100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: French Mag to Publish Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?! 
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Dont know what game in HELL one has ever actually won with a race 'card' but whatever people wish to believe,,,or helps them sleep at night,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Dont know what game in HELL one has ever actually one with a race 'card' but whatever people wish to believe,,,or helps them sleep at night,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Dont know what game in HELL one has ever actually one with a race 'card' Is that a quote from Star Wars? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What frightens me about the whole Islam issue is it is exactly like when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and people ignored it. A couple of million Jews later and here we are looking at the EXACT same thing and people refuse to acknowledge that Islam is a reason to be scared just like when the few people in Europe seen Brown Shirts goose stepping through the streets of 1920s Germany and knew something bad was about to happen. I am shocked and appalled that people will demand I tolerate a religion that I read their bible and see a good reason to oppose this "faith" while the rest who demand tolerance either never read a Quran or are Islamic.
Like I said, what if the seven people Egypt wants to try are extradited by the Obama administration? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 09/19/12 08:58 AM
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure freedoms were important to fight for, the right to denigrate something others(BILLIONS) literally WORSHIP is not close to being worth fighting for in my opinion media has forever 'censored' itself, whether it be including some things that are sensational for their profit value or excluding others because of their lack of profit value there is no 'risk' in likewise censoring ones self in consideration of others, in consideration of what is tasteful or not tasteful, in consideration of what is verifiable or what is bogus self censoring can also include consideration of others, and I think that is the less selfish choice when you consider something so sacred to BILLIONS on this planet,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure freedoms were important to fight for, the right to denigrate something others(BILLIONS) literally WORSHIP is not close to being worth fighting for in my opinion media has forever 'censored' itself, whether it be including some things that are sensational for their profit value or excluding others because of their lack of profit value there is no 'risk' in likewise censoring ones self in consideration of others, in consideration of what is tasteful or not tasteful, in consideration of what is verifiable or what is bogus self censoring can also include consideration of others, and I think that is the less selfish choice when you consider something so sacred to BILLIONS on this planet,,, Well I am all for being polite and considerate. But I am not in favor or laws banning blasphemy or caricatures of religious or political or historical figures. Go down that road and you will have "modesty police" and people getting shot for expressing doubts about Mohammad or Buddha. I also find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone should issue death contracts on artists or comedians or journalists of any kind. If people do not want to have caricatures of Mohammad then all they have to do is say "please don't do that we find it offensive". But no one should ever be allowed to say "Shut up or you will be beheaded." And this is certainly what many radical Islamists are saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is pretty sad that we have,in the 21th Century,to worry about a handful of bearded unwashed fellows constantly threaten us with harm,when they think we are insulting their Stoneage Beliefs!
Time we get angry and do something about it,proactive,instead of reactive! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure freedoms were important to fight for, the right to denigrate something others(BILLIONS) literally WORSHIP is not close to being worth fighting for in my opinion media has forever 'censored' itself, whether it be including some things that are sensational for their profit value or excluding others because of their lack of profit value there is no 'risk' in likewise censoring ones self in consideration of others, in consideration of what is tasteful or not tasteful, in consideration of what is verifiable or what is bogus self censoring can also include consideration of others, and I think that is the less selfish choice when you consider something so sacred to BILLIONS on this planet,,, Well I am all for being polite and considerate. But I am not in favor or laws banning blasphemy or caricatures of religious or political or historical figures. Go down that road and you will have "modesty police" and people getting shot for expressing doubts about Mohammad or Buddha. I also find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone should issue death contracts on artists or comedians or journalists of any kind. If people do not want to have caricatures of Mohammad then all they have to do is say "please don't do that we find it offensive". But no one should ever be allowed to say "Shut up or you will be beheaded." And this is certainly what many radical Islamists are saying. the reaction is horrid, but I imagine we could find handfuls of pretty violent westerners if someone posted or published, lets say, a photo of someone crapping on the flag some things are just blatantly offensive and unnecessary and meant to encite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure freedoms were important to fight for, the right to denigrate something others(BILLIONS) literally WORSHIP is not close to being worth fighting for in my opinion media has forever 'censored' itself, whether it be including some things that are sensational for their profit value or excluding others because of their lack of profit value there is no 'risk' in likewise censoring ones self in consideration of others, in consideration of what is tasteful or not tasteful, in consideration of what is verifiable or what is bogus self censoring can also include consideration of others, and I think that is the less selfish choice when you consider something so sacred to BILLIONS on this planet,,, Well I am all for being polite and considerate. But I am not in favor or laws banning blasphemy or caricatures of religious or political or historical figures. Go down that road and you will have "modesty police" and people getting shot for expressing doubts about Mohammad or Buddha. I also find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone should issue death contracts on artists or comedians or journalists of any kind. If people do not want to have caricatures of Mohammad then all they have to do is say "please don't do that we find it offensive". But no one should ever be allowed to say "Shut up or you will be beheaded." And this is certainly what many radical Islamists are saying. the reaction is horrid, but I imagine we could find handfuls of pretty violent westerners if someone posted or published, lets say, a photo of someone crapping on the flag Bet you wouldn't find any those westerners cutting off peoples heads for it. Do you sympathize for the poor extremists who have to kill to feel good about their pedo-prophet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine.
christ is not as sacred in america as the flag is |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 09/19/12 01:57 PM
|
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine.
