The Disappearance of Molly Norris

[alphadogg]

Pictorial representation of Mohammad (sa) is considered sacrilegious. Sacriligeous acts were a crime in the past.

"Of the past" being the operative concept.

We've moved on, the Middle East has yet to do so.

 

[woolfe9999]

Going by what you said above, no one should start ridiculing the argument, instead they should support it as an "expression of fair speech".

No, that does not logically follow from what I wrote. We can ridicule the argument all we want. Our ridicule is also protected free speech. I'm afraid you are confusing the issue of what is legally allowable with the merit of the speech itself. All ideas are legally protected here. Not all ideas are created equal in terms of their merit. No ideas are beyond ridicule and criticism.

So far as the idea itself - that drawing a religious figure should be banned - it deserves ridicule because what is being suggested is against the U.S. Constitution and it violates the most important civic value we have - that of free expression. You may notice that you have people like Craig and me agreeing with people like Pokerguy and Pjabber on this even though I tend not to agree with those guys on too many other issues. That's because free expression is generally something that Americans agree about even where they disagree about everything else. That should tell you how important this is.

And by the way, we do not only criticize Muslims for advocating the banning of speech. Anyone who argues in favor of banning speech will get ridiculed. You can find numerous examples of it on this discussion board and others, having nothing to do with Islam.

- wolf

 

[routan]

Actually I fear nothing but the loss of more innocent lives in fighting yet another scourge of totalitarianism.

The world has seen totalitarian fascism and totalitarian communism defeated in recent memory. Then, as now, there were those that said that appeasement would be better, that acquiescence would be the easy way, that accommodation works best. The problem then, as now, is that appeasement is just incitement for further encroachment - after all, why not if the liberal kafir so easily rolls over?

I am confident that Islamism, yet another, equally onerous, form of totalitarianism, will be defeated with time. I doubt it will gain much purchase here, despite your best efforts, and I expect the rest of the world where it constrains the human spirit will eventually llift itself from that burden as well.

The fear is all yours, as it should be. For it is you who are afraid to speak the truths of Islamism to those not blinded by it already, it is you who are afraid to be exposed, to have your actions and your motives examined clearly.

The way I see it, you may actually be irretrievably "corrupted" by your exposure to democracy and liberalism here. If you were born here, you likely take it for granted. If you moved here voluntarily and with relief from a totalitarian state, well, you will certainly know the difference. If you moved here to blindly condemn the society because you find the theocracy you came from so much better, we can still hope that time and experience will allow the blinders to fall from your eyes.

There is a certain appeal to walking freely amongst free men, there is a certain appeal to being able to express yourself amongst others also free to do so, there is a certain appeal to being able to succeed by the sweat of your labors rather than the chance of your birth. And it is the appeal of these that may be the best hope for you to join the great experiment that America represents, rather than advocate for its replacement.

You, routan, have benefited highly here, even as you advocate that the systems of laws and free mindset must be put aside for the strictures of theocracy. And thus I can have a hope for you that might not be so apparent should you reside in a totalitarian theocracy elsewhere.

I believe men will eventually throw off the shackles of totalitarianism in each and every form it may manifest itself. Until that time comes, many will suffer under the yoke and many will sacrifice and die so that it can be removed.

You pick the side you are on. Mine is clear.

PJABBER, I see you as the village clown, albeit one who is extemely verbose. You entertain me with your opinions and posts, and I am certainly delighted in the fact that a person with your mindset may live in complete and utter fear of fellow humans with a different belief.

Islam began with a handful of people. Muslims are well over a billion now, across the world. And you have tens of thousands of converts, not "by the sword" as some claim, but by learning about the religion.

So you can continue your aspirations and hopes that Islam will be "defeated". Someday it may happen (as this is already part of an Islamic belief), but I am hopeful that it does not happen in your lifetime, and you continue to live like a fearful coward.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

"Of the past" being the operative concept.

We've moved on, the Middle East has yet to do so.

Thank you for emphasizing something obvious that routan doesn't seem to get through his condescending little replies.

A few years ago, there was an "art" display where, IIRC, there was a glass vase full of urine and the "artist" placed a cross bearing Jesus in it. There was certainly outrage, but you didn't hear people making death threats or calling for it to be illegal. That's called a free society.

 

[PokerGuy]

Spelling? That's the best you can call out? Wow. How lame.

