US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

Kiwi in IE

Custardpi wrote: »

The thing is, Fred Phelps beliefs are not all that far away from what would have been considered mainstream Christianity a mere few hundred years ago. Christianity in the West has been largely (though by no means completely) tamed & guided away from such extremism. This did not happen by accident or by Christianity suddenly copping itself on. Many brave men & women struggled against censorship & restrictions on their beliefs in order to bring that about, often at the cost of their own lives. We owe the many victims of Autos da Fé & the torture chambers of the Inquisition a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. We also owe them a world in which religious tyranny of any kind can never again be allowed to terrorise its opponents into silence.

I would have thanked this post more than once if possible.

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would have thanked this post more than once if possible.

You could try "remove your thanks" and then re-"thanking" it.

kneemos

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I struggle to fully agree with the above.

Yes the event was silly, pointless and intolerant and most likely run by a pack of unpleasant rednecks wanting a reaction.

That reaction however can never be justified. The risk of innocent people being killed was not due to the folly of the event holders, but the fact that the gunmen believed it was acceptable to kill when someone offended their religion. That is far more serious, unacceptable and dangerous than legally holding an event that will cause religious offense.

If you are going to blame the event holders for this where do you stop? If a fundy Christian gunman opened fire on an athiest event, where speakers were denying the existence of a god, as it offended his religion, would that be the fault of the event organisers too?

Groups here like the Iona Institute and Mothers and Fathers Matter are repeatedly and consistently offensive to many who don't share their beliefs. If someone decided to open fire on them because they were offended, would they then be to blame for causing offense in the first place? Of course they wouldn't!

Excusing this type of behaviour and blaming the victims for producing words/drawings rather than the perpetrators for producing weapons in response is truly bizarre logic and potentially dangerous. Equally bizarre as blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few.

Wouldn't take a genius to figure out there might be trouble.

I'd be concerned about the motivation of this Gellar woman.Was she willing to put people at risk for the sake of herself or her beliefs,or was it a very clever self publicity stunt knowing the likelihood of this sort of thing happening?

Kiwi in IE

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Nobody is saying they're all Jihadist. But a disproportionate number of them are.

I'm of the belief economic circumstances are more important as to why they have a high number of fanatics, but that does not excuse the fact that Islam does have a disproportionate number of people willing to kill for any slight against it, real or imagined.

I can't disagree with that but I think we have to be careful in the West not to marginalise and discriminate against the religion as a whole because of it.

IrishTrajan

kneemos wrote: »

Wouldn't take a genius to figure out there might be trouble.

You're right. That's why the gunmen were shot to pieces before killing anyone.

kneemos wrote: »

I'd be concerned about the motivation of this Gellar woman.Was she willing to put people at risk for the sake of herself or her beliefs,or was it a very clever self publicity stunt knowing the likelihood of this sort of thing happening?

You said it yourself, "wouldn't take a genius to figure out there might be trouble". The people were there of their own free will, practising their right to free assembly and freedom of speech.

The Texans are all about their constitution, so it's not surprising many were unfazed by the risk of a shooting.

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I can't disagree with that but I think we have to be careful in the West not to marginalise and discriminate against the religion as a whole because of it.

Then we are in agreement.

**** the extremists on both sides.

c_man

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you honestly think they're in any way comparable?

Kiwi in IE

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Then we are in agreement.

**** the extremists on both sides.

Haha you agree with a leftie liberal!

diomed

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought it was similar to tying a goat to a post in a clearing and waiting for the quarry to arrive.

IrishTrajan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Haha you agree with a leftie liberal!

I'm centre-left on most issues, aside from foreign policy and taxation/welfare on which I'm centre-right.

folamh

In 2004 Theo van Gogh was shot and had his throat slit by Islamists for making a film with the ex-Muslim feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali about the treatment of women in Islam. They stuck a letter to his chest saying that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was next. She had to give up her job in the Dutch parliament, emigrate to the United States and get 24-hour protection.

