continue poking him to try and show him why he shouldn't have reacted so extremely, or to show him a video of his reaction so he can see how ridiculously over the top it was?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Disagree, there is an inherent paradox. I can't call myself a guitar player if I never play guitar, it means nothing. A church is not Christian if there is a core contradiction or paradox. They do not follow supposed christian ideals so how are they Christian? I can call myself whatever I want, if there's an inherent logical paradox it's unlikely to be true.

The Bible says no idolatry but in the middle of so-called Christian churches there are idols. Paradox nullifies etymology of name attributed.

Example of Idols please.

[AcGold]

Etymology of idol from the Greek eidos; graven image, shape or form of anything that is revered or conveys spiritual significance. E.g. man on cross, golden chalices, statues of Mary. It all contradicts the Bible and Christian ideology. A true Christian Church would have no rituals or idols. Thank you for not being condescending.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Etymology of idol from the Greek eidos; graven image, shape or form of anything that is revered or conveys spiritual significance. E.g. man on cross, golden chalices, statues of Mary. It all contradicts the Bible and Christian ideology. A true Christian Church would have no rituals or idols. Thank you for not being condescending.

Do you believe that there is a "true Christian Church" (as you described) currently in the world?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^ I don't think, on the requirements he's laid out, that there is a church or religion of any kind anywhere.

But the more important point is that he's said that X religious institution does not follow "Christian ideals". The obvious response is, "no, you just have a different notion of what constitutes 'Christian ideals'".

Originally Posted by MattyC

But I personally don't think that just drawing more cartoons of him is the right approach. I think you should parodying those that find it offensive enough to murder someone over it. And I know that this is their way of doing that, I just think it's the wrong avenue to take.

Okay, sure, an argument over the best way to criticise something is totally fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to take this path, you're just suggesting a better one. That's fine, I'd be willing to be convinced either way.

We should be trying to get to the point of "Wow, people are killing in the name of MY beliefs because they made fun of our prophet? That's completely ridiculous." instead of "Look, they're making fun of our prophet, I guess we should renounce Islam." Because the second one doesn't work and isn't the end game. It's an attempt to eradicate Islam vs showing people of that mind why killing people over this is ridiculous.

Wait, how did we get here? If I draw a picture of the Prophet, I'm not doing it to suggest that Islam be eradicated. Again, as I said, I'm criticizing one particular doctrine. And even then, I wouldn't be as inclined to criticize that one (since there are others, like killing apostates, that are probably worse) if not for the punishment people seem to think is warranted.

No one should delude themselves into thinking that 1.5+ billion people can be talked into giving up their firmly held beliefs. Certainly not through satire. At least the immediate goal should be reforming the structure of the religion to either reject beliefs that are harmful (i.e. anything demonizing jews) or rejecting the idea that religious prescriptions should carry any punishment more severe than stern disapproval. If the response to drawing the Prophet was a statement from Muslim leaders that this is offensive and the corresponding outrage from Muslims without any resort to violence or calls for the execution of the cartoonist, it wouldn't be as big a problem.

Lets say you continually poke your brother to the point that he snaps and breaks your leg with a bat, obviously taking it way to far. Do you think it would be better to continue poking him to try and show him why he shouldn't have reacted so extremely, or to show him a video of his reaction so he can see how ridiculously over the top it was?

I think either is defensible. The analogy is a bit silly, but if you stop poking him, he has at least learned that if he breaks your leg with a bat, he can get what he wants. There is something to the argument that you should show that you won't be deterred by extreme reactions. But I'd prefer not to argue by analogy, and I am in any case open to other solutions.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait, how did we get here? If I draw a picture of the Prophet, I'm not doing it to suggest that Islam be eradicated. Again, as I said, I'm criticizing one particular doctrine. And even then, I wouldn't be as inclined to criticize that one (since there are others, like killing apostates, that are probably worse) if not for the punishment people seem to think is warranted.

No one should delude themselves into thinking that 1.5+ billion people can be talked into giving up their firmly held beliefs. Certainly not through satire. At least the immediate goal should be reforming the structure of the religion to either reject beliefs that are harmful (i.e. anything demonizing jews) or rejecting the idea that religious prescriptions should carry any punishment more severe than stern disapproval. If the response to drawing the Prophet was a statement from Muslim leaders that this is offensive and the corresponding outrage from Muslims without any resort to violence or calls for the execution of the cartoonist, it wouldn't be as big a problem.

