General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

236. Turned out great. Exactly as I hoped.

Sun May 10, 2015, 08:57 PM

May 2015

Most people here understand that saying something that pisses people off, or saying something that REALLY pisses people off, is still protected under the 1A. That's good. It would be profoundly depressing, if the results had been much different.

That doesnt mean I'm not going to refute the arguments of the few people here who have spent the past few days in a scramble for some rationale, under decades old SCOTUS rulings, to cobble together an argument under which she could be charged with "incitement" or "shouting fire in a crowded theater" or some such.

(And the irony of the fact that ALL of those cases involved government trying to censor speech most here would agree, ought to be free to be aired- stuff like protests against the vietnam war, draft, etc- seems TOTALLY lost on those folks.)

People who are anti-choice, or anti marriage equality, are a distinct minority here on DU, too. Does that mean conversations about the importance of reproductive freedom or marriage equality are irrelevant, here? Or that we should just ignore it when those couple people post massively wrong-headed arguments?

It's not about Pam Geller. She's an ass, and a bigot. People keep comparing her to fred phelps. Fine, so treat her like him- respond to her bigotry with humor, mocking, etc. More speech.

What people dont seem to want to acknowledge is, if some fundamentalists didnt lose their shit to the point of violence over stuff like "blasphemous" cartoons- and again, it's not just Pam Geller, it's Charlie Hebdo as well- we wouldnt even be having this discussion, would we?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

262 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that [View all] Warren DeMontague May 2015 OP

Forget the religion part, most if not all in scientolgy dont pretend it is a religion NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #1

No the religion part of it is critical Kurska May 2015 #3

I see, it all depends on whether it's a "real" religion or not. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #8

recommend samsingh May 2015 #30

Because it isn't a "sincerely held faith" starroute May 2015 #33

I think if you really want to go down the road of separating "genuine religions" from con jobs Warren DeMontague May 2015 #35

So do you believe *all* religion is a con job? starroute May 2015 #37

The Roman Catholic Church is ostensibly based upon a guy who said "give your stuff to the poor" Warren DeMontague May 2015 #40

If anything Scientology is more honest about it Major Nikon May 2015 #98

here's some math hfojvt May 2015 #148

I suppose it depends on who you ask, from those religions. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #149

Here's some more math Major Nikon May 2015 #167

Read the New Testament, Jesus was an "end of times" Jewish preacher who ... Humanist_Activist May 2015 #109

If you don't read the Bible with the eyes of faith, Damansarajaya May 2015 #184

I'm sorry, that's completely nonsensical. Humanist_Activist May 2015 #205

Break out of the cage of narrow logic. Damansarajaya May 2015 #213

To build off that lovely quote, faith is stiff and inflexible... Humanist_Activist May 2015 #220

... SidDithers May 2015 #208

Wow, look up the origins of every religion. phil89 May 2015 #104

All religions are con jobs from the start. nt valerief May 2015 #176

I could make the same argument about ANY religion. Christianity didn't Exilednight May 2015 #206

Is it how you hold your mouth when you say it? X_Digger May 2015 #11

lolwut? JaneyVee May 2015 #2

Seems like several other people understood what I meant. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #7

That is totally different because words. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #4

Oscar nominee 'Deliver Us From Evil' about the Catholic scandals Bluenorthwest May 2015 #5

Sometimes I see stuff from people who call themselves "progressives" that blows me right away. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #13

On the wrong side of heaven seveneyes May 2015 #6

The difference between Going Clear and Pamela Geller justiceischeap May 2015 #9

...okay, so what she does in not constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #12

I absolutely agree that she's obnoxious and, I think, dangerous justiceischeap May 2015 #14

I agree with some of what you've said. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #15

I saw the docu justiceischeap May 2015 #16

And yet, it was Mohammed CARTOONS that drew the violent response, both here and at Charlie Hebdo. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #17

Yep, and we've known this is often the type of reaction to these cartoons justiceischeap May 2015 #18

Radical Muslims aren't bears. Kurska May 2015 #20

This PeaceNikki May 2015 #21

proving once again Warren DeMontague May 2015 #22

Aww shucks Kurska May 2015 #24

Do folks miss the de-humanizing that such analogies encourage? Or is it intentional? X_Digger May 2015 #25

I'm sorry you didn't like my bear analogy justiceischeap May 2015 #43

I've also seen a shark analogy used here. Another reason these animal analogies fail is -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #209