Reminds me of the life-sized Chocolate Jesus. Cosimo Cavallaro's sculpture "My Sweet Lord". I'm not sure what it is saying but nobody rioted and no one was killed in the name of Christ over any of it. Nobody rioted or got killed over flag burning or crabbing on the flag or any of that nonsense either but many people have been unjustly prosecuted and persecuted and killed over blasphemy with regard to Islam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 09/19/12 01:50 PM
|
|
Those that constantly play the race card are the biggest racists by far. The same goes for bigotry. You can really tell when it is thrown into a topic out of context. race is not a card and bigotry isnt specific to race it was called a 'reference' here is a different one for those who are so sensitive to the topic of bigotry its like someone with big diamonds and jewels walking through a trailer park just to show their RIGHT to be rich its purpose is to encite, there is no other reason or need for it, and its stupid,,, Well I think the purpose was to sell magazines and also to demonstrate that this magazine will NOT be intimidated. The magazine had been the target in the past of extremist radicals who did not like their publications. So - I don't think they were actually trying to denigrate or incite anyone. I think they are just determined to show that they will not be intimidated or silenced by illegal and outrageous threats of violence over cartoons, comedy, editorial or opinions of any sort. In other words, I feel like they have nothing to apologize for. Neither does the US or Denmark. In our societies caricature is protected speech even if it is in poor taste. If people do not like it then they simply do not have to read it. Or they can tell others non-violently that they find it in poor taste, insulting, rude, inflammatory etc. But without threatening to kill anybody... Yanno?!
"Ah say, ah say....That's a JOKE, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn I respect that opinion and the respectful way it is presented but I still think trying to show what one will or wont be forced to do, when its nothing that is vital or necessary in the first place (out of all the satirical topics there are to choose from there is no NECESSITY to pick out such a highly sensitive and dangerous one) at the risk of the life and limbs of OTHERS,, is stupid and selfish,,, Well I understand. I am also concerned about the backlash. But the choice of caricaturing Mohammad is actually necessary in this case because this is the kind of free speech that is specifically trying to be censored. In a free society we must have the ability to criticize religion and religious doctrine and dogma. We must be able to freely discuss the implications of the church teachings without fear of violent reprisals, death threats and rioting. Yes, this even involves the ridiculing and lampooning of your sacred cow. Whichever sacred cow you have. So, in this sense they had to choose criticism of Islam to make their point. And all free people should support them. We have nothing to apologize for here. In our country and in the rest of the free world criticism of Islam is absolutely fair game and there certainly are many valid criticisms. I just dont see it as necessary if there was some THREAT here at home , here in AMERICA, of actually being censored (I dont mean the kind of censoring people choose because its common sense, but LEGALLY IMPOSED censoring) that could be shown to result from an immediate harm as was the case in the crowded theater scenario most would have no problem understanding such common sense/censoring but because the harm wont happen HERE to those exercising their rights,, we somehow dont see it as just as dangerous or unnecessary ,,but I still consider it no less careless and pointless... Very far from it. It is calculated and an extremely important point. It is BECAUSE it is dangerous that it is absolutely necessary. This is absolute proof that if you want freedom then you have to defend your right to have freedom against those who will try to take your freedom from you by FORCE. To be silent in the face of these ridiculous and absurd and outrageous violent threats is to lose your freedom. What these radical Islamic thugs are doing is the equivalent of racists in the pre-civil rights era saying "Shut up about freedom for colored folks or we will string you up." but 'freedom' , in my opinion, is not on the same par with a SACRED religious figure freedoms were important to fight for, the right to denigrate something others(BILLIONS) literally WORSHIP is not close to being worth fighting for in my opinion media has forever 'censored' itself, whether it be including some things that are sensational for their profit value or excluding others because of their lack of profit value there is no 'risk' in likewise censoring ones self in consideration of others, in consideration of what is tasteful or not tasteful, in consideration of what is verifiable or what is bogus self censoring can also include consideration of others, and I think that is the less selfish choice when you consider something so sacred to BILLIONS on this planet,,, Well I am all for being polite and considerate. But I am not in favor or laws banning blasphemy or caricatures of religious or political or historical figures. Go down that road and you will have "modesty police" and people getting shot for expressing doubts about Mohammad or Buddha. I also find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone should issue death contracts on artists or comedians or journalists of any kind. If people do not want to have caricatures of Mohammad then all they have to do is say "please don't do that we find it offensive". But no one should ever be allowed to say "Shut up or you will be beheaded." And this is certainly what many radical Islamists are saying. the reaction is horrid, but I imagine we could find handfuls of pretty violent westerners if someone posted or published, lets say, a photo of someone crapping on the flag Bet you wouldn't find any those westerners cutting off peoples heads for it. Do you sympathize for the poor extremists who have to kill to feel good about their pedo-prophet? I can 'sympathize' with anyone, everyone has a story but I also can hold people accountable for bad choices and bad behavior especially behavior that clearly ENCITES violence once a behavior has COST someone their life and we act all aphalled by the reaction of others towards and suffering of that person its INSANE to me that we REPEAT That (unncessary) behavior just to prove that 'we' can yes WE can when WE arent the ones in danger of a retaliation |
|
|
|
|
