Shooting at Mohammed "art" contest

[ACamp1900]

Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.

.

 

[GoldenDome]

These morons are victims of their stupidity, albeit still victims.

Imagine a Hispanic yelling "nigger" in a predominantly African American neighborhood. Obviously violence would ensue. Is the Hispanic a victim of his own stupidity? It is clear that yelling "nigger" is immoral, but protected due to constitutionality.

Same would apply with called a mentally challenged person "fuckin retard" to that person's face. Obviously offensive and many would deem hateful and wrong.

To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak.

Here is another instance. How about calling a person with a disability a "fuckin cripple" to their face in a crowd?

Obviously the victim, mainly due to their own stupidity.

When 9/11 happened, I saw a guy holding a sign that said "God caused 9/11" and two white guys went up to him and smashed his face in. At the time it was a very sensitive topic and many got offended. How is this any different? BTW, everyone cheered the two guys for smashing his face in. Double standard?

 

[greyhammer90]

These morons are victims of their stupidity, albeit still victims.

Well, yeah.

Imagine a Hispanic yelling "nigger" in a predominantly African American neighborhood. Obviously violence would ensue. Is the Hispanic a victim of his own stupidity? It is clear that yelling "nigger" is immoral, but protected due to constitutionality.

Same would apply with called a mentally challenged person "fuckin retard" to that person's face. Obviously offensive and many would deem hateful and wrong.

The difference between putting together a townhall gathering and fighting words has been discussed in this thread ad nauseam.

To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak.

The parallel is made because the logic is nearly identical. Don't blame the person who did the horrible illegal act, blame the person who "invited" the act by expressing himself/herself.

Here is another instance. How about calling a person with a disability a "fuckin cripple" to their face in a crowd?

Same thing as above. Classic fighting words, not protected. This isn't that hard.

When 9/11 happened, I saw a guy holding a sign that said "God caused 9/11" and two white guys went up to him and smashed his face in. At the time it was a very sensitive topic and many got offended. How is this any different? BTW, everyone cheered the two guys for smashing his face in. Double standard?

It would be if any of us were in that crowd. But we weren't. I probably would've booed the guy holding the sign (because that's me speaking my opinion, which is fine), but if you physically attack a guy for peacefully holding up a sign it means you're probably a bully/a douche/immature as fuck and deserve to be arrested.

 

[connor_in]

These morons are victims of their stupidity, albeit still victims.

Imagine a Hispanic yelling "nigger" in a predominantly African American neighborhood. Obviously violence would ensue. Is the Hispanic a victim of his own stupidity? It is clear that yelling "nigger" is immoral, but protected due to constitutionality.

Same would apply with called a mentally challenged person "fuckin retard" to that person's face. Obviously offensive and many would deem hateful and wrong.

To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak.

Here is another instance. How about calling a person with a disability a "fuckin cripple" to their face in a crowd?

Obviously the victim, mainly due to their own stupidity.

When 9/11 happened, I saw a guy holding a sign that said "God caused 9/11" and two white guys went up to him and smashed his face in. At the time it was a very sensitive topic and many got offended. How is this any different? BTW, everyone cheered the two guys for smashing his face in. Double standard?

Actually, your examples are flawed. In the bolded above, you are using "fighting words" examples. I believe the "fighting words" idea generally requires face-to-face confrontations. This situation was one where they rented a hall in a hotel in a city. They were not walking down the streets of a heavily Muslim neighborhood.

I also take issue with your statement, "To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak." The parallels drawn to rape victims is not done in the interest to protect anyone. It was done to try to point to the flaw in the argument put forward by GoIrish41. When I, myself, used it, I took Go's original statement:

Originally Posted by GoIrish41
It has nothing to do with political correctness or morality. A man was shot ... Because of this event put on by this group that was designed to create the scenario that unfolded. That is a public safety issue. I do not think that people should be permitted to create that situation.

and simply changed a few words...

