The potential for violence exists at most any protest (though certainly some more than others). Doesn’t mean that protests should be banned. There is a potential for violence at any public event, yet we allow them. Potential for violence at gas stations and convenience stores located in impoverished areas, yet they are allowed. Completely uninvolved bystanders get injured all the time during these events, and at these locations. If I had any control over my kids any more, I’d say to avoid all of them, just so you aren’t an innocent caught in the crossfire.
Thank you, zoosermom. I was just going to post something along those lines. The responsibility of the attack lies with the men who carried it out, and frankly, they got what they deserved.
I would have been devastated and my life would probably be ruined. I would not, however, blame the people having a peaceful event inside a building where the only way to see anything “provocative” would be to attend. I would probably have hatred in my heart for radical Muslims that my Christian upbringing would not be able to overcome. I would not advocate that people be bullied into avoiding functions where they are peacefully and legally and really rather discreetly expressing ideas which I might personally find offensive because living in a society where speech is protected is very precious to me.
Nrdsb4:
What a charming question. You may have noticed the “rest of us” in quotes…that’s because I was quoting zmom expressing an opinion that there’s a lot of “us” who need reminding about our First Amendment rights. And I kind of disagree with that assertion.
Follow Pam Geller to your heart’s content…nobody’s stopping you.
I’ve already stated my opinion on that. But if I did want to follow her, I should be able to go to her little event inside a closed building where the contents have no way to offend anyone’s precious sensibilities WITHOUT being shot at or told I brought it on myself!
Yes, you should be able to do so WITHOUT being shot at, but then, it’s not really possible to control what riled up armed fanatics do unless we lock them up beforehand and that poses another rights dilemma. As for being told you brought it on yourself…well we’re back to that free speech thing. People do have a right to express that opinion, you know.
^^Actually you are right, you are well within your rights to blame the victim to your heart’s content.
Kind of interesting that the Geller event was scheduled in Texas, where the Governor had called out the State Militia to observe US military personnel undergoing training exercises. Some Texas residents were concerned that the US might use the training as an opportunity to infringe upon Texan rights.
^^^Well, it wasn’t planned or scheduled by any Texans, from what I understand. It was chosen specifically because of a prior event which had been held there which protested Islamophobia, IIRC.
Relating to the main subject of these forums, AP tests had been scheduled to use that building this week.
It looks from news articles that monday’s AP tests were canceled, but AP tests were subsequently resumed.
Monday’s AP tests were chemistry, environmental science, and psychology.
Our relatives were told their behavior was provoking violence against them.
And then their existence became a provocation.
We have a family photo of all the beautiful young girls.
Who never grew old enough to have boyfriends.
We try not to think how it happened, but I’ve heard enough stories that I don’t want to hear anymore.
When people say you’re provoking them to violence, the absolute worst thing to do is keep quiet and give in to them. You have two choices: run or fight. We can’t run so we must fight.
When the Black Panthers said we were provoking them to violence, we didn’t as a society roll over. We put them in prison when they broke the laws or killed them when they were violent. When the Weather Underground and other groups in the 1960’s and 70’s said we were provoking them to violence, we put them in prison when they broke the laws or killed them when they were violent. This is no different.
I am heartily sick of the notion that somehow we “radicalize” young Muslims. We offered the Tsarnaevs a home when their country was a violent catastrophe and they murdered children. We offered the leader of the duo killed in Garland a home but rather than go back to Pakistan he tried to kill people. Are we supposed to give the gold watches and a big bank account so they won’t “radicalize”? The word itself expresses the problem: they are “radicalized” into extremist, violent Islam not into peaceful, non-violent activism or peaceful, non-violent religious devotion.
I found this quote in today’s NYT about Muslims living in Garland, TX:
“The discussion we have to have is: When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?” Ms. Salem said. “Free speech is not the same as responsible speech.”
Absolutely wrong. Free speech is what’s protected in this country. There is no requirement it be “responsible” other than very specific things like not yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If you want a country where that is the law, move there.
Also and even worse, they’re trying to define any thing that offends Islam not only as “hate speech”, which isn’t true under our laws, but also as “incitement to violence” as though there are no laws or cases in this nation about when speech can be said to incite violence. This kind of thinking is what we must fight against.
Or we can say, “Here’s the discussion: in our country, this is free speech and it isn’t hate speech though you may not like it. Period.”
