You know its wrong before you do it. You make a decision to do it anyway. You are responsible for that decision. I did not cause you to do it. In the Geller case, the perpetrators were willing to use violence to quell the free expression of ideas on US soil. They were certainly not acting on impulse, but it doesn't matter. I don't care about the party, religion, nationality, gender, or any other identifiers one wants to use, the perpetrators broke the law and are dead for it. Geller did not, she is going about her business. I don't like or agree with the nature of her business, but it is her business. If someone wants to insult my wife, my religion, my political beliefs, my football team, my taste in music, that's their business. How I respond to that is mine, as are the consequences. If someone attempts to suppress my expression of any of those beliefs with the threat of violence, that is a violation of my rights as a US citizen. If I decline to express my opinions because I'm afraid of the the threat of violence, that is also my right. I don't see what there is to debate about any of that.

There isn't. Per this conversation, however, why is merely wondering why someone would do something such a horrible thing to consider? Simply because those who see things as cut and dried believe so?

What is wrong with discussing it anyway?

Per our conversation I can think of nothing wrong with discussing the issue of why she might do what she did. I think we can all pretty much agree she did it to get the reaction she got while attempting to equate Islam with evil. Islam is not evil. There are evil people hiding under the name of Islam. just like there are with every religion and political persuasion one can think of. Per this thread, there seems to be quite a bit of stuff gong on that ignores the main issues that we just agreed on. Oh, and the Chiefs suck.

Per our conversation I can think of nothing wrong with discussing the issue of why she might do what she did. I think we can all pretty much agree she did it to get the reaction she got while attempting to equate Islam with evil. Islam is not evil. There are evil people hiding under the name of Islam. just like there are with every religion and political persuasion one can think of. Per this thread, there seems to be quite a bit of stuff gong on that ignores the main issues that we just agreed on. Oh, and the Cowboys suck.

Agreed. Except for that last sentence, which I fixed for you. 😛

Per our conversation I can think of nothing wrong with discussing the issue of why she might do what she did. I think we can all pretty much agree she did it to get the reaction she got while attempting to equate Islam with evil. Islam is not evil. There are evil people hiding under the name of Islam. just like there are with every religion and political persuasion one can think of. Per this thread, there seems to be quite a bit of stuff gong on that ignores the main issues that we just agreed on. Oh, and the Cowboys suck.

Agreed. Except for that last sentence, which I fixed for you. 😛

an obviously moranic statement.

Per our conversation I can think of nothing wrong with discussing the issue of why she might do what she did. I think we can all pretty much agree she did it to get the reaction she got while attempting to equate Islam with evil. Islam is not evil. There are evil people hiding under the name of Islam. just like there are with every religion and political persuasion one can think of. Per this thread, there seems to be quite a bit of stuff gong on that ignores the main issues that we just agreed on. Oh, and the Chiefs suck.

If I want to protest something and my opponents say if I protest it they will react violently perhaps threaten to kill me or others it would might intimidate me into silence (I am not especially brave) or it might not but it would make me want to hold the protest just to expose the kind of barbarism that has no place in a free society.

This is such bizarre logic. Why would any American feel a need to expose terrorism? Who is unaware that there are psychopathic Islamic extremists all over the world? We are well aware of this serious problem, and we don't need Pam Geller being G.I.-Jane the vigilante forcing the local police to combat terrorism. Let's leave that job to the FBI and Homeland Security, who are prepared for such a fight.

Besides that, in order to expose the barbarism that has no place in a free society, she wanted to hatch a plot with the intent to antagonize extremists to launch a terrorist attack on American soil.....just to prove that Muslims are violent? Where is the effing sense? She INTENTIONALLY TRIED to draw out a terrorist attack in the U.S.!!!!!!!!! And you people can't bring yourself to say one negative thing about her....unreal.

