Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 12:10am #1

In light of the hate crime committed against the Sikhs in the US I wanted to ask of the secularists on boards if they regret their "draw a Muhammed day campaigns"?

The SPLC's extremism expert Mark Potok is convinced the shooter mistook the Sikhs for Muslims.

Why do you think Page, who clearly was a hate-filled white supremacist, targetted Sikhs, and that too innocent worshipers in a temple?

My educated guess is that this man almost certainly mistook Sikhs for Muslims. It is the same old story that we see every time -- the same old story we saw with Balbir Singh (Sodhi) and those three murders after 9/11.

Republican presidential candidate Romney even referred to the Sikhs as "Sheiks".

I'm not saying that anyone posting here was a direct cause of the attacks or that Muslims, or people who look like Muslims to the ignorant being attacked was the goal, but overall it is an unintended consequence IMO.

Obviously it is not to hard to figure out how an ignorant "patriotic" fool can go from Muhammed with a bomb in his turban - to Muslims are terrorists - to Killing turban-wearing Sikhs.

Nodin · 14-08-2012 12:27am

Wild speculation at this point.

Galvasean · 14-08-2012 12:28am

It pains me to see that BB learned nothing in his absence...

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 12:39am

Nodin wrote: »

Wild speculation at this point.

But not without precedent: Sikh leaders fear Wisconsin gunman believed he was targeting Muslims

Hate crimes are common against Sikh's in the US because they resemble the Muslim stereotype -- beard & turban -- a stereotype that is perpetuated by "draw Muhammed day".

Blowfish · 14-08-2012 12:41am

Given that he was a Christian, what the hell has this actually got to do with Secularism?

Sonics2k · 14-08-2012 12:51am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In light of the hate crime committed against the Sikhs in the US I wanted to ask of the secularists on boards if they regret their "draw a Muhammed day campaigns"?

The SPLC's extremism expert Mark Potok is convinced the shooter mistook the Sikhs for Muslims.

Republican presidential candidate Romney even referred to the Sikhs as "Sheiks".

I'm not saying that anyone posting here was a direct cause of the attacks or that Muslims, or people who look like Muslims to the ignorant being attacked was the goal, but overall it is an unintended consequence IMO.

Obviously it is not to hard to figure out how an ignorant "patriotic" fool can go from Muhammed with a bomb in his turban - to Muslims are terrorists - to Killing turban-wearing Sikhs.

So wait. Because a bunch of people (not just Atheists and Agnostics) drew Muhammed to show that they're not afraid of bunch of psychotic extremist Muslims trying to kill them, it's now their fault than an idiotic, racist, right-wing Christian killed a bunch of people thinking they were Muslim?

Seriously BB, try thinking.

p.s. Romney is a complete moron. Everyone knows this.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:01am

Blowfish wrote: »

Given that he was a Christian, what the hell has this actually got to do with Secularism?

1. That just claims he was Christian. Nothing more.
2. His own religion is irrelevant to him being influenced by the anti-Islam agendas of some which include prominent secularists like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Breivik referenced in his manifesto.

Sonics2k · 14-08-2012 1:07am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That just claims he was Christian. Nothing more.
2. His own religion is irrelevant to him being influenced by the anti-Islam agendas of some which include prominent secularists like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Breivik referenced in his manifesto.

Yeah, because atheist neo-nazi's are so freaking common. It comes down to the fact he was a psychopathic racist.

Stop stretching BB, it's sad.

Blowfish · 14-08-2012 1:14am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. That just claims he was Christian. Nothing more.

Perhaps you missed the rather large Christian cross tattoo on his arm? A symbol which incidentally is also fundamentally linked with White Nationalism?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2. His own religion is irrelevant to him being influenced by the anti-Islam agendas of some which include prominent secularists like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Breivik referenced in his manifesto.

If his beliefs are irrelevant to his 'anti-Islam agenda', then why are Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's beliefs relevant to it?

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:22am

Sonics2k wrote: »

So wait. Because a bunch of people (not just Atheists and Agnostics) drew Muhammed to show that they're not afraid of bunch of psychotic extremist Muslims trying to kill them, it's now their fault than an idiotic, racist, right-wing Christian killed a bunch of people thinking they were Muslim?

Seriously BB, try thinking.

I have no doubt a number of "useful idiots" did it in good faith out of gullibility though surely it's time to think twice if you become idelogical bedfellows with extremists?