Yes agree with you here. What I'm saying is that just drawing more cartoons of Muhammed could be viewed as an attack on Islam itself, by those who are Islamic. Not by the people drawing them. It's easy propaganda for those on the other side push fence-sitters over the edge. "Look! America mocks us!!" It's unifying them around the common enemy. Whereas you could take the approach of alienating the ridiculousness of extremism, which, at the very least, they can't point to as a reason to join their fight. Obviously they think they are conveying the proper messages. But I think, especially when you're implement satire as a means of change, you have to really think about how the opposing view reacts. And the only way that this shows absurdity in the extremism is IF an attack happens. If an attack doesn't happen, their point isn't made. Whereas you can make your point without the need of a reaction by taking a different route and satirizing those who would do the attacking, not the religion itself. As attacking Islam in general could be viewed as a desire to rid the world of Islam, not to rid the world of extremists, especially considering the source (Texas).

To me it's provocation vs peaceful protest, which is what art should be. It should never hope or need to incite violence to prove it's point. it should prove it's point on it's own.

As to the analogy, I agree it's silly. But, honestly, this whole situation is silly to me. I can't believe that people take this seriously enough to drive them to murder.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

To me it's provocation vs peaceful protest, which is what art should be. It should never hope or need to incite violence to prove it's point. it should prove it's point on it's own.

As to the analogy, I agree it's silly. But, honestly, this whole situation is silly to me. I can't believe that people take this seriously enough to drive them to murder.

To the former, I think that satire should be whatever it's going to be. In other words, there is no "should be" when it comes to art or expression, with the caveat again that we are always free to criticize that expression as you are doing.

And with respect to the second part here, it seems that a lot of people are in the same boat - they literally can't believe this behaviour. Which, in my opinion, is why people want to just brush off religious motivations and look at socio-economic factors. These are all contributors, but you need to just stop for a second and think about how you would behave if you really, truly believed what the people who attacked Charlie Hebdo (for example) say they believe. If that belief was ingrained into you from a young age and was as true to you as 1+1=2. We can't identify with that kind of mindset, but understanding how fundamentally different it is from our own is the first step to accepting that people who hold such an increidbly different view of the cosmos may be prompted by it to action we find inexplicable.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To the former, I think that satire should be whatever it's going to be. In other words, there is no "should be" when it comes to art or expression, with the caveat again that we are always free to criticize that expression as you are doing.

And with respect to the second part here, it seems that a lot of people are in the same boat - they literally can't believe this behaviour. Which, in my opinion, is why people want to just brush off religious motivations and look at socio-economic factors. These are all contributors, but you need to just stop for a second and think about how you would behave if you really, truly believed what the people who attacked Charlie Hebdo (for example) say they believe. If that belief was ingrained into you from a young age and was as true to you as 1+1=2. We can't identify with that kind of mindset, but understanding how fundamentally different it is from our own is the first step to accepting that people who hold such an increidbly different view of the cosmos may be prompted by it to action we find inexplicable.

I totally agree with you here. But that's why I think they've gone about the wrong way by caricaturing the prophet of Islam vs the extremism of certain sects. I think that, in itself, shows the artists are lacking the understanding you mention above. They are grouping all of it together as one and mocking it rather than singling out the areas that are actually the problem. By doing so they are giving groups like ISIS ammo for the indoctrination you describe. They wouldn't be able to wave cartoons about themselves as propaganda for taking out the Big Bad West, because they would expose the absurdities of themselves instead of the ignorance of the West.

You seem to be arguing that we are too ignorant of their mindset for the art to be properly effective and I completely agree and it's a reason why satire has to be used properly and, most of all, intelligently, in order to have effectiveness. Satire from a point of ignorance comes off as exactly that, and that's what this is to me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Christians believe Christ is/was/will be their savior. It is that simple.

Mormons, Catholics....definitely Christians.

[You Need a Thneed]

A fairly good way to determine who falls under "Christianity" is to looks at the ancient creeds - ie. the apostles creed.

Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, all agree on everything in those creeds. How the words are defined/interpreted, etc, might vary slightly, but there is agreeance on the creed. They are all Christians.

Mormons, JWs, etc, pretty much don't agree with a single line of those creeds. They are not Christians.

[Jets4Life]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The would-be terrorists in Garland fell for one of the classic blunders: Never assume that you’ve outgunned an art show in Texas.</p>&mdash; Daniel Foster (@DanFosterType) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanFosterType/status/595034559554691072">May 4, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry unsure of how to embed tweets on CP...

[T@T]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A fairly good way to determine who falls under "Christianity" is to looks at the ancient creeds - ie. the apostles creed.

Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, all agree on everything in those creeds. How the words are defined/interpreted, etc, might vary slightly, but there is agreeance on the creed. They are all Christians.

Mormons, JWs, etc, pretty much don't agree with a single line of those creeds. They are not Christians.

