General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn defense of the need to post blasphemous caricatures
Let me make this clear at the outset: I am not a fan of Mrs Geller: her opinions can be extreme, her agenda dubious, her style confrontational and provocative, let's just forget her for a minute.
The source of the problem illustrated by the Garland TX shooting, and the Danish cartoons worldwide fury, and the Theo van Gogh killing, and the Charlie Hebdo shooting, is that one ideology, Islam, wants universal respect under pain of violent coercion.
Yes, yes, yes, most muslims are decent human beings and citizens and condemn these shootings. The problem is not people (most muslims), it's the rules of the ideology they claim to adhere to (Islam): in islamic jurisprudence, penalties for blasphemy are very stiff, death being a clear option. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#Punishment_by_different_Islamic_schools_of_jurisprudence
Yes, yes, yes, many muslim clerics condemned the shootings in the West I quoted. But (link above), what they do not say is that blasphemy does require a stiff penalty under islamic Law (Shariah). And many other mainstream clerics living in muslim countries do not condemn such killings. Sometimes condone them (two Pakistanis burned alive for accidental damage to the pages of a Quran).
My point is one of principle: citizens in democracies should not allow free speech to be curtailed under the threats of so and so. I have a suggestion to make to make that point irrespective of Mrs Geller: let's millions of us post a caricature on their front lawn or Facebook page just to make the point no one can demand by means of threats to restrict freedom of speech. .
To make sure muslims do not feel singled out, let's add other caricatures ad lib: Buddha, the great Flying Spaghetti, Marx, GW, Jesus, whatever.
The key point is that there's no way any group can require compliance of speech. Let go of one liberty and then, when do you stop? Why not let fundamentalist christians and muslims forbid marriage equality? Drinking alcohol is offensive to Mormons and Muslims, why not forbid wine and beer? What a Brave New World we would build.
In short, Mrs Geller is the nasty knight of a just cause.
PS: an afterthought: please no ad hominem calling me an islamophobe, I'm not. I am commenting here the Garland TX shooting, Mrs Geller and free speech. But I do also call out the deficiencies of all other religions: the scourge of christian creationism vs schools, the hindu caste system, the violence in the jewish holy book, etc. Neither am I a fundamentalist atheist (whatever that means), I just am extremely attached to Freedom and Liberty.
PPS: edited the title from "In defense of Mrs Geller, nasty knight of a just cause" to "iIn defense of the need to post blasphemous caricatures" to make even clearer that the issue is NOT Mrs Geller
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
trumad
(41,692 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)Though I do not doubt your love for the first amendment, you said too much to defend the hate speech. I don't mean the freedom to spew the hate but the hate itself.
Unrec.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)She is not important.
That some think they can shoot free speech down in the US IS important.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But you went further than that in your op. You talk about Muslims in other countries that have no problem with the killing because of Islamic law etc. There is where you lost me. Absolutely no reason for it in a discussion about the First Amendment and the horror that is Geller.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I personally have no particulare desire to blaspheme or disparage individual beliefs.
But deny me the right to mock your religion, and I will make a point to do it.
In short, I value the First Amendment far more than religion.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Sorry. Obviously, I am not the only one reading it that way, including others that support the right to use first amendment rights
So your main point is lost. Perhaps look at the post if so many others see what I see.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)no mention of others.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I did mention I am here addressing the topic of Islam wanting to ban blaspheme.
I did post in the OP some of the many problems of the other main religions.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Islam is the only one regularly responding to words with violence or threats of violence so they are putting themselves in a place where they need more poking and prodding.
kcr
(15,314 posts)There are some, myself included, that do not care about the cartoon(s) in particular, or even the religion involved. It is the intent that matters. That is what is being missed, here, I think. I'm very much about intent.
I do not think that every single person who draws a cartoon caricature mocking religion is evil or deserves to be shot, or that the act itself should be censored, or that every single person who does it is on par with Pamela Geller. Not everyone who draws such a cartoon does it with the same intent. It is the fact that she staged this event with the intent to draw this violent reaction to advance an agenda that is point of contention. She further endangers other people who draw cartoons who aren't evil like she is. I'd be willing to be she knows that and doesn't care. She didn't just draw a cartoon. She was using the fact that there are people who will kill for this and using them as a weapon for an agenda. To me, whether or not she was legally entitled to do that is not at issue. I think that anyone who would even consider doing such a thing is evil. I don't think anyone deserved to be murdered or that it is okay to kill someone for drawing a cartoon. I think it's wrong to use such people to manipulate an agenda.
People who truly care about free speech should be disgusted with Pamela Geller. She does not champion free speech. She weakens it.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)that there was a high likelihood of violence? I ask this because she was informed that what she was doing was highly likely to provoke radicals to violence.
Would you still think that she was within her 1st Amendment rights and that she bears no responsibility for what occurred if she neglected to inform her consorts and other attendees?
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)
babylonsister
(171,032 posts)She's hateful through and through and she's inspiring others to embrace her hate. But last I checked, she's not in jail.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Not the issue I care about at any rate.
babylonsister
(171,032 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Deal?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Have at it.
I gotta right to tell haters to fuck off when they act like assholes.
I'll do that
Cool, huh?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)in defense of blasphemous caricatures.
Better?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Doesn't change that you are defending haters. Doesn't change that I won't. Ever.
But you gotta right. So do the haters.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Islam claims it can't be caricatured and must be respected.
I say, sod that.
The Quran does not explicitly mention any worldly punishment for blasphemy (sabb allah or sabb al-rasul), as it does for apostasy (riddah). Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[2][3][89]
Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. Those who refuse to repent, their punishment is death if the blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion (beating) till she repents and returns to Islam.[90] If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc.).[6][91]
Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished till she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody.[92][93] A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[94]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.[95][96]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.[97][98]
Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[99] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[100]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#Punishment_by_different_Islamic_schools_of_jurisprudence
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I just checked, and I'm fresh out of "give a fuck" about this ridiculous stupidity.
Have a nice night.
kcr
(15,314 posts)And it really has nothing to do with free speech. She and her defenders only hide behind it to defend her. One can care about free speech and condemn her actions at the same time because one doesn't have to set the bar on right and wrong based strictly on what is legal. If you think about it, you can find actions you find reprehensible that are technically legal. You may not realize it, but it's true. Lots of awful things are actually legal. That's really not the way one should set the bar on ethical and moral decisions.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)This should clarify that my point isn't about Pam Geller.
My point is that we need to post more caricatures of religious figures to defend free speech.
And it IS ethical to deny a religion to request deference.
kcr
(15,314 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)kcr
(15,314 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The title was trying to say that Geller is notthe issue. Freedom of speech is.
But it seems the mere mention of her name makes people see red. hence the change.
My only point is: I would not normally caricature anyone, or put a Christ in urine or whatever.
But tell me not to do it, and I will. Islam tells not to caricature muhamad? Then we should.
kcr
(15,314 posts)There. Easy 
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Having brushed aside Mrs Geller, I repeat that my beef with Islam is that its doctrine claims to stop people from blaspheme.
That's what Christianity did in the middle age. It took the late Enlightenment to force the right to mock religion.
I am just saying that the Garland killers had some liturgical ground sto shoot, and quite a few muslim clerics in the world to support their action.
And posting cartoons is a real mild form of rebellion against anti-blasphemy coercion.
kcr
(15,314 posts)Like she has no beef with Islam. Man, I can sure see why you'd brush her aside. Having nothing in common with her whatsoever 
Look over here... Nothing to see... Except this little beef you have with Islam.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I have a beef with all religions. But as far as I know, Islam is the only one with physical penalties (up to death) for imaginary crimes (adultery, being gay, blasphemy)
If you have no beef with this doctrine, be my guest. The Mayan religion practiced human sacrifices to make the sun rise. I'd 'have a beef' with that doctrine too. Maybe not you.
