If you want to tick off Muslims, don't expect my sympathy.

Maybe 6 million Jews wouldn't have been slaughtered during the holocaust if they had realized before hand they were about to be slaughtered. Enlightenment was gained by this. Not for everyone apparently but it's difficult to enlighten an entire planet all at once.

If you acquiesce to a foe that wishes you dead you die. Shouldn't be a hard lesson to learn. There's historical evidence to back it up.

BTW msnbc mocks conservatives quite frequently. Should conservatives go machine gunning over at msnbc in your new world?
I don't want to bow to Muslims or any other group just because they wish me dead. Get off your knees and face the responsibility of truth.

 

Don't you mean if you if you want to tick off "radical islam"? Leftists have routinely stated for years including Obama that Muslims are peaceful people. Your Freudian Slip is very interesting indeed.

 

I was just about to post this before I saw your post.


I don't often agree with Bill Maher.... but on this one he's right. I still see his hatred of all religion coming out, and as a Christian, I'm ok with that as this is what I'm talking about.

Channe says we should stop inciting the muslims or he won't feel sorry for you and your family when they blow you up or shoot you execution style

Bill Maher bashes Christianity as much as anyone else.... but yet, for some reason, Channe is ok with that and hasn't demanded he stop "inciting the Christians"

he suggests we appease the radicals or he won't feel sorry for you if you die at their hands.


Well, let Bill Maher speak.... let him bash Christians like he bashes all the other religions. As a Christian, it's fine. I had no problem blaming Timothy McVeigh and didn't suggest the victims were provoking him by excercising their freedom of speech and choice.

Channe is like millions of Muslims who may not actually pull off an attack like this... but he will sit quietly back and say "you got what you deserved" and then carry on with his life.


When McVeigh pulled off his attack.... moderate Christians did not do the same thing.


Very telling about Channe

 

Channe

So let me get this straight. If any normal person dare to criticize murdering muslim terrorist for chopping the heads off their "enemies" everyone else should stand by and be silent so not to (*)(*)(*)(*) off these animals. Is that what you are saying here.

 

The same folks who say it's perfectly acceptable to show a cartoon image of a religious figure in an obscene pose would rage against someone desecrating the flag or something they hold as sacred.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

The French magazine is a rag that does not further any sort of discussion...it's the equivalent of a radio shock jock. It goes for the lowest common denominator to get a cheap laugh at the expense of someone else's culture.

If nothing is sacred, than the Nihilists are correct...
Life is essentially absurd.

 

Democrats make fun of Christians all the time. Heck, making fun of Jesus seems to be a democrat national pass time.

Bill Mahr made an entire movie about making fun of Christians.

the difference is Christians forgive, and muslims assassinate.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/(*)(*)(*)(*)_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-(*)(*)(*)(*)_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg[img]

here's a perfect example... I'm sure Channe wouldn't feel sorry for the artist if 3 radicals stormed his home and killed him.... because after all, he poked the bear ......



Liberals are quick to apologize and take away freedoms for Muslims, but not when people mock Christians.


My opinion is neither should lead to restirctions in freedom.


EDIT - can't link the picture because the Peeing word is censored.

to Channe and other apologists....
It's apparently art when you mock Christian faith by displaying a crucifix in a jar of your urine....
it's apparently provoking Muslims when you draw a cartoon picture of Muhammad

 

This kind of discussion is only appropriate outside the context of the discussion we are currently having about Islamist terrorism. I don't care how offensive or trashy the cartoons are. These men were not merely the target of some benign boycott. THEY WERE KILLED by religious extremists who refuse to acknowledge any rights or the sanctity of human life. If you wish to be an art critic, save it for another day. Today is not that day.

 

Bill Mahre has mad a career of that. or is that ok since you agree with him.

 

After giving it some thought, I need to apologize for this poorly titled thread and poorly defended position. What my thread should say is, "If you want to intentionally provoke Muslim radicals, don't expect my support."

I am a firm believer in and defender of Free Speech and Free Press. My purpose of thread was to discuss what I believed was the unnecessary illustrations which cause more harm than good. Again, my apologies on the poorly worded thread title and position.

 

The sanctity of human life?

The act of murder is the ultimate satirical act...

On what basis is human life sacred or worthy of being sanctified?

Because you say so?

What is the difference between you saying so, and a Moslem saying that Allah says so.

So I'm asking a serious question.

If nothing is held sacred, or given respect...why should life itself be given any?

What makes life...organic life...worthy of sanctification?

If we're going to have a serious discussion on satirical content and holding a magazine like Charles Hebdo accountable for holding nothing sacred. What the terrorists did could be seen as the ultimate form of artistry and existential truth.