And why are people talking about the law? Why is anyone bringing up the law? We know the terrorists deserved to die. But no criticism for an American who wanted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. If it's anti-Jew, it's bigotry. If it's anti-Muslim, don't mind it all. ALL hate-mongering against any religion should be condemned, especially by the Jews, who were almost wiped off the face of the Earth because of their religion.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by BoytonBrother]

and we don't need Pam Geller being G.I.-Jane the vigilante forcing the local police to combat terrorism.

"You don't need"

Fixed that for you.

"deserve" admittedly a poor choice of words. More like don't be surprised when someone as moronic as you are reacts in a manner commensurate with your idiocy.

I don't see how this matter merits a serious analysis, as all parties involved appear to be mouthbreathing subhumans, and are being granted undue attention and flattery by the wasted intelligence lavished upon them and their monkeyshines in this thread. Pam Geller is obviously reveling with glee in all the attention she is getting, that she could never have earned in any way that required the use of a brain. Let's face it, the more sh*t you give a pig, the more it grunts and wallows with satisfaction.

"deserve" admittedly a poor choice of words. More like don't be surprised when someone as moronic as you are reacts in a manner commensurate with your idiocy.

I don't see how this matter merits a serious analysis, as all parties involved appear to be mouthbreathing subhumans, and are being granted undue attention and flattery by the wasted intelligence lavished upon them and their monkeyshines in this thread. Pam Geller is obviously reveling with glee in all the attention she is getting, that she could never have earned in any way that required the use of a brain. Let's face it, the more sh*t you give a pig, the more it grunts and wallows with satisfaction.

Thanks for "monkeyshines" -- Great word.

If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.

It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.

Why don't you admit that you are a coward who only believes in free epxression when it is convenient?

I've read over this thread several times and can't find where anyone has actually been in favor of suppressing free expression. Can you point it out?

If you participate and someone gets upset and shoots you, you're getting what you deserve. From where I sit, that's not much of an endorsement.

Or put another way, if you act like an ahole long enough, someone is apt to treat you like an ahole.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

Unless you are a Muslim ahole. Then you will be able to say or do whatever you like confident that polite society will either cover it up or defend you.

What do you mean? Do you mean defend as in defend in court as a defense lawyer? What cover up are you referring to? Not sure I get this statement at all.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

It means political correctness dismisses any of these actions by Muslims as the work of lone nuts having nothing to do with Islam etc. How much have you heard about the virulent anti-semetism that goes on in the Mosques? How much have you heard about the hatred and violence that so many preach? All I hear is people who raise these things being denounced as bigots.

If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.

It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.

Why don't you admit that you are a coward who only believes in free epxression when it is convenient?

I've read over this thread several times and can't find where anyone has actually been in favor of suppressing free expression. Can you point it out?

If you participate and someone gets upset and shoots you, you're getting what you deserve. From where I sit, that's not much of an endorsement.

Or put another way, if you act like an ahole long enough, someone is apt to treat you like an ahole.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

Unless you are a Muslim ahole. Then you will be able to say or do whatever you like confident that polite society will either cover it up or defend you.

All kinds of aholes get defended in our society, every day.

There's two issues in play on this topic, IMO. One is the rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof, or somewhere in between) of free expression, and the other is how extremist fundamentalist Muslims react to things.

I'll add a third issue that is at play on this topic, IMO: how Americans reaction to anything that has to do with Islam, or if you want to use the current buzzword, Islamophobia.

Or the knee jerk tendency of left wingers rejecting any criticism or commentary critical of Islam or even saying that this violence has to DO with Islam as Islamophobia. That is something a lot of us are getting really tired of.

You know its wrong before you do it. You make a decision to do it anyway. You are responsible for that decision. I did not cause you to do it. In the Geller case, the perpetrators were willing to use violence to quell the free expression of ideas on US soil. They were certainly not acting on impulse, but it doesn't matter. I don't care about the party, religion, nationality, gender, or any other identifiers one wants to use, the perpetrators broke the law and are dead for it. Geller did not, she is going about her business. I don't like or agree with the nature of her business, but it is her business. If someone wants to insult my wife, my religion, my political beliefs, my football team, my taste in music, that's their business. How I respond to that is mine, as are the consequences. If someone attempts to suppress my expression of any of those beliefs with the threat of violence, that is a violation of my rights as a US citizen. If I decline to express my opinions because I'm afraid of the the threat of violence, that is also my right. I don't see what there is to debate about any of that.