LeftInTX
(25,117 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Especially demands to comply to what they think.
I do not think prophets ever existed. I find the idea ludicrous. Funny.
I wouldn't mock that idea unless someone has the gall to stop me from mocking it.
I don't care about the Dalai Lama. Tell me not to caricature him, and I will.
Coventina
(27,057 posts)Very dead.
Like, 1000+ years dead.
So, yeah, I don't think anything I might say, or draw about him is "insulting" anyone.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)OOps, almost forgot, the hadith say muhamad will participate in the sorting of souls on judgment day.
Maybe we should not mock him after all.
LeftInTX
(25,117 posts)I personally don't understand what the big deal with drawing Mohammed, but I think much of these guys are motivated by political issues and not religious. (Religion is used as a cover) Pamela Geller is also advocating bombing the hell out of the ME.
Coventina
(27,057 posts)Grown-ups aren't insulted by cartoons.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one disputes that.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I believe in the one true god (and will make meatballs sauce of anyone who disrepects Him)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Blasphemers are haters.
The death penalty is too good for them.
840high
(17,196 posts)was the rage - I did not kill anyone.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Even if I am not a Catholic by any stretch of the imagination
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Muslim anger is about a lot more than offensive images.
Where in the world are Catholics being subjected to the equivalent of what is happening to Muslims?
840high
(17,196 posts)see the Muslim community speaking out much about murders.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)You'd have to live in a cave not to know how much time the Muslim community spends denouncing violence.
You say you're a Catholic? How much time do you spend denouncing the acts of pedophile priests? Or would you say their despicable actions are not in any way representative of you?
840high
(17,196 posts)you're unaware of churches being burned and Christians killed unless they convert to Islam. Good night.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)There's a War on Christmas!!
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Muslims are not a monolith. A rich Saudi, a Turkish high tech grad, an illiterate Pakistani peasant, a Shia cleric and an Algerian general do not share much. Three of them might drink alcohol, two might have wives with precious few rights, etc.
The question is not people or politics, the issue I am raising is of doctrine: the blasphemy laws held by the religious hierarchy must be challenged.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)And I'm sure your motives are pure as the driven snow.
'Scuse me, gotta barf from too much time spent in this thread.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Most would say GW's war in Iraq was dumb, and so would most people in the West.
Other than that, there are no shared grievances,
at most a fear of the loss of conservative patriarchal values to western liberal morality.
But most religious conservatives in the West had the same feeling last century and got over it.
Now, as for your barf, I suggest you go and see a doctor.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)raping women and girls
beheading people
destroying churches
try being a Christian in Pakistan.
what about the anger of the countries attacked by the moghuls? where do you think the muslims in pakistan came from? Many forced to convert or be beheaded.
there's a lot of anger, and it's not just where you said
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Can you seriously be asking this?
Do you not follow the news outside of what happens in the US?
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Christianity is the largest and most widely spread faith in the world, with 2.2 billion followers, or 32 percent of the world population, according to a survey by the U.S.-based Pew Forum on religion and Public Life.
It faces restrictions and hostility in 111 countries, ahead of the 90 countries limiting or harassing the second-largest faith, Islam, another Pew survey has reported.
Michel Varton, head of Open Doors France, told journalists in Strasbourg that failing states with civil wars or persistent internal tensions were often the most dangerous for Christians.
"In Syria, another war is thriving in the shadow of the civil war -- the war against the church," he said while presenting the Open Doors report there.
About 10 percent of Syrians are Christians. Many have become targets for Islamist rebels who see them as supporters of President Bashar al-Assad.
Nine of the 10 countries listed as dangerous for Christians are Muslim-majority states, many of them torn by conflicts with radical Islamists. Saudi Arabia is an exception but ranked sixth because of its total ban on practicing faiths other than Islam.
In the list of killings, Syria was followed by Nigeria with 612 cases last year after 791 in 2012. Pakistan was third with 88, up from 15 in 2012. Egypt ranked fourth with 83 deaths after 19 the previous year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-christianity-persecution-report-idUSBREA070PB20140108
Incidentally, Western Imperialism impacts people of all religions.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)This is in no way an equivalence to anyone with eyes and ears.
The wording of that article made me suspicious. I've never heard Open Doors - would this be them?
https://www.opendoors.org/
Does not look very objective to me. Lots of stuff about bible training and bible delivery. The same article is prominently featured on many right wing sites. Frankly, it reads a lot like a Bill O'Reilly rant. But maybe that doesn't bother you.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Anti Christian persecution in India, Nigeria or Pakistan involve anti Christian lynchings.
Please describe where big bad western imperialists are currently involved in lynchings?
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)a superpower and it's allies systematically demonize a people in order to facilitate invading their lands and stealing their resources, resulting in inestimable suffering including deaths in the millions.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)
greyl
(22,990 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)... That, following the letter of their texts, would require them to for a multitude of reasons.
It's all a millstone on the neck of humanity...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)30% of the world's muslims are illiterate (UNESCO 2010) and rely on what the imam says.
Among the literate, a good many belong to radical islam countries (petromonarchies, Iran)
or are enrolled in free radical schools (the poor of Pakistan have to rely on hard madrasas)
All these folks are as good as anyone, but fed a radical doctrine
treestar
(82,383 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Here's my cartoon of Mohammed:
{:-|
I'd put a cartoon of Jesus and Buddha, too. But those wouldn't be blasphemy, now would they.
Fuck Jesus. <== That's blasphemy.
Fuck Buddha. <== That, too (although I am not sure of what would be blasphemy in Buddhism.)
Moses never existed. <== nobody is immune from blasphemy, nor should they be.
It is all free speech, guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Condemning it because somebody got insulted and attempted murder because of the insult is very weird. I condemn the attempted murder.
And no, I do not agree with the right wing lunatic that started this, but I defend her right to do it. Under our Constitution that is what I have to do.
And no, drawing Mohammed is not crying "FIRE!" in a theater, unless one presumes Islam is a violent religion, which I do not. I do not like religion at all, but I think most folks, religious or otherwise are basically good folks. It is the crazy fundamentalists which are the problem, those who murder because of a perceived butt hurt. Fuck them, too. (D'ya see what I did there?)
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If believers let say what they want (including blasphemy),
they will have removed the mandatory character of blaspheme.
Anyone claiming they will enforce a blasphemy ban, we should all blaspheme the next minute.
longship
(40,416 posts)In many places you die for it.
That is why I gladly blaspheme, and why I think everybody ought to take joy in it as well. Nobody's beliefs are beyond question, evidence, or ridicule. Nobody. Not even mine... Especially not mine!
But people have to let this shit go, or we will never progress much further than those horrible genocides of the Pentateuch, where Jahweh commanded that all men, children, animals, and women who had known man should be slaughtered, but keep the virgin women for yourselves.
One might argue that these were Biblical marriages. If so, I haven't heard such from the Bible toting, quoting GOP.
Religion disgusts me. But freedom of conscience is more important.
I don't give a fuck what other people believe (or not believe). However, I might very well have something to say about how they act. That is my measure.
RandySF
(58,464 posts)1. It was not just an exhibit. She had a series of prominent anti-Muslim figures as speakers.
2. The event was held by her organization which has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
3. The keynote speaker, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, wants to kill all the Muslims in Amsterdam.
4, it was held in a town where there has been ongoing tensions between Muslim residents on one side and pretty much everyone else on the other.
She may not have planned for police officers to get shot, but she did this in the hopes something will happen that grabs enough headlines to further her cause.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The doctrine of Islam forbids blasphemy.
The Council of Islamic States tried to pass that as a UN resolution.
The answer is to post caricatures to force a reform of the doctrine of Islam.