Otherwise, I want to start having Muslims arrested for the things they say about Jews. I have lots of examples in my files. Hate speech. Maybe we’d be “justified” in that irrational sense for killing a few Muslims because they so deeply offend us.
The 2 Tsarnaev brothers are not representative of the millions of Muslims who contribute every day to making this a great country.
McVeigh and Nichols were not representative of the millions of Christians who contribute every day to making this a great country.
“The 2 Tsarnaev brothers are not representative of the millions of Muslims who contribute every day to making this a great country.”
I agree with that, and for the most part, I think the Muslim population in this country is peaceful, and wishes no harm upon other citizens here. However, you don’t have to look very far to see countries with large and growing Muslim populations, where there is a big problem. Take a look at England and France, and it doesn’t seem to be working out so well for them. Many people who don’t want to assimilate, who want to change the countries laws to fit the repressive regimes that they came from, and are willing to do it through violence and intimidation.
I can understand why groups like this “hate group” are worried and afraid that welcoming too many Muslims into the US could be a problem. They look across the pond and see what is happening over there, the lack of freedoms in Islamic countries, the brutal killing of anyone who doesn’t agree, cruel and controlling laws that rule peoples lives. The issues that are caused by a culture clash between people who love freedom, and those who want to restrict everyone else’s. Who wants to deal with that over here?
Pretty much off the mark as response!
We are offended when the flag is desecrated on US soil. Burning the flag and other elements of Western Culture is fair game in most of the Muslim world.
Should we be bound to respect obscure elements of every religion in the world? Who is to say that some of those obscure elements (such as the “sacred symbols” are real or the figment of the imagination of zealots?
What happens when the sacred “religious” element violates OUR laws? An example is the niqab that violated most laws in Europe in terms of masking the face in public?
When does our normal lifestyle become … offensive to the same armed followers of zealots?
“When the Black Panthers said we were provoking them to violence, we didn’t as a society roll over. We put them in prison when they broke the laws or killed them when they were violent. When the Weather Underground and other groups in the 1960’s and 70’s said we were provoking them to violence, we put them in prison when they broke the laws or killed them when they were violent. This is no different.”
This fallacious comment has to be corrected.
The Black Panther Party of the 1960s in Oakland and Chicago were certainly provoked and illegally (and at times brutally) harassed by racist local police. Read the transcripts of the Chicago Seven Trial.
Muslims were perfectly free to remain outside of the venue which hosted the cartoon exhibition. Their eyes and sensibilities would have been perfectly free of these offensive images just by staying away. It’s not like the participants held up large posters of these cartoons outside a Mosque as people arrived for a service. Muslims cannot dictate that everyone else adhere to their rules in privately rented facilities on their own time! Christians cannot dictate that an atheist group not have an art exhibit highlighting the follies of Christianity or displaying art depicting offensive images of Jesus with the assertion that these types of expressions constitute “hate speech” which should be discouraged, disallowed, or punished. I cannot insist that Seth MacFarlane be prohibited from making fun of Jesus in his show Family Guy, but I can boycott the show. I can also boycott advertisers which buy time, but to try to attempt to formally categorize the show as “hate speech” because I am offended is going down that oft referred to “slippery slope.”
Violent actions and hateful intent , do not always involve weapons.
I have no idea why people need to say the Tsarnaevs don’t represent American Muslims. To me, that comment is either a way of deflecting blame from Islam or the same basic racism of the kind I called out before that insists Pamela Geller is somehow an embarrassment for Judaism. These are individuals, not elected representatives. But they are Muslim individuals led into the worst expressions of violence by their religious convictions. No one says this is true for all Muslims - though so many Muslims say “all Jews are …” - but it’s a Muslim problem.
(That said and solely as an aside, it’s somewhat pathetic to listen to the excuses made to save the younger one from a death sentence: he listened to his older brother and that is culturally important … as if family isn’t important in other cultures … as if that’s an excuse for an adult American to blow up children. The image being presented is essentially racist: he’s from Dagestan and the implication is that’s a backwards place where family roles are more important than in Western society and thus his backwards culture and family and, again by implication, his religion diminish his personal choices. Yeah right, tell that to the masses who do things they don’t want to do because their families insist or need them to … And BTW, I think they should just lock him up and forget about him.)
I lived through the Black Panthers and I know they were provoked but that doesn’t excuse their violence. (BTW, I thought The Butler movie handled this issue within black families quite well.)
@Lergnom. Pretty sure you just called me a racist for posting comment #112. Please elaborate.