Yep, and we've known this is often the type of reaction to these cartoons justiceischeap May 2015 #18

So if Muslims are 'the bear' and thus too dangerous to 'poke' what message are you sending to other Bluenorthwest May 2015 #23

you make excellent points. thank you samsingh May 2015 #31

yes, but as someone else pointed out- Charlie Hebdo ridiculed all religions equally notadmblnd May 2015 #32

true, but we had pretty much the same identical discussions here, after Charlie Hebdo. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #34

there are some rights that the 1st amendment does not guarantee notadmblnd May 2015 #46

And people keep trying to make that argument, which is disturbing. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #48

This ^ PeaceNikki May 2015 #51

I did not call for her arrest or for her to be charged with a crime. notadmblnd May 2015 #60

And I never said "the First Amendment is absolute", so you were disputing a point no one made. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #62

no, I was not suggesting she knew a cartoon would piss peope off notadmblnd May 2015 #85

Like I said, that would probably have to be a civil suit, filed BY the attendees in question. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #93

But not by the injured security officer. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #97

"fighting words" - that exception has been narrowed down to almost nothing. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #54

And saying "I'll draw an offensive cartoon tomorrow"- isn't very imminent. ;) X_Digger May 2015 #115

Every time someone plays "itchycoo park" on the radio, they are telling people to "Get HI-IIGH!!" Warren DeMontague May 2015 #132

Actually no, they didn't CrawlingChaos May 2015 #168

Perhaps I should have not used the word "equally". So I'll give you that notadmblnd May 2015 #238

"Charlie Hebdo ridiculed all religions equally" Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #210

Actually the majority of CH's cartoons were aimed at politicians and culture wars riderinthestorm May 2015 #212

That seems like a direct description of Scientologists' beliefs starroute May 2015 #38

They're laughing about the beliefs, as they describe them. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #41

yeah edhopper May 2015 #10

Sauce For the Goose HassleCat May 2015 #26

Live by the sword seveneyes May 2015 #27

All fair points Aerows May 2015 #28

What if some extremist Republicans threatened to kill anyone who makes fun of Jeb Bush? oberliner May 2015 #76

Threatening isn't the same as actually Aerows May 2015 #90

Thanks for sharing your thoughts oberliner May 2015 #92

Neither approach Aerows May 2015 #95

I think it is moral and ethical to criticize religious fundamentalism oberliner May 2015 #100

kick samsingh May 2015 #29

I'm staying out of this one. Who wants some butter? Initech May 2015 #36

I would say in before "not a real religion" LostOne4Ever May 2015 #39

Yeah, I hear you. the hypocrisy gets to me, sometimes. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #42

Did the folk who made that doco advocate genocide against adherents of that religion? Violet_Crumble May 2015 #44

Im not defending pamela geller. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #45

"it was the cartoons. In both cases" jberryhill May 2015 #52

I just googled "prize winning cartoon Garland Texas" and they come up riderinthestorm May 2015 #61

I know you aren't. It's just that's one obvious difference I saw... Violet_Crumble May 2015 #53

Is there a difference between "people shouldn't be allowed to" and "people should choose not to" el_bryanto May 2015 #47

I am addressing legal arguments, which I have seen made repeatedly. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #49

OK - then on a strictly legal matter Geller should be allowed to say whatever she likes. el_bryanto May 2015 #50

Fun fact... Oktober May 2015 #187

Nods - many people think that - I don't as I am religious. el_bryanto May 2015 #226

Did HBO run the documentary for the intended purposes of provoking Scientologists to violence? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #55

I'm a Southern Baptist, so my religious beliefs are often ridiculed. NaturalHigh May 2015 #56

I am a Catholic - after 840high May 2015 #147

God that's tiresome. I have to assume that you have never bothered to look at the work of Andres Bluenorthwest May 2015 #155

I'm familiar with his work. Each 840high May 2015 #156

All religions are not alike. Damansarajaya May 2015 #57

So; Fundamentalists who think they have a mandate from the sky to kill cartoonists Warren DeMontague May 2015 #63

Bad, no doubt. But the need to provoke such individuals Damansarajaya May 2015 #65

Provocation is in the eye of the beholder. Every single attacker who ever attached anyone anywhere PeaceNikki May 2015 #67

Yes, I said that too. Damansarajaya May 2015 #72

Agree. Many organized religions treat me as a second class citizen or worse. PeaceNikki May 2015 #73