Can't have both free speech and blasphemy laws.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... will force a reform of the doctrine of Islam?
Now there's some sound thinking. 
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The reformists in Islam will not win their struggle inside that religion if people from outside give in to the demands of the hard line muslims.
Let one thousand caricatures flourish, and it will force a debate within Islam about their right to demand a ban on mockery.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)And that IS the point.
Before Ms. Geller's self-serving stunt, was any US citizen unaware of their right to create blasphemous cartoons? Who was she proving that point to? Why did it need to be "proven", or even demonstrated? What purpose did it serve, other than to feed into her own bigotry, and her pitiful attempt to make this issue all about herself and her own skewed thinking?
Pretending this event was about the exercise of free speech is beyond abhorrent.
Under the protections of the First Amendment, I have a RIGHT to call gay men, lesbians, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jews, Christians, the poor, the homeless, the poverty-stricken and welfare recipients all kinds of hateful names. But I have no NEED to do so in order to prove that I have that right.
Not a single American challenged Geller's First Amendment rights. So why was she compelled to PROVE that she had that right, in the face of no challenge to it being voiced?
Geller MADE herself the issue. Let's not sink so low as to pretend it was ever about anything more than her own ego, and furthering her own sick agenda.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)There IS a need to challenge the religious arrogance which has the pretension to ban mockery.
And to ban it forcibly in democracies.
The point of this thread is that it is a NEED to deny stealth blasphemy laws.
I changed the title of this thread to remove any mention of Pam Geller. She is not the issue.
The issue is that the BBC did not dare show the Charlie Hebdo cartoons for fear of reprisal.
That is stealth censorship which NEEDS to be fought.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... one might even say an obligation in some circumstances, to defend their right of free speech.
Geller's rights were not challenged, nor even questioned. Unless she's a complete idiot (and the jury is still out on that charge), she KNEW what her rights were. Ergo, there was no need to defend them, nor prove their existence or her right to exercise them.
Thanks to the First Amendment, there is no need for any US citizen to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs in order to PROVE they can do so. We all KNOW they can do so. So what makes a demonstration of the right to free speech necessary in that regard?
Had someone - anyone - said to Geller, "You have no right to do what you're planning to do," and she created this event in order to demonstrate that she DID have that right, that would be a different story.
But that's not what happened here - and we both know that.
You can change the title of your OP a thousand times - doesn't change the fact that we know who is being discussed, and why.
We don't have "stealth blasphemy laws" in the US. Ergo, there is no need to challenge a non-existent law, is there?
If Geller wants to challenge blasphemy laws, she can go to countries where they exist and challenge them there.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)One religious doctrine says mocking it is a blasphemy physically punishable wherever and whenever it's 'committed' (blasphemy doctrine). Those here who say that publishing cartoons mocking religion should be avoided because it's inciting a violent backlash are giving in to that blasphemy doctrine, therefore creating tacit de facto blasphemy laws.
And we are discussing it because two guys took guns to enforce those laws. I don't give a rat's ass who posted the cartoons and why. I held the same view at the time of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and Charlie Hebdo is at a political polar opposite from Mrs Geller.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... have no laws which make mocking religious beliefs a crime. Ergo, Geller (and those of her ilk) are not fighting back against anything that is a threat to freedom of speech.
We are not (as of this writing) governed by "religious doctrine". Therefore, attempting to demonstrate that we are not so governed is an unnecessary exercise. (e.g. Women stopped demonstrating about not being allowed to vote the minute they were allowed to vote. Why does Ms. Geller feel compelled to "defend a right" she unquestionably already has?)
As I said, if Ms. Geller wants to challenge blasphemy laws, she should do so in countries where such laws actually exist.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)... and as most other western nations have a growing diversification of our ethnic backgrounds resulting from more diverse sources of immigration.
While it is generally speaking favoring a richer melting pot, it does create the reimportation of old issues that had been more or less settled. Religious violence is one of them.
By and large, Europeans and the Founding Fathers instituted a freedom of religion with a very clear objective: to avoid at all costs a replication of the horrors of the Thirty Years war which decimated Europe on religious grounds. Aside from Ireland, religious violence more or less disppeared.
What Charlie Hebdo and Garland illustrate is that immigrants from muslim countries who imported with them their belief in islamic jurisprudence have not adhered yet to that ban on religious violence and wish to recreate blasphemy laws.
We might have no laws which make mocking religious beliefs a crime, but there is a growing number of people who wish there was. Publishing blasphemous caricatures is a way to call out for a debate to rally everyone on board of a taboo on religious violence. However 'offensive' a cartoon might be. And people here who think that a "tacit blasphemy law" (i.e. a self imposed restraint from offending religion) will make the risk of a growing religious intolerance are IMHO misguided.
No, it's not. Who in this country needs to be "rallied on board" when it comes to "religious violence"? When was this even debatable?
Refraining from insulting another's religious beliefs is not a "self imposed restraint from offending religion" - it is a self-imposed restrain from being offensive just for the sake of being so, and for no other purpose.
Geller was being offensive "for no other purpose".
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I said it above: those among the new origins of immigrants who have imported with them the belief in religious violence of their cultures of origin.
Take the often well educated muslims of Iranian origin who fled the Khomeini revolution: they are less likely to adhere to religious fundamentalism.
But among the often poor and uneducated refugees of Somali origin resettled in the Detroit region, there are reports of fundamentalism, including a belief in the use of violence in the case of blasphemy.
And "Refraining from insulting another's religious beliefs" is not a "self-imposed restrain from being offensive just for the sake of being so", it can be cowardice. As the BBC demonstrated by refraining from showing the Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the audience of a show even after having asked the audience whether they wanted the cartoons to be shown to illustrate and clarify the debate.
We are not talking about pamela Geller here, we are talking about a TV show which was debating free speech vs religion. The audience ask to see the cartoons, it was relevant to the discussion, the channel management had pre-written a letter barring the presentation of the cartoons.
That is the creeping self imposed censorship that is rising.
That is what I am seething against.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)The BBC isn't American so what business is it of yrs? I thought you were talking about the US? Over here the media choose not to publish the names or show images of recently deceased high profile Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders because it's offensive to that minority group. Would you be seething because the media choose to do that. Would you urge all Australians to whack up an image on their front lawn or FB of the next high profile indigenous Australian who dies? Because it appears to me that yr seething about others making a different choice to what you'd make.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)My only commitment is to simple basic universal values: freedom being high on the list. So I cheer when I see these values progress anywhere on earth: the fall of the Berlin Wall or Tien an men were great moments.
And I gnarl when I see these values squandered away. I cringed when I saw the replay of that BBC show where the audience asked to see drawings relevant to a discussion and were denied their wish. That was like seeing a piece of magna carta heritage being thrown to the dustbin. But you, as a British citizen, might individually not object to infringements to freedom of expression in the name of 'cultural sensitivity'?
Now if you're telling me anything that can be potentially 'offensive' to any 'minority group' should not be shown, fine: I'll just ask that no place of worship ever be shown on TV. They are centers of cultural indoctrination which I object to. Show me my request isn't as reasonable as prohibiting the display of drawings to illustrate a debate on free speech. And tell me who decides on which minority has a right to object and block what information.
PS: a good many journalists have gone on record stating that one factor that tilted the balance against showing the controversial cartoons in their paper or channel was fear of an attack and/or fear of an increase in their insurance premium. Doesn't sound like cultural sensitivity to me. More like being bullied. At the end of the day, might is right?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the BBC can choose whether or not they want to show something and if you've got a problem with it, tough shit. Same as it's a big tough shit to anyone who thinks the media here is pandering to a minority group in the example I gave you in my other post about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
No-one gets to block anything, and anyone who thinks their 'freedom of speech' is endangered is out of touch with reality.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts).. of the fact the BBC blocked the freedom of the public to access information (see the cartoons) despite clear consent by a group of its representatives (the audience) for arbitrary reasons whose motives were unclear and highly questionable.