You fail at reading as well, I pointed out both the spelling AND that the article you linked to didn't show anything about Catholicism. Fail again.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy, as I said, just hyperbole. And to think you are of the opinion that others have nutty beliefs

The point is that I don't care what you're nutty beliefs are, and you don't have to care what mine are. I am free to express myself, and you are free to express yourself, as long as we don't commit crimes.

And this completes a circular argument. Please go back to my response to you where I mentioned Muslims also being part of the society.

Of course they are, nobody said they were not. They have the same rights as everyone else. And just like everyone else, they do not have some sort of "right" to not be offended. If someone does something offensive, too bad, just like any other group.

 

[Linflas]

Thank you for emphasizing something obvious that routan doesn't seem to get through his condescending little replies.

A few years ago, there was an "art" display where, IIRC, there was a glass vase of full of urine and the "artist" placed a cross bearing Jesus in it. There was certainly outrage, but you didn't hear people making death threats or calling for it to be illegal. That's called a free society.

That was "Piss Christ" done by Andres Serrano. There was as much outrage that it was partially funded by money from the National Endowment for the Arts as there was regarding the subject matter.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That was "Piss Christ" done by Andres Serrano. There was as much outrage that it was partially funded by money from the National Endowment for the Arts as there was regarding the subject matter.

Exactly. I personally thought it was trash and a stupid idea, but whatever -- the guy had the right to do it, no matter how dumb it was.

 

[PJABBER]

Islam began with a handful of people. Muslims are well over a billion now, across the world. And you have tens of thousands of converts, not "by the sword" as some claim, but by learning about the religion.

The great hope for the peoples of Islam is not that they are conquered in some great conflagration, but that they are led by enlightened philosophers and leaders through the upheavals of self-reform.

Predicated on a belief in the merits of conquest and subjugation, Islam reflects the mindset of its warlord founder and his personal history of domination by means of war, not peaceful proselytizing (at which he was singularly unsuccessful.) The Koran that you look to for guidance is not a book of moral codes or an examination of man's place in the great scheme of things, it is a detailed treatise on conquest and rule. That is a difficult starting point for reform to be sure.

There are millions of Muslims that attempt to separate the theology from the call to conquest. They are held to be apostates but they continue with greater or lesser success to influence the course of Islam. Unfortunately, they are in the minority, but perhaps, with time, they will gain ascendancy and propagate a reform that is overdue by centuries.

Unless and until the self-serving leaderships of Islam reject the inhumanity of those teachings that advocate universal conquest and subjugation it will remain the responsibility of those who resist totalitarianism and theocracy to hold them at bay.

It is a great thing, the battle against intolerance and for human liberty.

 

[routan]

No, that does not logically follow from what I wrote. We can ridicule the argument all we want. Our ridicule is also protected free speech. I'm afraid you are confusing the issue of what is legally allowable with the merit of the speech itself. All ideas are legally protected here. Not all ideas are created equal in terms of their merit. No ideas are beyond ridicule and criticism.

So far as the idea itself - that drawing a religious figure should be banned - it deserves ridicule because what is being suggested is against the U.S. Constitution and it violates the most important civic value we have - that of free expression. You may notice that you have people like Craig and me agreeing with people like Pokerguy and Pjabber on this even though I tend not to agree with those guys on too many other issues. That's because free expression is generally something that Americans agree about even where they disagree about everything else. That should tell you how important this is.

And by the way, we do not only criticize Muslims for advocating the banning of speech. Anyone who argues in favor of banning speech will get ridiculed. You can find numerous examples of it on this discussion board and others, having nothing to do with Islam.

- wolf

woolfe9999, you are diverging from what i had originally stated.

Here is the breakdown in steps.

Making Death threats is a crime (which I agree with, though it is still an expression until a physical act has occured) -->

Muslims argue that pictorial representation also be a crime under international law (which is perfectly fine for them to argue and the merits be heard, as is their right) -->

the idea is not deserving of ridicule (not only because it is the right for Muslims to state their opinion but also because such idea was NOT against any constitutional provision until a relatively recent ruling - and that constitutional provisions are always going to be interpreted differently over time - which by the way is one of the best things about this country)

 

[Double Trouble]

Muslims argue that pictorial representation also be a crime under international law (which is perfectly fine for them to argue and the merits be heard, as is their right)

They are perfectly within their rights to argue that, and everyone else is perfectly within their rights to ridicule them for doing so. Arguing that someone else drawing a cartoon of whatever they want should be banned or a crime is absolutely absurd if one believes in any kind of freedom of expression.

the idea is not deserving of ridicule

Sorry, but yes it is. Someone is well within their rights to argue that the earth is flat if they want, while everyone else can ridicule them accordingly.

