Atheists don't make up a particular ethnicity or culture or heritage like Muslims do. It's become pretty evident that Danes consider Muslims to be less than and that's why they've chosen to generalize them by depicting Muhammad as a terrorist over and over and over again.
I care none. I only said I could care less because I wasted time reading/responding to it. Hence, the remark/response I could care less. And yes, I live in a fantasy world where no one is violent. At least not with me.
I don't recall Muslims in Europe celebrating 9/11 but anyway. There is a way to address the extremism in Islam without insulting all Muslims. By depicting their prophet as a terrorist you're insulting all Muslims. We don't depict Jesus as a pedophile because of what's gone on in the Catholic church. It would be an obvious insult to hundreds of millions of people who have nothing to do with that situation. If they want to do documentaries on some of the things that go on in Muslim countries then knock yourselves out, I fully support that. If you want to do investigative pieces on the abuses in Pakistan, that's great. This on the other hand is just a straight insult and your coded "welfare" speak about Muslims living off the state and what have you is the same kind of talk we hear from racists and bigots in this country when it comes to discussing minority groups or immigrant groups. You don't really want to admit it but this is really much more than about freedom of speech. It's about a clash of cultures and the assimilation of Muslims, who self-identify via religion, into European countries that have a disdain for religion. A lot of Euros despise religious dogma and even moderate Muslims are a perfect punching bag for them. As much as we talk about race problems in the US, you folks in Europe make East Texans look open minded.
It's not a legal issue...and I'm not for the government banning any of these expressions. I just think its ridiculous to trumpet and hide behind my right to free speech - which is a legal issue and pertains to the governments - while really just seeking to offend a bunch of people, most of whom are not inclined to violence.
holy crap, that's awesome. exactly right. the right to do so is entirely separate from being jackass enough to do it. no one is suggesting we don't have the right to draw anything. i have friends who are muslim. would i invite them into my home and do this in front of them? i'm not in the business of offending them. why in the world would i? because some jackassess claim to share their faith? so i should ride the jackass train too? where is that getting us? (i want to say jackasstown, but i think that is way too many mentions of the word jackass in one thread - crap, i said it again).
If what you are saying was an accurate analogy, I would agree with you. I do not agree that it is an accurate analogy. The neighborhood I was referring to is meant to signify an extremist group of people in their own country. I am talking about the American, Danish and German extremist Muslims. They are not in someone else's country, they are in their own country and are exercising their beliefs in their own country. The way you think shows, as it has before, that you consider Germany to be for 'true' Germans, Americans for 'true' Americans and Denmark for 'true' Danes. This is not the case. There are violent, extremist Germans who require no further validation to become German. They are German criminals. They are in their country, and they are acting freely and no one is complaining when they are jailed. It is no different than any other murderer. They are no less German than you are. They are not guests. They are not above the law. Their religion is their own business - since Muslims are not even ALLOWED to classify others as believers/nonbelievers, we are certainly not going to condemn them for their direct, independent religious relationship with God. For that same reason (maintaining a pure, untouched connection with God) they can not take parts of that relationship and impose it on others. Because outside of their relationship with God, they are responsible for meeting the law of their country. This is not Arabs extending their beliefs into someone else's country. These are Germans with radical beliefs. This is not a geographical or legal thing. Personally, I think the best course of action is to prosecute these people according to the law. Then find out where the interference in their beliefs comes from - Saudi Arabia and its international army of Islamic scholars. You can jail the puppets forever, but as long as the puppet masters are in place and have power, nothing will change. So to answer you ATW, you shouldn't be saying "them" and they certainly have nothing to do with ME. They are Germans, Danes, Swedes, etc and I think it would be more accurate if you characterized them as "us". Good luck with them. We've lived with them for centuries and we know how to deal with them. However, you have chosen to deal with your crazies in a way that we know will never work and will make things worse. Good luck. Draw a line in the sand... they will never look down to see the line. They will sure as hell step over it to kill you with an axe though. After all, a line in the sand is a declaration of war in Arab culture. Or did you not know that?
I don't know Larry Flynt or his story, and frankly I don't feel like looking it up. But to put it very bluntly, if this Larry Flynt fellow did something (legal) to test (by provoking/daring) whether a white supremacist terrorist would kill him, then yes he should expect that the probability of him being killed is far higher than under normal circumstances. The Danish cartoonist did something legal (cartoon) to test Danish Muslims (according to ATW, 'about to be' Danish') on their ability to tolerate free speech, knowing that there are crazy people in this group of people. When they sent him death threats, he was surprised (or so he says). When they tried to kill him, he was surprised despite having received death threats (or so he says). No rational human being would have any expectation other than "since doing this, the risk of someone killing me has quadrupled and I had the power to draw or not draw that cartoon." But he drew the cartoon, and accepted the risks. If he was not willing to accept that irrational people will act irrational, his problem. Not an ideal thing, but it is reality.
