The Disappearance of Molly Norris

[alphadogg]

That is entirely different than what we are talking about here with Molly Norris.

"Entirely different"?!? The beauty of irrationality is how one can twist facts liberally with lots of well-placed hyperbole to support any viewpoint. To sum:

- Molly puts a tactless picture of Mohammed out, even calls for a day of specifically disrespecting some belief Muslims hold dearest. A cleric calls out for her death. Many other Muslims probably move on with life. But, because of radicals, she hides from the public. Career over.
- Sinead rips a picture of the Pope. Many call for her death. Most Catholics huff and puff, then likewise move on with life. But, because of people with strongly-held views, she must hide from the public eye too. Career over.

Remind me again how they differ (without splitting hairs)?

 

[PokerGuy]

Are you familiar with a thing called Google?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sinead+o'conner+death+threats

(Of course, I would have called the site "Do Your Own F**king Research!")

Sorry you can't deal with the idea that other groups than Muslims can be just as insane. Or, said differently, pot, meet kettle.

BTW, any of you up for a re-showing of "The Last Temptation Of Christ"?

Fail poster is fail. One, you spelled O'Connor wrong. Two, the links show death threats not from Catholics angry over her actions towards Catholicism, but by other groups for other reasons. Try again.

 

[routan]

"Hurtful to someone's feelings" is not and never has been a valid reason to supersede the freedom of expression. If someone doesn't like it, too bad for them. Threats are not like saying something that might hurt someone's feelings, it's something different altogether, and are therefore a crime in an of themselves, regardless of the reason.

Logic fail. Freedom of expression means you are free to express anything no matter who's feelings it hurts or if anyone likes it or is offended or not, as long as you are not committing any crimes in the process. Threatening someone is a crime.

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.

 

[PJABBER]

Pjabber, you can review the report on the 645 incidents, here's a link about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Hate_crimes

I took a quick look at your link's source documents and the most comprehensive one was the SAALT report. Their conclusion, based on a review of press coverage through a comprehensive Lexis-Nexis search and other press reviews, was that out of 645 incidents that may be immediate reactions to the 9/11 attacks, harassment and threats were the most common form of bias incidents, making up more than two-thirds of all reported incidents. Over the seven day period, such incidents were mostly reported on 9/11 and then fell off substantially on each successive day.

Weapons were used in 27 cases and vehicular assault occurred in five cases. They believe that 52 acts of violence can be documented, including nine shootings and three shooting deaths. Strangely, the employees of Muslim owned businesses accounted for 25% of all reported assaults and all three of the shooting deaths.

So, we can see there was a backlash, though a surprisingly limited one, when one compares the prevalence of race riots, etc. in this nations history.

While all such incidents are deplorable, particularly when innocent people are targeted, is this immediate reaction in any way comparable to the ongoing Islamist violence around the world?

None of it is excusable, but perhaps to point at the splinter in our eye when our enemies have logs in theirs is just a bit trite.

 

[routan]

This thread is reminding me of the outrage Christians expressed when a famous singer, Sinead O'Connor, once ripped up a pic of the Pope on national TV back in the early 90s. Frank Sinatra, not a cleric but perhaps more popular, was quoted as saying he wanted to punch her right in the mouth. NBC has completely censored that moment in history. The only way to know of it now is , dare I say, traditional oral history.

Yeah, only Muslims are nuts...

+1

 

[Craig234]

I took a quick look at your link's source documents and the most comprehensive one was the SAALT report. Their conclusion, based on a review of press coverage through a comprehensive Lexis-Nexis search and other press reviews, was that out of 645 incidents that may be immediate reactions to the 9/11 attacks, harassment and threats were the most common form of bias incidents, making up more than two-thirds of all reported incidents. Over the seven day period, such incidents were mostly reported on 9/11 and then fell off substantially on each successive day.

Weapons were used in 27 cases and vehicular assault occurred in five cases. They believe that 52 acts of violence can be documented, including nine shootings and three shooting deaths. Strangely, the employees of Muslim owned businesses accounted for 25% of all reported assaults and all three of the shooting deaths.

So, we can see there was a backlash, though a surprisingly limited one, when one compares the prevalence of race riots, etc. in this nations history.

