- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Not really Anglo because their views on those issues that Kobie mentioned (Islam's horrendous treatment of women, the preponderance of extremism and anti-Semitism among many Muslims, and this ridiculous idea that drawing a picture of a dude is literally the worst thing you can do) are simply beyond repulsive and deserve no respect whatsoever.
Take Pamela Geller for another example. She's the same as the WBC nutters. She isn't violent. She's a full blown, fair dinkum, right-wing extremist nutjob that should have the freedom to hold her "family day" gatherings without being attacked by extremists on the other side of the fence, but she certainly does not deserve any respect.
Or from those who value Mattthew 17:27.
But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours
The admonition of Jesus against giving needless offense (and thereby engaging in avoidable confrontations) is still very valid. It clearly applies in this situation (even if most, if not all of the cartoon contestants were secular).
Speaking of Pam Geller, that shrill bigot was just on CNN a couple minutes ago. She referred to her little Muhammad cartoon contest as a "free speech event."
I don't buy for a moment that this gathering of nimrods was intended to further free speech in America. This was a giant "F you, Muslims" party, and while that does not deserve to be met with violence, that doesn't mean Geller and her flying monkeys aren't douchebags.
The world is full of obnoxious people holding obnoxious views. That is called freedom. I don't care much for the alternative.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
Selective bible quotations don't really contribute much. But of course I do subscribe to the injunction not to cause unneccessary offense. but i don't feel that I should impose my religious or philosophical views, let alone my taste, on everybody else.
If you look at the shooting and your first impulse is to criticize free speech, you are a HUGE part of what is wrong with America.
Matthew 17:27 clearly applies- giving needless offense (and risking avoidable confrontations) is something to be well..... avoided.
That aside, I agree about the principal forbidding the imposition of taste in a democratic society. That still does not change the applicability of Matthew 17:27 in this case.
I value free speech and Matthew 17:27.
Therefore, my criticism is not against free speech, but against those who see no value in avoiding needless offense. Please note, Matthew 17:27 forbids causing "needless offense", not "all offense".
Are you a big fan of Matthew 10:34 too?
Take Pamela Geller for another example. She's the same as the WBC nutters. She isn't violent. She's a full blown, fair dinkum, right-wing extremist nutjob that should have the freedom to hold her "family day" gatherings without being attacked by extremists on the other side of the fence, but she certainly does not deserve any respect.
What is that one, for those of us less biblically inclined?
Sounds like it was a Pamela Geller event
I don't buy for a moment that this gathering of nimrods was intended to further free speech in America. This was a giant "F you, Muslims" party, and while that does not deserve to be met with violence, that doesn't mean Geller and her flying monkeys aren't douchebags.
Are you a big fan of Matthew 10:34 too?
I'm all for free speech but, don't agree with openly disparaging other people's religion.
This seems like someone was using this event as bait for terrorists.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Yes, but (and yes, there is a but)....
Anytime Jesus brought a "sword" (teaching designed to provoke), it was for a distinct purpose. Usually this involved salvation. A distinct purpose, let alone a salvific purpose, is something that this event lacks.
No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean that people who don't like what she's doing have the right to shoot at people.
/facepalm
Thanks to those who provided links to the story, btw.
Yes, we are fortunate enough to live in a country where freedom of speech is allowed; however, freedom from consequence is not allowed. WTF were these idiots thinking? "Gee, it would be fun to entice angry Muslims to come and try to kill us while we mock them?" Thankfully, it wasn't worse... but I can't imagine why anyone would think such an in-your-face outrage would be a swell idea.
Pretty sure you should be free from getting shot at for drawling Mohamed
The whole point about freedom of speech is that you don't have to agree with it.
And nothing or nobody is "bait for terrorists".
I think the outcome of this event was quite satisfactory. We need to have more like this.
No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean that people who don't like what she's doing have the right to shoot at people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?