So suppose there's a person who is known to be temperamental and easily provoked. If some person goes over and taunts him by making some lurid comments about his Mom (let's say), perhaps with the notion of proving some point that this guy should stop being so easily provoked -- and in the process he gets his own butt kicked -- would you say that only the attacker is to blame, and the violence was not instigated? After all, they're just words, right? And even putting aside the question of who's to blame, is it not still reasonable to ask the question: What was your purpose in taunting the guy in the first place? So I ask the question, why were they so interested in drawing Muhammad, knowing this is considered an insult by millions of people? At best, it seems to me an empty exercise of free speech.
being Muslim is a choice. being black is not. You judge an individual by their choices. stop comparing those. The goal of the art competition was not to insult Muslims. It was to celebrate free speech.
Here's your answer: Christians would NOT react like some Muslims do. Maybe that should teach you something.
After all these years, you still haven't understood the basic concept of free speech. This is evident from your posts, but especially from calling something "an empty exercise of free speech". Let me re-quote rockbox's post for you:
not much to say about this. one thing though, neither group of people i want to hang out with. i have better things to do then go somewhere to see stupid drawings of a religious figure.
stuff like that happens all the time hell, Piss Christ was funded by the NEA! nobody tried to kill the artist. That wouldn't be Christian. Or watch Dogma, or anything from Bill Maher.
Look, I understand being riled up enough to attempt murder over a drawing of a 1400 year old dead man is asinine, however let's not confuse the intentions of this event. If you know anything about Pamela Gellar, the head organizer of this event, she gives two ****s about 'freedom of speech', and practices the approach to critiquing Islam that I find repulsive. Unlike intellectuals like Dawkins or Sam Harris who have informed criticisms of the actual religion, Gellar is all about inciting hatred towards actual Muslims. She propagates notions such as 'never trust a Muslim'. Pamela Gellar is a fear monger who is motivated by hatred. Unfortunately these two extremists will just reinforce her hatred. Individuals like Pamela Gellar are not motived by a will to solve problems. Her methods will not solve ANYTHING.
Because I know who Pamela Gellar is. Why don;t you take some time and watch some of her speeches. She is a hateful individual. Her motivations aren't to 'protect the 1st amendment'. She just likes antagonizing Muslims. She has made an entire career out of it. So basically you didn't read anything I stated. Islam has draconian notions particularly the notion that a 1400 year old dead man who practiced 600AD morality is considered infallible. However, Pamela Gellar's approach to criticism isn't really considered 'criticism'. She has no issue with disparaging all Muslims. Like I said before, her method will solve nothing.
First, I'd like to make a subtle but important distinction here: The artwork itself does not celebrate free speech. It is designed to be insulting. The celebration of free speech comes into the picture when others who have no stake in the content of the art itself recognize and protect the right to display it. That said, manufacturing a piece of art that is insulting to people they consider to be irrational or worthy of ridicule in order to allow others to protect the right to display it -- if that's the "celebration" we're talking about -- it is such a sad, empty way of celebrating free speech. These artists and exhibit organizers should find something they strongly disagree with or find offensive and create an exhibit out of that, if they really care about free speech as an idea.
you still haven't written why you think Gellar gives 'no ****s about free speech' no its not. the pictures of muhammed were not demeaning, but even if they were so what. That's the type of speech Muslims are trying to use force to stop, so that's what you draw if you want to celebrate free speech. Drawing a kitty is not celebrating free speech.
Because before this incident I was well aware of who Pamela Gellar is. She has made an entire career out of antagonizing Muslims. Look her up. Watch her speeches. She is a hateful individual.