It's too bad that's the world we live in right now, but my denomination, the Episcopalians Damansarajaya May 2015 #78

I'm not asking you to do anything. You're asking others to stop mocking and ridiculing people whose PeaceNikki May 2015 #80

Would I personally do it? No. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #71

I lived in a Muslim country for three years. Hence my nickname. Damansarajaya May 2015 #75

So write HBO and criticize them for making fun of Xenu. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #77

I'll stop ridiculing organized religion when they stop threatening my autonomy. PeaceNikki May 2015 #79

Religions don't get to make rules for people outside of their religion oberliner May 2015 #84

This is rather a shit-stirring thread, is it not? Damansarajaya May 2015 #58

Yeah, it's a major distraction from the peaceful GD banter between the Hillary and Bernie people Warren DeMontague May 2015 #64

It's been a positive love-fest compared to Hillary vs Obama Damansarajaya May 2015 #66

Bear in mind that it is only May. Of 2015. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #68

"money-making corporation that uses the religious cult as its business model" FLPanhandle May 2015 #70

It most certainly does not, heh. Damansarajaya May 2015 #81

Holy shit. Those hospital takeovers are not a good thing for women, you know. PeaceNikki May 2015 #82

No kidding. beam me up scottie May 2015 #87

When was the last time you heard of an atheist institution lobbying against women's rights? beam me up scottie May 2015 #86

Atheist equivalent of Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Benjamin Tutu? LostOne4Ever May 2015 #94

There's so many, it's hard to limit the list isn't it? I'd add Andrei Sakharov riderinthestorm May 2015 #105

Christopher Hitchens? mwrguy May 2015 #152

Seriously, about Mother Theresa. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #124

Not unlike Pope Frank. PeaceNikki May 2015 #126

He strikes me as marginally better than the guy who came before him. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #129

He compared teaching gender theory to Nazi propaganda. beam me up scottie May 2015 #133

point taken. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #134

Golda Meir?!!! CrawlingChaos May 2015 #166

Feel free to use one of the other names off my list then. LostOne4Ever May 2015 #174

They want to make all religion bad, when in fact Damansarajaya May 2015 #185

When a religion is based upon text(s) that calls homosexuality an abomination, demands women be LostOne4Ever May 2015 #189

Probably no one punished gays more than the old Soviet Union, Damansarajaya May 2015 #215

LGBT folks have been persecuted EVERYWHERE! Not just the Soviet Union riderinthestorm May 2015 #240

Ah, jeez, I missed that one. beam me up scottie May 2015 #242

Don't forget the outsourcing they are doing to Africa as well. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #243

But this has nothing to do with religion. beam me up scottie May 2015 #245

I have found, when it comes to religion here, it is like Animal Farm... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #246

The double standard is the behemoth in the room. beam me up scottie May 2015 #248

That's a popular belief here among the religion haters. Damansarajaya May 2015 #244

That's a popular belief here among the atheist haters. beam me up scottie May 2015 #247

Yes, and Obama said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA. Damansarajaya May 2015 #249

"Obama"? LMAO! beam me up scottie May 2015 #250

Easily amused, aren't you. Damansarajaya May 2015 #252

What obvious point? That Hitler and Obama both lie? beam me up scottie May 2015 #253

Only if you completely ignore...(lots of links) LostOne4Ever May 2015 #256

Oh my god!! The RCC??! You're putting that corrupt institution up as some paragon of virtue?! riderinthestorm May 2015 #106

Heh, I did mention Mother Theresa . . . Damansarajaya May 2015 #182

Well, "the atheist equivalent of Mother Theresa" would probably be Stalin. mr blur May 2015 #150

Especially the RCC. beam me up scottie May 2015 #83

Why yes it does.... truebrit71 May 2015 #114

You can easily bypass the whole Scientology legitimacy question... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #88

"And for the record, I do think Scientology is BS." beam me up scottie May 2015 #89

I'm pretty sure I have no desire to see Tom Cruise and Co. shoot up some event. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #91

Loved that documentary Going Clear. hrmjustin May 2015 #59

You know who also believes in unseen forces that can't be proven? Astrophysicists. Damansarajaya May 2015 #69

Right, and the minute God or Vishnu or Zeus, Ra or Osiris exerts a measurable gravitational Warren DeMontague May 2015 #74

I'm fine with "religion is silly", although indeed it wasn't the point of this thread. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #103

