You had to pay $25 to attend the Muhammed drawing contest.
I think we should hold these contests in every city in America to attract the lunatics with their AK 47s blazing. Trained cops can mow down these worthless individuals who want to kill us, like the Texas traffic cop did.
I thought it was AK-15s. Let’s not make the facts bigger than they are - next they’ll have had Bazookas, haha.
I guess it shows our best defense against terrorism is Texas traffic cops.
You sure the trained cops you refer to are on board with your idea? You feel confident the taxpayers in the cities want to pay for the extra police detail — and possibly lifelong widow and orphan benefits — for the thrill of calling out more wanna-be terrorists?
How about volunteering the place next door to where you live or work as the next site?
This isn’t about preserving free speech — who the heck really wants to draw pictures of Mohammed (the prophet, not your friend Mohammed which is the counter-reaction)?
This is about provoking violence and starting a war at home, so Geller and her ilk can say, see, Muslims are a danger to your way of life. Amazing you don’t see the manipulation behind her actions.
I
No, it’s about making a statement that certain radical beliefs may not be acted upon in our society, and that no one in this country is required to respect anyone’s religious beliefs. That is the point of the drawing contests. If you cannot live in a society where people are free to say whatever they want about your religion then go find another place to live. It is not about provoking violence, it’s about driving home that point. Which some people obviously refuse to accept, so they have amassed weapons and plans to murder people who diss their religious beliefs that are incompatible with our constitution.
We won’t do anything about it though, other than have the FBI track their whereabouts, because too many people would feel offended if we tried. So instead we will be quiet about it to appease them, living out our lives with the knowledge that we could be murdered in our homes if we draw a picture and the wrong people find out we did it.
Nobody, at least on this thread, has justified the violent attacks on Geller’s event. Not one single person. Nobody has said she deserved to be attacked, or that violence is justified in this or any similar situation. Also, unless, I’m mistaken, nobody has said that her event should have been banned by the government.
It’s not surprising, though, that folks have to resort to those straw man arguments, because it’s awfully hard otherwise to defend somebody who makes hateful statements all the time and who stages an event deliberately designed to offend others and to draw attacks (of one kind or another).
I’m still confused at why Geller’s group is scum, but Charlie Hebdo’s people are heroic, for doing pretty much the same thing. To quote, “an event deliberately designed to offend others and to draw attacks”. Can anyone enlighten me?
Jazzymom said Geller is trying to provoke violence and start a war at home. Doesn’t that mean jazzymom thinks Geller deserved the attacks?
I wouldn’t say she thought that, though I certainly can’t speak for someone else. However, perhaps she thought that an attack like this would be expected… which I would agree with. Stupid, vicious killers are salivating to get an opportunity, so something like this is an obvious one, I suppose.
I don’t think Charlie Hebdo is all that heroic, either. I think the fact that they were equal-opportunity offenders made them look better. Remember the guy who said he was going to burn a Koran? It seems to me that his case was one in which people were more able to recognize that although he had the right to do it, it was a bad thing to do.
Nope.
MidwestDad, no, I just don’t understand why people say these things. It’s wholly irrational to believe all Muslims are like this so what is the point of saying all Muslims aren’t like this.
I don’t see anything wrong with undertaking lawful activities to provoke a conversation or make a point. Inflammatory activities get the most attention and are often the most effective. I appreciate what Hedbo, Geller and the preacher did to make what I see as an important point, namely that I do not have to comply with your religious beliefs. I like my own life too much to risk doing it myself.
You mean like Mapplethorpe and his kiddy porn pictures? Or maybe P*** Christ? Sounds like we might just have to shut a lot of art galleries.
So, Bay, are you also saying that you approve of the bravery of the Nazis marching through Skokie, or members of the KKK burning crosses? Aren’t they making the same “important point?”
Sure, I approve of everyone lawfully exercising their rights, don’t you?
No, I don’t. I think it was evil and horrible for the Nazis to march through Skokie. I support their right to do it, but I totally condemn their decision to do so. Are you just pretending not to see the distinction?
I see the distinction but it doesn’t apply to shielding the feelings of people who would kill me for things I lawfully say and do. Those Nazis in Skokie didn’t kill anyone to my knowledge.
And nobody tried to kill the marching Nazis.
The only reaction to free speech we disapprove of is more free speech.
What a great world that would be if we all spent our time purposefully provoking others because we can and we want to remind them that we can.
uugghhhhh
So, Bay, are you really saying that the Nazis marching through Skokie did a good thing? The fact that they didn’t kill anybody makes it morally acceptable, in your eyes, for them to march through that particular town?
Does anybody really think that just because something is legal that it is also, by definition, good?
I think it is a good thing when bad people peacefully announce who they are, actually.