I'm glad we are getting to the crux of the issue, at least. Alright, let's suppose that is what I'm saying. General rule: If we choose to do something that is considered deeply offensive to many, we should have a good reason for it that outweighs the insult. This is simply a matter of being respectful, and calling it an "art exhibit" doesn't change that. So the question here is whether these people had a good enough reason for doing what they did. Does it enrich the dialogue between our cultures in some productive way? Is it thought provoking? And so on. Perhaps you feel they did have a good reason. Maybe this kind of "art" really speaks to you on some deep level. Me? Not so much. I find it childish, and more than that its already been done. I don't see the artistic merit here. Indeed, to call this "art" is I think a big mistake. The intentions here were political, not artistic.
None of that matters, it was something they wanted to do, they were harming no one with it and they weren't in anyone's face about it. The "why" behind them exhibiting their free speech is irrelevant. Personally I think making religious art that is considered blasphemous is a dickish thing to do no matter what religion, but it isn't inviting violence. People are expected to be civilized, they can dislike something without grabbing an assault rifle and body armor. If Muslim groups simply peacefully protested the event, it would have been a non-story.
This analogy is a lot better than the rape analogy, but more appropriately would be the protest being a bare-all that occurs 1) not outside, but in a confined enclosed space and 2) not in the strongly conservative community at all, but far away from there. The shooters didn't even come from Garland; they were from Arizona. Location matters when it comes to offense. I answer no to the shared moral responsibility question. These idiots care from freakin Phoenix, Arizona to shoot up an exhibit in Garland, TX. The Garland idiots weren't shoving their protest down the shooter idiots' throats. The shooter idiots were terrorists trying to make a scene and enact their own justice because people a thousand miles away were doing something against their morals. That's BS.
I don't understand your position. If an action can be described as "dickish", doesn't that imply you think its wrong to do? I'm not saying these people wanted a violent reaction. I don't know what their agenda was, but I guess they just wanted to assert their right to be as offensive as they want to be to Muslims. I would call this "dickish" as well, and whether intentionally or not, the actions had the strong potential of provoking a violent outburst and they should have known this. Again, and I can't make this point any clearer, whatever we say about them and what they should or shouldn't have done, the fact remains that people who resort to violence to try to silence them are criminals who should be punished to the full extent of the law.
I had thought about this, actually. The reason I put them within the strongly conservative community is because it needed to be clear that their protest was in reaction to them. For this Muhammad gallery story, the "community" is dispersed and has a presence all over. There is no ambiguity that the art exhibit is pointedly directed at Muslims.
What part of the story leads you to believe they didn't? It is the reason the papers are scared to publish the cartoons. Everyone knows the violence threats are real.
I don't believe they didn't. I think they were well aware of the risks, and felt compelled to do it anyway.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/0...otest-islamic-neighbor-plans-to-build-mosque/ This story popped up again in recent months. Either the conservative websites are regurgitating old news or I don't know what. Anyhow, here's a great example of two potential dickish groups (Muslim vs non-Muslim) doing things the American way. If the farmer owner is correct in saying that the Islamic Association president was slandering him in public and suggesting that he leave, then the pig race response is dickish but within his rights. And the Islamic Association has every right to build (and I guess they did) a mosque next door, keep acquiring land, and keep suggesting the farm-owner leave. The point is, dickish neighbors offend each other all the time in this country. Many years ago, I knew this kid in HS whose dad made the local news for a neighbor dispute. They went crazy, cutting security cameras, yelling, destroying each others' lawn...it was like fiction come to life. Anyhow, they went too far with their mutually dickish behavior, but a million times a day there are people who don't because people can be dicks and not break the law. There's a scale of dickishness. However hateful this Garland group leader is (and I'll accept the claim that's she's a full blown hate monger), this gallery of Muhammad drawings is way low on the dickish behavior scale. It's so low that the violent idiots weren't their neighbors who flew into an irrational emotional rage when something got shoved in their faces (illegal, but more understandable)...it's so low that this was just a false reason to act imo by people who were already murderers or terrorists looking to cause a scene in the US. Those Arizona shooter idiots were ticking time bombs, imo.