Such as the EDL
http://englishdefenceleague.org/forums/topic/78-of-uk-muslims-oppose-free-speech-youtube-99013-2/

White Supremacists at Stormfront
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t709660/

Jewish Supremacists the JTF
http://jtf.org/forum/index.php?topic=45820.0

Ireland's resident atheist Islamophobe Mark Humphrys
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.annoys.html#edmd

And professional anti-Islam extremists Pam Geller and Robert Spencer
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/05/21/draw-muhammad-day-predictably-descends-into-hate-fest/

Yesterday, May 20th was the Draw Muhammed Day which is extending into today, ostensibly put together to defend freedom of expression/speech. The original creators of the day have backed out, including Molly Norris, due to the tremendous amounts of bigotry and hate that it engendered, but others continued with the campaign.

Taking a glance at the Facebook page, most of the freedumb expressions are hateful and bigoted depictions of Muhammad meant to anger Muslims. Is it a coincidence that the ones who are reveling most in this day are racists and Islamophobes?

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have both been utterly gleeful over the event. Unconditionally supporting it, Spencer got in the act himself drawing Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his head, though the depiction looks a little bit like Spencer himself, and Geller added to the fray by drawing Prophet Muhammad with the face of a pig.

Galvasean · 14-08-2012 1:28am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no doubt a number of "useful idiots" did it in good faith out of gullibility though surely it's time to think twice if you become idelogical bedfellows with extremists?

So what you are saying is you are partially responsible for 9-11? Nice.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:30am

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, because atheist neo-nazi's are so freaking common. It comes down to the fact he was a psychopathic racist.

Stop stretching BB, it's sad.

Based on reports there is no doubting he was a racist. Non-pschyopathic people do kill people so we can't be sure as to his mental health. Unless you wan't to apply your logic to all terrorist attacks and the perpetrator is then de-facto a pschyopath by virtue of carrying out a terrorist attack then that then completely removes the religion factor e.g. all Islamic suicide bombers are pschyopaths.

You accept he was racist. Was he born racist? how does he become racist?

King Mob · 14-08-2012 1:42am

All of your claims and objections become laughable BB when it's revealed that you believe that all of this was the result of a Jewish media control conspiracy.

If you are so worried about the anti-muslim being sown by something as silly as Draw mohammad day, why are you not concerned about claims that the media is being taking over and controlled by zionist jews and their sympathisers causing the same problem?

Nodin · 14-08-2012 1:43am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But not without precedent: Sikh leaders fear Wisconsin gunman believed he was targeting Muslims

Hate crimes are common against Sikh's in the US because they resemble the Muslim stereotype -- beard & turban -- a stereotype that is perpetuated by "draw Muhammed day".

...while thats true, it's still speculation to say that he targeted them for that reason. He was not unintelligent, despite being a racist.

dlofnep · 14-08-2012 1:47am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In light of the hate crime committed against the Sikhs in the US I wanted to ask of the secularists on boards if they regret their "draw a Muhammed day campaigns"?

No. The two events aren't even remotely linked. I celebrate the draw Muhammad day, like everyone else who favours free speech should.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:47am

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, because atheist neo-nazi's . There are so freaking common.

Are you confusing Neo-Nazism with Christian Identity? There is no compulsion to be any specific religion to be a Neo-Nazi. Individual groups would have their individual membership requirements but I would expect their religious affiliations to be varied. Timothy McVeigh was agnostic for example.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:51am

dlofnep wrote: »

No. The two events aren't even remotely linked. I celebrate the draw Muhammad day, like everyone else who favours free speech should.

Right, but if it became known to you that your "celebration" led to a Mosque being burned down, or a Muslim man being attacked in the street or even a young Muslim kid being bullied in school would it be worth it? To you personally I mean.

Galvasean · 14-08-2012 1:56am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but if it became known to you that your "celebration" led to a Mosque being burned down, or a Muslim man being attacked in the street or even a young Muslim kid being bullied in school would it be worth it? To you personally I mean.

If it became known to you that people reading the Qur'an led to atrocities such as 9-11 would it be worth it? To you personally I mean.

We can do this all day BB. Hopefully now that the shoe is on the other foot you will see just how foolish this whole thread is.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 1:57am

Nodin wrote: »

...while thats true, it's still speculation to say that he targeted them for that reason. He was not unintelligent, despite being a racist.

Agreed, it is speculation. However, a while back I interviewed a bunch of skinheads for a project I was undertaking and while they are very much driven by violence I would say that there is a zero pc chance that they would give up their lives to kill Sikhs when they could just as easily kill Muslims, Jews, blacks or mixed-race people.

dlofnep · 14-08-2012 1:58am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but if it became known to you that your "celebration" led to a Mosque being burned down, or a Muslim man being attacked in the street or even a young Muslim kid being bullied in school would it be worth it? To you personally I mean.