I don't understand how anyone of any faith could reasonably think that other people who don't share that faith should be forced by law to observe whatever limitations that faith imposes. If Catholics believe the wine and bread served during communion is actually the blood and body of Christ, that's fine, but it doesn't mean other people should be forced to treat it as anything other than wine and bread. You want to throw the wine into the toilet, that's your right, have at it.

 

[dahunan]

PokerGuy, without delving too much into the subject, the argument is not simply "hurtful to someone's feelings". Pictorial representation of Mohammad (sa) is considered sacrilegious. Sacriligeous acts were a crime in the past.

To argue for the reintroduction of this should not be morally/ethically/socially unacceptable.

Else one may also argue that a "death threat" is not really hurting anyone, as it is only a "threat", and that this should no longer be a crime.

The FREE world does not OWE your religion one god damned thing... sad that religions even exist in the first place.

A "death threat" is against A LIVING HUMAN BEING...

The fucking picture is just a god damned jumbled up bunch of pigments on paper that COULD NEVER HURT ANYONE

Religious logic makes me sick... religious people who think others should be forced to respect their silly infantile superstitions are a disease... you are sick if you think drawings should be on the same level as death threats ..

Don't look at the fucking picture if your head is gonna explode with rage when you see it

Was the dude so fucking ugly that any portrayal of him hurt his feelings?

the potential outcome of a death threat is what?
the potential outcome of drawing this dead person named Mohammed is?

^^^ in a even partially sane conversation the outcomes are
the person who received the death threat is now IN FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE MURDERED

the picture that was drawn can be crumpled up and tossed away etc.. after all it is just a piece of paper

I wish there was some way to protect the worlds children from religion... our future as a species seems to almost depend on getting rid of religion... just look at israel and iran etc.. people talk about wanting them to use nukes against each other... etc..

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

The FREE world does not OWE your religion one god damned thing

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[routan]

The FREE world does not OWE your religion one god damned thing... sad that religions even exist in the first place.

dahunan, so what you are trying to suggest is that MY religion and the FREE world cannot coexist or are incompatible ideals?

uh, right on bud. I see a pattern of this recurring debating style, just throw a philosophical ideals such as "FREE world" and proclaim that the other view point does not exist, because of course, nothing can better than "FREE world"

 

[PJABBER]

dahunan, so what you are trying to suggest is that MY religion and the FREE world cannot coexist or are incompatible ideals?

uh, right on bud. I see a pattern of this recurring debating style, just throw a philosophical ideals such as "FREE world" and proclaim that the other view point does not exist, because of course, nothing can better than "FREE world"

Totalitarian theocracy is the antithesis of a "FREE world."

When Islam decouples all elements of conquest, political/societal governance, believer vs. kafir class warfare/subjugation, intolerance of diversity, the institutionalized lying of taqiyya and pervasive misogyny from whatever "religious" aspects remain, then we can consider it has entered into partnership with an enlightened and modern "FREE world."

Like I said, it is not going to be change from without, but from within, that accomplishes this kind of reformation. Likely, or not?

 

[zsdersw]

I don't associate any religion with the word "freedom". They, like governments, are all just systems of control.

Secular governments don't hold the threat of "an eternity in hell" over everyone's heads, though, which is why they're the preferred system of control.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

dahunan, so what you are trying to suggest is that MY religion and the FREE world cannot coexist or are incompatible ideals?

Play much?

He said no such thing. What he said is that the free world owes your religion (and the other religions as well, by extension) no special treatment. And he is absolutely, 100% correct. If I want to draw Mohammed all day long, I can, and I will, and you will just need to get over it. You can object and say it hurts your feelings all you want, and that's fine. It is when people start making death threats that it crosses the line. When cowards want this form of freedom of expression outlawed, that is when we must stand up.

uh, right on bud. I see a pattern of this recurring debating style, just throw a philosophical ideals such as "FREE world" and proclaim that the other view point does not exist, because of course, nothing can better than "FREE world"

I see a pattern too, and it is absurd arguments from you ranging from "it makes Muslims angry" to the new pearl of wisdom, "sacrilegious acts were crimes in the past" (and yes, I paraphrased those arguments). So what if those things were criminal in the past? We're talking about the present, and if people drawing Mohammed offends you, you're welcome to go somewhere more suited to your liking. The same with Christians who might be offended if someone defaces a Jesus statue. Otherwise, while you're in the United States, you're free to make your objections known but when things like death threats occur, it crosses the line.