Not only is this extremely well put but you raise the real issue and concern in the last sentence. If anyone in this country declines to express their opinion because they are afraid of violence then that is a failure of the rule of law and protection of fundamental rights in the United States. If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

If I want to protest something and my opponents say if I protest it they will react violently perhaps threaten to kill me or others it would might intimidate me into silence (I am not especially brave) or it might not but it would make me want to hold the protest just to expose the kind of barbarism that has no place in a free society.

This is such bizarre logic. Why would any American feel a need to expose terrorism? Who is unaware that there are psychopathic Islamic extremists all over the world?

>>The Obama administration, among others, constently refuses to name attacks by Islamic extremists on American soil as what they are. Perfect example, the Fort Hood shootings wre labelled "workplace violence". >>>

We are well aware of this serious problem, and we don't need Pam Geller being G.I.-Jane the vigilante forcing the local police to combat terrorism. Let's leave that job to the FBI and Homeland Security, who are prepared for such a fight.

<<>>>

Besides that, in order to expose the barbarism that has no place in a free society, she wanted to hatch a plot with the intent to antagonize extremists to launch a terrorist attack on American soil.....just to prove that Muslims are violent? Where is the effing sense? She INTENTIONALLY TRIED to draw out a terrorist attack in the U.S.!!!!!!!!! And you people can't bring yourself to say one negative thing about her....unreal.

>>>>Total hyperbole. She did not do this to draw out an actual terrorist attack nor could it reasonably be expected that holding a CARTOON CONTEST would do this. Again if she marched outside of Mosques with an armed militia you might have a point. Her goal to demonstrate that nothing is sacrosanct or beyond ridicule on American soil is legitimate for its own sake just as other forms of extreme ridicule are even if I would not do itmyself because it is not my style. It's very arrogant of any individual to decide what is and is not appropriate forms of satire or protest.>>>>>

And why are people talking about the law? Why is anyone bringing up the law? We know the terrorists deserved to die. But no criticism for an American who wanted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. If it's anti-Jew, it's bigotry. If it's anti-Muslim, don't mind it all. ALL hate-mongering against any religion should be condemned, especially by the Jews, who were almost wiped off the face of the Earth because of their religion.

>>>I don't accept that a Mohammed Cartoon contest or other criticism of Islam is "hate mongoring" and to compare it to the vicious Jew hatred that continues to this day throughout the Muslim world is grotesque. >>>>

 

"deserve" admittedly a poor choice of words. More like don't be surprised when someone as moronic as you are reacts in a manner commensurate with your idiocy.

I don't see how this matter merits a serious analysis, as all parties involved appear to be mouthbreathing subhumans, and are being granted undue attention and flattery by the wasted intelligence lavished upon them and their monkeyshines in this thread. Pam Geller is obviously reveling with glee in all the attention she is getting, that she could never have earned in any way that required the use of a brain. Let's face it, the more sh*t you give a pig, the more it grunts and wallows with satisfaction.

Thanks for "monkeyshines" -- Great word.

I'm sure she is thrilled that her life is under serious threat from subhumans.

If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.

It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.

Why don't you admit that you are a coward who only believes in free epxression when it is convenient?

I've read over this thread several times and can't find where anyone has actually been in favor of suppressing free expression. Can you point it out?

If you participate and someone gets upset and shoots you, you're getting what you deserve. From where I sit, that's not much of an endorsement.

Or put another way, if you act like an ahole long enough, someone is apt to treat you like an ahole.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

Unless you are a Muslim ahole. Then you will be able to say or do whatever you like confident that polite society will either cover it up or defend you.

All kinds of aholes get defended in our society, every day.

There's two issues in play on this topic, IMO. One is the rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof, or somewhere in between) of free expression, and the other is how extremist fundamentalist Muslims react to things.

