more cartoons, more shootings....

[Dante]

No. Either nothing is sacred or everything is. It's the same rule that dictates humor.

 

I've laughed at awful jokes. I've found them hilarious. I wouldn't laugh at a joke that made fun of my religion. But I would never chastise the comic that did.

The only reason people rag on their religion is because they are a bunch of murderous, backward aholes. If they were cool no one would be mocking them.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Dante

[ExiledInIllinois]

I don't want to quell anti-religion, heck no. The contest is simply counterproductive. It was being done to just piss people off, instigate. Now if it was newspaper drawings to get people to think about issues, that's another story.

 

What was the contest set up to achieve? If you can explain that without it being gratuitous, then I can go along with the need for this type of contest. For now, it was done purely to instigate and incite. Done in poor taste. That's not free speech. There isn't a right to speech that causes safety issues or picks a fight. They knew what was going happen just as if somebody falsely screamed fire in a crowded building.

 

What was the productive goal to this contest? If there was one, was it achieved? Seemed the only thing it attempted to do was cause a public nuisance?

The only reason people rag on their religion is because they are a bunch of murderous, backward aholes. If they were cool no one would be mocking them.

Still doesn't give you the right to incite a public nuisance. They might be the biggest douchebags on the planet, you don't up the ante.

[3rdnlng]

I don't want to quell anti-religion, heck no. The contest is simply counterproductive. It was being done to just piss people off, instigate. Now if it was newspaper drawings to get people to think about issues, that's another story.

 

What was the contest set up to achieve? If you can explain that without it being gratuitous, then I can go along with the need for this type of contest. For now, it was done purely to instigate and incite. Done in poor taste. That's not free speech. There isn't a right to speech that causes safety issues or picks a fight. They knew what was going happen just as if somebody falsely screamed fire in a crowded building.

 

What was the productive goal to this contest? If there was one, was it achieved? Seemed the only thing it attempted to do was cause a public nuisance?

 

Still doesn't give you the right to incite a public nuisance. They might be the biggest douchebags on the planet, you don't up the ante.

A normal brain couldn't come up with the schit that you do. Unphucking believable that you have survived this long without being eaten by a small rodent.

[FireChan]

I don't want to quell anti-religion, heck no. The contest is simply counterproductive. It was being done to just piss people off, instigate. Now if it was newspaper drawings to get people to think about issues, that's another story.

 

What was the contest set up to achieve? If you can explain that without it being gratuitous, then I can go along with the need for this type of contest. For now, it was done purely to instigate and incite. Done in poor taste. That's not free speech. There isn't a right to speech that causes safety issues or picks a fight. They knew what was going happen just as if somebody falsely screamed fire in a crowded building.

 

What was the productive goal to this contest? If there was one, was it achieved? Seemed the only thing it attempted to do was cause a public nuisance?

 

Still doesn't give you the right to incite a public nuisance. They might be the biggest douchebags on the planet, you don't up the ante.

It showed that there are still a bunch of clowns in the USA that don't understand rights. Pretty scary actually.

[Azalin]

What was the contest set up to achieve? If you can explain that without it being gratuitous, then I can go along with the need for this type of contest. For now, it was done purely to instigate and incite. Done in poor taste. That's not free speech. There isn't a right to speech that causes safety issues or picks a fight. They knew what was going happen just as if somebody falsely screamed fire in a crowded building.

 

 

The contest was likely 'set up to achieve' exactly what's happening now - a national dialogue on both freedom of expression and the extreme intolerance of radical Islam. Freedom of expression as a constitutional right only protects the individual from government action, not from the way others will react to it. At the same time, any group that issues proclamations of death against people who have offended them need to be dealt with. They need to realize that in this country, they can't simply kill people who offend them. no matter what the tenets of their faith dictate.

 

The cartoon contest was absolutely meant to incite. The fact that they had so much armed security onsite attests to that. The only thing that surprises me is how many Americans appear to be cowed by the threat of violence at the hands of radical Islam to the point where they would publicly condemn Gellar for organizing the contest.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

The contest was likely 'set up to achieve' exactly what's happening now - a national dialogue on both freedom of expression and the extreme intolerance of radical Islam. Freedom of expression as a constitutional right only protects the individual from government action, not from the way others will react to it. At the same time, any group that issues proclamations of death against people who have offended them need to be dealt with. They need to realize that in this country, they can't simply kill people who offend them. no matter what the tenets of their faith dictate.

