The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[spydy13]

Absolutely. But really -- what is there to discuss? One group doesn't want a dialogue. They consider the issue a settled matter not open for negotiations -- don't draw pictures of Muhammad, period.

I've got some friends who are fundamental Christians and if there is one group in this country whom it is trendy to mock, it's them. It's open season for mocking those folk 365/24/7. Whether it's comedians, message boards, TV, whatever...have at them. You have entire memes built up around mocking Christians, and things like the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" that mock all religions but because of where it's popular, affect primarily Christians.

But here's the thing -- in this country, we (rightly) expect people to take that. It's part of the cost of your own freedom -- you must tolerate the offensive speech of others as well. We value that even more than do most Europeans, who have legal restrictions on what they call "hate speech", and on Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. But not here.

Why don't we see a public hue and cry of "hey, quit mocking Christians just because you think it's funny?" Maybe because there is no fear that offending Christians will lead to violence? Because otherwise, why are we so much more concerned about offending Muslims than offending Christians? And I can't help but think that is rewarding violent extremism by giving it what it wants.

One of the arguments raised against civil rights marchers was that they'd be inciting breaches of the peace. Which was actually true, but that argument rightly wasn't considered a reason not to do it. Hell, we gave the Nazis permission to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., where more than 15% of the population was Holocaust survivors. The right not to have your speech silenced simply because it offends others is absolutely fundamental in this country.

Obviously, those who believe it moral to kill others because they have offended religious beliefs are in a separate category. But there is a another problem with the objections to this that goes beyond just killing.

I can understand and respect someone who is religious not wanting to see what they deem to be an offensive image. So if someone puts up a billboard on I-90 showing Muhammad wearing a yarmulke or something as a joke, and every Muslim in the area is forced to see it on the way to work, I think that's reprehensible and I'd condemn it.. But that's not what happened in this Texas situation. This was a private function inside a rented building. I'd guess that a Muslim would have to make a concerted effort to even see a single one of those cartoons. So what's the problem?

What I can't respect is that the outrage/opposition seems to extend beyond people being forced to see the offensive images. It actually goes to anyone, anywhere even drawing it, even if the offended Muslim (or any Muslim) never actually sees it. So here's what should be understood -- it is not opposition to something being done in public that a Muslim is forced to witness -- it's an attempt to dictate things other people do that you never see, and that never affect you. It's not an objection to what is being seen and witnessed -- it is an objection to someone else engaging in an action you don't like, even in private.

That level of offense and "respect my beliefs" just goes beyond anything I think we should respect. It's not just banning the Nazis from Skokie -- it's saying they shouldn't even be permitted to meet and speak anywhere.

I'm sympathetic to and would respect "don't deliberately stick images in front of my face that you know offend my religious beliefs." . I am not sympathetic to, and won't respect "don't draw those images even if I never have to see them." If the mere act of drawing an image of Muhammed somewhere offends Muslims, then I think it is that belief that needs to change.

Very well thought out post, and I agree with what you say.

My only response is that despite most "crazy christians" not responding to people poking them, that still doesn't make the poking of them right.

And don't forget that many of those people do terrorize women who want to get abortions and have killed doctors who perform abortions, so they are not totally off the hook either.

Every religion has their stupid beliefs. I don't think we're giving into the terrorists if we respect all Muslims desire to not have Muhammad depicted. Any Muslim though that feels that he should kill someone over the breaking of that rule, deserves to be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

I guess my point would be that this world would be a lot nicer if all religions would respect each other. That is probably too pie in the sky to truly accomplish, but it starts with little things like not hosting events that have no chance to induce change, only spur hate.

 

[Man Called X]

Very well thought out post, and I agree with what you say.

My only response is that despite most "crazy christians" not responding to people poking them, that still doesn't make the poking of them right.

And don't forget that many of those people do terrorize women who want to get abortions and have killed doctors who perform abortions, so they are not totally off the hook either.

Every religion has their stupid beliefs. I don't think we're giving into the terrorists if we respect all Muslims desire to not have Muhammad depicted. Any Muslim though that feels that he should kill someone over the breaking of that rule, deserves to be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

I guess my point would be that this world would be a lot nicer if all religions would respect each other. That is probably too pie in the sky to truly accomplish, but it starts with little things like not hosting events that have no chance to induce change, only spur hate.