Originally posted by connor_in

Originally Posted by GoIrish41
It has nothing to do with political correctness or morality. A woman was raped... Because of the outfit put on by this woman that was designed to create the scenario that unfolded. That is a public safety issue. I do not think that people should be permitted to create that situation

Is this how you would feel about a rape?

...to show that it appeared that he was using an argument for the organizers of this event that he would never use in many other situations. I once had a teacher (whom I disliked a lot) who made the statement that situational ethics is no ethics at all. I still don't know that I completely adhere to that, but I see it in situations like this where you may have to stand with someone you normally wouldn't to defend a principle that needs to stand for all. We may dislike certain groups or beliefs, but if they are excersing their rights withing the limits of the law, it is important that we let them as we may want or need to ourselves at some time.

I leave you with a coule of quotes:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (usually mis-attributed to Voltaire)

and

"Democracy is messy" - I found many attributions for this one

EDIT: Forgot to address the 9/11 example you gave. It might be considered under "fighting words" (I am not a lawyer), but the guys who beat him up appear to have been breaking the law and should probably have been charged with assault and battery

 

[IrishinSyria]

Awful post. I almost can't believe I'm reading this but then I remember the world I live in: a world in which it's no longer the fault of the murderer but the person who incited the murderer to act.

I think the event was foolish but I think piss christ was foolish and the radical feminists who run into churches are foolish. None of them deserve to be shot for being fools.

Not to be that guy, but from a legal perspective you've lives in that world your whole life. Incitement has always negated one's right to use deadly self defense.

But yeah, the attackers are obviously in the wrong here.

 

[GoldenDome]

Actually, your examples are flawed. In the bolded above, you are using "fighting words" examples. I believe the "fighting words" idea generally requires face-to-face confrontations. This situation was one where they rented a hall in a hotel in a city. They were not walking down the streets of a heavily Muslim neighborhood.

I also take issue with your statement, "To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak." The parallels drawn to rape victims is not done in the interest to protect anyone. It was done to try to point to the flaw in the argument put forward by GoIrish41. When I, myself, used it, I took Go's original statement:



and simply changed a few words...



...to show that it appeared that he was using an argument for the organizers of this event that he would never use in many other situations. I once had a teacher (whom I disliked a lot) who made the statement that situational ethics is no ethics at all. I still don't know that I completely adhere to that, but I see it in situations like this where you may have to stand with someone you normally wouldn't to defend a principle that needs to stand for all. We may dislike certain groups or beliefs, but if they are excersing their rights withing the limits of the law, it is important that we let them as we may want or need to ourselves at some time.

I leave you with a coule of quotes:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (usually mis-attributed to Voltaire)

and

"Democracy is messy" - I found many attributions for this one

EDIT: Forgot to address the 9/11 example you gave. It might be considered under "fighting words" (I am not a lawyer), but the guys who beat him up appear to have been breaking the law and should probably have been charged with assault and battery

So are we now suppose to define morality in terms of constitutionality? Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is another example. The timing and sensitivity is everything.

What if a person after the Boston Marathon protested with a sign "Boston Marathon participants deserved to die and survivors should have lost their limbs...haha" Is that morally right? Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing--while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's action."

- James Rachels

 

[GoldenDome]

Actually, your examples are flawed. In the bolded above, you are using "fighting words" examples. I believe the "fighting words" idea generally requires face-to-face confrontations. This situation was one where they rented a hall in a hotel in a city. They were not walking down the streets of a heavily Muslim neighborhood.

I also take issue with your statement, "To make parallels to rape victims to protect the stupidity of others is quite weak." The parallels drawn to rape victims is not done in the interest to protect anyone. It was done to try to point to the flaw in the argument put forward by GoIrish41. When I, myself, used it, I took Go's original statement:



and simply changed a few words...