While all such incidents are deplorable, particularly when innocent people are targeted, is this immediate reaction in any way comparable to the ongoing Islamist violence around the world?

None of it is excusable, but perhaps to point at the splinter in our eye when our enemies have logs in theirs is just a bit trite.

Predictably, you change the topic from what it was, that the federal government can't practically prevent hate crimes against either side, into an anti-Muslim rant.

Since you want to broaden the topic, broaden it to violence committed by the US versus violence committed by Muslim countries. How many have each killed?

Don't forget to include two million in Vietnam, nor a million Iranian casualties in the war we encouraged secular leader Saddam Hussein to launch against them. Who's violent?

 

[PJABBER]

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.

LOL, there we go again, routan advocating for totalitarian theocracy and the imposition/acceptance of Islamist sharia in the United States.

That Islamists hold something to be sacrilegious and "illegal" does not mean the rest of us need to adapt our societies to their sensibilities.

This country, and most every democratic nation around the world, do not believe that theocracy offers a better system of government than the one they have.

If you cannot tolerate a secular state there are any number of totalitarian theocracies where you can feel right at home.

 

[routan]

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with Muslims wanting their religious preference against illustrations of Mohammed to be law?

Of course there is. It is against freedom of expression.

In the early days of our country, we had an issue with this. Our second President enjoyed a law Congress passed that made any speech that was 'degrading' to him a crime.

Many political opponents were put in jail for this. Jefferson, his successor, disagreed and ran on a platform to repeal the law, which he did, and it's stayed mostly repealed since.

Now, to digress, there are still laws on the books that aren't enforced, but once were, making things like speech undermining a war ('it's wrong') a crime. They're wrong.

With Muslims, it's an issue of respect for them as people not to publish drawings of Mohammed, but it's a free speech right to do so.

You can march outside the NAACP offices with signs saying 'go back to africa' and the n word, too, and it's also an issue of respecting the people not to do so.

Really, the only reason to publish images of Mohammed is to antagonize or express hate for Muslims mostly, with one exception, to simply 'exercise' free speech, protest violence.

In other words, there is a point to the 'draw Mohammed' days besides hate - it's to say in the face of people who threaten violence, that that won't be tolerated.

It's an act of courage, of defending free speech, in that one case IMO.

There's a sort of tension - normally, it's best not to do it. But the two sides feed on each other - the more people want to do it, the more extreme and violent some people become in response, and the more violent the opposition, the more people want to oppose the violence by exercising the right.

One thing forgotten in this is why the practice was prohibited by Mohammed in the first place. If that were better understood, it might help. I asked before, no one said they knew.

Craig234, you are confusing issues. This is not a matter of positive or negative publicity of Mohammad (sa). Any pictorial represenation is prohibited.

It is not a matter of respect either, its a subject of sacrilege.

And lastly, please allow me to respond to your question. I dont believe it was ever addressed to me.

Islam has an immensely strong belief in monotheism. Pictorial representation of a human who was a religious figure may result in idolatory, which is a super big no in Islam.

This concept is so fiercely protected that a lot of historical buildings/items in Saudi Arabia belonging to Mohammad (sa) and his companions were taken down. A Muslim is not even supposed to pray to Mohammad (sa) when he/she visits his grave. You have to turn around to pray to God.

 

[routan]

LOL, there we go again, routan advocating for totalitarian theocracy and the imposition/acceptance of Islamist sharia in the United States.

That Islamists hold something to be sacrilegious and "illegal" does not mean the rest of us need to adapt our societies to their sensibilities.

This country, and most every democratic nation around the world, do not believe that theocracy offers a better system of government than the one they have.

If you cannot tolerate a secular state there are any number of totalitarian theocracies where you can feel right at home.

PJABBER, LOL, I am delighted at the fearful life you live, with Muslims "taking" over the Western world and pushing for "Sharia" and "Islamic theocracy".

I bet you piss your pants you see a brown guy with a beard walking around, and have gut wrenching heaves reading anti-Islam article.

Live in fear. Hopefully Darwin was right and the next generation wont see perverted minds like yours.

 

[PJABBER]

Predictably, you change the topic from what it was, that the federal government can't practically prevent hate crimes against either side, into an anti-Muslim rant.