 

The cartoon contest was absolutely meant to incite. The fact that they had so much armed security onsite attests to that. The only thing that surprises me is how many Americans appear to be cowed by the threat of violence at the hands of radical Islam to the point where they would publicly condemn Gellar for organizing the contest.

Don't you think they want that fight out of us? That's why they are doing it. We are playing right into their hands. We fight, they can justify their fight.

 

IMO.

 

Tack around these azzholes and strike @ other times.

[Azalin]

Don't you think they want that fight out of us? That's why they are doing it. We are playing right into their hands. We fight, they can justify their fight.

 

IMO.

 

Tack around these azzholes and strike @ other times.

 

If 'they want that fight out of us', then they'll get it. It looks more to me like the would-be assassins played right into Gellar's hands.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

If 'they want that fight out of us', then they'll get it. It looks more to me like the would-be assassins played right into Gellar's hands.

Yeah, glad it worked out for this round. IMO, it is just plain reckless and foolish. I am not saying back down either. Don't risk others when she is well shielded. Now, if it was her balsting the Jihadists, then I would give that lady a cigar!

[B-Man]

FTA:

 

The Washington Post ran an article on Geller headlined, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

News that the Post has yet to break about other terrorist targets: “Malala Yousafzai refuses to admit fault for seeking an education”; “Coptic Christians won’t concede error for worshiping wrong God”; “Unrepentant Shiites continue to disagree with Sunnis.”

 

Yes, these are more sympathetic cases, but it is no more legitimate to shoot someone for drawing Muhammad, than it is to shoot a girl for going to school, or a Copt or a Shia for his or her faith. Expecting apologies from these victims would be almost as perverse as expecting one from Pamela Geller.

 

Respectable opinion can’t bear the idea that she has become a symbol of free speech, which once upon a time was — and still is, when convenient — one of the highest values of the media and the left.

 

If Geller were a groundbreaking pornographer like the loathsome Larry Flynt, someone would already be planning a celebratory biopic of her life. If she were a gadfly sticking it to a major Western religion rather than to Islam, she might be considered more socially acceptable.

 

Instead, her provocations are deemed almost as shameful as the intentions of the men who wanted to kill her and her cohorts.

 

To say the reaction to Garland has been confused is charitable. On “Hardball,” NBC terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann descended into a morass of contradictory clichés when discussing Garland. He said Geller and her ilk are “trying to provoke a response from the Muslim community, and unfortunately, this was predictable.”

 

Then he maintained that the ensuing inevitable attack from the sorely provoked Muslim community had “nothing to do with Islam.” The perpetrators and supporters of the attack would beg to differ, but what do they know? They aren’t terrorism analysts on a broadcast TV network.

 

Linda Stasi wrote a column for the New York Daily News titled, “With Pamela Geller’s Prophet Muhammad cartoon stunt in Texas, hate rears its ugly face again.” The hatred referred to wasn’t that of the attackers who wanted to murder people for attending an uncongenial art contest but of Geller.

 

In perhaps the most obtuse and least grammatical sentiment committed to print in the aftermath of Garland, Stasi argued that “Geller, like ISIS and al Qaeda, revel [sic] in hate…”

 

This is a little like saying that the Finns and the Red Army both reveled in shooting guns during the Winter War, without taking account of who invaded and occupied whom. Geller holds events and writes blog posts deemed offensive by many, all of which are fully protected by our laws. ISIL beheads people and blows them up, all of which is criminal by any civilized standard.

 

“While we have freedom of speech,” Stasi continued, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” This is both a truism and a non sequitur: Tasteless speech doesn’t impinge upon anyone’s freedom of conscience or religion. The glory of the First Amendment is that it guarantees freedom of both speech and worship.

 

Taking a similar tack in a piece on CNN’s website, Haroon Moghul said Geller is “using one democratic value to subvert other democratic values,” namely by polarizing America and alienating Muslims.

 

Yet scurrilous, scatological and, yes, hateful speech and cartoons — many of them involving religion — have featured in Anglo-American history going back centuries. They are part of the warp and woof of a free society. In this context, a drawing of Muhammad is mild.

 

The only reason it seems different is that there is a small class of Muslim radicals willing to kill over it. Which is exactly why Pamela Geller’s event wasn’t purposeless.

 

The event was placing a stake in contested ground, in a way it wouldn’t have if it had offended Quakers or Roman Catholics, who don’t massacre people who insult them. It was a statement of defiance, of an unwillingness to abide by the rules of fanatics.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/why-wont-pamela-geller-shut-up-117716.html#ixzz3ZT2sxOUZ