http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/garland-texas-prophet-mohammed-contest-shooting/index.html

ISIS claims responsibility for Texas shooting but offers no proof

Former FBI agent Tim Clemente said the gunmen may have plotted the attack without direction from ISIS.

"They may not have had formal contact (with ISIS). They may have had email communication or read communications from ISIS, but I don't think they were directed by ISIS," Clemente told CNN.

"I think it's the other way around -- they were kind of applying for membership into ISIS. And so they were doing this act, sent out the tweet in advance because if they know there's a possibility they're not going to make it out of this, then they can't give recognition to what they were trying to do after the fact."

[Edited on 5/5/2015 by LeglizHemp]

Funny. I seem to remember a lot of intolerant right wing Christians on the other side of the fence when the above art work, "Piss Christ" was on display.

I assume you are ok with a portrait of Jesus plunged into a vat of urine - right?

Piss Christ – a photograph that has attracted controversy for more than two decades – has gone on display in New York, at an exhibition which surveys 25 years of the artist Andres Serrano's work.

In 1989, the 60x40in red and yellow photograph of a crucifix plunged into a vat of Serrano's urine ignited a congressional debate on US public arts funding; in France last year, it was physically attacked. In midtown Manhattan on Thursday night, a small group of Catholics opposed to the work gathered outside the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery, where the exhibition opened.

"At the time I made Piss Christ, I wasn't trying to get anything across," Serrano told the Guardian. "In hindsight, I'd say Piss Christ is a reflection of my work, not only as an artist, but as a Christian."

Some Christians find the work deeply offensive. Anger towards the photograph hit a pinnacle on Palm Sunday 2011 when French Catholic fundamentalists attacked and destroyed the photograph with hammers. Serrano's photograph of a meditating nun was also damaged in the attack.

"The thing about the crucifix itself is that we treat it almost like a fashion accessory. When you see it, you're not horrified by it at all, but what it represents is the crucifixion of a man," Serrano told the Guardian. "And for Christ to have been crucified and laid on the cross for three days where he not only bled to death, he shat himself and he peed himself to death.

"So if Piss Christ upsets you, maybe it's a good thing to think about what happened on the cross."

Before the new exhibition opened – it features another photo from the original series of four – members of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the United States stood outside the building to explain their opposition.

Advertisement

Bill Donohue, who has been president of the Catholic League since 1993, believes that the Obama administration has given anti-Muslim imagery like the controversial Innocence of Muslims film unfair protection.

"I would argue that ethics should dictate that you don't go around gratuitously and intentionally insulting people of faith," Donohue told the Guardian. "I don't care whether you're Muslim or Jewish or Catholic or whatever you might be."

In 2010, Donohue and the Catholic League led a successful attempt to remove from the National Portrait Gallery in Washington a film by the artist David Wojnarowicz, about Aids, that included an 11-video clip of Jesus on the cross being eaten by ants.

On Thursday in New York, the members of the Catholic League dispersed after getting into an argument with security. They were eventually replaced by three counter-protesters – two dressed as nuns – who were in favour of Piss Christ.

The exhibition will be on display through 26 October at the private Edward Tyler Nahem gallery. Serrano's next project includes a large book of photographs of Cuba, where his mother was raised.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/sep/28/andres-serrano-piss-christ-new-york

Funny. I seem to remember a lot of intolerant right wing Christians on the other side of the fence when the above art work, "Piss Christ" was on display.

I assume you are ok with a portrait of Jesus plunged into a vat of urine - right?

_____________________________________________________

Why do you claim that Christians are “intolerant right wing”?
That sounds like the usual left-wing class warfare: label them, dispense negative undertones and assign them to one political group… that the liberals hate.

Of course I don’t like the foul representation of Christ but you won’t find me or anyone else shooting the hate-artist.
I can both recognize ignorance and ignore it at the same time. No need to lock and load.

BTW – the tweets between the now dead Islamic Extremist Terrorists and ISIS proves their connection.

 

Here is a list of the 25 deadliest single day mass shootings in U.S. history from 1949 to the present. If the shooter was killed or committed suicide during the incident that death is not included in the total.

You conveniently did not mention Ft. Hood, 9/11 and abortion as mass murder in the U.S. nor any of the Islamic Extremist Terrorist mass murder of hundreds of thousands around the world.