Actually, in western democracies it seems like "hate" crimes ARE effectively controlled/prevented, as can readily be seen by the very moderate incidence of such acts even in the immediacy of the horrific Islamist violence of 9/11.

I argue that in places where there is totalitarianism, and more specifically Islamic theocracy these days, that hate crimes are rampant and institutionalized. After all, totalitarian regimes tend to live only under conditions of real or manufactured stress, ie imminent attack by enemies, us against the world mentality, the superiority of our race/religion/tribe, the glory days of the 14th century, etc.

I find it laughable that those who claim to be the most tolerant are spending their time defending the most intolerant while criticizing those who are the most tolerant. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

 

[PokerGuy]

Sacriligeous acts were a crime in the past.

I'm not aware of any such things in the US being a crime. Offending someone is not a crime. Saying something they might not like is not a crime. Drawing someone is not a crime, even if some group doesn't like it.

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

It IS unacceptable for anyone who values freedom. Freedom of speech should NEVER be restricted because someone doesn't like what is said. That's the core of freedom.

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.

Threatening someone is itself a crime, regardless of whether someone actually physically hurts someone.

I guess that's why freedom of speech is under siege in this country , there are lots of people who want freedom of speech only as long as they like what that speech is.

 

[routan]

I'm not aware of any such things in the US being a crime. Offending someone is not a crime. Saying something they might not like is not a crime. Drawing someone is not a crime, even if some group doesn't like it.

It IS unacceptable for anyone who values freedom. Freedom of speech should NEVER be restricted because someone doesn't like what is said. That's the core of freedom.

Threatening someone is itself a crime, regardless of whether someone actually physically hurts someone.

I guess that's why freedom of speech is under siege in this country , there are lots of people who want freedom of speech only as long as they like what that speech is.

PokerGuy, do some research.

It IS unacceptable because...? I see, I should find it unacceptable because I value freedom. What a hyperbole.

It is a crime because...? I see, because you have no answer, you just state the obvious.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

I'm confused Routan. You argued in your "Muslim's perspective" thread that the act was hurtful but that you thought it should NOT be outlawed because it was free expression. Are you now arguing that it SHOULD be outlawed?

- wolf

 

[routan]

I'm confused Routan. You argued in your "Muslim's perspective" thread that the act was hurtful but that you thought it should NOT be outlawed because it was free expression. Are you now arguing that it SHOULD be outlawed?

- wolf

woolfe9999, the opinion I cited in the other thread was my personal opinion, and also requested my fellow Americas to observe some form of civility and decorum.

I am not supporting the outlaw, but as I said in my first post, the argument that it is outlawed should not be ridiculed or considered unacceptable:

Muslims argue that this form of expression is or should be beyond established limits.

Why should that argument also be ridiculed or considered to be something morally/ethically/socially unacceptable?

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy, do some research.

It IS unacceptable because...? I see, I should find it unacceptable because I value freedom. What a hyperbole.

Correct, it is unacceptable to anyone who values freedom to have the freedom restricted just because someone doesn't like what is expressed or it somehow conflicts with their nutty beliefs.

It is a crime because...? I see, because you have no answer, you just state the obvious.

Are you logic impaired? It is a crime because society says it is. That's how a free society works. Society decides what is a crime, subject to constitutional review to make sure constitutional rights are not infringed. If need be society can change the constitution if it so chooses.

 

[PokerGuy]

the argument that it is outlawed should not be ridiculed or considered unacceptable:

Yes, it should indeed be ridiculed and considered unacceptable because it clearly shows that the person espousing such a view does not believe in freedom and is an idiot.

 

[woolfe9999]

woolfe9999, the opinion I cited in the other thread was my personal opinion, and also requested my fellow Americas to observe some form of civility and decorum.

I am not supporting the outlaw, but as I said in my first post, the argument that it is outlawed should not be ridiculed or considered unacceptable:

The "argument" isn't "unacceptable" because the argument is itself a form of free expression. However, the "argument" is totally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and our American value system. We do NOT ban speech here because it is upsetting. They may do that back in the middle east or other parts of the developing world. They may occasionally do that in Europe. We do not do that here. Sorry.

- wolf

 

[routan]

Correct, it is unacceptable to anyone who values freedom to have the freedom restricted just because someone doesn't like what is expressed or it somehow conflicts with their nutty beliefs.