In 2009, the Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks was targeted in an assassination attempt for depicting Muhammad as a dog for a newspaper. In 2010, he was violently assaulted by Muslims in a lecture for showing images of homosexuality, while members of the (supposedly moderate?) audience shouted "Allahu Akbar!". A few days later his house was attacked by arsonists. Vilks has continued to receive death threats since these incidents. He depicted Jesus Christ as a pedophile for the same newspaper, yet received no death threats from Christians.

This year, 11 French civilians were killed by Islamists because of some satirical drawings.

A recent ComRes poll for the BBC showed that over a quarter of British Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, and over half feel that clerics who teach that violence against the West can be justified, represent the mainstream opinion of Muslims.

Obviously there are plenty of Muslims who are peaceful, basically down with equity for women and gays and who don't particularly want the black flag of Islam over Buckingham palace. This positive development which should be encouraged, should not obscure the reality that the dominant narrative in Islam is, as Hirsi Ali put it, that death is where the rewards are, not life. Acknowledging that this death-orientated narrative pervades the minds of people who are brought up on the Quran and the Hadith is crucial to foster peace and freedom in our society.

Hirsi Ali has written a new book arguing that a peaceful Muslim Reformation solution is possible: http://www.amazon.com/Heretic-Why-Islam-Needs-Reformation/dp/0062333933

Continuing her journey from a deeply religious Islamic upbringing to a post at Harvard, the brilliant, charismatic and controversial New York Times and Globe and Mail #1 bestselling author of Infidel and Nomad makes a powerful plea for a Muslim Reformation as the only way to end the horrors of terrorism, sectarian warfare and the repression of women and minorities.

Today, she argues, the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims can be divided into a minority of extremists, a majority of observant but peaceable Muslims and a few dissidents who risk their lives by questioning their own religion. But there is only one Islam and, as Hirsi Ali shows, there is no denying that some of its key teachings—not least the duty to wage holy war—are incompatible with the values of a free society.

For centuries it has seemed as if Islam is immune to change. But Hirsi Ali has come to believe that a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic doctrine aimed at reconciling the religion with modernity—is now at hand, and may even have begun. The Arab Spring may now seem like a political failure. But its challenge to traditional authority revealed a new readiness—not least by Muslim women—to think freely and to speak out.

Courageously challenging the jihadists, she identifies five key amendments to Islamic doctrine that Muslims have to make to bring their religion out of the seventh century and into the twenty-first. And she calls on the Western world to end its appeasement of the Islamists. “Islam is not a religion of peace,” she writes. It is the Muslim reformers who need our backing, not the opponents of free speech.

Interweaving her own experiences, historical analogies and powerful examples from contemporary Muslim societies and cultures, Heretic is not a call to arms, but a passionate plea for peaceful change and a new era of global toleration. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, with jihadists killing thousands from Nigeria to Syria to Pakistan, this book offers an answer to what is fast becoming the world’s number one problem.

bjork

^^But the guy who started the campaign of outrage against cartoonists has apologized and is now a teacher in Iceland

CiDeRmAn

kneemos wrote: »

Wouldn't take a genius to figure out there might be trouble.

I'd be concerned about the motivation of this Gellar woman.Was she willing to put people at risk for the sake of herself or her beliefs,or was it a very clever self publicity stunt knowing the likelihood of this sort of thing happening?

This was the perfect outcome for her.
The idiots with the guns got killed for their troubles while the organisers coaxed their preferred demon out and into behaving exactly how they wanted it to behave.
Events like this just drive people to the fringes and nothing gets fixed.
No winners here, and the only person it really cost was the person who was wounded, so far.
Who knows how many will die as a result of this mess.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What do they have to be outraged at ? What law was broken religious or federal ?

Custardpi

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Who knows how many will die as a result of this mess.

Hopefully none more. But if there are any deaths it will be 100% the fault of the people who choose to pick up a weapon. No one else.

Hitchens

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

This was the perfect outcome for her.
The idiots with the guns got killed for their troubles while the organisers coaxed their preferred demon out and into behaving exactly how they wanted it to behave.
Events like this just drive people to the fringes and nothing gets fixed.
No winners here, and the only person it really cost was the person who was wounded, so far.
Who knows how many will die as a result of this mess.