The real motivations behind the self censorship did include fear of reprisal and of insurance premium increase.
Anyone denying free speech was not curtailed for all the wrong reasons is out of touch with reality AND in denial.
Because I already stated some journalists are on record stating fear was the deciding factor in blocking the cartoons.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)You act as though the entire world is in imminent danger if everyone doesn't jump on the Pamela Geller bandwagon. Instead of seething and raging because a British, not American, media outlet CHOSE not to do something you demand they do, how about showing yr interest in free speech isn't confined to just things that some Muslims find offensive. So I'm interested in seeing yr howls of outrage that you would have posted back when there were threads here about the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist who was fired for expressing his freedom of speech.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I'll discuss other topics next week, assuming there are no other religiously motivated shootings next week.
And at the time of Charlie Hebdo, I was incensed, and have already stated so. Again, I don't care about Geller.
As for the BBC, yes, I was vaguely aware that the first B of BBC might stand for the word 'British' which might be an indication it was not an American organization, thank you for your kind reminder of the fact.
Aside from the fact I might have some personal connection there, as a citizen of the democratic world, I feel personal outrage whenever I see freedoms attacked. It doesn't seem to be your case. So be it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)So where are the links to all yr seething posts condemning the attack on freedom of speech by the sacking of that cartoonist?
I haven't seen anyone attacking yr freedom. I'll be sure to be seething with outrage when that actually happens...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Try raising as many side issues as you can, please do carry on fixating on the word seething, please do raise big bad strawmen about my personal freedom being attacked.
Let's play your game: here is what Voltaire wrote to Frederic, the King of Prussia:
Since I am an atheist underdog in a world with a religious majority, would you defend my right to add:
And speaking of freedom and liberty of expression, a question: which major newspaper would publish that?
Please help me get this printed in a column in the Herald Sun.
I am an underdog.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I'm not sure how it works where you proclaim that anything you don't want to talk about is a 'side issue'. I mean, you told us all you seethe about the BBC, so don't complain when you get reminded of that.
Y'know, one thing is pretty clear here. It's that Americans freedom of speech isn't under attack in any way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to uphold free speech?
We don't have to be offensive in order to uphold free speech. That's a separate issue.
You seem to actually be claiming we do, so why limit it to Muslims and what offends them?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)People who currently are muslims can change.
Islam is an ideology which promotes sexism, religious intolerance and censorship.
That seems to be sound basis for criticism. Sorry if current believers are hurt in the process.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The BBC does not have to publish it.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Sure, let's ban from the mainstream media some info some people object to.
Let people take the time and effort to retrieve it, even if it pertains to the point discussed.
Brilliant empowerment of censorship.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's up to the BBC what they want to cover. But it's still out there to find if you want it.
I would like the BBC to do a novel based on the life of Jane Austen. They choose not to. How dare they? They are censoring information on a great writer. Oh wait, I can go to the library.
You can't demand a media fulfill your personal interests.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one supports any blasphemy laws. There are no "tacit" laws. A law is a law. Gellar is not in prison and there's no threat of her being arrested or charged under blasphemy laws because there are no blasphemy laws.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I already explained journalists of different mainstream media admitted their media self censored some religiously 'offensive' material for the main reason that it would invite attacks against their offices or cause an increase an insurance premium increase.
I hope I clarified this point once and for all.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Yet I hear there are entire websites where people make fun of Republicans - including posting images that are insulting to some of their most beloved icons. It's good that folks can feel free to do that without fear of being killed. Imagine if they couldn't.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and one's political beliefs are two different things.
Trying to equate the two is demonstrative of a profound ignorance of both.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)You can make a case that an attack against an actual individual was out of line.
How can you cross a line on a figment of imagination?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is a "figment of the imagination" or not is beside the point.
Geller's only purpose here was to denigrate the faith of others. It had nothing to do with politics, nor freedom of speech.
THAT is the point.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)If it was leprechauns you'd haul them off to the loony bin.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Exactly what purpose is served by doing so?
Is it a matter of just because I CAN do this, I will"?
Sounds rather childish to me. YMMV.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)You know... With words...
As opposed to some others who think the answer to discussion, even heated discussion, is violence.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is what will "move humanity beyond the dark ages"?
Sounds more like stepping back into the dark ages to me.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)It's what we do to racists and bigots nowadays...
Verbally shame and mock them to the point where they feel unwelcome in society and over time the defective behavior is reduced.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)People of religious faith are the same as racists and bigots?
Are you at all familiar with history? Jews were mocked and scorned for centuries in Christian nations. Catholics were mocked and scorned in the wake of the Reformation.
And you don't see any Jews or Catholics around anymore, do ya? That worked out well.
The only racism and bigotry I'm seeing here is your own.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... But still a defective behavior to be eventually removed from society.
Apples to oranges but both still fruit...
On a related noted... All of those groups you listed were mocked and attacked and murdered by other religious groups who believed that their sky dad could beat up the other guys sky dad.
Take religion out of the picture and folks start getting along much better...
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... "take religion out of the picture", and "remove it from society".
I'm sure you'll be wildly successful in doing so.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... but I'm an optimist and think humanity will continue to evolve unless we blow ourselves up or some such.
Maybe in a 1000 years or so, if humanity makes it, we will look back on it as the backwards sign of primitivity it was.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... people will still hold religious beliefs.
Your naivete in that regard is almost laughable.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)I like to think of the positive outcomes.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Two millenia ago, most people on earth were polytheists believing natural events had occult causes.
As more and more people become litterate, as more and more further their studies after High School, belief in the unexisting will recede.
If only because a vast majority of believers today are not aware of the fact their sacred books do not hold water vs reality (creation, adam, moses, all the glaring contradictions in the Quran)
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... but I am sure, now that you're on the case, it will be eradicated without much further ado.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)My assertion is demonstrable. Yours is not.
Human history is 8000 years old. Cannibalism is nearly, not totally, extinct.
Religion is less harmful than cannibalism. That's why it will stay a while longer.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)...
Bye now!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or in a thousand other ways. In fact, mocking them lets them play the victim, no? That gains sympathy. I doubt anyone is convinced out of something they believe by someone else making fun of it. At least if it's an important belief to them and they are out of high school.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seems like you're being bigoted towards one religion.
Sounds rather childish to me. YMMV.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that "Scientologists are inferior to other believers"?
Again, the need to misquote in order to make a non-point.
Have a good evening.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Because they are.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Oh, how I wish it were. Sadly the religious intertwine their beliefs with politics so very much.
If they really were two very different and separate things many of us would never take issue with it. The reality is that they force it on society with laws based on their beliefs. Just as the folks in Indiana, any member of the LGBT community or any woman who strongly values reproductive choice.
Denying the link between religion and politics is what's profoundly ignorant.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that there is a link between religion and politics - merely that they are two separate things.
Believing Christ was the son of God is not a political statement; running for office is not a religious statement.
Some politicians endeavour to "link" the two - that doesn't make them one and the same. That's why separation of Church and State exists - although too many try to ignore that separation as frequently as they can get away with.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'll stop ridiculing organized religion when they stop threatening my autonomy and the autonomy of millions of other women and LGBT.
Until then, fair game.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... it's always going to be here.
What you can fight is the imposition of religion on anyone.
Organized religion can threaten all they want - it is a moot point. It is the legislators who take up their cause that are the problem, not the religion itself.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)They are a huge part of the problem.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)If you think mocking religion is going to stop any of that, you go ahead and do that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How is what you did any better than "mocking" religion?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I said it wasn't a religion. And it's not.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Most athiests I know declare them all equally "unreal".