"Trouble is, it can't be perceived with the five senses" - does not mean "can't be proven to exist". Warren Stupidity May 2015 #102

In one week, we've found an "Astrophysics is faith guy" and a "blind watchmaker" guy... Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #112

Give it an hour as they start rolling in from the bars. PeaceNikki May 2015 #135

You seem to know less than nothing about astrophysics, not to mention what you said... Humanist_Activist May 2015 #108

Jesus loves you, man. nt Damansarajaya May 2015 #181

I'm actually surprised they haven't. KamaAina May 2015 #96

False equivalence. KamaAina May 2015 #99

The only people who think Scientology is a religion ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #101

Oh bullshit. beam me up scottie May 2015 #107

According to the DU Sliding Scale of Arbitrary Postmodern Morality... Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #110

LOL! No kidding, imagine NG's outrage if someone claimed islam wasn't a real religion. beam me up scottie May 2015 #111

"Scientology's followers are no more or less religious than any other believers." NanceGreggs May 2015 #113

Do enlighten me, then. Why are they not religious? beam me up scottie May 2015 #116

Yes, because the unprovable flarmfaddle THEY believe in is extra flarmfaddle-ish. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #121

LMAO! beam me up scottie May 2015 #123

Ya know ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #136

"I've known more than a few in my day - they're not about what one believes" beam me up scottie May 2015 #137

NWRT. n/t NanceGreggs May 2015 #139

If you watched the documentary, there are people who DEFINITELY believe in Xenu the way Warren DeMontague May 2015 #138

Ppppppppppppffffffftt PeaceNikki May 2015 #117

Exactly, there is NO NEED TO BASH SCIENTOLGISTS!!! beam me up scottie May 2015 #119

How dare she mock their deeply held beliefs? She just needs a good audit PeaceNikki May 2015 #120

I'm feeling provoked. beam me up scottie May 2015 #122

But are you a bear-shark that will sting when provoked? PeaceNikki May 2015 #125

I'm a loaded gun and she's playing Russian Roulette. beam me up scottie May 2015 #128

You gave me a Bon Jovi earworm. Now I'm feeling prevokrd. PeaceNikki May 2015 #130

That's better than -- Narwhals Narwhals !!! beam me up scottie May 2015 #131

I said Scientology isn't a religion. NanceGreggs May 2015 #140

What other religions are "not real"? Just so we're all clear, you know. PeaceNikki May 2015 #141

Your need to bash only scientolgists is appalling. beam me up scottie May 2015 #142

I said Sceintology isn't a religion. NanceGreggs May 2015 #143

Declaring a religion invalid is bashing it. beam me up scottie May 2015 #144

Yeah. Okay. Whatever, dude. No problemo - you're SO right. n/t NanceGreggs May 2015 #145

Hey, I bash scientology all the time, I just don't bash ONLY scientology. beam me up scottie May 2015 #146

But what fun is that? Damansarajaya May 2015 #183

You might want to think about why you feel such a need to point out, repeatedly, mr blur May 2015 #151

There are independent Scientologist not connected with the Church of Scientology Chathamization May 2015 #153

hey, what the heck? Old and In the Way May 2015 #118

*** Warren DeMontague May 2015 #127

If I put honey in your tea because I think you're allergic to it and it will kill you it's the same Chathamization May 2015 #154

which, in both situations is adulterating someone else's food/drink without their consent or Warren DeMontague May 2015 #157

Well, I suppose if you want to equate attempts to sweeten with attempts to kill. Chathamization May 2015 #158

and yet here you are, comparing the drawing of a cartoon that someone doesnt like Warren DeMontague May 2015 #159

Let's be honest here. In response to the OP, I gave an example of adding honey to a drink Chathamization May 2015 #160

How precisely would you like "intent" to matter, in this case? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #164

No idea why you feel that's being evaded since everyone here seems to agree the attack was terrible Chathamization May 2015 #178

Why is she legally culpable for the fact that OTHER people get pissed off? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #190

You don't get to assault/kill other people and claim you were provoked into doing it. beam me up scottie May 2015 #161

Has anyone on DU, anywhere, argued that it's OK to assault/kill people because they were provoked? Chathamization May 2015 #162

That's your straw man, not what I said. beam me up scottie May 2015 #163

OK, has anyone said that you "get to assault/kill other people and claim you were provoked into Chathamization May 2015 #180

You're right, they're different things. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #195