I'll add a third issue that is at play on this topic, IMO: how Americans reaction to anything that has to do with Islam, or if you want to use the current buzzword, Islamophobia.

Or the knee jerk tendency of left wingers rejecting any criticism or commentary critical of Islam or even saying that this violence has to DO with Islam as Islamophobia. That is something a lot of us are getting really tired of.

A lot of us are getting really tired of the knee jerk tendency of right wingers to reject any criticism or commentary critical of Israel as antisemitic. Problem is, antisemitism is real and sometimes it isn't easy to tell the difference between viable criticism and antisemitism. Just like with Islamaphobia.

[Edited on 6/8/2015 by gondicar]

Here is the way I look at it. I believe every religion should be able to go about their own business and worship as they see fit, and as long as that religion doesn't see fit to impose their beliefs to the greater population of those that don't share their same beliefs (especially through government legislation), they should be free to do whatever they want without being hassled. Of course, since I am a strong believer of freedom of speech, people have the right to criticize whatever they want, but I think it's a dick move to do so and they shouldn't be praised or held in high regard baiting people. This does not excuse murderers or those who would use violence in any shape or form. So, in this case both the would be murderers are wrong, as is the group who held this stupid contest. This is not unlike rioters who use some kind of police abuse as an excuse to vandalize. One wrong doesn't excuse another.

If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

B o o m !

If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

B o o m !

Fear is not a way to judge freedom, IMO. Fear is an individual thing. What scares you might not scare someone else. Pamela Geller and Jim Ritzheimer were obviously not afraid to exercise their rights, but I'm betting not everyone who share their views about Islam would put themselves out there in the same way, does that mean their rights don't exist? Sorry, not buying it.

If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

B o o m !

I must have missed the part in this thread where somebody endorsed violence. But this isn't unlike people threatening violence at an abortion clinic or to a doctor who is within his rights to perform a legal proceedure.

If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !

Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.

Exactly. This issue boils down to whether the Geller defenders are willing to honor their principles fairly across the board, or at least admit to a personal bias, because if it was an anti-Jew event, it would be condemned by everyone. It makes me wonder why some people would give a pass to an anti-Muslim event. A reasonable assumption would be that they harbor some animosity towards Muslims, and maybe for a very good reason. But lets call a spade a spade, and acknowledge the bias stemming from the animosity.

And lets face it, in the same way the media hopes and prays for natural disasters to happen so they can get their 24-hour coverage of panic for ratings, Geller staged her anti-Muslim event hoping to draw out the scum that we took out, thank God. I'm convinced she wanted it to happen, and I'm convinced you all know it too. An American staged an event with the hopes of an end result of a terrorist attack on our own soil, and forced our local police to deal with the mess, instead of the proper forces like Homeland Security and the FBI, and gets DEFENDED for "freedom of expression"???? That's not reckless? That's a scary ideology if you ask me.

Exactly. This issue boils down to whether the Geller defenders are willing to honor their principles fairly across the board, or at least admit to a personal bias, because if it was an anti-Jew event, it would be condemned by everyone. It makes me wonder why some people would give a pass to an anti-Muslim event. A reasonable assumption would be that they harbor some animosity towards Muslims, and maybe for a very good reason. But lets call a spade a spade, and acknowledge the bias stemming from the animosity.

And lets face it, in the same way the media hopes and prays for natural disasters to happen so they can get their 24-hour coverage of panic for ratings, Geller staged her anti-Muslim event hoping to draw out the scum that we took out, thank God. I'm convinced she wanted it to happen, and I'm convinced you all know it too. An American staged an event with the hopes of an end result of a terrorist attack on our own soil, and forced our local police to deal with the mess, instead of the proper forces like Homeland Security and the FBI, and gets DEFENDED for "freedom of expression"???? That's not reckless? That's a scary ideology if you ask me.