Because they are.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6645160
It's a religion to its followers, claiming that they're inferior to other believers is EXACTLY what Geller and her kind do.
All animals are created equal...
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that I "judged all Scientologists because I met a few I didn't like"?
I grow increasingly frustrated arguing with people on DU who challenge what I DIDN'T say, as opposed to what I DID say.
I am not alone in that regard. I see it happening on a very regular basis to a lot of posters here.
In the end, it is not worth responding to.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why do you single out only one religion for criticism? Their belief is just as real to them as any other follower.
At least most atheists are consistent.
All of it is bunk.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)She advocates genocide. She cheered the slaughter of those Norwegian teenagers a few years back. She's an opponent of free speech. Then there's the wacky batshit crazy shit she says about Obama.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People who say they want lgbt people to die from AIDS or that sickle cell anemia is the great white hope are just as reprehensible.
The pope compared gender theory to Nazi propaganda and says same sex marriage destroys families and he's hailed as a progressive.
Geller is no worse than any other bigot who uses hate speech to further her agenda.
We could compare horrible ideology all night but I bet we'd just end up agreeing that it's all horrible.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Some people can be religious and support women's or gay rights.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You're not telling me anything I don't know. I used the term "organized religion" and not "every religious person on the entire planet" for a reason.
I blame the institutions and the leaders. Though I do often remind my liberal friends who belong to the harmful larger organizations that, despite their liberal beliefs, they directly contribute to the massive harm being done to women and LGBT by their financial and social support of them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)To me, at least.
I disagree - your liberal friends might be helping other church people be more liberal minded. I don't think refusing to speak to people or associate with them is any way to get them to your way of thinking. You have to interact with them.
Society in general is becoming more broad minded and that includes religious believers. The fundies simply make the most noise. The outrageous gets media attention more than the general atmosphere.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Two posts in a row now you're accusing me of saying something I didn't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I am referring to what you said to your liberal friends who go to the church. They are helping, you say, so you think they should quit the church rather than stay in it would follow. If they don't associate with church people presumably they would stop helping this anti-woman and anti-gay agenda. So it seems reasonable they should stop doing that. That's just my abbreviation for the way people argue that associating with other people means they get their ideas drilled into you, like the Hillary Kissinger crap and the types of things that right wingers use to claim Obama must be a communist.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The religious are NOT becoming more broad-minded. They are digging their heels in and getting worse.
They need to be reigned in and called out on their bullshit.
Oh right, you're the one who basically told me that we should STFU because Roe v Wade is still the law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and then be so nasty?
I just differ with you. I don't think the trend goes the way the fundies want, and that's a good thing, and after 30 years they have not gotten Roe v. Wade overturned. And I never tell anyone to shut the FU. Geez I was trying to point out something positive. There is no going back. That's why the fundies are so rabid and hysterical and therefore say and do outrageous things, which gets them in the news.
I don't see why you have to be so quick to be a victim and so quick to attack. This is why it's hard to discuss anything on DU these days. Nobody is trying to tell you not to worry about right wingers. I just think it's hopeless for them in the long run.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Reread what I wrote, reread what you wrote and then look in the mirror and realize how you contribute to making things difficult to discuss on DU.
You really seem to have an altered sense of reality.
"I don't see why you have to be so quick to be a victim and so quick to attack. "
Women's autonomy and LGBT rights are under constant and direct attack by religious organizations in this country. Stating that fact is not an attack. Those issues are more important to me than worrying about the precious feelings of those responsible for the attacks on our rights.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I do not agree there is a chance they will be able to turn back the clock to 1950.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The number of clinics closing? Women being jailed for miscarriages? TRAP laws? Hobby Lobby? RFRA laws? They don't need to overturn Roe v Wade, they're making significant progress in making reproductive service less available already.
Silly me, I thought you read DU and knew about that stuff.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But every time we mention the war on women their eyes glaze over and all they see is just another "attack on the religious".
Criticism of religion is what gets them outraged.
Not the atrocious things the religious are doing.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Shhhhhhh, bmus, it'll be OK.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Jesus wouldn't let them, just look at slavery.
And we wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Plenty of religious ideas have real world impacts.
This is so for all religions, and in good ways and bad. When Buddhists preach and act with compassion, they may advocate for laws that act with compassion, such as providing refuge for those threatened. When Catholics preach the social Gospel, it's SUPPOSED to have an impact on political activity and the political agendas Catholics support in their countries.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not that we won't be killed for it. That can always happen. You don't know that some Republican won't go nuts and kill over it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And no fear that there ever will be in the foreseeable future.
There is no censorship in the United States.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,909 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I've gone one better than that! One of my friends is heading off to the US for a holiday next week and she doesn't want to look like a tourist. I gave her these handy tips...
1. Don't speak. Ever. The accent will give you away.
2. They NEED to draw Mohammed in America. I don't know why, but it's something they just need to do. It's some weird cultural thing, I think. So when someone says hi, just draw them a quick sketch of Mohammed, hand it to them with a knowing smile and walk off. They'll think yr a local coz that's what Americans do when greeting each other.
3. If a local persists in trying to get you to talk and give yr tourist status away, just whip up a cartoon of Mohammed having sex with Pamela Geller, and in a fake French accent say '#JeSuisPamelaGeller'. And then when the cops turn up to put a stop to yr impromtu x-rated Mohammed and Pammy exhibition because of obscenity something something, start yelling in a fake American accent 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH! IT'S ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENT THINGS!'
4. Send me a postcard.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Your post is insulting and hurtful to millions of Americans. Many Americans are extremely passionate about their patriotism. While of course you have the right to mock Americans if you want to, there is no reason to incite them with such an unnecessarily provocative and mean-spirited post. Do not do it again.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You've issued an ultimatum. What's the consequence of breaking your prohibition on speech. I'm aware that the First Amendment only protects us from the government curtailing our speech. We have no such protections from you. So, what are we in for, oberliner?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Why incite them with such hurtful and insulting remarks? Nothing can be gained by doing so. It is needlessly provocative.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That's why I was asking about the consequence of ignoring your directive.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I'm putting my plans on writing 'Violet's Guide To Weird US Customs For Tourists' on hold until I find out how scary these consequences may be!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...than the disgusting practitioners of hateful speech. The First Amendment would be a real breeze if it only applied to speech that most agreed with. When it comes down to it, some on DU don't support free speech, which is disappointing but completely unsurprising.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We had some issues about the BBC not showing the Mohamed cartoons by way of being culturally sensitive. In Oz they don't publish photos of deceased Aboriginals for the same reason.
So that kind of embodies the point. If that's offensive to Americans, it is culturally insensitive too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I've never drawn Mohammed, ever. 
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Every written anything that might be seen as insulting towards some Republicans?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Muslims are not a homogeneous group. Like in any human group (Christians, Russians, whatever), you have fundamentalists (Falwell, Putin, whatever) and you have the great mass of the decent folks.
Muslim fundamentalists want to put a stop by force to any mockery of their religion. Mockery is thereful the appropriate, peaceful way to force a debate to help the great mass of good folks who happen to be muslim to bear on the mad radicals.
Your posture is an insult to all the great majority of muslims which lives under the boot of the fundamentalists.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)And yr taking offense on their behalf? I'm curious. Who designated you to decide what does and doesn't offend American Muslims? Because I'm finding it a bit strange that you don't seem the slightest bit interested in what actual Muslims say they find offensive...
The only fundamentalists US Muslims have to fear are the RW Christians...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)This sentence is remarkably misinformed:
Right.
So, decent muslim parents in the US do not have to fear the internet propaganda which is aimed at radicalizing their children? Decent muslims in the US do not have to fear the us against them fundamentalist muslims are trying to bring about?