Christians and Mormons both worship the same spaghetti monster...same different pile.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I totally agree with you here. But that's why I think they've gone about the wrong way by caricaturing the prophet of Islam vs the extremism of certain sects. I think that, in itself, shows the artists are lacking the understanding you mention above. They are grouping all of it together as one and mocking it rather than singling out the areas that are actually the problem. By doing so they are giving groups like ISIS ammo for the indoctrination you describe. They wouldn't be able to wave cartoons about themselves as propaganda for taking out the Big Bad West, because they would expose the absurdities of themselves instead of the ignorance of the West.

You seem to be arguing that we are too ignorant of their mindset for the art to be properly effective and I completely agree and it's a reason why satire has to be used properly and, most of all, intelligently, in order to have effectiveness. Satire from a point of ignorance comes off as exactly that, and that's what this is to me.

It doesn't matter if it's ignorance or not, stupid or not, or effective or not. It's free speech and free speech should always win.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is it in any way racist?

On the face of it I suppose you could say "it's not about racism, it's about freedom of speech", but all those grayhairs were obviously congregating in that hick Texas town to poke fun at the brown people and titter at their "god".

They are welcome to do it, of course, and no religious nut can be excused for showing up with a gun, but this wasn't some noble cause, no matter what they say. They were trolling in real life, and it worked. Don't feed the trolls! Especially when they've hired a bunch of steroid-case "policemen" in military fatigues and tribal tattoos with automatic weapons to defend their rights.

I guarantee that "contest" had a white power element to it somewhere, with some Tea Party nonsense, Birther conspiracy theories, and anti-immigration xenophobia mixed in for good measure.

I would be interested in seeing if their absolute dedication to free speech extends to things like reproductive rights, marriage equality, and gun control.

[Dagger]

Those are merely your own assumptions. At the end of the day, 2 people were murdered because they exercised their right of free speech. They did not break any laws, and they did not promote violence or harm. Agree or disagree with them, they are protected by law in our society. There is a growing group of Islamists in this world who take such behaviour as blasphemous and punishable by death. You saw it yesterday, and you saw it at Charlie Hebdo in the last year. Nobody should be bullied out of exercising a fundamental right, and it's a growing problem in Western civilizations today.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Those are merely your own assumptions. At the end of the day, 2 people were murdered because they exercised their right of free speech. They did not break any laws, and they did not promote violence or harm. Agree or disagree with them, they are protected by law in our society. There is a growing group of Islamists in this world who take such behaviour as blasphemous and punishable by death. You saw it yesterday, and you saw it at Charlie Hebdo in the last year. Nobody should be bullied out of exercising a fundamental right, and it's a growing problem in Western civilizations today.

I don't know if this was a response to my post or not, but who got murdered because they exercised their right of free speech?

The nuts who showed up with guns got killed. Nobody else did. A security guard was shot in the leg and then treated and released from the hospital.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if this was a response to my post or not, but who got murdered because they exercised their right of free speech?

The nuts who showed up with guns got killed. Nobody else did. A security guard was shot in the leg and then treated and released from the hospital.

The result is fairly irrelevant in terms of the debate, the intention is what matters.

Those nuts didn't go to the event to get shot at the front door by the security guards.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The result is fairly irrelevant in terms of the debate, the intention is what matters.

The post I was responding to said two people were murdered exercising their right to free speech. Nobody was murdered. No doubt that was the intention, but it didn't happen. That was my point.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Those are merely your own assumptions. At the end of the day, 2 people were murdered because they exercised their right of free speech. They did not break any laws, and they did not promote violence or harm. Agree or disagree with them, they are protected by law in our society. There is a growing group of Islamists in this world who take such behaviour as blasphemous and punishable by death. You saw it yesterday, and you saw it at Charlie Hebdo in the last year. Nobody should be bullied out of exercising a fundamental right, and it's a growing problem in Western civilizations today.

Before my head explodes can you explain this post?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

On the face of it I suppose you could say "it's not about racism, it's about freedom of speech", but all those grayhairs were obviously congregating in that hick Texas town to poke fun at the brown people and titter at their "god".

They are welcome to do it, of course, and no religious nut can be excused for showing up with a gun, but this wasn't some noble cause, no matter what they say. They were trolling in real life, and it worked. Don't feed the trolls! Especially when they've hired a bunch of steroid-case "policemen" in military fatigues and tribal tattoos with automatic weapons to defend their rights.

I guarantee that "contest" had a white power element to it somewhere, with some Tea Party nonsense, Birther conspiracy theories, and anti-immigration xenophobia mixed in for good measure.

I would be interested in seeing if their absolute dedication to free speech extends to things like reproductive rights, marriage equality, and gun control.

In this case the terrorists had the automatic weapons and the guy who stopped them before likely a lot of "cartoonists" died was an off duty traffic cop with nothing more than a pistol.

Meanwhile.
ISIS takes responsibility and warns of more attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/gar...ing/index.html