I read through this thread again and still don't see one Geller defender. I see free speech defenders. One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here. Just as one should not have to worry about being forced to pray in school, or not being allowed to attend your church of choice. The KKK is afforded the same protections as Geller, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Westboro Baptist Church. We have plenty of recourse and opportunity to respond to things we don't agree with; it's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH! You want me on your side? Present a decent and compelling argument. I'll decide if I agree or not. You go carrying an AK 47 and I'm out, and so are you, and the basis for a free and democratic society is lost unless you are taken out one way or another by law enforcement..

One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here.

Lots of things are against the law here, but they still happen.

This is the two main points in this discussion that keep whooshing past each other.

Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, murder laws don't keep people from killing people, theft laws don't keep people from stealing...etc. Laws set recourse for committed actions, and it is, of course, the assumption of the mantle of obeying the law that maintains an orderly society.

The rights of law and human rights grant me the freedom of expression, an illegal response to my expression may still happen. I got to say what I wanted to say, though. Making an observation of that reality shouldn't be taken as me condoning such an illegal action, however.

It's, you know, the right thing to do vs. the right thing to do.

Now, are of some parts of this conversation framed somewhat by feelings and biases towards certain religions? I think that's pretty obvious and perfectly fine. Everyone has their own biases, even when they think they don't.

One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here.

Lots of things are against the law here, but they still happen.

This is the two main points in this discussion that keep whooshing past each other.

Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, murder laws don't keep people from killing people, theft laws don't keep people from stealing...etc. Laws set recourse for committed actions, and it is, of course, the assumption of the mantle of obeying the law that maintains an orderly society.

The rights of law and human rights grant me the freedom of expression, an illegal response to my expression may still happen. I got to say what I wanted to say, though. Making an observation of that reality shouldn't be taken as me condoning such an illegal action, however.

It's, you know, the right thing to do vs. the right thing to do.

Now, are of some parts of this conversation framed somewhat by feelings and biases towards certain religions? I think that's pretty obvious and perfectly fine. Everyone has their own biases, even when they think they don't.

Totally agree Bhawk. And without the rule of law, and the subsequent enforcement of that law by law enforcement on those who would break the law, we quickly descend into violence and chaos. It is the role of law enforcement to respond and enforce the law when the laws are broken. I'm all for anyone who has an axe to grind or a point to make to make it within the bounds of the law. In this case, if the representatives of Islam had staged a peaceful protest denouncing Geller's "contest" as disrespectful and hateful, odds are there are no dead people and many more people would be focused on the hateful actions of Geller rather than the violent response by "extremists".

One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here.

Lots of things are against the law here, but they still happen.

This is the two main points in this discussion that keep whooshing past each other.

Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, murder laws don't keep people from killing people, theft laws don't keep people from stealing...etc. Laws set recourse for committed actions, and it is, of course, the assumption of the mantle of obeying the law that maintains an orderly society.

The rights of law and human rights grant me the freedom of expression, an illegal response to my expression may still happen. I got to say what I wanted to say, though. Making an observation of that reality shouldn't be taken as me condoning such an illegal action, however.

It's, you know, the right thing to do vs. the right thing to do.

Now, are of some parts of this conversation framed somewhat by feelings and biases towards certain religions? I think that's pretty obvious and perfectly fine. Everyone has their own biases, even when they think they don't.

Totally agree Bhawk. And without the rule of law, and the subsequent enforcement of that law by law enforcement on those who would break the law, we quickly descend into violence and chaos. It is the role of law enforcement to respond and enforce the law when the laws are broken. I'm all for anyone who has an axe to grind or a point to make to make it within the bounds of the law. In this case, if the representatives of Islam had staged a peaceful protest denouncing Geller's "contest" as disrespectful and hateful, odds are there are no dead people and many more people would be focused on the hateful actions of Geller rather than the violent response by "extremists".

That's exactly what happened in Arizona, and worth nothing that the Anti-Defamation League was a participant.

Arizona mosque, site of anti-Islam protest, holds 'love not hate' event

An Arizona mosque where hundreds gathered last week for an anti-Islam demonstration, with counter-protesters shouting "Go home, Nazis," was the site of a "love not hate" event on Monday to promote peace and inclusiveness, participants said.