ISIS and other radical groups who masterminded attacks like Charlie Hebdo have explicitly stated one of their goals is to radicalize muslim youths in western countries by provoking a backlash the youth would rebel against.
Where are the RW Christians trying to deliberately stoke a worldwide religion war?
You are are not in touch with reality, just some kind of mushy ideology where you want to always come out as the good person in defense of the poor underdog of your choosing. Patronizing them, defending immobilism of their faith.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Want to go back and give it a try?
And I noticed that yr very keen to try to move the discussion away from events in the US to globally. My comment was about US Muslims and the situation in the US. Try to focus on that. So, are you honestly going to try to claim that US Muslims have nothing to fear from RW Christian fundies in the US? Because if you do, I'm grabbing some popcorn and a ringside seat...
That underdog = minority group thing? Us Aussies always go for the underdog. It sucks, but that's how we are. So when it comes to Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, LGBT, African Americans etc, I kind of have this thing where I think people who go out of their way to intentionally insult and offend them because they're a member of that minority group are fucking wankers. And with this freedom of speech thing, I'm even willing to say that I think they're wankers...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)We believers in the great Moloch Baal are of the belief that we should burn young infants alive in a huge metal statue of our god, Moloch, peace be upon him.
But we are ostracized by many. Including Christian right wing groups who object to our practice. Please, advocate for us, molochbaalists, we are oppresed. We are the underdog.
PS: our religion also demands respect and forcible enforcement of our beliefs. Please also come to my defense if I ever was to shoot someone mocking my god or my practices.
Deal?
PS: this is also an answer to your insidious injection of RW groups in the debate. The attitude of RW groups is an independent question to a frontal opposition to a religious dictum that said religion should not be mocked. Further, I suspect said attitude of said R groups might also be motivated by ethnicity, not religion, further confusing the issue.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)First it's don't talk about Pamela Geller. Now it's don't talk about RW Christian extremists. Well fuck that. I'm talking about them.
And still no answer to the question I asked you. I'll add don't ask questions to the long list of things you don't want us to do....
I've got no idea what a Moloch is or why yr trying to equate it to Muslims, Jews, LGBT and other minority groups in the US.
Here's another question. Does yr NEED to 'mock' members of a minority group extend beyond Muslims? See, I'm not really getting what you think is achieved by that...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You seem to nurse pet subjects: all minorities apparently are oppressed and in need of your support, some undefined RW groups seem to always be lurking in the shadows and you seem to have a fetsih for Pamela Geller.
The topic is the need to assert free speech, even mockery vs religions which claim it infringes their beliefs.
You say we shouldn't because that religion is held by a minority.
I show you the weakness of your point when I say I am the Moloch believing minority.
I apologize for trying to bring you back to the topic and away from your pet but unrelated hobbies.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)1. I don't recall saying all minorities are oppressed and in need of my support, and I certainly don't believe that.
2. What do you mean 'some undefined RW groups'? I said RW Christian fundies are something US Muslims would be in fear of. You appear to have problems with that observation. Why?
3. I don't have a fetish for Pam Geller. You may have noticed that she's a big part of the topic yr insisting we all stick to. I detest bigots and she's a hate-mongering bigot. I'm not sure why yr telling people to forget about her and her role in what happened and what she is.
4. Where did I say you shouldn't 'mock' minorities? You can do it all you want, but the beauty of the free speech thing is people have every right to tell you that they think yr mocking is pretty lame and amateur...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- the subtext of your posts is that RW Christians have the upper hand on minority groups
2- I do not fear your affirmation about RW Christians, it is off topic, therefore a distraction
3- I told people my inital title was misleading and I changed it. Can't do more. Topic of freedom to mock.
4- Where did you say you shouldn't 'mock' minorities? it's the title of one of your posts (insults minorities)
Point 4 tells me you're deliberately dishonest.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)4. Let's go from point 4 back. I'm not dishonest so try and leave the insults out of it. Seeing this is the only post with the word 'insult minorities' in it, I assume yr talking about this one where I didn't say anywhere in it that you can't 'mock' minorities...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6640849
I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology...
3. Don't you worry. I'm living and breathing the 'freedom to mock' topic in this thread.
2. Nope. Just because you don't want to talk about the danger of RW Christian fundys in the US doesn't make it off topic. It just makes it a subject you don't want to talk about for some strange reason. They're a real danger to freedom of expression, so I don't know why anyone who wants to talk about free speech wouldn't want to talk about them.
1. Yes, that's correct. RW Christian fundys do have the upper hand on minority groups in the US. This is a statement that everyone at DU should easily agree with.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)4- I love the dishonesty with which you suggest I started 'insulting' you. Especially from someone who started accusing me of mocking people (I did not), and used the words 'lame and amateur' to qualify that imaginary crime. I did say, and confirm here, you are intellectually dishonest. You wrote "I don't recall saying all minorities are oppressed" after having written a post about mockery "insults minorities". Are you saying insult isn't a form of oppression?
1- Anyway, your denial becomes funnier in regard of what you answer to point 1 where you reaffirm "RW Christian fundys do have the upper hand on minority groups in the US". Isn't "having a upper hand" a form of oppression? Besides, your statement is also misinformed: fundamentalist groups are among the low income groups, not wielding economic clout over other minorities. Hindus, Jews, Orthodoxs and Buddhists all are more affluent than Mainstream Protestants and far more wealthy than Evangelical Christians. 
Your initial (2) statement was off topic and so unspecific as to become meaningless. EVERYONE would have a reason to be "in a fear of" some undefined "RW Christian fundies". I'm pretty sure that among the cloud of "RW Christian fundies" there must be some crazy ones. I suspect their attitude towards Hindus or Jews might be unamicable. What all this has to do with cartoons is rather mysterious.
And that point (2) is a good example of why (3) you are all over the place and beyond.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)You falsely accused me of being dishonest and claimed incorrectly that I'd said people shouldn't 'mock' minorities and then called me dishonest when I pointed out correctly that I hadn't said that at all. Here's the link again to what I did say http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6640849
Like I said before, I won't wait for an apology.
Okay, I never thought I'd see someone at DU arguing that the RW fundies don't have the upper hand when it comes to minority groups. The Religious Right is very powerful in the US in case you haven't noticed. I'm not sure why yr even trying to argue about such an obvious thing as this. Sorry, but did I miss where minority groups that tend to be targets for hate have power and representation in the highest levels of politics over there? Because the Religious Right does have that power and representation...
I'll be crystal clear about what American Muslims have to fear from the RW Christian fundy types. Things like 'protests' (maybe you'd call them mocking) where they scream abuse at Muslim children singing the US national anthem, things like a politician in a US state having an open day and demanding that any Muslims who visited her office must swear an oath of allegiance to the US on an Israeli flag, things like the Religious Right having a shitload of influence on the Republicans. And their rage is aimed at Muslims, not Jews nor Hindus. I think the groups they don't like would be LGBT and African Americans.
Here's an article about the Religious Right and their Islamophobia.
Coalition of fear: Tea Party, the religious right, and Islamophobia
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You claim that I
It's exactly what your post here was doing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6640849
Unless that post was saying we all should mock minorities?
Or unless you want to play on the words insult and mock?
But anyway, I never even suggested anyone should mock minorities. I'd never mock a minority myself. But I request the right to mock ideologies I feel strongly against.
Now, as for RW fundies having the upper hand on all minority groups, that's obviously NOT the case. The religious Right might have political clout, but so does the Jewish minority. Show me the Religious Right is oppressing the Buddhist minority. If it's difficult, try the Sikh or the Orthodox minorities. Religious minorities as a whole are not oppressed by the Religious Right, and that's a fact. And all the educated muslims who fled the Iranian revolution did not meet remarkable problems of integration to the best of my knowledge.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)It didn't even say you shouldn't insult minorities. I don't know how yr managing to read that into a post that said something else...