...to show that it appeared that he was using an argument for the organizers of this event that he would never use in many other situations. I once had a teacher (whom I disliked a lot) who made the statement that situational ethics is no ethics at all. I still don't know that I completely adhere to that, but I see it in situations like this where you may have to stand with someone you normally wouldn't to defend a principle that needs to stand for all. We may dislike certain groups or beliefs, but if they are excersing their rights withing the limits of the law, it is important that we let them as we may want or need to ourselves at some time.

I leave you with a coule of quotes:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (usually mis-attributed to Voltaire)

and

"Democracy is messy" - I found many attributions for this one

EDIT: Forgot to address the 9/11 example you gave. It might be considered under "fighting words" (I am not a lawyer), but the guys who beat him up appear to have been breaking the law and should probably have been charged with assault and battery

This has nothing to do with law. This has to do with morality. Right and wrong. Am I supposed to believe that constitutionality and law are supposed to tell me what is wrong or right?

It was legal to own slaves in the past. Is that supposed to mean that when it was legal, it was right?

This is right and wrong. Put legality and constitutionality aside, was the act of holding a Muhammad drawing contest moral? Was it right?

Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is wrong. I don't care how constitutional it was. I think many would agree, including the families of the soldiers who lost their lives trying to mourn their loss in peace. But under the constitution, it was overwhelming legal. But most would agree that this is overwhelming wrong.

 

[IrishLax]

This is right and wrong. Put legality and constitutionality aside, was the act of holding a Muhammad drawing contest moral? Was it right?

Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is wrong. I don't care how constitutional it was. I think many would agree, including the families of the soldiers who lost their lives trying to mourn their loss in peace. But under the constitution, it was overwhelming legal. But most would agree that this is overwhelming wrong.

Now, I haven't seen much of the artwork from the event, but I see literally nothing immoral with the winning drawing. Nor the idea of a private art event.

That's the difference between this scenario and many of the parallels people are trying to draw. These people didn't go to the middle of Islamabad and walk around with offensive drawings painted on their t-shirts.

To get offended by the event, one had to willingly seek out and expose themselves to the content. I have no sympathy.

 

[ulukinatme]

So are we now suppose to define morality in terms of constitutionality? Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is another example. The timing and sensitivity is everything.

What if a person after the Boston Marathon protested with a sign "Boston Marathon participants deserved to die and survivors should have lost their limbs...haha" Is that morally right? Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing--while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's action."

- James Rachels

There's nothing immoral about depicting a man in a drawing. Mohammed was a man, a prophet to some, but he was a man. Just because one religion says you can't draw him doesn't mean it's immoral to do so. Maybe to Islamic extremists it's immoral, but they're hardly a decent gauge on what's morally right and wrong in an absolute world. Islamic extremists believe in slavery, treating women with cruelty, and they're okay with pedophilia. I'm not exactly going to side with them when it comes to morality.

 

[Emcee77]

I think it's clearly immoral to be intentionally offensive, like the organizers of the event in question.

The moral problem with a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest - Chicago Tribune

I feel like I once said the most mildly critical thing of Pope Benedict on this site, and the level of touchiness in some of the responses was stunning. I'm having trouble squaring that reaction with the reaction to this cartoon contest.

 

[IrishLax]

I think it's clearly immoral to be intentionally offensive, like the organizers of the event in question.

The moral problem with a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest - Chicago Tribune

I feel like I once said the most mildly critical thing of Pope Benedict on this site, and the level of touchiness in some of the responses was stunning. I'm having trouble squaring that reaction with the reaction to this cartoon contest.

I challenge the bolded. What exactly is immoral about being offensive?

For starters, the emotion of being "offended" is a completely subjective, personal response to a stimulus. I could be offended by Michigan's mere existence, while other people adore Michigan. There is nothing about a stimulus that has to be "wrong" or "immoral" for it to be offensive.

So as you said... people on this site might get wildly offended by criticism of the Pope. Does that make your criticism immoral? No. Of course not. Someone's subjective feelings to a stimulus neither increase nor decrease the morality of a given action.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I think it's clearly immoral to be intentionally offensive, like the organizers of the event in question.