If less people would believe 2000 year old fairy tales, we'd be in a much better place.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Very well thought out post, and I agree with what you say.

My only response is that despite most "crazy christians" not responding to people poking them, that still doesn't make the poking of them right.

Agreed. But the reality is that we're faced with a situation where we're much less willing to offend members of a particular religion solely because it is much more likely to provoke a violent response. And while I understand Oi's point about comedians, and not offending for the sake of offense, the reality is that because everyone else is intimidated, comedians are as well. We may recognize a "comedian's exception", but the extremists don't.

So either we openly challenge it as a society, or that violence and intimidation is successful. I wish that wasn't the reality, but it is.

Every religion has their stupid beliefs.

I don't care as long as they don't expect me to follow them.

I don't think we're giving into the terrorists if we respect all Muslims desire to not have Muhammad depicted.

That has to be viewed in the context that we don't apply that same consideration to any other group, religious or otherwise. Offended by a cartoon, or joke, or reference? Too bad. That's what comedians/commentators do. Unless it's a Muslim belief. That strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

And as I said, I have a problem with that offense applying even to actions that no Muslim witnesses. Look, I think it is offensive and ridiculous when Satanists want to put their stuff up at Christmas during the holidays. I think it would be offensive and ridiculous to have a yarmulke-wearing Muhammed on an I-90 poster. I get that. It's the "we don't want you doing that even if we never see it" aspect that I personally find offensive. That's just intrusive, and giving a level of deference that no religion or belief system deserves. It's crossing a line that I don't think should be crossed, and we're better off making it very clear at the outset that is not how things work here.

I guess my point would be that this world would be a lot nicer if all religions would respect each other. That is probably too pie in the sky to truly accomplish, but it starts with little things like not hosting events that have no chance to induce change, only spur hate.

Well, I guess that's where I disagree. There is currently an environment/mindset that if you draw a picture of Muhammad, you are taking your life in your hands. There apparently also is a mindset that non-Muslims should not depict Muhammed even if it is done in private where no Muslim sees it. I think both of those ideas are pernicious, and should be changed. But I don't see how we can ever change those ideas if we simply submit to them. Challenging/defying them brings them into the public sphere for debate, exactly as is happening in this thread.

If this incident didn't happen, we wouldn't even be discussing those issues.

 

[spydy13]

Well, I guess that's where I disagree. There is currently an environment/mindset that if you draw a picture of Muhammad, you are taking your life in your hands. There apparently also is a mindset that non-Muslims should not depict Muhammed even if it is done in private where no Muslim sees it. I think both of those ideas are pernicious, and should be changed. But I don't see how we can ever change those ideas if you simply submit to them. Challenging/defying them brings them into the public sphere for debate, exactly as is happening in this thread.

Yeah, I guess I just don't hold it against Muslims for holding this belief, the vast majority of which aren't trying to kill people over those depictions. Just like anyone they would prefer to have the beliefs respected.

It's the few assholes, in the grand scheme of things, who are running around trying to kill people for doing this that need to be dealt with for causing this fear.

I guess my point is if those two guys hadn't come to do harm, then this event would have never been heard about and would just been a group of people shitting on a group of people they don't like.

 

[gourimoko]

Yeah, I guess I just don't hold it against Muslims for holding this belief, the vast majority of which aren't trying to kill people over those depictions. Just like anyone they would prefer to have the beliefs respected.

It's the few assholes, in the grand scheme of things, who are running around trying to kill people for doing this that need to be dealt with for causing this fear.

I guess my point is if those two guys hadn't come to do harm, then this event would have never been heard about and would just been a group of people shitting on a group of people they don't like.

The problem with saying "Hey guys, let's go draw offensive cartoons of Muhammad" is that you are purposefully being inciteful.

You have some folks who say, okay, so what, but then when people actually get incited to violence then they want to cry foul.

If Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump agree with me on this, I don't see much room on the right or left to disagree. This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with responsibility.