... and this is a major flaw - not being able to see things through other people's eyes. Have you ever seen a Muslim depicting Jesus or Moses (PBUT)? Abraham PBUH? God?
We are going around in circles. I am neither a racist nor a bigot. It's always easy to label others as that and thereby discredit everything they say. That is one of the favorite tactics used by people like Batman Jones and other left-wingers. I agree with you that it is about a clash of cultures. It is also about the lack of willingness of a lot of muslims to assimilate. My mother came from a country to Germany that is much farther away than where most Muslims came from, and her and the other people I know who came from that country had no problems integrating themselves into German society (while still among them practicing their language and culture) and they were welcomed with open arms. To say that European countries have a disdain for religion is just plain wrong. In Germany, there is freedom of religion and religion plays a large role in German society (Germany is predominantly Christian, but other religions are present and free to be practiced as well). Have you actually ever been to Europe? I am from Europe and have been to East Texas. Moderate muslims - I would understand that as Muslims who practice their religion as they wish but without interfering with other people's practice of their beliefs or non-beliefs and who respect the rules of the country they live in - are perfectly welcome. But then you have the Turkish prime minister who explicitly says there are no moderate Muslims and that assimilating (as in respecting the rules of the country you live in and adopting them) is a sin under Islamic rules. So where does that take us? Muslims don't make up a particular ethnicity either. They can be of any ethnicity. And your conclusions about Danes are incorrect. You are generalizing Danes just like you and Mathloom are complaining that Muslims are getting generalized. A few cartoonists are not all Danes. I have lived in Denmark and I know first-hand that Muslims living in Denmark celebrated 9/11 on the streets. All of them? Certainly not. Each one is one too many? Certainly. Molly, I am impressed that you found this site - it would be an honor to have you participate in this discussion more actively, since you basically started that initiative. One of the things you posted on your site was that you withdrew because you are afraid. Is that not sad? Does that not mean that you are already letting Islamists dictate how you exercise your freedom of speech? As to your other point, which is repeated by MadMax below: This is very worthy of discussion. Fight for the right to do it, but then don't do it because you do not want to offend. Seems like a noble stance (and I know you are new here Molly, but MadMax is someone who is a noble poster). I think one thing that needs to be distinguished here is - when does one become a jackass for doing this - and what is the consequence of fighting for the right to do it, but then not do it. My personal stance is that I would not want to draw anything that is offensive to moderate muslims - I would not draw the prophet as a pig or as a dog or with a bomb. I would simply draw a picture of how I could imagine that prophet might have looked. I do not think that this would make me a jackass and I do not think that moderate muslims should be offended by that (neither should the Muslims you would invite to your home, MadMax) - many muslim posters have posted that there is not even any actual rule that you cannot draw the guy. However, it would be a showing of solidarity for those who got threatened and it would mean drawing a line in the sand. One more thing about not doing it when you invite people to your home: MadMax, there is an obvious difference between an anonymous joint effort on the Internet and what you do when you invite people to your home. If you do it when you invite people to your home, it would be clear that you would only do it to be a jackass, as there is no outside effect and display of solidarity. Likewise, if I invited someone to my home who I know is a die-hard Republican, I don't need to shove my Obama t-shirt in his face all evening long, but I might very well have an Obama bumper sticker on my car. It's different. Now to your second point: You say one should fight for the right to do it, but then not do it. Well, first thing is - you have already done it, and may I say so, in a respectful and clever manner, as you did not draw anything degrading or offensive. Secondly - if you fight for the right to do it, but then not do it, basically you still let the most extreme Islamists dictate their standard of (lack of) freedom of speech on you. It is not clear then whether you stopped out of fear (you yourself posted that that is one reason) or because you want to be noble, or both. Fighting for the right to do it, but then not doing it would be seen as a sign of weakness by these radicals - they would feel that they would have won. To draw the line in the sand, you have to actually go ahead and do it - anything else will only encourage them to push further ahead as they would see it not as noble, but as cowardice. That being said, I understand your point and personally consider it a noble stance. No, but I would not care and even if I cared, I would not threaten any of them with death or - like you - be happy that they would have to live in fear for the rest of their lives because of it.