"we helped the boys out
down at the Alamo,
how many died there
it's hard to tell"

jackofalltrades

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Events like this just drive people to the fringes and nothing gets fixed.

What's there to fix?
People are well within their rights to draw people.
This event shows that there are people willing to stand up to attempts by others to silence them because they don't like what they're saying.

No winners here, and the only person it really cost was the person who was wounded, so far.

Seemed like a good day for freedom of speech.
Even though it needed teams of heavily armed police officers to ensure that it could happen safely.

Who knows how many will die as a result of this mess.

Islamic terrorist are going to kill people whether this event happens or not.
It's not like they were running short on reasons.

folamh

I think that Pamela Geller was in cahoots with police and orchestrated this event to gain public sympathy, deliberately putting herself in the firing line of would-be assassins because somehow she knew beforehand that people would try to kill her on this day, even though she does this kind of stuff all the time. By the way, I am a moron.

Letree

Two extremists who tried to launch a terrorist attack because people were drawing pictures of the muslim prophet. And IS were claiming credit for it. No deaths on the US side and two deaths from the terrorist side. I think that is 1 nil down for IS.

Kiwi in IE

kneemos wrote: »

Wouldn't take a genius to figure out there might be trouble.

I'd be concerned about the motivation of this Gellar woman.Was she willing to put people at risk for the sake of herself or her beliefs,or was it a very clever self publicity stunt knowing the likelihood of this sort of thing happening?

So should anyone who speaks out against, satires or mocks religion be considered to be putting themselves and others at risk?

Why should religion be untouchable? If we encourage a world where no one can criticise religion what are we left with?

eeguy

That cop will never have to buy himself a pint again...

kneemos

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So should anyone who speaks out against, satires or mocks religion be considered to be putting themselves and others at risk?

Why should religion be untouchable? If we encourage a world where no one can criticise religion what are we left with?

Criticise away.Running a competition to deliberately focus on an area that such as cartoons is obviously purely for provocation.
This is what makes me suspicious of the motives behind the whole event.

This same woman went to court to allow controversial anti muslim advertising on the NY subway.The judge stated it was insulting but had to allow it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should religion be untouchable? If we encourage a world where no one can criticise religion what are we left with?

Except it's not religion that should be untouchable, only Islam. I didn't see any gunmen out when pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in faeces were displayed at "art" etc, etc.

Wang King

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Except it's not religion that should be untouchable, only Islam. I didn't see any gunmen out when pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in faeces were displayed at "art" etc, etc.

You need to look harder

Kiwi in IE

kneemos wrote: »

Criticise away.Running a competition to deliberately focus on an area that such as cartoons is obviously purely for provocation.
This is what makes me suspicious of the motives behind the whole event.

This same woman went to court to allow controversial anti muslim advertising on the NY subway.The judge stated it was insulting but had to allow it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

So if people threaten to kill when their religion/ideology Is offended, we should accept that and cease saying/doing whatever it is that offends their religion/ideology? If people continue to do/say whatever the offensive thing is, and get killed by said crazies, your attitude would be that it's tough luck as they were given fair warning?

kneemos

If there's one thing we've learned from the gulf wars it's that we're dealing with a new kind of enemy that won't lie down and poking it with a stick makes it bite.

Kiwi in IE

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Except it's not religion that should be untouchable, only Islam. I didn't see any gunmen out when pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in faeces were displayed at "art" etc, etc.

I am purposely referring to religion in general to give the benefit of the doubt. If Islam is untouchable, I will assume that they believe all religions are, because if that is not the case, they have less than no argument!

IrishTrajan

kneemos wrote: »

If there's one thing we've learned from the gulf wars it's that we're dealing with a new kind of enemy that won't lie down and poking it with a stick makes it bite.

Good thing more of them died than us in those wars then :P

kneemos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Good thing more of them died than us in those wars then :P

We see the result of that.