This really isn't rocket science. The religious right does have a lot of political power in the US and it's blatantly obvious they have a lot of hatred towards American Muslims. I gave you some examples and a link to an article to read. Yr the one who brings up the word oppressed all the time, not me. I'll use the words hatred and discrimination because they're far more accurate. Do you really think Republicans and the religious right give a shit whether a Muslim is an educated Iranian who fled the revolution or not? They hate Muslims. They even hate some of those Muslims who travel round talking about how evil Muslims are, but they'll use them anyway...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Because it becomes apparent your words do not convey your meaning.
As to what RW groups might believe or not, you appear to believe you know that to a T, so I'll pass on a discussion that's going nowhere. Apparently, minorities is your code word for muslims since it's the only of my points you answer to. And you appear to know better than me how Iranians were welcomed in the US fater the Khomeini revolution. So be it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)It should dawn on you that I didn't say anywhere that you shouldn't 'mock' minorities.
Okay, I'm finding yr attitude about talking about RW religious groups and their hatred of Muslims and of freedom of speech to be just a bit bizarre on a left wing forum like DU...
As for educated Iranians, it doesn't matter who knows more. The fact is that the Religious Right hates Muslims. If yr struggling with this, use Jews and anti-semites as an example. Anti-semites hate Jews. But my bet is they'd also be able to dredge up some Jews they can admit to liking in some bizarre attempt to make out they don't hate Jews. It works the same way for the Religious Right and Muslims and anyone who claims there's not hatred aimed at Muslims from the Religious Right is having a bit of a vacation in fantasy land...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- Just explain what your post I linked you to is saying.
2- YOU brought RW religious groups to the discussion. Now you tell me my attitude is bizarre to answer your points?
3- I love your sentence: "as for {insert name here}, it doesn't matter who knows more."
Obviously, it seems your methodology. You don't care who knows what, you go according to your presuppositions.
That's over and out for me.
"it doesn't matter who knows more."
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)1. In response to someone who'd settled in with a few posts telling us we were disrespecting Republicans if we insulted them, I replied by asking what that had to do with insulting minority groups. There's nothing in there saying if anyone should or shouldn't...
2. I didn't realise there was some in-thread rule where we must only talk about the religious loonies that you agree to discussing. You said in a post in a thread that's about freedom of speech in America, 'Your posture is an insult to all the great majority of muslims which lives under the boot of the fundamentalists.' I quite correctly pointed out that the only fundies that American Muslims have to worry about living under the boot of is the Religious Right and through them the Republicans.
3. Yeah, strangely enough when talking about Islamophobia, I really don't care who knows more about Iranians who migrated to the US after the Revolution. Especially when they're used as some sort of excuse for why the Religious Right don't hate Muslims. And that's because Islamophobia didn't really exist in the US until after 9/11.
Here's an overview of Islamophobia in the US for you to read:
All anti-Muslim hate groups exhibit extreme hostility toward Muslims. The organizations portray those who worship Islam as fundamentally alien and attribute to its followers an inherent set of negative traits. Muslims are depicted as irrational, intolerant and violent, and their faith is frequently depicted as sanctioning pedophilia, marital rape and child marriage.
These groups also typically hold conspiratorial views regarding the inherent danger to America posed by its Muslim-American community. Muslims are depicted as a fifth column intent on undermining and eventually replacing American democracy and Western civilization with Islamic despotism. Anti-Muslim hate groups allege that Muslims are trying to subvert the rule of law by imposing on Americans their own Islamic legal system, Shariah law.
Anti-Muslim hate groups also broadly defame Islam, which they tend to treat as a monolithic and evil religion. These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-muslim
Yr over and out? I forgot to remind you over half an hour ago that while it's getting close to Beer o'clock here, it's Draw A Mohammed o'clock over there. If you rush you can still make it!
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)There are more Muslims than there are Americans. How does that make them a downtrodden minority?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)And yr the one who brought up the word 'downtrodden', not me.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)you will support me if I threaten violence against believers? Or will you mock me, even though I'm a minority?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I sense you really don't like the fact that American Muslims are a minority group just like Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Let's say I am in the minority of the idolaters of Moloch Baal.
Would it be culturally sensitive of you to let me burn infants alive as offerings to my god?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Discrimination and hate?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I see you refuse to support my religious minority.
Why is that so?
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Discrimination and hate?
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Making death threats is not O.K., and I don't care if you think being Muslim makes death threats O.K. I will go right on criticizing death threats and those who make death threats and those who support and encourage those who make death threats and those who profess to believe the same things as those who make death threats. And those that kill in the name of their beliefs and those that support those that kill in the name of their beliefs, and those that claim to believe the same things as those that kill for their beliefs, and those who quote "words of peace" from the very book that tells them to kill for their beliefs. And that is my right under the Constitution of the United States.
And, yes, most Muslims are peaceful (while reading daily from the book that tells them to kill the infidel. Go figure the cognitive dissonance of that one out). But the minority, the 320 million that support terrorism, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Apparently my rights to speech are secondary to their rights to make death threats, and if that isn't a free pass, I don't know what is.
You seem to be advocating appeasement of homicidal fanatics. Give them what they want so they won't butcher us. Well, we saw how well appeasement worked on Hitler, didn't we. Go ahead, appease away. And when they come to chop your head off, be sure to tell them how much you support their right to do so.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)And how am I appeasing homicidal fanatics?
Oneironaut
(5,485 posts)It doesn't matter which one - religion should be a personal belief. The "don't draw Mohammed" rule is a rule that some Muslims follow. Fine - then don't draw him yourself. Don't expect people who don't believe in that rule to follow it to because you demand it.
Some Christians demand that everyone convert, and that homosexuality should be banned. Are those rational demands either?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Nothing to add.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,153 posts)Someone who posts such images will likely be protected under freedom of speech and expression, but no one "needs" to offend or blaspheme.
Personally, I don't see the point in it. Getting people angry and upset just seems gratuitous and unproductive. I will make my opinions and beliefs known, but I'm not one to go out of my way to offend someone who doesn't see things the way I do.
So sure, they might be protected. But they aren't necessarily performing some great public service, either.
Oh, and fuck Pam Geller.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So by mocking a religion, that mockery will lead to greater dialogue and understanding? Please!
This issue, most especially as it relates to the Pamela Geller inspired/incited crime in Texas, has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with incitement. And incitement is NOT protected speech. Case law is quite clear on that. Google Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) for a short lesson in non-protected speech.
So the premise of your post is faulty. If you were talking about protected speech, which does enjoy First Amendment protection, I would agree that protected speech is lawful speech.
As to Islam and blasphemy, no reputable Muslim cleric is calling for religious law to replace the Constitution. Unless you are a Fox watcher living in Oklahoma you should be aware of that. I feel your post is thinly disguised Islam hate.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you can point out what she did that "incited" others to violence and explain why it's different than what any other hate group does you'll have a point.
Until then you're just a poster child for religious privilege.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The cartoon contest idea incited violence in Denmark and France. Geller knows this.
Or are you saying that Geller is simply a big fan of political cartoons?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why is her brand of hate worse than the religious kind?
Or are you saying that Westboro Baptists are simply fans of god?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If you know I will be violent against you if you say "X", you will refrain to say "X", is that it.
Looks like it gives me a right to call the shots on public discourse if I'm ready to shoot.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)It must be so.
If you can't draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you will shortly be unable to argue that Muhammed was wrong when he said that the penalty for adultery should be death.
Geller may not be a very admirable figure, but her demonstration that this is not a trivial issue in our society stands.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The vast majority of muslims are normal, decent people. Like Germans in 1933 or Russians in 1950.
But like Germans in 1933 or Russians in 1950, the vast majority of people who live in countries where being muslim is a de facto duty live under the jackboot of their literalist clerics who have no incentive to reform the doctrine towards kumbaya religion, like Christanity was FORCED to do.