The moral problem with a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest - Chicago Tribune

I feel like I once said the most mildly critical thing of Pope Benedict on this site, and the level of touchiness in some of the responses was stunning. I'm having trouble squaring that reaction with the reaction to this cartoon contest.

Yes, after everyone opened fire on you for a comment made about Pope Benedict, I can see why it's difficult to reconcile.

 

[Wild Bill]

This has nothing to do with law. This has to do with morality. Right and wrong. Am I supposed to believe that constitutionality and law are supposed to tell me what is wrong or right?

It was legal to own slaves in the past. Is that supposed to mean that when it was legal, it was right?

This is right and wrong. Put legality and constitutionality aside, was the act of holding a Muhammad drawing contest moral? Was it right?

Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is wrong. I don't care how constitutional it was. I think many would agree, including the families of the soldiers who lost their lives trying to mourn their loss in peace. But under the constitution, it was overwhelming legal. But most would agree that this is overwhelming wrong.

You're pulling our leg, right? We're supposed to suppress speech that you feel is "wrong"?

That's the point of the first amendment - it protects controversial speech. Nice speech doesn't need special protection.

Suppressing speech is too high a price to pay to ensure nobody is offended by mere words. Muslims need to get a firm understanding of our way of life and accept criticisms of their religion, no different than every other religion. My suggestion for those who follow the religion and can't seem to adjust is to simply relocate to a third world hell hole in the middle east that will meet their speech suppression requirements.

 

[MNIrishman]

I think it's clearly immoral to be intentionally offensive, like the organizers of the event in question.

The moral problem with a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest - Chicago Tribune

I feel like I once said the most mildly critical thing of Pope Benedict on this site, and the level of touchiness in some of the responses was stunning. I'm having trouble squaring that reaction with the reaction to this cartoon contest.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

1) You can insult the Pope all you want. You are free, in your ignorance (this is a general "your"--not referring to you personally at all), to call him anything from a saint to a pederast. People will be insulted, but no violence would be justified and I believe that no major Church would support anything but peaceful protest.
2) If you would like to have a cartoon contest depicting Jesus in weird ways, I'd like to think that no one who considers themselves Christian would believe that the appropriate response would be violence. Nonviolence, however insulting, does not justify violence.
3) Muslims (and anyone else) are free to enter Vatican City (Non-Muslims face prison time for attempting to enter Mecca). A Google search for "Vatican city shooting" brings many references to the 1981 attempt by a Muslim on the life of John Paul II, and his subsequent forgiveness of the act.

I don't agree with your assertion that mildly criticizing the Pope resulted in touchiness is hypocritical. No one was surprised that Muslims were insulted by people trying to insult them--and no one is blaming them for being insulted. The problem is that SOMEONE responded violently, and that isn't ok. I HOPE no one threatened you over criticizing the Pope.

 

[connor_in]

This has nothing to do with law. This has to do with morality. Right and wrong. Am I supposed to believe that constitutionality and law are supposed to tell me what is wrong or right?

It was legal to own slaves in the past. Is that supposed to mean that when it was legal, it was right?

This is right and wrong. Put legality and constitutionality aside, was the act of holding a Muhammad drawing contest moral? Was it right?

Westboro Baptists protesting soldiers funerals is wrong. I don't care how constitutional it was. I think many would agree, including the families of the soldiers who lost their lives trying to mourn their loss in peace. But under the constitution, it was overwhelming legal. But most would agree that this is overwhelming wrong.

Well that explains it. I was discussing why it was LEGAL and you are talking about why it's not MORAL.

I have a question though...who's morals should we apply? I only ask because my bet is different people will have different moral boundaries across a broad range of topics.

 

[GoldenDome]

You're pulling our leg, right? We're supposed to suppress speech that you feel is "wrong"?

That's the point of the first amendment - it protects controversial speech. Nice speech doesn't need special protection.