Can you not read? The list is of "single day mass shootings in US history" and it includes the Ft. Hood shooting. It obviously does not include 9/11 nor abortions as they are not "single day mass shootings", nor would it include shooting that happen outside the US. I guess you "conveniently" didn't read or, more likely, didn't understand what was posted.

BTW – the tweets between the now dead Islamic Extremist Terrorists and ISIS proves their connection.

I've tweeted back and forth with David Ortiz so I guess that proves we have a "connection".

Funny. I seem to remember a lot of intolerant right wing Christians on the other side of the fence when the above art work, "Piss Christ" was on display.

Why do you claim that Christians are “intolerant right wing”?
That sounds like the usual left-wing class warfare: label them, dispense negative undertones and assign them to one political group… that the liberals hate.

"A lot" is not all. You are the one who lumps large groups of people together as all the same.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to communicate with you Mule. You do not seem able to comprehend what is written. Then you attribute your vast capacity for hatred to "liberals".

I've worked really hard over the last several years to not hate. I find that reading your intolerant, hate filled, bigoted, and ignorant rants stirs up the worst in me.

I'm just going to agree to disagree.

God bless you. I wish you the best.

I certainly don't mean to offend and I hate to even wade into the argument or debate.

Is the problem the issue of free speech or with the issue of individuals who have a problem WITH free speech?

I'll concede that the exhibit of Mohammed cartoons was insensitive and even offensive to some - as was the Charlie Hebdo thing in France. If you propose that both incidents were in direct provocation of Islam/Muslims, I'd say you might have a point there.

As I stated earlier, the very purpose of art is to gain a reaction or response. I've seen works that made me feel everything from nausea to elation. I'm not easily offended, but I've seen a few works that got my own dander up. I've never reacted violently, though.

Muslims have every right to be offended as we all do. Welcome to the United States of the Offended. Everybody gets offended by something or so it seems.

Yes art can be taken offensively. Who gets to draw the line as to what is "too offensive"? Keep in mind that just a little bit of censorship can go a long way. If we get all tit-for-tat, we're likely to see books, art, movies and even music that we personally enjoy being taken away.

I've heard certain forms of music - songs that promote violent acts ranging from personal attack to out and out rape. I've heard comedians make statements in questionable taste ranging from race issues to sex - that are perceived to be okay because they were made by a performer on a stage.

In addition to the crucifixes in urine (a work titled, "Piss Christ") and the fecal smeared images of Mary there are the photographs by the likes of Robert Mapplethorpe - which would be difficult to explain to a child who may have accompanied you on your visit to the museum.

All of these works are perceived as offensive to some people.

My mother had a couple of phrases that she'd use on a regular basis. "Sticks and stones ..." she'd say, when someone angered me merely by calling me a name or saying something spiteful or hateful. "Turn the other cheek", she'd say whenever I was tempted to retaliate - possibly towards someone who deserved a punch in the nose.

Sure, the Mohammed exhibit in Dallas was offensive. You could make the argument that such an exhibit was "baiting" a likely offended party. But the offended party didn't have to take the bait. Sticks and stones. They could have easily turned the other cheek.

BONUS TEST

Feel free to cut and paste the lines below. Add your own responses by checking the answers that you most agree with.

1. Certain portions of the (American) population have issues with movies and performances by comedians like Andrew Dice Clay, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and others.

____ These people are entitled to attack theaters and television stations who provide a format for these performances or productions.

____ Performances of this nature should be made illegal so that those who are likely to be offended will not have to see them.

____ People who might be offended or who have no interest should not attend or watch these performances.

2. Exhibits that depict Jesus Christ, Mary or even Buddha, Shiva or other religious or philosophical entities, icons or gods in negative light are likely to offend persons who subscribe to various tenets or religions.

___ Any museum or venue that provides a format for such an exhibit should expect to be attacked by those offended.

___ These exhibits are offensive by their very nature and should be banned by law.

___ Any person who finds these exhibits offensive doesn't have to attend.

3. Movies like the recent, "The Interview" - although done in a humorous vein - depicted (some might say, "suggested") the assassination of the leader of a foreign nation.

___ Movies like this should not be allowed to be made. People of the offended nation should be expected to retaliate with violence or by hacking into the computer systems of the studio who made the film.

___ The film was satire and as such, should be protected under "free speech".

___ Anybody who doesn't want to see it can find another movie.

Again - and seriously - I'm not trying to be a wise a$$, here. I'm just pointing out that works of art, and the larger issue of free speech can and might be taken as offensive by any number of people or cultures. It's a very fine line and I'm not sure that any one person or group should have the power to draw that line.