Let me go back and address this unbelievable post. Basically, Batman Jones is saying "you have no right to have an opinion and to participate in this discussion because you are a German dog." Interesting. I was born in 1971. The holocaust obviously happened before I was born. My father was born in 1936 and was 9 years old when the war ended. My grandfather was an English teacher who hated the Nazis and who listened to BBC when the sanction for that was the death penalty. My mother is from Korea and my Korean ancestors were subject to oppression and abuse from the Japanese who occupied their country. So while it is obvious that I have no personal responsibility for the holocaust, even on my ancestral side there are both people from perpetrator nations and victim nations. Does that mean I consider myself free of any responsibility for Germany's role in the holocaust? No, it does not. With the privileges and basically the luck of being born into a certain country (which is why I don't agree with the whole "proud to be [insert nation of your choice]") come the responsibilities for its history. Germany has paid an estimated $25 billion in reparations to Israeli Holocaust survivors. Germany also provided more than $700 million in goods and services to the Israeli government. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312579,00.html Israel is seeking an additional 1 billion Euros in reparations right now. http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-...-holocaust-in-reparations-from-germany-1.1739 I am in favor of paying these. There is nothing we as a nation can ever do to erase the historical guilt of what our country has done to the Jews. I have been to Israel and am happy to say that I believe the relationship between both countries is a very good one. All that said, I find your stance that because of my nation's history, I should not be allowed to participate in a discussion like this extremely disturbing. I have been to Nazi buildings and concentration camps. One of the first things the Nazis did when they came to power was to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They obviously did not respect freedom of religion. I would have to say that especially because of the history of the country I grew up in, I am sensitive to current attempts by extremists to force their standards and restrictions on freedom of speech (and other freedoms) onto the rest of the world. Sorry Batman Jones, but to tell me "you German dog shut up because of the history of your country" is just plain wrong.
Radical Islamists don't have the authority to dictate to me about free speech...neither does anyone else. This isn't a free speech issue....free speech issues arise between governments and those they govern. Not between you and me. Because I don't have freedom of speech, for example, when I come on this messageboard....it's solely at the pleasure of Clutch, who can eliminate, censor or edit my posts as he wishes. I submit to that sense of authority every time I post here. We're talking about a fight for a right to free speech over and over again in this thread....it's just not that. You already have those rights. And frankly it overvalues the position of those you're seeking to oppose, to begin with....it gives them some imputed authority to control your speech, which they don't have. You and I both choose not to submit to any sense of authority these guys might think they have. I don't care if people think they won because I choose not to offend. I'm not interested in drawing any line in the sand with them, personally. I'm interested in responding to them in some creative and remarkable way that might force them to examine themselves...and if it doesn't, oh well....because it was probably never about them, anyway. I can only control myself. And I'm working hard on putting action to words when I say, I will not have my will being subject to my reaction to other people's behavior. Definitely not there yet, though. More importantly....if this is offensive to a moderate Muslim...a guy like Mathloom, for instance....I have no interest in doing it.
I addressed this in an earlier post. It is obviously not the type of free speech issue as you and I or Refman or others studied it in law school, since we are not talking about a governmental intervention here. Still, it is a free speech issue. Here, it is not a governmental entity that is trying to mess with your right to free speech, but it is an entity of islamic extremists. Basically, once someone threatens to kill you because you are exercising your right to free speech, you do have a free speech issue, just not the kind of free speech issue we discussed in law school. Tell the Danish cartoonist and the creators of South Park that, as you posted, "Radical Islamists don't have the authority to dictate to me about free speech" - reality says otherwise. Which is exactly what this initiative is, in my opinion. Have you read all his posts? If you consider someone a moderate who explicitly stated several times that he wishes that the Danish cartoonist must live in fear for the rest of his life because of that cartoon, then I want to know your standards of "moderate". If that is "moderate" to you, then God have mercy on us if these "moderate" standards keep spreading.
Ok...I see what you're saying. I guess I'm too much of a lawyer to see this as a free speech issue, still. Yeah, they can kill you....but that's not their RIGHT. Our government punishes people for that stuff. We don't punish people for drawing cartoons. Bottom line is...if a guy like Mathloom is offended by it...then I'm not interested in doing it intentionally.
Dude, the persecuted Jew throwing the "your grandparents were murderers!" is weak sauce on the message board. I honestly can't believe you are pulling that crap here.
I agree with this entirely. Obviously we have the right to draw Mohammed if we want to, and the violence by the select few Muslims who have issue with it (that Beat LA doesn't think exist) is wrong and should be condemed. But that said, why would I want to draw him? Even though I think this small minority is insane that doesn't mean I have a desire to offend them. The only purpose to the drawing is offense. Why is that good?
Calling him a moderate might be a stretch. He's expressed multiple times that the cartoonist deserves to live in fear for the rest of his life. I think that's a pretty extreme POV. He has toned down and been more mindful of his words since that thread.
It's not because you are too much of a lawyer, but because you have too much common sense and common decency. The blogger who said fight for the right to draw the cartoon then decline to do so had it right. Intentionally offending a huge group of people who are mostly not violent isn't really the best way to protect free speech. It is a way to be seen as ignorant, combative, and to make it easier to divide people based on their different choices of religion.