 

[pcgeek11]

But she crossed the line kind of like Building a Mosque near the site where Muslim extremist murdered thousands of innocent people .. oh wait...

Fuckin extremist pieces of shit.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't agree with extremists but at the same time most simply don't have the backbones to support the media/online battles they start.

 

[Jaskalas]

Tell that to the cities that don't display christmas trees at the mall or airports anymore.

Tell that to the companies who now have Holiday parties instead of Christmas parties.

Tell that to the retail employees who have been instructed by their managers to say Happy Holidays to not offend their customers.

You are a moron with your head in the sand who doesn't live in the real world...Why don't you try your macho shit at your job and see how long you last with your HR department tough guy and let us know what happens...

I'm quite sure that in another 10 years, young adults will have absolutely no clue as to what you're referring to. It'll be as ancient history to them as the founding of this nation.

They will not miss what they never had.

 

[routan]

Play much?

He said no such thing. What he said is that the free world owes your religion (and the other religions as well, by extension) no special treatment. And he is absolutely, 100% correct. If I want to draw Mohammed all day long, I can, and I will, and you will just need to get over it. You can object and say it hurts your feelings all you want, and that's fine. It is when people start making death threats that it crosses the line. When cowards want this form of freedom of expression outlawed, that is when we must stand up.

I see a pattern too, and it is absurd arguments from you ranging from "it makes Muslims angry" to the new pearl of wisdom, "sacrilegious acts were crimes in the past" (and yes, I paraphrased those arguments). So what if those things were criminal in the past? We're talking about the present, and if people drawing Mohammed offends you, you're welcome to go somewhere more suited to your liking. The same with Christians who might be offended if someone defaces a Jesus statue. Otherwise, while you're in the United States, you're free to make your objections known but when things like death threats occur, it crosses the line.

IndyColtsFan, your post is just a repitition of what was said before and replied to before.

No one - including myself - asked for anything from the "FREE world". Posters like you acting as the bastion of the "FREE world" is nonsensical. I am part of this "FREE world" and my religion and this ideal are not incompatible. So regurgitating the same speech serves no purpose and is not even a point to make.

With respect to sacrilegious speech, I brought forth the point to highlight that such was outlawed in the past, and people have the right to argue this point. No one, including "FREE world" banner wavers like yourself can restrict this right of people to make this claim. If you dont like this right, you are free to go to a totalitarian country where people do not have civil rights.

Mixing up the "death threats" with civil rights is but a weak attempt to grasp a higher moral ground. I made no attempts to make these into equals.

 

[LumbergTech]

woolfe9999, you are diverging from what i had originally stated.

Here is the breakdown in steps.

Making Death threats is a crime (which I agree with, though it is still an expression until a physical act has occured) -->

Muslims argue that pictorial representation also be a crime under international law (which is perfectly fine for them to argue and the merits be heard, as is their right) -->

the idea is not deserving of ridicule (not only because it is the right for Muslims to state their opinion but also because such idea was NOT against any constitutional provision until a relatively recent ruling - and that constitutional provisions are always going to be interpreted differently over time - which by the way is one of the best things about this country)

the idea is deserving of ridicule..its ridiculous.

to say that making fun of a religion equates to a death threat is beyond nut job status

i would feel perfectly fine saying that most muslims are equally good to the average person around the globe, but if you have a problem with people making fun of you..you are in for a lot of frustration...

No one is singling out islam to mock, I think all religion has nutty aspects to it...Islam is just getting a lot of focus because of current world events

 

[alkemyst]

you guys realize that those outside our country are not governed by our laws. Those that live within believe their religious laws trump all others.

 

[Zebo]

Sadly, the freedoms of this country are slowing disappearing...Molly should not have to fear for her life because she opposes the ideology of another religion (which isn't even the reason why she started this)...

It started with not being able to say Merry Christmas or having a Christmas party for fear of 'offending' someone (which is total bullshit IMO)...only time will tell where this will lead...

Christians need to start killing people again like in the dark ages if they want power. Might makes right, or reality, always has always will. Something Islam has not forgotten.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Well now that we have a Muslim President it's not unreasonable to assume that he greenlighted a government sponsored hit on this woman.