Those literalists, fundamentalists want to enforce a worldwide ban on mockery of their religion. From there on, the questions are relatively simple: First, do people in democracies give in to these violent demands? Second, and more important, should we stop publishing mockeries of Islam? As stated in the OP, I think the vast, decent majority NEEDS us to post this satire. Because when it becomes evident the fundamentalist dogma that blasphemy is physically punishable, the silent muslim majority will have a stepping stone to tell the fundamentalists to stop waging violence over their radicall reading of the 'sacred' texts.
On your side note, the following sentence was meant to be insulting
I think I respect muslims as human beings more than you do.
And I will concede I have the utmost contempt for the doctrine of Islam. But I know it fairly well.
I have reason to believe you do not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am truly unsure if you are at all serious in your post. But you did say:
"I think I respect muslims as human beings more than you do.
And I will concede I have the utmost contempt for the doctrine of Islam. But I know it fairly well.
I have reason to believe you do not."
Muslims are the followers of Islam. If they did not they would not be Muslims. So you claim to respect Muslims even as you hold their religious beliefs in the utmost contempt? I do not know how to respond to such a bizarre sequence of statements.
As to your claim of superior knowledge, you are entitled to your opinion.
Finally, when you wrote:
"The vast majority of muslims are normal, decent people. Like Germans in 1933 or Russians in 1950.
But like Germans in 1933 or Russians in 1950, the vast majority of people who live in countries where being muslim is a de facto duty live under the jackboot of their literalist clerics who have no incentive to reform the doctrine towards kumbaya religion, like Christanity was FORCED to do."
"under the jackboot of their literalist critics" ???? Sounds like a Tea Party horror story. Perhaps you are at the wrong site.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... to poke a beehive with a stick. Just don't expect a whole bunch of sympathy when you are covered with stings.
People doing stupid shit have bad things happen to them. Even when "I'm a Murican an I gotta right to do it."
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Here is what he wrote of Christianity:
Now, let's say I write an editorial in a newspaper of your choice in the continental US:
Islam is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. The public will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition. My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out..
Guess what?
Folks like you will shout at the top of their lungs "RACISM".
CAIR and half a dozen organizations will attack me in court.
And, from what I read here, quite a few folks will applaud attacks on me for being hateful and culturally insensitive.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I'm an atheist.
And you most definitely sound exactly like a hater.
Go right ahead and smack that beehive and enjoy the results.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Fuck the beliefs that champion such acts. And FUCK the people that turn a blind eye to the abuse.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If they are wrong, mockery is a non violent way to bring people to reconsider.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)That won't make it true, though.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)People don't need protections for popular speech. They need protections for unpopular speech.
Fuck Nazis and Pam Gellar, but don't try to prevent their speech.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't need to agree with Geller to support the 1st Amendment.
Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)simply can't handle the truth when it offends their preconceived notions of joining hands and singing cumbaya as a way to get fanatics to stop killing non-Muslims for violating laws that only apply to Muslims.
One poll says that 15% to 20% of Muslims worldwide support what the terrorists are doing. Given 1.6 billion Muslims, that's up to 320 million supporters of terrorism. The U.S. population is 300 million, roughly. So while the majority of Muslims are peace-loving, the minority, a mere 320 million of them, are not. 320 million people who consider it their duty to kill all 300 million Americans is a force to be taken seriously. The fanatics DO, after all, outnumber us. Go ahead and defend us with cumbaya's, or get realistic.
And that doesn't even take into account the millions of Christians who want to destroy our public school system by forcing the teaching of "Biblical truths" instead of science. Make no mistake about it. Religious fanatics, be they Muslims or Christians are a serious danger to our country and our freedoms. It may not be politically correct to confront this reality and call out their bullshit, but for heaven's sake let's not make the mistake the Republicans make by ignoring reality in favor of our cherished ideology.
Get the hell out of la-la land and come back to reality.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I especially liked that sentence:
Kumbaya won't work. Mockery is a non violent way to push for change.
The mockers are not violent, people who shoot on them are. Period.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Woman the missile launchers!
ISIS has a base in Texas! We are about to be overrun by MUSLIM HORDES!!!!
Or not....
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)See how easy it is to mock things you think are ridiculous?
Well, I think religion is ridiculous, so it is my right to mock it, just as it is your right to mock me (even though it made my cry like a baby to feel your scorn. 
)
But it's also my right to point out objective facts (not conspiracy theories) to anyone who cares about reality. I'll be happy to footnote my numbers. They are real, not fantasy.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I'll give you a cookie.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Cartoons are missiles. Cartoonists are haters. Muslims are too infantile to make their religion evolve.
Christianity was FORCED to abandon lots of violent behaviors, including repressing blasphemy.
But Islam is different. Just be culturally sensitive to Hamas, and they will sing Kumbaya to the Jews.
If only the cartoonists were jailed.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)A) I respect him, his beliefs, and his followers. (i.e. killing people who disagree is alright with me)
B) I acknowledge that a significant percentage of his followers are violent and may kill me if I do.
(reposted in a slightly different form from another forum)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)"Just please don't chop off our heads" helping the situation?
Drawing Mohammed is standing up to and resisting unacceptable coercion.
treestar
(82,383 posts)about the Kumbaya thing. Do you have a view of human nature that we must fight? I mean, would it be so bad if we could hold hands with some Muslims and sing Kumbaya? Why does that seem not like a laudable goal, if idealistic and distant.
And there are some Muslims we could bond with rather than offending them. And they could help us fight the extremists too.
i'm not saying do what Mr. TErrorist says, I'm only saying why does offending the other Muslims help fight terrorism?
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)--Ancient Chinese Proverb
It is necessary to fight when fighting is called for, such as when Genghis Khan is storming your city in the Dark Ages, or when creationists are trying to get science thrown out of our schools.
Hold hands with Genghis Khan and you'll pull back a bloody stump.
Sing Kumbaya with fundamentalist creationists and you will be laughed at by them, as they proceed to tear down our educational institutions in spite of your singing. This is the real world, not The Good Ship Lollypop.
Part of the image problem we Democrats have is that we are perceived by our enemies (and yes, we have political enemies) as soft, mushy-headed, Kumbaya-singing pushovers. That's one reason why the Republicans win elections. We are seen as coddling terrorists and bending over on demand.
If the liberal and moderate Muslims want our help in fixing their image problem, let them make some move in that direction. I don't see any such large-scale movements from that quarter. I see them also appeasing the terrorists. So that seems to be the signal for some Democrats to come running to rescue the poor, downtrodden 1.6 billion Muslims who obviously, according to some liberals, are not competent to fix their own image problem, so they need our benevolent help. That, by the way, is racist. The white man's burden all over again. (Google "white man's burden" if your are not a student of history or poetry.)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It would be silly for me to go into a homicidal rage every time a book or movie or video game came out with symbols of religion depicting evil.
My getting upset and offended does not do anything to change people's views on my religion. What does change their minds is politeness, love and patience with explanations of what we are not and what we are.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)And why don't you believe in homicidal rage in defense of your beliefs?
Maybe you shouldn't hesitate.
I have a sense some would defend your right to shoot as your belief might be a minority one.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Geller is an asshole. The guys who used guns and violence are bigger assholes.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Your beliefs are not deeply held.
Beautifully strong beliefs warrant violence.
Not understanding that is to be culturally insensitive.
(I'm trying to learn my lesson 
)
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)The omnipotent deity specified in the act should have the common decency to deal with it in person, and not by dispatching a bunch of his drooling adherents.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)We cannot allow laws against blasphemy under any guise for any reason. It is the end of everything if we do. We will shortly become a theocracy ruled by the worst among us.