The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix said it was hosting a gathering that includes a multi-faith prayer service and speakers to "show that when one of us is mistreated, our community responds with a message of Love and Not Hate."

"We ask that you bring a FLOWER as a symbol of love and care," the event organizers said on Facebook. "We are better together, and together we are strong." (here)

Monday's event, organized by more than 20 groups, comes four days after an anti-Muslim event held outside the mosque drew more than 200 protesters, some armed, who berated Islam and its Prophet Mohammed.]

The rally was held at the mosque in part because two Texas gunmen who opened fire outside an anti-Muslim event in Texas last month had worshipped there, said rally organizer Jon Ritzheimer, an Iraq war veteran.

As that event unfolded, demonstrators on both sides screamed obscenities at each other as police in riot gear separated the two groups.

On Monday evening, about 200 participants filed into the mosque, some carrying roses, tulips and daisies.

"There's been a lot of effort to divide the faith community and set us apart from one another and we want to demonstrate a strong message of togetherness," Reverend Erin Tamayo, executive director of Arizona Faith Network, which helped to organize the event, said. "I am praying we don't get any negative response."

Most of those who attended had left by Monday night with no reports of violent flare-ups or arrests.

Among other co-sponsors of Monday's were the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, Arizona Interfaith Movement and the Anti-Defamation League, according to the Facebook posting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-islam-mosque-arizona-idUSKBN0OI06820150602

[Edited on 6/9/2015 by gondicar]

If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.

It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.

Why don't you admit that you are a coward who only believes in free epxression when it is convenient?

I've read over this thread several times and can't find where anyone has actually been in favor of suppressing free expression. Can you point it out?

If you participate and someone gets upset and shoots you, you're getting what you deserve. From where I sit, that's not much of an endorsement.

Or put another way, if you act like an ahole long enough, someone is apt to treat you like an ahole.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

Unless you are a Muslim ahole. Then you will be able to say or do whatever you like confident that polite society will either cover it up or defend you.

All kinds of aholes get defended in our society, every day.

There's two issues in play on this topic, IMO. One is the rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof, or somewhere in between) of free expression, and the other is how extremist fundamentalist Muslims react to things.

I'll add a third issue that is at play on this topic, IMO: how Americans reaction to anything that has to do with Islam, or if you want to use the current buzzword, Islamophobia.

Or the knee jerk tendency of left wingers rejecting any criticism or commentary critical of Islam or even saying that this violence has to DO with Islam as Islamophobia. That is something a lot of us are getting really tired of.

A lot of us are getting really tired of the knee jerk tendency of right wingers to reject any criticism or commentary critical of Israel as antisemitic. Problem is, antisemitism is real and sometimes it isn't easy to tell the difference between viable criticism and antisemitism. Just like with Islamaphobia.

[Edited on 6/8/2015 by gondicar]

Luckily you are not getting what you complain of. No one states all criticism of Israel is anti-semetism. Nice attempt to change the subject. Do you think saying Jews are pigs and apes and should be killed where they are found is anti-semetic? Because that is being broadcast daily on Palestinian TV and taught in Palestinian schools (and in much of the rest of the Arab world as well.)

Here is the way I look at it. I believe every religion should be able to go about their own business and worship as they see fit, and as long as that religion doesn't see fit to impose their beliefs to the greater population of those that don't share their same beliefs (especially through government legislation), they should be free to do whatever they want without being hassled. Of course, since I am a strong believer of freedom of speech, people have the right to criticize whatever they want, but I think it's a dick move to do so and they shouldn't be praised or held in high regard baiting people. This does not excuse murderers or those who would use violence in any shape or form. So, in this case both the would be murderers are wrong, as is the group who held this stupid contest. This is not unlike rioters who use some kind of police abuse as an excuse to vandalize. One wrong doesn't excuse another.