This woman, Geller, was hoping something like this would happen - and her wish came true. Thankfully, no one but the assailants were killed, but imagine if innocents had been murdered because of this.

It's easy to say, well, people should never get offended to the point of being violent; but, they do, and we know they do. People can be incited everywhere, regardless of background, and knowing this, why pretend like this is only true for Muslims and why make attempt after attempt to incite them to violence?

Let me put it another way..

If this incited violence, would anyone be surprised?

 

[JSS2306]

If this incited violence, would anyone be surprised?

Die Hard 3 wasn't that bad, was it?

The event was irresponsible and dangerous to the public.

 

[kosis]

Neither of us can say for sure exactly what her motives were, but I think a reasonable guess is that she created this contest to provoke a reaction that she believes would demonstrate intolerance for freedom of speech/religion within whatever elements of the Muslim community it exists.

To Gouri's point, acting like Geller is doing anything but inciting is trolling. And if it's not, then you just need to google a few things (which it sounds like you have). Her rationalizing Brevik's mass murder:

"In a post defending herself yesterday, Geller — who has called Obama “President Jihad” and claimed that Arab language classes are a plot to subvert the United States — reached a new low. Geller justifies Breivik’s attack on the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp because she says the camp is part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.” She says the victims would have grown up to become “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.”

I do not think it is unrelated to what happened at Charlie Hebdo, or really, to the whole line of fascistic behavior from the response to Salman Rushdie right through the present.



No. She's not "working with the authorities" and I never stated or implied that she was. And yes, she's being divisive. She's trying to divide those who are intolerant of free speech from the rest of us. She may also be a bigot, which is why I said I supported only this particular action, not whatever else she may have done.

That's a joke. She's dividing Muslims from the rest. But enough about her.

I'm curious -- what did you think of all those newspapers and magazines that reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons after that attack? What were they trying to accomplish, and do you think that was justified?

We've already gone over this in this thread or another. But I hated the cartoons and I thought it was poor form of every magazine that reprinted them. Not because they shouldn't be "able" to reprint them, but because the art came from a racist, cheap, bottom of the barrel rag that is being put on a pedestal because of the murders. The magazine sucks, has an agenda, and would never have been seen as a beacon of free speech if it wasn't for the violence.

But could you please expand on something else you said earlier:



What exactly does that mean? Are you saying it makes them less well disposed to the country as a whole, more sympathetic to the radicals or ...what, exactly? Because I don't think that's actually true in any significant sense.

But if it is (again, I don't think so), then the problem is much, much bigger than just those we currently classify as "extremists".

Gladly. What I mean by that is that these types of actions are making Muslims feel marginalized even more than they are in this country. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality. I'll be clear since you'll jump to the violent interpretation of that. It's an uncomfortable position. It makes the group feel like it doesn't belong. Mosques are having discussions about how to handle the incitement instead of focusing on prayer and other constructive items. Children start asking their parents why they're being singled out.

Boo hoo, right? Well this is all happening for no other reason than because a hateful group of people is pinpointing a minority faith in this country and making a festival out of clowning on its beliefs. Yeah it's legal, but it's trash and would not be tolerated here if it was a racist Jewish caricature show, similar to what Gouri said in the post with the photos.

Hiding behind the extremist angle is in a word cowardly. If you want to make fun of and incite people, at least be honest about it.

PS: When all of those magazines globally reprinted the cartoons, how many were killed? How many places were burned? If we needed this social experiment to weed out the crazies, it seems to me like we had one. Are we just going to continue to host "ridicule the prophet" activities until we finally get a reaction, just to yell "see"?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, I guess I just don't hold it against Muslims for holding this belief, the vast majority of which aren't trying to kill people over those depictions. Just like anyone they would prefer to have the beliefs respected.

You're right about the majority not wanting to kill, but at the same time, the general Islamic prohibition doesn't seem limited to just "preferring" that people "respect their beliefs". Blasphemy is actually illegal in just about every Muslim-majority nation. So, if you're raised in one of those nations, you're being raised in an environment where free speech in matters of religion is not permitted. If you "blaspheme", you go to jail. And as I've said before, the key to people of different faiths living together in peace is the recognition that matters of pure religion should be a matter of personal conscience.