Peace. Seriously.

Great post Rusty.

Sure, the Mohammed exhibit in Dallas was offensive. You could make the argument that such an exhibit was "baiting" a likely offended party. But the offended party didn't have to take the bait. Sticks and stones. They could have easily turned the other cheek.

Again I ask, what was the point? Were these artists? Were the offending works of art created by actual artists or were they just drawings by people that hate all Muslims?

More importantly you ask about the reaction of the offended party as if every Muslim pulled the trigger. They didn't.

And was the shooting really what the organizers of the event wanted? Subconsciously? Doesn't the fact that these terrorist took the bait advance the anti-Muslim sentiment expressed by the "art exhibit"?

What is the end game? Loading all the Muslim Americans onto trains and gassing them?

Billy, I certainly didn't intend to suggest loading ANY group of people onto a train and taking the out to be gassed. That's pretty sick, bro'.

The only point that I had hoped to make was that art and free speech are liable to offend somebody, somewhere. Most forward thinking people have the wherewithal to take works under consideration - then turn and walk away if they find them of questionable taste.

I'd be willing to bet that you have read a book or enjoyed a film that certain segments of the population might find appalling. I know that I have. I (for one) don't want ANYBODY deciding what's on my viewing/watching list.

To digress - this entire Mohammed thing. So, DEPICTING him in a visual image is offensive ... to some. Suppose that I merely imagine his image in my mind and tell a ... possibly offended person that that is what I'm doing. Have I committed an act of offense?

quote:
quote:
Conversely when the Islamic Extremists held their event, at the same facility, a few months prior pushing Sharia Law which prohibits free speech, nobody tried to commit mass murder.

I went to the National Gallery of Art over the weekend. They have all kinds of art there and nobody tried to commit mass murder there either. What a coincidence!

Anybody else go anywhere lately where folks didn't try to commit mass murder?

[Edited on 5/4/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

The only cases of mass murder seem to happen when Muslims get offended.

Are you kidding?

Here is a list of the 25 deadliest single day mass shootings in U.S. history from 1949 to the present. If the shooter was killed or committed suicide during the incident that death is not included in the total.

Timeline:
32 killed - April 16, 2007 - Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. A gunman, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho, goes on a shooting spree killing 32 people in two locations and wounds an undetermined number of others on campus. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho then committed suicide.

27 killed - December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School - Newtown, Connecticut. Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound. The final count is 28 dead, including the shooter.

23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people. He then commits suicide.

21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty one hour after the rampage begins.

18 killed - August 1, 1966 - In Austin, Texas, Charles Joseph Whitman, a former U.S. Marine, kills 16 and wounds at least 30 while shooting from a University of Texas tower. Police officers Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy shot and killed Whitman in the tower. Whitman had also killed his mother and wife earlier in the day.

14 killed - August 20, 1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma part-time mail carrier, Patrick Henry Sherrill, armed with three handguns kills 14 postal workers in ten minutes and then takes his own life with a bullet to the head.

13 killed - November 5, 2009 - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 people and injures 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, during a shooting rampage. He is convicted and sentenced to death.

13 killed - April 3, 2009 - In Binghamton, New York, Jiverly Wong kills 13 people and injures four during a shooting at an immigrant community center. He then kills himself.

13 killed - April 20, 1999 - Columbine High School - Littleton, Colorado. 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold kill 12 fellow students and one teacher before committing suicide in the school library.

13 killed - September 25, 1982 - In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 40-year-old George Banks, a prison guard, kills 13 people including five of his own children. In September 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns his death sentence stating that Banks is mentally incompetent.

13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol. He is found insane and is committed to a state mental institution. He dies at the age of 88.

12 killed - September 16, 2013 - Shots are fired inside the Washington Navy Yard killing 12. The shooter, identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, is also killed.

12 killed - July 20, 2012 - Twelve people are killed and 58 are wounded in a shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film. James E. Holmes, 24, is taken into custody outside of the movie theater. The gunman is dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.

12 killed - July 29, 1999 - In Atlanta, 44-year-old Mark Barton kills his wife and two children at his home. He then opens fire in two different brokerage houses killing nine people and wounding 12. He later kills himself.

10 killed - March 10, 2009 - In Alabama, Michael McLendon of Kinston, kills 10 and himself. The dead include his mother, grandparents, aunt and uncle.