Suppressing speech is too high a price to pay to ensure nobody is offended by mere words. Muslims need to get a firm understanding of our way of life and accept criticisms of their religion, no different than every other religion. My suggestion for those who follow the religion and can't seem to adjust is to simply relocate to a third world hell hole in the middle east that will meet their speech suppression requirements.

Yes it protects your LEGAL right to say what you want. Most would agree that calling mentally challenged individuals 'retards' is wrong. Most would also agree protesting soldiers funerals is wrong, albeit constitutional.

By you logic, those above actions should be accepted by society.

Again, nobody is really saying they broke the law.

 

[Wild Bill]

Yes it protects your LEGAL right to say what you want. Most would agree that calling mentally challenged individuals 'retards' is wrong. Most would also agree protesting soldiers funerals is wrong, albeit constitutional.

By you logic, those above actions should be accepted by society.

Again, nobody is really saying they broke the law.

Yes, it should be accepted that people have the right to express themselves within the scope of the first amendment.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

For what it's worth: the winning entry in the competition was done by Bosch Fawstin, an ex Muslim from Albania.

 

[Emcee77]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

1) You can insult the Pope all you want. You are free, in your ignorance (this is a general "your"--not referring to you personally at all), to call him anything from a saint to a pederast. People will be insulted, but no violence would be justified and I believe that no major Church would support anything but peaceful protest.
2) If you would like to have a cartoon contest depicting Jesus in weird ways, I'd like to think that no one who considers themselves Christian would believe that the appropriate response would be violence. Nonviolence, however insulting, does not justify violence.
3) Muslims (and anyone else) are free to enter Vatican City (Non-Muslims face prison time for attempting to enter Mecca). A Google search for "Vatican city shooting" brings many references to the 1981 attempt by a Muslim on the life of John Paul II, and his subsequent forgiveness of the act.

I don't agree with your assertion that mildly criticizing the Pope resulted in touchiness is hypocritical. No one was surprised that Muslims were insulted by people trying to insult them--and no one is blaming them for being insulted. The problem is that SOMEONE responded violently, and that isn't ok. I HOPE no one threatened you over criticizing the Pope.

I agree with what you say, but this either misses my point or I've mistaken the tenor of some of the remarks in this thread. My point was while some posters on this board seemed to discourage mild criticism of Pope Benedict, apparently on grounds that it was sacrilege, although it was not at all intended to offend and in my view was an entirely fair and even necessary way to speak about a public figure and world leader, some are now saying outright that they are not at all troubled by an intentional attempt to offend people of a particular religion by making art they consider sacrilegious. I definitely see an inconsistency there.

Of course, I totally agree with you that the cartoon contest doesn't justify violence. (But that's neither here nor there in terms of the point I was trying to make ... I just hope that's clear now.)

 

[Emcee77]

I challenge the bolded. What exactly is immoral about being offensive?

For starters, the emotion of being "offended" is a completely subjective, personal response to a stimulus. I could be offended by Michigan's mere existence, while other people adore Michigan. There is nothing about a stimulus that has to be "wrong" or "immoral" for it to be offensive.

So as you said... people on this site might get wildly offended by criticism of the Pope. Does that make your criticism immoral? No. Of course not. Someone's subjective feelings to a stimulus neither increase nor decrease the morality of a given action.

Intentionally, I said. Intentionally offensive. I agree with you that it is not immoral to be unintentionally offensive (although it might reveal ignorance). I quite agree with you that my criticism of Pope Benedict was not immoral -- but I submit that the cartoon contest is, because it was intended to hurt people. But some people seem to be offended by the immoral expression and not by the other. That just struck me as a little bizarre.