So yes, there's a difference between throwing people in jail, and killing them, but I think anything on that spectrum is unacceptable. The entire mindset of other people being obliged to comply with your purely religious beliefs needs to change. IMHO.

I guess my point is if those two guys hadn't come to do harm, then this event would have never been heard about and would just been a group of people shitting on a group of people they don't like.

Well, maybe not, because ISIS has now come out and targeted her for killing. Seems to be something of a pattern anytime someone commits "blasphemy".

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/isis-appears-threaten-pamela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913

Yeah, it might be easier if we just knuckled under to this, and didn't do anything to offend them. But it just gripes my ass that they'd get exactly what they wanted because they're willing to murder people.

 

[MRMsix6]

FWIW here's the winning drawing:

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To Gouri's point, acting like Geller is doing anything but inciting is trolling.

Well, I obviously don't read his posts, but I've already stated myself that her goal was to incite/provoke, so I have no idea what "acting like" even means. Here's exactly what I said in an earlier post in speculating as to her motives:

"she created this contest to provoke a reaction that she believes would demonstrate intolerance for freedom of speech/religion within whatever elements of the Muslim community it exists."

If you think that's incorrect, fine. but I think it's at least a fair reading of what she's trying to do, and it certainly isn't "trolling" for me to claim that.

And if it's not, then you just need to google a few things (which it sounds like you have). Her rationalizing Brevik's mass murder:

Look, I'm not defending her. I said that at the outset. I'm defending this particular action, which I'd agree was a deliberate provocation. Where we disagree is that I don't think it is wrong just because it was a deliberate provocation. When four black guys went and sat at an all-white Woolworth's lunch counter, they didn't expect to get served. Their goal was to provoke a response, and thereby shine a light on a practice belief they believed to be wrong. FFS, Ghandhi used the same tactic -- we'll do something we know will piss them off so that the wrongness of their actions will be clear to all.

This is from the article regarding the ISIS threats against her:

Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security were aware the contest was a potential terror target and issued a joint bulletin on April 20. Organizers, including Geller - who has become a lightning rod for critics who think she promotes anti-Islam views - knew they'd be targeted but refused to back down.

The chilling Tuesday post also boasts of ISIS having "71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack." It specifically names Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan and California.
"The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah (authority or governance) in the heart of our enemy," the message reads.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913

And here's her response:

"This threat illustrates the savagery and barbarism of the Islamic State," Geller told the Daily News in a statement she later posted on her website."They want me dead for violating Sharia blasphemy laws. What remains to be seen is whether the free world will finally wake up and stand for the freedom of speech, or instead kowtow to this evil and continue to denounce me."

Whatever else the hag may have said/done in other contexts, I think she makes a valid point here by engaging in actions that "illustrate" the savagery and barbarism of radical Islam. There is an ongoing debate in this country as to what we should do about a whole host of issues relating to radical Islam. This is a reminder for those who prefer to keep their heads buried in the sands and hjust hope the problem goes away of it's own accord.

We've already gone over this in this thread or another. But I hated the cartoons and I thought it was poor form of every magazine that reprinted them.

Fair enough -- we just disagree on that. I think emphasizing that murderous thugs can't suppress speech is more important than some hurt feelings.

Gladly. What I mean by that is that these types of actions are making Muslims feel marginalized even more than they are in this country. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality. I'll be clear since you'll jump to the violent interpretation of that. It's an uncomfortable position. It makes the group feel like it doesn't belong. Mosques are having discussions about how to handle the incitement instead of focusing on prayer and other constructive items. Children start asking their parents why they're being singled out.

Hallelujah!!!

Maybe you're not happy those discussions are being had, but I think they're exactly the kind of discussions that are needed. They're exactly the point. If they reach the conclusion that religion has to be just a matter of personal conscience, and that we must learn to disregard what others think/believe, then we might really be getting somewhere. Especially if that teaching catches on overseas.

Boo hoo, right? Well this is all happening for no other reason than because a hateful group of people is pinpointing a minority faith in this country....