Geographic relations matter. They are a factor in determining where protests can be held, where churches are built, and what kind of speech is allowed. Location effects smoking law, decency laws, privacy laws...it effects freedom. There are tons of things Americans do that offend extremists, most without having any intention to do so. Fortunately, most active extremists who want to hash violence on America don't live here. The art exhibit was anti-Muslim, but the geographic fact that it wasn't in a Muslim community or in the faces of Muslims is an important factor to me. Once again, I think the shooters were just looking for a reason to make a statement, and would eventually find one regardless of this event.
People have the right to do things that others would think are "dickish" in this country. There are people who think that homosexuality is "wrong", does that make gay pride rallies "wrong"? Would that mean that if some whack job opened fire at one that they "had it coming"? In both cases, the groups are celebrating the fact that those who oppose their actions don't matter and can't silence them because of the freedom of speech and expression. Neither party is "wrong".....even if there is a group that doesn't like what they are doing. We shouldn't be blaming people who did nothing wrong, even if we don't like what they did.
Everyone involved, on both sides, knew exactly what they were doing and the risks associated with their actions. Let's move on.
You keep returning to this. Again, having the right to do something doesn't mean it isn't wrong to do it. I fully accept and am in favor of their right to be dicks. But I'd rather people exercise judgment and not be dicks to eachother, unless they have a good reason to be so. Something isn't wrong simply by virtue of it being offensive to some. If there is merit in the action that outweighs how offensive it is, then it could be worthwhile and the right thing to do. I'm totally OK with someone asserting pride in their own sexuality as a protest against those who wish to discriminate against them or force them to hide who they are. I certainly would not call it "dickish", the word you (I think fairly) used to refer to this Muhammad exhibit.
Saying that something is "wrong" is making a moral judgement on an action. There is no one moral code, so what you might find "wrong" others might not. Your moral judgement, or the moral judgement of others is irrelevant to the legal actions of others. And they felt like they had good reason to do so. Your moral judgement is irrelevant. One doesn't "invite violence" by showing artwork, even if that artwork is seen as tacky or offensive to some. That depends entirely on what moral philosophy you are coming from.....but since your moral judgement on the matter is irrelevant, we should just move on. In principle it's the same thing though, there are people who would seek to silence homosexuals and they protest against that.....there are those who would seek to silence those who choose to draw art of their choosing and they held essentially a protest against those people. If violence comes to either event, it's not the fault of those protesting peacefully.
Quite a few people were offended by this Spoiler quite a few people were offended by The Last Temptation of Christ. The creators of both of those knew they would offend. Your entire argument is heavily heavily flawed.
Christian protesters here were successful in getting movie theaters to not even show it. I didn't realize that some fundamentalist Christians in France threw Molotov cocktails into a theater screening this movie. I remember the controversy when it came out, but didn't recall the specifics. This is just FYI too, not trying to make a point or anything. Just recalled the hoopla when you mentioned the movie.
Granted that we have different moral philosophies, and ultimately different values as well. But to argue that as a result we shouldn't express an opinion on what's right and wrong seems to me to be moral relativism to the extreme. I've maintained over and over, moral responsibility is based on predictable outcomes of our actions. It is my "moral philosophy", and I accept others may see things differently. I'm fully supportive of organizers of gay pride parades. I think its a worthwhile civic activity. But they do have a moral responsibility to take precautions against violence, if such a threat is considered likely, as a matter of public safety. If they choose to ignore safety concerns of people in the area for their demonstration, then yes there is some fault. I'm less sympathetic towards these kind of "art exhibits", and the threat of violence seems to me to be even more pronounced, so that all enters into the equation for me. These people can of course have their show, it is their right, but I would have an even higher expectation that they take steps to ensure safety of people in the area. If I feel they didn't weigh the threats carefully and/or take the appropriate safety precautions, then again there is some fault there. And, to emphasize this as it may not go without saying, these are my opinions only. Feel free to disagree.
Speaking of dickish behavior, this happened on April 10th and no one got hurt: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tiK811hmTHQ?showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's totally different. But you haven't understood the difference in years, so I have little hope that you ever will. Klan marches are aimed at inciting hate against a group of people because of their race. This event was aimed at promoting free speech, and arguably at unmasking the intolerance of a religious ideology (or its excesses). While one might suspect that some of the organizers of this event are prejudiced against people because of their religious/ideological choices, the event is clearly primarily aimed at an ideology (something people can actively choose to self-identify with, or not). The KKK marches are simply aimed at acting out hate against people because of their race (something people have no choice to make about, they are born with it). If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you.