It doesn't mean that at all. No one seems to be saying that a political cartoonist is liable for Chathamization May 2015 #196

his exact words were "Insulting someone's deity when it is known to cause violence" Warren DeMontague May 2015 #199

Again - when the intent is to incite violence. If you choose to ignore that part, his meaning Chathamization May 2015 #201

It's meaning isn't lost, it's totally clear. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #202

I argue, the posters intent is completely clear, even if you persist in ignoring it Chathamization May 2015 #203

Regarding your last paragraph- Warren DeMontague May 2015 #204

For the nth time, the difference you keep ignoring is the intent to incite violence. Chathamization May 2015 #207

Ive seen people argue that blasphemy or "insulting a deity" should be illegal. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #165

Links to people who've said insulting a deity should be illegal? Because I haven't seen those posts. Chathamization May 2015 #179

Here. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #191

Did you read that post? They're saying that Geller is culpable for trying to incite violence, not Chathamization May 2015 #197

Scientology? JonLP24 May 2015 #169

And if people believe in an interpretation of their religion where they feel shooting people is a valid Warren DeMontague May 2015 #170

As a destructive cult JonLP24 May 2015 #171

This thread reeks CrawlingChaos May 2015 #172

So drawing a cartoon of the deity is demonizing the believers? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #173

You are championing Pamela Gellar's cause CrawlingChaos May 2015 #175

No, I am championing her right to air her noxious-ass views under the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #194

I think Gellar would be thrilled with the job you are doing CrawlingChaos May 2015 #227

"you've tried to distort their intentions" beam me up scottie May 2015 #228

Instead of posting silly pictures CrawlingChaos May 2015 #230

Maybe you should look in a mirror. beam me up scottie May 2015 #231

exactly the non-answer I was expecting CrawlingChaos May 2015 #233

I'm saying that a small minority of people HAVE argued her speech is somehow not protected under the Warren DeMontague May 2015 #232

Yeah, um, how'd your poll turn out again? CrawlingChaos May 2015 #235

Turned out great. Exactly as I hoped. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #236

So you're happy that your poll proved your "concern" was misplaced CrawlingChaos May 2015 #241

No, I give the vast majority of Muslims a ton more credit than that. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #251

exactly the side-stepping and obfuscation I was expecting CrawlingChaos May 2015 #254

Side stepping & obfuscation? You're the one pretending this is about everything EXCEPT cartoons. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #255

you seem tense CrawlingChaos May 2015 #257

Oh, give me a break. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #258

So where are the other threads then? CrawlingChaos May 2015 #259

what are you, the thread police? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #260

Simply making an observation CrawlingChaos May 2015 #261

Well, I hope you did your stretching exercises, first. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #262

"keep trying to take apart an argument I'm not making"...ah, who said irony was dead! N/T Chathamization May 2015 #237

It's the shackles of youth. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #239

To hell with freedom. Religious zealots MUST be appeased. Binkie The Clown May 2015 #177

Very inspired! Damansarajaya May 2015 #186

. Binkie The Clown May 2015 #188

What are ya playing right now? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #193

Minecraft, at the moment. hehe n/t Binkie The Clown May 2015 #198

Aw, man. Minecraft is such an amazing phenomenon. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #200

When you were younger? Hell, I'm 70! And I love it. Binkie The Clown May 2015 #219

That's right. And the ACLU was correct to defend their right to do so. The courts were right to say Warren DeMontague May 2015 #192

Did I say anything about censorship? Damansarajaya May 2015 #214

If you have a strong moral objection to criticizing, satirizing or mocking deeply held beliefs PeaceNikki May 2015 #216

Because the majority of Americans say they're Christian. Damansarajaya May 2015 #217

Liberal Christians should be leading the charge at mocking those who deserve it PeaceNikki May 2015 #218

We seem to be talking past each other. Damansarajaya May 2015 #221

Not fair? Well funded, hugely successful, widespread efforts to limit my autonomy are not fair. PeaceNikki May 2015 #222

Conflating Christian bigots with Christianity is like Damansarajaya May 2015 #223

Some of the core tenets of Christianity teach that women are dangerous and must submit. PeaceNikki May 2015 #224

Yes, James Dobson is truly vile. Damansarajaya May 2015 #225

One of the analogies I've seen since this brouhaha began has been -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #211

+1 beam me up scottie May 2015 #229

Still seems not the same treestar May 2015 #234