Yes, boo hoo. Members of the majority faith get mocked all the time and are expected to deal with that without violence. Why should there be different rules for Islam? In any case, the "pinpointing" by this particular group (just as other groups "pinpoint" Christians) is due to the knowledge that it will expose violent intolerance by some members of that minority faith.

Yeah it's legal....

Which it isn't in most Muslim-majority nations....

but it's trash and would not be tolerated here if it was a racist Jewish caricature show, similar to what Gouri said in the post with the photos.

I do not equate racism with criticism or mocking of a religion.

Hiding behind the extremist angle is in a word cowardly.

I'm mystified by that. She's gotten open death threats. How is that "cowardly"?

In any case, let's take this one off the table. IF the goal is solely to mock a religion for the sheer enjoyment of it, I don't support that. If the goal is to expose extremism and double standards, I do.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

PS: When all of those magazines globally reprinted the cartoons, how many were killed?
How many places were burned? If we needed this social experiment to weed out the crazies, it seems to me like we had one.

Well, here's how a quick search answered that question:

On 14 February 2015 in Copenhagen, Denmark, a public event called "Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression", was organized to honor victims of the attack in January against the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. A series of shootings took place that day and the following day in Copenhagen, with two people killed and five police officers wounded. The suspected perpetrator was later shot dead by police on 15 February.

On 3 May 2015, two men attempted an attack on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas exhibit featured cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The event was organised as a response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and presented by the group American Defense Freedom Initiative.[159] Both gunmen were killed by police. A Garland Independent School District police officer was injured by a shot to the ankle but survived.

Following a series of police raids in Belgium, in which two suspected terrorists were killed in a shootout in the city of Verviers, Belgian police stated that documents seized after the raids appear to show that the two were planning to attack sellers of the next edition of Charlie Hebdo released following the attack in Paris.[204]

Unrest in Niger following the publication of the post-attack issue of Charlie Hebdo resulted in ten deaths,[205] dozens injured, and at least nine churches burned.[206] The Guardian reported seven churches burned in Niamey alone. Churches were also reported to be on fire in eastern Maradi and Goure. There were violent demonstrations in Karachi in Pakistan, where Asif Hassan, a photographer working for the Agence France-Presse, was seriously injured by a shot to the chest.

Are we just going to continue to host "ridicule the prophet" activities until we finally get a reaction, just to yell "see"?

There's not really any "finally" about it. Seems to happen pretty regularly.

But I'd say you've got it backwards. The rallies will stop when they stop getting a violent reaction.

 

[Man Called X]

Smartest to mock all religions the same.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

FWIW here's the winning drawing:

Brilliant, and I'm pretty shocked to be saying that. Wish I could have just posted this as my first post, because it really says it all.

I'd even say it would be a great teaching aid to explain to Muslims who are offended as to why Muhammed is being "insulted". Americans don't like being told they can't do something, and if you try to tell us that, we'll do it just to show we can.

Except....the cartoon itself is blasphemy, right? So they won't see it/look at it.

Too bad.

 

[gourimoko]

Since Q-Tip isn't reading this, I thought it'd be a good idea to just point out why this logic is flawed.

Look, I'm not defending her. I said that at the outset. I'm defending this particular action, which I'd agree was a deliberate provocation.

So here we see someone saying they think it's wise to knowingly incite people to violence, simply to make the point that they shouldn't be so offended.

However, again, we see things like this all the time:

So, the question is, how does one distinguish these images which mock Blacks and Jews among others, however, which are also exercises in protected speech between the ones that mock Muslims?

Is there a logical way of doing so?

I.. don't think there is. And that's the problem with Q-Tip's argument. If you support this "provocative action" because it should condition people not to respond violently, then you should support all of the above exhibitions of personal beliefs that are also deliberate provocations designed to elicit a response.

Where we disagree is that I don't think it is wrong just because it was a deliberate provocation.

Which makes this an illogical argument.

When four black guys went and sat at an all-white Woolworth's lunch counter, they didn't expect to get served. Their goal was to provoke a response, and thereby shine a light on a practice belief they believed to be wrong. FFS, Ghandhi used the same tactic -- we'll do something we know will piss them off so that the wrongness of their actions will be clear to all.

And just as Geller compared herself to Rosa Parks, here Q-Tip compares her to civil rights leaders and freedom fighters including Ghandi.