 

[connor_in]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X_kuC35F06E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tgXj23LRI94" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ginman]

These skits are weak.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend it ceases to exist." -Salman Rushdie

I think the point of having the art contest and the SNL skits is that in this country we should not be fearful for our lives for expressing our opinions even if they offend some people. Most of us probably live our lives in a manner that is respectful of the beliefs of others. I am not inclined to be a participant in an art contest of this nature, but will defend their right to do so, even as I personally find it to be provacative. The more I hear people wanting to restrict free speech or threatening those who do speak up, the more inclined I am to stand up.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

These skits are weak.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend it ceases to exist." -Salman Rushdie

I think the point of having the art contest and the SNL skits is that in this country we should not be fearful for our lives for expressing our opinions even if they offend some people. Most of us probably live our lives in a manner that is respectful of the beliefs of others. I am not inclined to be a participant in an art contest of this nature, but will defend their right to do so, even as I personally find it to be provacative. The more I hear people wanting to restrict free speech or threatening those who do speak up, the more inclined I am to stand up.

It is horrific to shoot someone for a drawing. That act should be denounced and prosecuted. Period.

I can simultaneously hold the thought in my head that the art contest is stupid. Of course it is completely legal. We should stand up for their right to have a stupid art contest while we condemn their decision to do so.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There's a Chinese law against "causing trouble and picking quarrels" which is enforced almost exclusively against political dissidents and human rights activitists.

Preventing such subjective enforcement of speech-based "crimes" is exactly why the First Amendment exists, and why the Texas art show must remain legal, despite the animus behind it.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Intentionally, I said. Intentionally offensive. I agree with you that it is not immoral to be unintentionally offensive (although it might reveal ignorance). I quite agree with you that my criticism of Pope Benedict was not immoral -- but I submit that the cartoon contest is, because it was intended to hurt people. But some people seem to be offended by the immoral expression and not by the other. That just struck me as a little bizarre.

So if I share Christ with a group of people and I know that I know some will be offended by the message of the Cross, I am being immoral because I'm being intentionally offensive?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

It is horrific to shoot someone for a drawing. That act should be denounced and prosecuted. Period.

I can simultaneously hold the thought in my head that the art contest is stupid. Of course it is completely legal. We should stand up for their right to have a stupid art contest while we condemn their decision to do so.

Therein lies the problem. Most people are incapable of holding competing ideas in their head at the same time. I think (hope) most people agree with you.

 

[connor_in]

 

[IrishJayhawk]

A bit of context...

The guy who created "Piss Christ" is a self-identified Christian. He also received death threats for the work. It was intended to emphasize the horrors of the cross and was part of a series that had various items in fluids. It was vandalized multiple times (once by Neo-Nazis) and was damaged beyond repair in 2011 by Christian protesters.

The artist of the Virgin Mary had just visited Zimbabwe. He wanted to incorporate part of the African landscape into his art. Elephants and their dung are considered sacred in Zimbabwe. It was also vandalized by Christian protesters.

I don't know the third reference.

 

[kmoose]

A bit of context...

The guy who created "Piss Christ" is a self-identified Christian. He also received death threats for the work. It was intended to emphasize the horrors of the cross and was part of a series that had various items in fluids. It was vandalized multiple times (once by Neo-Nazis) and was damaged beyond repair in 2011 by Christian protesters.

The artist of the Virgin Mary had just visited Zimbabwe. He wanted to incorporate part of the African landscape into his art. Elephants and their dung are considered sacred in Zimbabwe. It was also vandalized by Christian protesters.

I don't know the third reference.

So the context is that no one tried to murder the people who offended Christians? Gotcha.

 

[Emcee77]

There's a Chinese law against "causing trouble and picking quarrels" which is enforced almost exclusively against political dissidents and human rights activitists.

Preventing such subjective enforcement of speech-based "crimes" is exactly why the First Amendment exists, and why the Texas art show must remain legal, despite the animus behind it.

Agreed. That's not up for debate, imo, or it shouldn't be. There should be absolutely no question that the Texas Muhammad cartoon contest was legal. The First Amendment "protects the thought that we hate," as some Supreme Court justice said. (Oliver Wendell Holmes? Not sure.) I think it was in incredibly poor taste and I could not be more disgusted by the people who put the event on, but I would defend their right to do so if they hired me as their lawyer.