Yes. I'm not responsible for the actions of extremists who completely misinterpret the underlying message of Draw Muhammad Day. Under no circumstances would I ever support, celebrate or link the above acts to the defense of freedom of speech and expression. In fact, the above acts would be completely counter to it.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 2:03am

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes. I'm not responsible for the actions of extremists who completely misinterpret the underlying message of Draw Muhammad Day. Under no circumstances would I ever support, celebrate or link the above acts to the defense of freedom of speech and expression. In fact, the above acts would be completely counter to it.

Okay, but surely there are better ways to defend freedom of speech than fuelling the flames of religious intolerance via bigoted stereotypes?

dlofnep · 14-08-2012 2:06am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, but surely there are better ways to defend freedom of speech than fuelling the flames of religious intolerance via bigoted stereotypes?

I think the whole idea of Draw Muhammad Day is completely lost on you to be fair.

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 2:08am

Galvasean wrote: »

If it became known to you that people reading the Qur'an led to atrocities such as 9-11 would it be worth it? To you personally I mean.

Would what be worth it? Perhaps you are not aware tha reading the Koran is not what led to 9/11? In the hypothethical scenario then if someone else reading a book led them to commit terrorism then I would say the reading is not worth it.

I'm not sure if I answered your question correctly. I apologise if so. Would reading To Kill A Mockingbird and then assasinating people have been a better example?

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 2:11am

dlofnep wrote: »

I think the whole idea of Draw Muhammad Day is completely lost on you to be fair.

Likewise :pac:

In fairness, thank you, you've answered the question I asked so I wont 't drag it out.

I wonder if everyone else who posted images feels the same?

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 2:23am

Blowfish wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the rather large Christian cross tattoo on his arm? A symbol which incidentally is also fundamentally linked with White Nationalism?

The cross is a symbol of white supremacism. So either it indicates that either a) He was Christian b) He was a white supremacist or c) He was both a Christian and white supremacist.

Based on what we know only b and c are possible. Therefore we don't know if he was Christian or not.

Blowfish wrote: »

If his beliefs are irrelevant to his 'anti-Islam agenda', then why are Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's beliefs relevant to it?

Because like anyone else he is influenced externally.

Canis Lupus · 14-08-2012 2:32am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Likewise :pac:

In fairness, thank you, you've answered the question I asked so I wont 't drag it out.

I wonder if everyone else who posted images feels the same?

I've drawn some awesome stick photos of Mo in my time (allah never gifted me the ability to draw anything more detailed than a house with some fluffy clouds and a big yellow sun).

Anyway, I'm not responsible for the actions of others as has been said already.

Hypothetically (lets ignore Iran), if muslims started actively killing apostates should the koran be banned?

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 2:59am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I've drawn some awesome stick photos of Mo in my time (allah never gifted me the ability to draw anything more detailed than a house with some fluffy clouds and a big yellow sun).

Anyway, I'm not responsible for the actions of others as has been said already.

Hypothetically (lets ignore Iran), if muslims started actively killing apostates should the koran be banned?

Well no, as the Koran doesn't proscribe death for apostasy and even if it did and the apostate lived under Shariah Law then the crime would have to be tried in court and found guilty prior to any execution.

That's like saying if Americans (the courts) started actively killing (executing) murderers then should Atlas Shrugged be banned.

Canis Lupus · 14-08-2012 3:25am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no, as the Koran doesn't proscribe death for apostasy and even if it did and the apostate lived under Shariah Law then the crime would have to be tried in court and found guilty prior to any execution.

That's like saying if Americans (the courts) started actively killing (executing) murderers then should Atlas Shrugged be banned.

My understanding is that the general agreed stance is that death is the punishment for apostasy. A quick google search and looking at wiki doesn't appear to disagree with this understanding. I'd be grateful if you can provide clarification?

My hypothetical didn't (and still doesn't) include courts

14-08-2012 3:50am

Atheists! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!

Brown Bomber · 14-08-2012 4:17am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

My understanding is that the general agreed stance is that death is the punishment for apostasy. A quick google search and looking at wiki doesn't appear to disagree with this understanding. I'd be grateful if you can provide clarification?

My hypothetical didn't (and still doesn't) include courts

The Koran doesn't proscribe death as a punishment for apostasy; in fact it's the opposite.

For example:

The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."
http://quran.com/18

and

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
http://quran.com/2/256/

And there are others in the Koran and no verses to contradict it. However, the Hadiths do proscribe death for apostasy but it get's complicated as the Koran should always have prevelance over the Haditha, and different sects recognise different haditha, Quranists recognise none and amongst these different sects the opinions and rulings of the jurists and scholars differ throughout the centruries and today also i.e. there is no "general agreed stance".

As for your hypothethical situation if there is a book that is inciting people to violent acts either intentionally or unintentionally then I would like to see it banned, unless it served a higher purpose that I can't think of right now.

MagicMarker · 14-08-2012 8:37am

BB, were you drunk when you started this thread?

Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Comments