Are you logic impaired? It is a crime because society says it is. That's how a free society works. Society decides what is a crime, subject to constitutional review to make sure constitutional rights are not infringed. If need be society can change the constitution if it so chooses.

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

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

You add nothing at all of substance, and just repeat the same thing over and over again, with the intent of repeating it as many times as it takes to make it into an absolute, haha.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

PokerGuy, do some research.

It IS unacceptable because...? I see, I should find it unacceptable because I value freedom. What a hyperbole.

PokerGuy is right. Since when is something illegal because it hurts someone's feelings or goes against their beliefs?

Look, if you're offended when someone draws Mohammed, it's your right to express your displeasure via your right of free speech/expression. That includes protests, writing letters, speaking on the matter, etc. Making death threats is NOT protected, nor is it civilized, speech.

Devout Christians think Jesus Christ is the one true savior. Using your logic, I suppose we should make it illegal for anyone to say otherwise. Correct? That would legally drop Mohammed to second banana status. Would you find that offensive? Yes? Funny how it works when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

 

[PJABBER]

PJABBER, LOL, I am delighted at the fearful life you live, with Muslims "taking" over the Western world and pushing for "Sharia" and "Islamic theocracy".

I bet you piss your pants you see a brown guy with a beard walking around, and have gut wrenching heaves reading anti-Islam article.

Live in fear. Hopefully Darwin was right and the next generation wont see perverted minds like yours.

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 lift 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.

 

[zsdersw]

If you don't like the traditions that have already been ESTABLISHED in this country long before you were born and before these immigrants today got all offended, then you can kindly GTFO and let the majority of this country celebrate Christmas the same way they did when they were kids and the way their parents and grand parents did.

Do you think any other country will take down their holiday symbols if you or I moved there? Since you dont mind missing out on your holiday traditions, why don't you do this country a favor and go find out.

You're entirely in the wrong on this issue. Every post in this thread about the purported "war on Christmas" has been idiotic.

Consider the following:

1.) Traditions are not automatically constitutional just because they're traditions.

2.) Private employers can make whatever rules for employee conduct/attire they want. The employee, in turn, can decide if he/she wants to follow those rules or find another job.

3.) The "war on Christmas" is a farce created by a few whiny people who obviously don't have enough real problems to deal with.

4.) I'm of no religion at all and I still call it "Christmas" and say "Merry Christmas". I don't at all care if someone says it back or instead says "Happy Holidays". With the exception of religion, this is how most people act and react.

 

[routan]

The "argument" isn't "unacceptable" because the argument is itself a form of free expression. However, the "argument" is totally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and our American value system. We do NOT ban speech here because it is upsetting. They may do that back in the middle east or other parts of the developing world. They may occasionally do that in Europe. We do not do that here. Sorry.

- wolf

woolfe9999, I am not speaking of the validity of the argument. Going by what you said above, no one should start ridiculing the argument, instead they should support it as an "expression of fair speech". Unless ofcourse, the only support AT bigots would give is to those who solely speak against Islam. And ridicule those who speak in favor of Islam. 😵

 

[routan]

PokerGuy is right. Since when is something illegal because it hurts someone's feelings or goes against their beliefs?

Look, if you're offended when someone draws Mohammed, it's your right to express your displeasure via your right of free speech/expression. That includes protests, writing letters, speaking on the matter, etc. Making death threats is NOT protected, nor is it civilized, speech.

Devout Christians think Jesus Christ is the one true savior. Using your logic, I suppose we should make it illegal for anyone to say otherwise. Correct? That would legally drop Mohammed to second banana status. Would you find that offensive? Yes? Funny how it works when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

IndyColtsFan, Google sacrilege law. See when it was struck down from US lawbooks.

Seriously I would expect AT members to do SOME reading/research on their own.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

IndyColtsFan, Google sacrilege law. See when it was struck down from US lawbooks.

Seriously I would expect AT members to do SOME reading/research on their own.

We're not discussing the past. We're discussing now. I don't really care when they were struck down -- they were wrong to begin with.

I would expect you to use some common sense here.

 

[alphadogg]

Fail poster is fail. One, you spelled O'Connor wrong. Two, the links show death threats not from Catholics angry over her actions towards Catholicism, but by other groups for other reasons. Try again.

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