Life itself...holds no inherent sacredness.

The magazine contributed to it's own demise by furthering the collapse of civilization by destroying any attempts at valuation.

As I said...Life becomes absurd if nothing is sacred. Life itself would not be deserving of any respect or sanctifiication if this were true.

I am not Hindu, or Buddhist or Moslem...but I respect the diginty of faith. If one goes about destroying the diginity of cultural beliefs...then don't be surprised when life itself is regarded as valueless and cheap.

 

is Pis christ intentionally provoking Christians? if someone attacks that artist, will you not support him


what if someone attacks Mahrer.... would you say he got what was coming to him?

 

I do not support any attack on Free Speech. No one deserves to be physically attacked for their words in a country with Free Speech. But that does not mean I must support what is said. Would you be angry if someone beat up the Westboro church people ?

 

yes, because words do not justify violence.... all it says is if you are stronger, your opinion is more right.

I don't agree with their speech.... but they should be allowed to say it and not fear violence by people who don't agree.

 

Let's take a different approach to this debate: Consider for a few minutes why Charlie Hebdo chose to publish satirical material about religion (in this case Islam). Think about this. The OP theorizes that the killers were provoked and that the cartoonists deserve no sympathy but wouldn't the corollary of this be that the Islamists following their violent doctrine for many decades (centuries in fact) actually be the original and far more important provocation?? The cartoonists would have no material to work with if Islam REALLY WAS a religion of peace and there was no terrorism. There would literally be no reason for these offensive editorial cartoons and even if a few jerks decided to publish obnoxious material trashing the religion, they would be perfectly alive and well and we'd all be free to debate the merits of such satire. Instead we are reacting to killers following irrational commands from a non existent God that demands worship at the price of life itself.

 

I used the wrong word - I meant support, not sympathy. I apologized for it above.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you and I are in agreement and the mistake was mine due to poor wording

 

I would SUPPORT Bill Mahrer if a radical Christian attacked him and I can't stand Bill Mahrer....

I support abortion clinics when they get bombed by radical Chistians, despite not agreeing with abortion...

this very magazine in France just recently made fun of Christians the past december, but I will support them in this incident or if a radical Christian attacked them.

I will not support any legislation designed to prevent any of my above examples from doing what they do based on "we don't want to provoke anyone, so YOU need to stop doing the stuff you're doing"

- - - Updated - - -

poor wording = my opinion wasn't as popular as I once thought.... so I will backpedal and damage control

 

MS

I just don't feel these illustrations do the public any good. If it resulted in debate and an end to radical Islam I would support.

I do support their right to do it, I just don't support what they're doing.

 

entertainment and comedy isn't SUPPOSED to stimulate debate.... it's supposed to be entertaining.


I don't think that stupid Seth Rogan movie about North Korea serves any real purpose either.... but I'll be damned if I think we should start having hollywood get govt approval before they can make a movie

 

They are already infuriated or they wouldn't be radicals.

 

Wanting to reword my title to more accurately fit the views I believe in is NOT damage control or back peddling. You are being very cynical and mean spirited in tone. I am done discussing with you. Ignore list.

 

How many newspapers have printed mockeries of Islam?
What % of those experience a violent attack?
Given that the figure is probably less then 1%, why would these cartoonists expect death in a modern Western country?
So why would you not have sympathy for those who were killed in a very unlikely event for drawing a cartoon?

Your argument seems to be especially stupid.

 

I'm not advocating censorship. I am acknowledging that we are at war. And when your nation is at war, sometimes you should self censor, if that would provide an advantage to winning the war. For example, the 2 months straight coverage of the Abu Graib scandal did not serve our interests in winning the Iraq war. Yes, the mass media had the right to do it. But if they were truly interested in winning and ending the war, should they have, or should they have made it front page for 2 months? No. Hollywood has the right to make whatever movies it wants. But should they release only movies that portray Americans as invaders or imperialists, and zero patriotic movies during wartime? No. Wars are not won by just sending your troops off somewhere while the rest of the nation does business as usual without altering their behavior whatsoever. Businesses and CEO's should make an effort to ensure their dealings don't give an advantage to our enemy. Do they have a right to do business wherever and however they want? Yes. Should they not do so in order to help their country win? Yes. Did Ford have a right to conduct business however they pleased during WWII? Yes, they should have that. But should they retool their plants to make tanks, so that it might help their nation win and end the war? Of course.

During wartime, citizens have different responsibilities, and to be a true patriot, one should take on those responsibilities without the government forcing one to. That's all I'm saying.