Is this trolling, or just downright ignorance?

This is from the article regarding the ISIS threats against her:

No thanks, this is tangential. We call this FUD; or Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. ISIS has threatened her, therefore she must be brave. This is a logical fallacy outright and shouldn't require explanation.

And here's her response:

Again, no thanks.

Giving this woman, a known hate-monger (re: SPLC, and ADL) a platform and a voice is bad enough.

Whatever else the hag may have said/done in other contexts, I think she makes a valid point here by engaging in actions that "illustrate" the savagery and barbarism of radical Islam.

She's referred to "Muslims" as savages, not just "radical Islam," again, either ignorance, trolling, or both. She's been called out on this on CNN and even Fox News.

Fair enough -- we just disagree on that. I think emphasizing that murderous thugs can't suppress speech is more important than some hurt feelings.

By inciting the exact violence that you want to avoid? Again, this is illogical.

Hallelujah!!!

....

Maybe you're not happy those discussions are being had, but I think they're exactly the kind of discussions that are needed. They're exactly the point. If they reach the conclusion that religion has to be just a matter of personal conscience, and that we must learn to disregard what others think/believe, then we might really be getting somewhere. Especially if that teaching catches on overseas.

Therefore, until 1+ billion Muslims accept our way of thinking, we will continue to support provocations and acts of violence.

Simply put, what is the end game here?

This is like saying a White man should walk up to a Black man, say "N*****, N*****, N*****" in order for him to finally realize that it's just a word. And if he reacts violently, then, it's entirely 100% his fault; that no blame rests on the provocateur.

Again, there is no logic in this position. It is simply prejudiced, a prejudice against Muslims, specifically. Because if we reverse the prejudice from Muslims, to Jews, then according to Q-Tip it becomes wrong - in his own words, and in this thread.

It is okay to mock Muslims (and maybe even Christians), but not to mock Jews.

Keep that double-standard in mind.

Yes, boo hoo. Members of the majority faith get mocked all the time and are expected to deal with that without violence. Why should there be different rules for Islam?

... why should it be different for Jews? There are more Jews in America than there are Muslims are there not?

In any case, the "pinpointing" by this particular group (just as other groups "pinpoint" Christians) is due to the knowledge that it will expose violent intolerance by some members of that minority faith.

You mean, the stereotyping and targeting of this group because there are very small elements within their society of 1+ billion that have radical leanings?

Which it isn't in most Muslim-majority nations....

Thought we were talking about America?

But in order to continue the Jewish-Muslim comparison:

Israel[edit]
In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code.[39][40]

Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
The law is traced back to the British High Commission "The Abuse and Vilification (religious invective) Order No. 43 of 1929", enacted in efforts to suppress the 1929 Palestine riots. The order contained the language: "Any person who utters a word or sound in public or within earshot of any other person that may be or is intended to offend his religious sensitivities or faith can expect to be found guilty and eligible for a one-year jail sentence."[41]

I do not equate racism with criticism or mocking of a religion.

If anyone cares to note, Q-Tip is on record in this thread equating racism with mocking of Jews because Jews are a "race" by virtue of their culture, whereas Muslims don't qualify for this treatment.

This is what I mean by rationalizing bigotry.

I'm mystified by that. She's gotten open death threats. How is that "cowardly"?

Because she has no reasonable expectation that these death threats could be carried out.

But.. that never crossed Q-Tip's mind.

In any case, let's take this one off the table. IF the goal is solely to mock a religion for the sheer enjoyment of it, I don't support that. If the goal is to expose extremism and double standards, I do.

Even if it costs human lives... because the end result is so near to reality that inciting violence and stoking hatred (on both sides) is so worth it.

Again.. To anyone wanting to understand Q-Tip's logic, forget it, it's nonexistent.

The key point here is that it is okay to mock Muslims and incite them to violence, but not Blacks, and not Jews... Why?

 

[gourimoko]

I'd even say it would be a great teaching aid to explain to Muslims who are offended as to why Muhammed is being "insulted". Americans don't like being told they can't do something, and if you try to tell us that, we'll do it just to show we can.

Heroes.