In the late 80's Salman Rushdie published a book called the Satanic Verses in England. I haven't read it but I am told it contains some literary merit. I am also told that the book is highly satiricial and not flattering to Mohammed. When this was published the late great Ayyatollah Khomeini (remember him?) pronounced a "fatwa" on Rushdie declaring that it was the solemn duty of all Muslims to murder him. Ever since he has been under major protection. several of his publishers were attacked or killed. Again this book was published in ENGLAND not in Iran or anywhere within the Muslim world. Is this what you call being tolerant of the beliefs of others? How is this different than what is happening today when a filmaker who was critical of Islam named Theo Van Gogh was mudered right on the street in Amsterdam? When a refugee who was a member of the Dutch Parliament was forced to flee for her life because she dared to criticize the faith in whose name she was mutilated. I could name innumerable other examples. If communists can criticize capitalism and vice versa non-Muslims AND Muslims can criticize, ridicule or otherwise attack Islam. That is what freedom is. And that freedom is necessary and vital. Martin Luther attacked the Church. They wanted to burn him at the stake but his words started the entire Christian Reformation. Galileo was almost burned at the stake for his words which were merely speaking scientific truth. I doubt there is a person here who supports those actions or threats by the Medieval Catholic Church. Why would any free thinker possibly support a heckler's veto by radical Muslims? It simply makes no sense to me. I think its good and right to say provacative things and anyone who wants speech to be clamped down on rather than defend it with more speech is wrong and out of step with our civilization. Period.

If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.

B o o m !

Fear is not a way to judge freedom, IMO. Fear is an individual thing. What scares you might not scare someone else. Pamela Geller and Jim Ritzheimer were obviously not afraid to exercise their rights, but I'm betting not everyone who share their views about Islam would put themselves out there in the same way, does that mean their rights don't exist? Sorry, not buying it.

In late Weimar Germany, when the Nazis were rising, they had a habit of physically beating up anyone who spoke out against them. Some weren't afraid but many were. It helped them take power and bring about the Third Reich. The main purpose of the state,s ome would say the only purpose, is to protect rights, freedom and the rule of law. If the state cannot create an atmosphere where people can speak out without fear of harm to themselves the state has fundamentally failed. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.

It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.

Why don't you admit that you are a coward who only believes in free epxression when it is convenient?

I've read over this thread several times and can't find where anyone has actually been in favor of suppressing free expression. Can you point it out?

If you participate and someone gets upset and shoots you, you're getting what you deserve. From where I sit, that's not much of an endorsement.

Or put another way, if you act like an ahole long enough, someone is apt to treat you like an ahole.

[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]

Unless you are a Muslim ahole. Then you will be able to say or do whatever you like confident that polite society will either cover it up or defend you.

All kinds of aholes get defended in our society, every day.

There's two issues in play on this topic, IMO. One is the rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof, or somewhere in between) of free expression, and the other is how extremist fundamentalist Muslims react to things.

I'll add a third issue that is at play on this topic, IMO: how Americans reaction to anything that has to do with Islam, or if you want to use the current buzzword, Islamophobia.

Or the knee jerk tendency of left wingers rejecting any criticism or commentary critical of Islam or even saying that this violence has to DO with Islam as Islamophobia. That is something a lot of us are getting really tired of.

A lot of us are getting really tired of the knee jerk tendency of right wingers to reject any criticism or commentary critical of Israel as antisemitic. Problem is, antisemitism is real and sometimes it isn't easy to tell the difference between viable criticism and antisemitism. Just like with Islamaphobia.

[Edited on 6/8/2015 by gondicar]

Luckily you are not getting what you complain of. No one states all criticism of Israel is anti-semetism. Nice attempt to change the subject. Do you think saying Jews are pigs and apes and should be killed where they are found is anti-semetic? Because that is being broadcast daily on Palestinian TV and taught in Palestinian schools (and in much of the rest of the Arab world as well.)

Thanks you for helping make my point. No one states all criticism of Islam is Islamophobia either. Yet we both know that Islamophobia and anti-semitism exist. It does no one any good to speak in absolutes because doing so leaves no room for common ground and understanding.