houstonhoya would be better off trying to distance islam from the crazies that do the shootings instead of trying to bring everyone else down to their level.
Don't you agree that the most probable reason there was violence was the cartoons? And if a purpose of art (and specifically cartoons) is to "stir. inform and inflame" this certainly qualifies as art
I just saw this below. That is incredibly impressive. It's very hard to aim a service pistol over any distance, especially when confronted with people who have assault rifles which are far easier to aim. Kudos to the officer and his incredible marksmanship. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/index.html
Maybe they like the way they look in those clothes Maybe they enjoy knowing that others find them attractive. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be sexually attractive and expecting others to still show you respect. On the other hand, trying to piss a group of people off and then suffering the consequences of it is a different deal. Now, in this case, you could argue that the goal wasn't to piss people off, but rather to protest against those who threaten violence. I'm ok with such protests, if they are effective. If they are counter-productive (i.e. increases animosity, increases threats of violence, etc.) then I really have to question the whole idea of it.
I agree. He did an incredible job. It would have been far better if the extremists involved in putting on this show had decided to perhaps go to a park to play with their children instead.
Clearly, you didn't get Nook's post. Nor the whole concept of free speech. With no offense intended - were you raised in the USA or in India?
With all due respect... you just don't get it. The issue isn't whether or not their goal is to piss people off or exercise terrible taste. The issue/point is that they have the right to do it, even if it pisses you off. It isn't really any different than seeing a woman dressed in scanty clad clothes and getting offended. You have the right to be offended, but you don't have the right to drive from Phoenix and attempt to kill them. The event was an exercise in the freedom of expression and they deserved the right to draw pictures in public without someone attempting to kill them. This really isn't that hard.
The artist and Geller were probably well guarded in the 1st place since they were expecting this (it seems the SWAT team was inside). My question would be why would they have an unarmed security guard out there like a sitting duck...??? I'm sure he's grateful to be alive but I hope they make sure he gets more than just worker's compensation.
How about if they had a American flag burning protest in the middle Amarillo. Would there be any physical confrontation? Muslims are not the only who are prone to violent acts from symbolic gestures.
Are you denying that there aren't any right wing crazies in Texas? Like the one who want the state to secede? Or the ones who believe Obama's Navy SEALS are about to take over the state?
Lol, yes some people have extreme views. There are even people who still think socialism is a good idea. But none try to commit mass murder over a drawing. Teeny tiny difference you're glossing over.
How many American Muslims would murder someone for a drawing? I would say almost the same percentage as a Right Winger would likely attack a protester burning the American flag. Secularization has quelled almost all religious violence in the U.S. including Muslim Americans and Christian Americans. Obviously, there will ALWAYS be a few exception.
fallen, you are in fact doing this very thing! i pray you stop and realize that what you describe here is the bread and butter of Geller and Co's approach.
But we all recognize their right do this. That isn't the issue at all. The question is whether such kinds of exercises of free speech should be encouraged. I think all speech should be protected, but we should encourage people to use that protected right in a constructive way. In this case, the goal (being generous) is to make a statement that we will not be intimidated into not saying or drawing certain things because of threats of force. I'm fully in favor of such a goal. I just don't think this is an effective way to make such a statement. The message is obscured. It won't be received as "You shouldn't threaten people just because you're offended"; it will be received as "You and your stupid religion are beneath us, screw you." And that just makes the whole "exercise" counter-productive, becomes it inflames hostility rather than increasing cross-cultural understanding.
USA. Correct me where you think I got it wrong. I'm willing to rethink things (my opinion has already shifted a bit over the course of this thread). I'll start with a simple question: Do you think "freedom to say X is a right" implies "saying X can not be wrong"?
Who said anything about encouraging? It is free speech, it isn't a matter or encouraging or discouraging. The government should play no part in encouraging or discouraging it. You can not like it or be indifferent, it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.