9 killed - March 21, 2005 - Red Lake High School, Red Lake, Minnesota. 16-year-old Jeff Weise kills his grandfather and another adult, five students, a teacher and a security officer. He then kills himself.

9 killed - June 18, 1990 - In Jacksonville, Florida, 42-year-old James Pough, angry about his car being repossessed, opens fire at at a General Motors Acceptance Corp. office, killing nine people. Pough takes his own life.

8 killed - October 12, 2011 - Eight people are killed during a shooting at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California. The suspect, Scott Evans Dekraai, 41, of Huntington Beach, is arrested without incident as he is trying to leave the scene. The eight dead include Dekraai's ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, 48. He was armed with three guns -- a 9 mm Springfield, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, and a Heckler & Koch .45 -- and was wearing body armor during the shooting rampage.

8 killed - August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut - Omar Thornton kills eight co-workers at Hartford Distributors before turning the gun on himself. Thornton had been asked to resign for stealing and selling alcoholic beverages.

8 killed - January 19, 2010 - Christopher Speight, 39, kills eight people at a house in Appomattox, Virginia. He surrenders to police at the scene the next morning, and is charged with one count of murder with additional charges pending.

8 killed - March 29, 2009 - In Carthage, North Carolina, 45-year-old Robert Stewart kills a nurse and seven elderly patients at a nursing home. In May, the Moore County district attorney announces she will seek the death penalty. On September 3, 2011, a jury finds Stewart guilty of second-degree murder. Stewart is sentenced to 141 to 179 years in prison.

8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.

8 killed - July 1, 1993 - In San Francisco, 55-year-old Gian Luigi Ferri kills eight people in a law office and then kills himself.

8 killed - September 14, 1989 - In Louisville, Kentucky, 47-year-old Joseph Wesbecker armed with a AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle, two MAC-11 semiautomatic pistols, a .38 caliber handgun, a 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and a bayonet kills eight co-workers at Standard Gravure Corporation and then kills himself. He had been placed on disability leave from his job due to mental problems.

8 killed - August 20, 1982 - In Miami, 51-year-old history teacher Carl Robert Brown, angry about a repair bill and armed with a shotgun, kills eight people at a machine shop. He flees by bicycle, but is shot in the back by a witness who pursued him. He was on leave from school for psychological treatment.

Let me rephrase. The only cases of politcally based mass murder seems to be caused by Muslims. Obviously there are many cases of non-political spree killings.

There are 1.75 BILLION Muslims. What percentage do you think are killers? Terrorists?

Way way way too many.

I completely support the 1st Amendment rights of the people who organized the "art" show.

I don't understand their point. What was their endgame? Was it just to entice anger and hatred? Are these just another group of Christians "protesting" good folks funerals by shouting "God Hates Gays"?

Was there good supposed to come from the art exhibit? What was their thesis, what did they hope to accomplish?

What was the endgame of the American Nazi Party in the 70's when they martched in Skokie Illinois, a town filled with Holocaust survivors. The ACLU defended their right to march. What was the endgame of the artist who dunked a crucifix in urine? There is no Islamic veto on offensive speech Period.

Rusty I agree with all you said. I'm not saying you want anyone gassed ever! I'm asking what the people who arranged the exhibit want. What was there end game? I don't think the folks whose art was depicted are professional artists. The exhibit was obviously meant as a F-You to people who hold Mohammed sacred. I believe these people want to foment hatred of all Muslims.

Why would they do that?

I agree the whole Mohammed thing is baffling.

I frequently visit art museums and find religious iconography to be stirring. I especially like Indian statuary depicting the Hindi pantheon and Eastern Buddhist art. I think whatever image of a higher being a person worships should be celebrated with art.

quote:
There are 1.75 BILLION Muslims. What percentage do you think are killers? Terrorists?

Way way way too many.

Isn't that anti-semitic?

I certainly don't mean to offend and I hate to even wade into the argument or debate.

Is the problem the issue of free speech or with the issue of individuals who have a problem WITH free speech?

I'll concede that the exhibit of Mohammed cartoons was insensitive and even offensive to some - as was the Charlie Hebdo thing in France. If you propose that both incidents were in direct provocation of Islam/Muslims, I'd say you might have a point there.

As I stated earlier, the very purpose of art is to gain a reaction or response. I've seen works that made me feel everything from nausea to elation. I'm not easily offended, but I've seen a few works that got my own dander up. I've never reacted violently, though.

