Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY??

Originally posted by: -Believe-

Draw Muhammad contest... Why and For what???  They can't do something else?

So, who won the contest anyway??

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.!!!  Killing over a cartoon or Becoming upset at someone else's free speech does not mean you can try to murder them!!?! 

I feel The whole point is,we are better than them,this is unnecessarily provocative.

There is this local newspaper in bay area, CA, which has an online edition. On this topic, since yesterday, I have been fighting with at least 20 Americans who have ganged up on me (I use a different ID there, by the way :) I do have some (sane) supporters too, not that I need any :))

Anyway, I have been arguing that these contests are incitement to violence. Free speech has limitations.Most guys on that website supporting the contest were/are citing their favorite first amendment (it's not like these guys are articulate or well read; they just parrot one another and keep repeating "free speech" and "constitution" a million times)

That Pamela Geller, organizer of the event, is a known hate-mongerer.

These same people would cry blood if someone were to mock Jews. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I don't see any purpose to offending a religious group deliberately. Yes, picking up guns and start shooting at people just because someone offended you is extreme, not to mention reinforces stereotypes, but why draw first blood? Why taunt? Why provoke and risk peace? Why purposefully disrespect?  If they really want to have a debate, an open talk with followers of Islam, they should do so in a more civilized way. What they did (and are doing) is blatantly inflammatory.

I think it is unnecessary to draw pictures of Muhammad. There are millions of other subjects to draw, why does one have to draw picture of Muhammad, when Muhammad himself was against drawing any picture of him. It's very kiddish behaviour, just because it is forbidden, these people are fixated on doing it. Edited by souro - 8 years ago

Anti-Muslim sentiments are being flared up around the world currently. All know now that Charlie Hebdo was a false flag attack.

Whats wrong in making cartoon of Muhammad? Cartoonist make fun of everyone don't they ? It gives nobody right to kill someone just because they drew picture of Muhammad. We see everyday one thing could be religious for one group but the other group insult it, thats the new reality. It doesnt mean people can come out with guns and start defending their religious belief on others. Edited by 9tanki - 8 years ago

Originally posted by: 9tanki

Whats wrong in making cartoon of Muhammad? Cartoonist make fun of everyone don't they ? It gives nobody right to kill someone just because they drew picture of Muhammad. We see everyday one thing could be religious for one group but the other group insult it, thats the new reality. It doesnt mean people can come out with guns and start defending their religious belief on others.

Let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Yes, killing in the name of religion is bad. Yes, nobody has a right to kill regardless of the provocation. Yes, just because people are offended, doesn't mean they should start a holy war.

I don't see a need to debate the above paragraph.

What is unconscionable, in my opinion, is the deliberateness of the act. They know that a large number of groups across the world would consider this act blasphemous. They know that a large number of groups across the world will be infuriated by this act. They know they would be hurting the religious sentiments of a large number of groups across the world by this act. Still they went ahead and did it. In short, they incited.

Offense, in my opinion, has levels to it. As an example, if Birdie cackles during a serious debate, I get offended. But the level of offense there is not the same as, say, a MF Husain drawing Hindu Goddesses or mother India, naked. On a scale of 1 to 10, if Birdie's cackle is at a 1, then MF Husain's act would be at a 7 or 8 for me.

Now you may question me why I should get offended if someone hurts my "religious sentiments". First of, I am ignostic. I don't have any religious sentiments. But it is the deliberateness with which the other party is trying to incite me, that is maddening me. It is the challenge of the provocateur that is causing the anger. It is the inflammatory action that is ticking me off. In that sense, the agitator has succeeded in agitating me.

If it is just one person like me who is getting agitated then perhaps countries may ignore.

If it is large groups of people who are getting agitated, then that is a potential risk to peace that some of us are not willing to absorb, just so a few troublemakers could have their fill of amusement under the guise of "free speech".

I support the movement not because I enjoy showing middle finger to Muslims or provoke them, but because its important for Muslims to get used to the idea of free speech. Christianity has a history of torture and oppression of heretics that would make Muslims look tame. But the reason why Christians no longer react to blasphemy with similar outrage is because they have got used to it; they have learned to accept - even if grudgingly - the concepts of free speech and rights of another individual.

Muslim countries are extremely closeted and autocratic with low tolerance for dissent in general and that makes blasphemy and heresy capital offenses in the eyes of many average Muslims. If we avoid offending them in fear of violence, they will never break out of that mindset. That would be a tacit approval of the notion of sacrilege on our part. And they'll never know that getting violent is NOT natural or acceptable reaction to a cartoon or a book. They'll never learn to respect freedoms and individual rights. The only way we can make them look upon blasphemy with less outrage and anger is by make it a regular affair.

Free speech  hangs on a thin string, and someone with a public voice, the free speech benefits from an extra megaphone, and the basic principle of free speech means you can say what you  want whenever you  want it, in practice one should think carefully about the impact of the words and how they might be felt among others whether or not they share the belief system. I personally believe that in not saying something just because you want to speak, but because you  want to be heard. so  when someone  open their mouth, they should not want to be part of the problem, but rather be  part of the solution and it's important we remember that free speech and respect should go hand-in-hand.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Yes, killing in the name of religion is bad. Yes, nobody has a right to kill regardless of the provocation. Yes, just because people are offended, doesn't mean they should start a holy war.

I don't see a need to debate the above paragraph.

What is unconscionable, in my opinion, is the deliberateness of the act. They know that a large number of groups across the world would consider this act blasphemous. They know that a large number of groups across the world will be infuriated by this act. They know they would be hurting the religious sentiments of a large number of groups across the world by this act. Still they went ahead and did it. In short, they incited.

Offense, in my opinion, has levels to it. As an example, if Birdie cackles during a serious debate, I get offended. But the level of offense there is not the same as, say, a MF Husain drawing Hindu Goddesses or mother India, naked. On a scale of 1 to 10, if Birdie's cackle is at a 1, then MF Husain's act would be at a 7 or 8 for me.

Now you may question me why I should get offended if someone hurts my "religious sentiments". First of, I am ignostic. I don't have any religious sentiments. But it is the deliberateness with which the other party is trying to incite me, that is maddening me. It is the challenge of the provocateur that is causing the anger. It is the inflammatory action that is ticking me off. In that sense, the agitator has succeeded in agitating me.

If it is just one person like me who is getting agitated then perhaps countries may ignore.

If it is large groups of people who are getting agitated, then that is a potential risk to peace that some of us are not willing to absorb, just so a few troublemakers could have their fill of amusement under the guise of "free speech".