Muslims have every right to be offended as we all do. Welcome to the United States of the Offended. Everybody gets offended by something or so it seems.

Yes art can be taken offensively. Who gets to draw the line as to what is "too offensive"? Keep in mind that just a little bit of censorship can go a long way. If we get all tit-for-tat, we're likely to see books, art, movies and even music that we personally enjoy being taken away.

I've heard certain forms of music - songs that promote violent acts ranging from personal attack to out and out rape. I've heard comedians make statements in questionable taste ranging from race issues to sex - that are perceived to be okay because they were made by a performer on a stage.

In addition to the crucifixes in urine (a work titled, "Piss Christ") and the fecal smeared images of Mary there are the photographs by the likes of Robert Mapplethorpe - which would be difficult to explain to a child who may have accompanied you on your visit to the museum.

All of these works are perceived as offensive to some people.

My mother had a couple of phrases that she'd use on a regular basis. "Sticks and stones ..." she'd say, when someone angered me merely by calling me a name or saying something spiteful or hateful. "Turn the other cheek", she'd say whenever I was tempted to retaliate - possibly towards someone who deserved a punch in the nose.

Sure, the Mohammed exhibit in Dallas was offensive. You could make the argument that such an exhibit was "baiting" a likely offended party. But the offended party didn't have to take the bait. Sticks and stones. They could have easily turned the other cheek.

BONUS TEST

Feel free to cut and paste the lines below. Add your own responses by checking the answers that you most agree with.

1. Certain portions of the (American) population have issues with movies and performances by comedians like Andrew Dice Clay, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and others.

____ These people are entitled to attack theaters and television stations who provide a format for these performances or productions.

____ Performances of this nature should be made illegal so that those who are likely to be offended will not have to see them.

____ People who might be offended or who have no interest should not attend or watch these performances.

2. Exhibits that depict Jesus Christ, Mary or even Buddha, Shiva or other religious or philosophical entities, icons or gods in negative light are likely to offend persons who subscribe to various tenets or religions.

___ Any museum or venue that provides a format for such an exhibit should expect to be attacked by those offended.

___ These exhibits are offensive by their very nature and should be banned by law.

___ Any person who finds these exhibits offensive doesn't have to attend.

3. Movies like the recent, "The Interview" - although done in a humorous vein - depicted (some might say, "suggested") the assassination of the leader of a foreign nation.

___ Movies like this should not be allowed to be made. People of the offended nation should be expected to retaliate with violence or by hacking into the computer systems of the studio who made the film.

___ The film was satire and as such, should be protected under "free speech".

___ Anybody who doesn't want to see it can find another movie.

Again - and seriously - I'm not trying to be a wise a$$, here. I'm just pointing out that works of art, and the larger issue of free speech can and might be taken as offensive by any number of people or cultures. It's a very fine line and I'm not sure that any one person or group should have the power to draw that line.

Peace. Seriously.

Your post is excellent. Thank you. Anyone who values civil liberties in this country cannot respond to this by blaming the offender. There is no right not to be offended and I greatly fear the erosion of our first amendment rights by Muslims as well as the politically correct. This is a much bigger problem in Europe as we have seen but we cannot let it creep in here. This is America. Our number one value is our right to say what we want.

Many, many issues in play here.

I believe these people want to foment hatred of all Muslims.

Why would they do that?

Have ya read much about the gal that coordinated the event? Hoo-boy.

yea I think there are fundamental differences between Charlie Hebdo or the conference in Copenhagen or the Islamic event held prior to this one and what Pamela Gellar does.

its sort of like saying what the Pope does and says is equal to what Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says and does.

I still support her right and Phelps right to be intolerant flame throwers though.

[Edited on 5/5/2015 by LeglizHemp]

I assume you are ok with a portrait of Jesus plunged into a vat of urine - right?

I am not going to shoot someone over it.

 

There are limitations of free speech. Maybe "Mohammed cartoon contests" should be one of them.

Who makes that decision?

yea I think there are fundamental differences between Charlie Hebdo or the conference in Copenhagen or the Islamic event held prior to this one and what Pamela Gellar does.

its sort of like saying what the Pope does and says is equal to what Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church says and does.

I still support her right and Phelps right to be intolerant flame throwers though.

[Edited on 5/5/2015 by LeglizHemp]

Not meaning to split hairs with you or anything, but I see very little difference between the Charlie Hebdo incident and the event in Dallas. Hebdo had a running war (pretty much only of words) with Muslim/Islam. There had already been one incident involving violence, yet Charlie Hebdo was persistent.

The following is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia entry on the Charlie Hebdo event:

... Charlie Hebdo has a history of attracting controversy. In 2006, Islamic organisations under French hate speech laws unsuccessfully sued over the newspaper's re-publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad.[7][8][9] The cover of a 2011 issue retitled Charia Hebdo (French for Sharia Weekly), featured a cartoon of Muhammad, whose depiction is forbidden in some interpretations of Islam.[10] The newspaper's office was fire-bombed and its website hacked.[11][12] In 2012, the newspaper published a series of satirical cartoons of Muhammad, including nude caricatures;[13][14] this came days after a series of violent attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, purportedly in response to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims, prompting the French government to close embassies, consulates, cultural centres, and international schools in about 20 Muslim countries.[15] Riot police surrounded the newspaper's offices to protect it against possible attacks.[14][16]
Cartoonist Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, murdered in the attack on the magazine, was the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo from 2009.[17] Two years before the attack he stated, "We have to carry on until Islam has been rendered as banal as Catholicism." ...

And like you, I still support the individual's rights to reflect their own stupidity and cultural a$$-holiness.

I couldn't decide whether to use the word subtle or fundamental. maybe neither are right. I do think Charlie Hebdo is more about hmmmmm, political, social, religious satire. Gellar's group, IMO, is more about hmmmmmmm, Hate. but both are protected speech, so what ya gonna do? C'est la vie.

Maybe this could be considered incitement. Maybe law enforcement agencies will "opt-out" of securing these types of events in the future. I don't know how the law would hold up if put to the challenge. It would be interesting to see topic this go before a high court.

I certainly consider the "art contest" incitement but believe fully that law enforcement agencies have a duty to be present at such events. Just like a KKK rally in Cumming, GA or a massive anti war demonstration in Washington DC.

The cartoon event organizers willingly lowered themselves to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church. Congrats you idiots. Way to "exercise your freedom".

I'm so tired of those who can't understand how criticisms of both sides can co-exist. Obviously, a response of violence is unacceptable on any level. But these event organizers are scum too. Inciting violence is unacceptable too. They put their own lives in danger (and therefore the livelihood of their loved ones), they put our police forces in danger (and therefore the livelihood of their families), they waste tax payer money to protect the event, and they give Americans a bad name.....we already have a Westboro Baptist Church....we don't need another one.

And F those who say that we "lose our rights and freedoms" if we choose to refrain from holding such events. If Americans choose to take the high road, it doesn't mean we lost any of our freedoms. It means we gain honor and value over our enemies who sink to this level.

Obviously, a response of violence is unacceptable on any level.

If Americans are expected to "just walk away"...can we not expect others to do the same?

And F those who say that we "lose our rights and freedoms" if we choose to refrain from holding such events.

What "rights and freedoms" do you lose if you chose to "refrain"?

And F those who say that we "lose our rights and freedoms" if we choose to refrain from holding such events. If Americans choose to take the high road, it doesn't mean we lost any of our freedoms. It means we gain honor and value over our enemies who sink to this level.

Who gets to decide what events are permitted? Free speech protects what some may deem as being controversial or upsetting. That's precisely what it's for.

If Americans are expected to "just walk away"...can we not expect others to do the same?

I don't think it would be a wise decision to expect everyone in the world to be civil.

What "rights and freedoms" do you lose if you chose to "refrain"?

IMO, none. It's just choosing not to be a complete jerk.

Who gets to decide what events are permitted? Free speech protects what some may deem as being controversial or upsetting. That's precisely what it's for.

I'm not saying we should make laws to ban these types of events, but Americans should treat them the same way we treat the Westboro Baptist Church. Shame them until they realize how irresponsible and dangerous they are. Lets get our media to shame them. Lets see the people of Texas voice their opposition to inciting violence, and demand a higher standard of living.

If Americans are expected to "just walk away"...can we not expect others to do the same?

I don't think it would be a wise decision to expect everyone in the world to be civil.

What "rights and freedoms" do you lose if you chose to "refrain"?

IMO, none. It's just choosing not to be a complete jerk.

Whatever happened to defending Americans and their right to free speech and saving the criticism for those with no respect for U.S. Constitutional law who resort to killing over a cartoon?

wow.

Bosch Fawstin's winning entry: