Hi,
I'm an Atheist non-ex-Muslim and I recently began a dialog with an official at a local Mosque in the Toronto area. At an ecumenical event, he invited me to come to his Mosque and have a discussion, which I did, and have been exchanging a series of emails since. He is a medical doctor and I enjoy speaking with him, very patient, polite etc.
During my interchange, the cracks have opened up: he agrees with death for apostasy etc. He thinks that ISIS is a cover-up/CIA conspiracy. He will say nothing critical of Saudi Arabia or the umma in general, he blames all the worlds problems on western foreign policy, pornography, sexual promiscuity, alcoholism, etc. Violent Islamist ideology is not a problem he will admit to. Another man at the Mosque has also engaged me via email with crazy shit like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 911 false flag videos, videos by KKK chief David Duke etc.
Anyway, I'm sure this type of extremism is no surprise to most people on this forum. However, I think it would be shocking for other Canadians to see just how extreme some folks are at local Mosques. I want to publish my dialog (without identifying the Mosque or individuals involved) on my new blog dogmawatch.com (@DogmaWatchBlog on twitter). My question is:
- By having this dialog and posting it, am I crazy and placing my life at risk as my wife thinks?
I'm also looking for ex-Muslims to help fact check my blog postings on this as I want to be fair and accurate. I can be reached at info@dogmawatch.com
Thanks
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Let's be honest: by being on this site at all, we are all, to some degree or another, putting our lives in danger. It's silly to think that there aren't 'armchair Islamists' who gather information on secular groups such as this one, especially when they are actively critical of Islam. You're in no worse danger by posting that there than you are here. I think at the very least you should be comforted by the fact that relatively few terrorist acts have been aimed up north, but it's something you should always be aware of as somebody who speaks 'publicly' about your opinions.
I personally support your decision on making this dialogue public. It's important to know that these ideologues aren't just on CNN or some random Youtube video. People need to understand that these are real people with real designs against the lives of other real people.
@ DWatch...
"By having this dialog and posting it, am I crazy and placing my life at risk as my wife thinks?"
Putting your life at risk...?
Unlikely....but possible....
A real Islamist will want you to keep posting as you validate his views/activities from the view point of his chosen audience.
Only a "true nutter" will try to remove their own reason for existence......
but then ,of course, we all know ....there are many "true nutters" in the theist communities.
then again it may not be the Islamists that could give you problems........
It may be that you end up being "flagged up" on some "Agencies" watch lists as a person of interest....
However ,even if there is a risk ,I believe we must keep chipping away...we cannot allow ourselves to be cowed into silence....
(each of us must make this decision for our selves ,obviously..)
but if you want to see what capitulation looks like....... check out this thread.....
http://www.atheismuk.com/forum/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=1035.0
(Read it all ,then look at the activity on this forum before and since the Charlie Hebdo event)
I am an extreme supporter of free speech. However , as an atheist I do not believe in or find value in martyrdom. I find self sacrifice to be generally immoral. Also , as a man who lives out in the sticks and lives near all kinds of creatures big and small - Do not poke sticks into hornets nests. But if you insist , good luck. Steer them this way .
Most people are murdered by someone they know. Terrorist tend to target large quantities of people, famous people that oppose them, or immediate threats. Even terrorist seek a profit in murder and terror. It wouldn't be much of a terror attack if the attack itself didn't garner sufficient publicity.
If you came into contact with this person and let him know your opposition to his extremism, before he would attack you, he would weigh the profit of such an act or act out of pure rage. At least you can be on guard with at least that one person.
From the AtheismUK thread (page 2) posted by Watchman, "..I wonder how much of this violence has been stoked by the duplication of the [Charlie Hebdo] cartoons in the world-wide press. By publishing or linking the cartoons, Atheism UK might just be fanning the flames of violence and killings.."
The problem is that some people see some instances of see free speech or free expression about Islamism as incitement, so not all non-Islamists will agree on where free expression ends and incitement begins.
Each individual must judge the dangers for ourselves. The complication lies in the ruthlessness of the Islamists and their apologists who may target our families or friends.
"Je ne suis pas Charlie" is not only music to Islamist ears, it represents a response from some people that is probably very helpful to the endurance of violent Islamism.
The problem is that extremist in the west ARE inciting violence for not having respect for Islam. Recently in Dallas an islamiphobe group held a contest for the best cartoon of Mohamed. Isis inspired a cell out of Arizona to attack that convention. Both sides were wrong. Free speech is a government thing. You only have free speech in the fact that the government cannot control your speech. Free speech doesn't not extend beyond that. People don't have a right to say anything they want anywhere they want. Thus liable laws and so on. This is not a free card to commit violence. So both are wrong.
So holding a convention of Mohammed cartoons is inciting violence?
And is posting this incitement?...
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-fr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32579396
Surely everyone is entitled to their opinion, whatever any government thinks? The government need only get involved when someone's actions interfere with the rights of others.
I can't stop people from stating their opinion and I wouldn't if I could. That doesn't mean that those opinions don't incite violence. Yes the convention in Dallas did incite violence which was one of the reasons for the convention. The purpose of the convention was to incite violence, to gin up hatred by radical islamist and to classify all muslims as radical islamist. To gin up hatred and violence by not only the islamist but the radical christians that want a holy war.
Both are wrong, dead wrong!
It comes from all points of the religious compass, though Islam is one of the touchier headings, so judge based upon relative risk. You may well be your acquaintance's sounding board for his pent-up convictions; his shoulder, so to speak. He may hold your company more important than he would surrounding himself with Islam.
Most of the religiously indoctrinated have never been exposed to anything but that. They are indoctrinated in their religions and, moreover, imbued with the sense that anyone who holds their beliefs in contention are to be shunned, or worse, religion dependent. What all of them need, though, is to be listened to. They are fancy talkers propping up their beliefs because, in my most humble opinion, all of them harbor doubts about their conscripted opinions. They need the silent ears and accepting eyes and gestures that, by the unspoken signs, give strength (or empathy) to their conditioning.
Conditioning is a very tough restraint to shake once people are (culturally) shackled with it. Not all are comfortable wearing their balls and chains and frustrated all the more having to remain silent about it. Your correspondent friend might be looking for more than just acknowledgement of his conditioning. He might be looking to get out from under it and to start that kind of a dialogue confessing his conscriptions (very carefully) is an important first step. I also take from your relationship a mutual trust extant to the level that his feels he can confide in you without fearing risk of the authorities knocking on his door. You could, in reality, hold him hostage to his own admissions. So, he has faith that he can trust you as his confidant. That's scarier than feeling mortally at risk. Big brother, who might be within ear's watch of your relationship, could be building a data base on both of you. At what point does the knowledge they know you're acquiring become so weighty that your own silence makes you a conspirator?
Keep it all public. Safety lies in common knowledge.
@DWatch
First of all you need to understand the situation of those people you are talking to.(like Pitar pointed out)
Do you really think that if you were in their situation, you would risk putting anything publicly about you?
If so, you have issues.
If on the other hand you are a sane person and realize the position they are in, you can come to several possibilities of why he is sending you those emails or willing to communicate with you.
Listing some:
1) Gaining more information on how atheists think
2) checking some claims about atheists
3) (as Pitar pointed out(confirming some doubts he already has)
4) he is forced to do it by someone or something
5) he is just curious or experimenting something
....
...
..
Now about him not admitting things, there also multiple reasons why he would not admit things on emails.
1)fear for his life or family
2)career
3)persecution
4)does not want the attention
5)he is supervised by other people to do just that
... etc
"By having this dialog and posting it, am I crazy and placing my life at risk as my wife thinks?"
I think above all it is rude to show your dialog to the world unless you personally ask permission to all the persons involved in the dialog.
I do not think you are placing your life at risk since it seems that your doctor friend was cautious enough in his dialogue to be at least accepted among his extremist friends.
Though you might get him in trouble with his not so extremist friends if you do.
Short answer, you are not crazy but you need to look at the implications of your actions more.
Maybe that is exactly what he wants.
Will it profit anybody to build up more bias against people who go to mosque?
I am an atheist and I don't think that the people are mature enough to handle the matter in a mature way.
The only thing you should do if you care, is try to make it an enforced law that everyone should agree for freedom from religion= against death for apostasy.
Those that refuse to sign(agree) are the ones who the police should target and kick out of the country.
Anything less then that, will only create more tension and death.
You have to remember that sane people can understand that not all people going to mosque are with that mentality, though unfortunately the amount of sane people out there are in the minority.
They are easily convinced of basically anything the media tells them.
Putting more oil on the fire does not really help.
Maybe that is exactly what he wants.
"I can be reached at info@dogmawatch.com"
You joined this forum and never ever replied to even your own topics and questions.
I am sorry but if you posted on this forum, the only reply you will get from me is on this forum.
If you don't give a shit about reading your topic for answers to your own questions, why do you expect people to give a shit in answering your questions?
Make some effort to show some respect to your fellow human beings and then I would consider you one.
I vehemently disagree that cartoonists who draw Muhammed are inciting violence. Where in any of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are there words stating violent reactions are appropriate? The violent rhetoric is entirely one sided. A satirical and critical cartoon invites a satirical and critical response. The inciting to violence for insulting Islam was written into code long before anyone drew the first cartoon. Long before the printing press. It is still being preached today in the Islamic world. The violent rhetoric was being repeated and preached in the modern media before anyone drew a cartoon of that illiterate bandit. Long before Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses. These so called insults to Islam were targets of violence long before they were printed.
Mykckob4 - If you are the lover of Madisonian liberalism as you claim , how can you believe that a cartoon delivered in a spirit of criticism is the equal to speaking with a gun or bomb? A Cartoon is speech . Killing a cartoonist for insulting a religion is tyranny .
I am a Madisonian, and I never think violence is the answer for anything, but all muslims believe that pictures of any kind of mohamed are an insult and blasphemy. Reaction to such blasphemy should not be vilenece. That doesn't mean that it doesn't fuel the radicals. In Dallas the people attending and sponsoring the mohamed cartoon convention knew exactly what they were doing. They notified the police before hand because they knew there would probably be an attack. They publicized the convention well in advance.
They wanted a large number of islamaphobes racist and hoped that there would be an attack. As far as Charlie Hebdo goes, it is a publication that thrives on controversy, much like the National Inquirer in this nation. I don't condone the attack on them, but I can't condone what they did either.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/hall-of-fame/james-madison
Madison wrote the need for free speech was the free exchange of INTELLIGENT INFORMATION. The purpose of free speech was first to make the government transparent to the people governed and secondly to prevent the government from oppressing the speech and ideology of an individual.
Freedom of speech does not exempt people for responsibility of that speech.
Here is a site that can explain the intent and the law concerning the 1st Amendment.
http://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
Here are things that Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers you might find interesting if not enlightening.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/63859.James_Madison
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
Did the peaceful civil rights marchers of the 60's incite violence when they marched straight into lines of racist cops with dogs and water hoses ? Does a woman wearing a very short and sexy dress incite rape ? I am not following your logic. When a nation such as Iran or an ISIS group feels privileged to carry out death sentences for blasphemy inside nations where they have no legal jurisdiction they are displaying an incredibly delusional sense of their own truth. That arrogance deserves mockery and criticism on every level. Drawing a cartoon mocking that war lord of old is a worthy form of criticism on the level of any other form of rational discourse. It is not inciting violence . Drawing cartoons of Muhammed is resistance in the face of violence.
The civil rights movement did not have the same agenda as those that incite violence. Their aim was to incite debate not violence. Very very different! Of course the retaliation for such incitement should not be violence. That doesn't mean should not respect others. To openly incite violence is as much a crime as violence itself. Drawing cartoons is NOT resistance in the face of violence. It's blatant disrespect for all Muslims. It isn't resistance, it's disrespect.
What we should criticize is the crimes of terrorist, not give them cause for even more violence.
Let's return to the Dallas convention. Not only did they mock and disrespect islam, they made open threats of violence themselves. They toted guns and spewed hate rhetoric, just like the terrorist that they opposed. Here's the thing. Terrorism is NOT islam. Terrorism is a criminal act made by criminals.
I don't advocate islam or any faith. But I don't advocate disrespecting islam or any faith either. I vehemently oppose terrorism and see it as the crime it really is.
I think that your comparisons are far off the mark, they are not a corolation of what the mohamed cartoonist and the civil rights movement.
I lived in the civil rights movements. You can't compare what people fighting for equality and civil rights did and are doing to that of a bunch of hateful rednecks that want nothing more than to kill all muslims.
Nobody has suggested or would suggest that "terrorism is Islam". There seems to be a great difference between what people are saying and what some people are hearing.
Quote, "We are continually abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages," she said. Geller denied she was anti-Muslim, only "anti-jihad".
In a text message to Dutch media, Geert Wilders said Sunday's incident had been an "unacceptable" attack on freedom of expression.
Unquote.
These statements are being rejected and it is being insisted that the only aim of such people is to incite violence. Some people think that the only aim of US interventions overseas is to spread US influence and steal resources. That is not thoughtfully listening and it is attributing motives to people that one wouldn't wish to be attributed to oneself.
Drawing cartoons of Mohammed is not disrespectful to any Muslim. They take offence. Just as Muslims feel their religion is under threat by criticisms and satire of Mohammed and their religion, so those of us who think freedom of speech and expression is under threat feel the need to exercise it.
I think we all agree that drawing cartoons is neither as bad or as "wrong" as violence about them. The disagreement is (1) over what is incitement and what is legitimate satire; and (2) what to do about the threat of violence. Do we accept that we must do as the violent extremists demand (Muslim or otherwise), or should we confront the attitude that insists satire is blasphemy. Arguably, self-censorship won't help.
Religion offends me deeply. I object to it in schools where superstition it spreads undermines critical thinking; where creationism and 'good books' contradict scientific evidence; where religious courts undermine the principle of one law for all; where women's, LGBT and minority rights aren't respected; where atheism is equated with terrorism; where people tell me what cartoons I may and may not draw.; etc, etc. It wouldn't excuse me were I to be violent.
Arguably, some members of religious cults should do more to distance themselves from co-religionists behavior...
Quote, Muslim leaders in Scotland have condemned the “outrageous, violent attack by one individual on another”, but that has not been enough for some Ahmadis. The local mosques and imams were invited to the Glasgow Ahmadiya centre on the morning of March 30th to show their solidarity with the grieving Ahmadis and to sign a joint statement. None came. It was “disappointing, an opportunity lost,” says Mr Abid. He accuses the imams of hypocrisy, of saying nice words but of failing to take a real stand together with the Ahmadis against extremism. One Muslim group has been accused of posting messages online gloating over Mr Shah’s death.
Source:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21695961-horrific-murder-prompts-f...
Where the cartoons are should be considered too. They are now only in obscure publications or special conventions only a small number of people are interested in attending. (They are not like insulting someone's mother in the street, Pope Francis! :-) It seems to me that there shouldn't be one law for Muslims or one sect and another law for the rest of us and all views, on both sides of the argument should be respected.
(My apologies to Dogma watch. We seem to have wandered off-topic and onto what to do about religious violence in response to certain cartoons published in the press, including the Egyptian press by the way).
Okay I read what you said about these people and the lies that they porport about themselves. Here's the truth about Pamela Geller.
"In Her Own Words
"Islam is not a race. This is an ideology. This is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth."
— Pam Geller On Fox Business' "Follow the Money," March 10, 2011
"Obama is a third worlder and a coward. He will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords."
— Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 13, 2010
"Hussein [meaning President Obama] is a muhammadan. He's not insane … he wants jihad to win."
— Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 11, 2010
"I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. … I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam."
— Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010
Read the whole thing: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/pamel...
Geller is nothing but a right-wing nut that wants a holy war and will do anything to that ends.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/10/pamela-geller-captures-latest-stealth-j...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pamela-geller-and-the-anti-islam...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-pamela-gellers-parano_b_75...
Geller is a lunatic. She incites hatred and violence.
@ZeffD
"I think we all agree that drawing cartoons is neither as bad or as "wrong" as violence about them."
Yes, I basically agree with everything you said.
There is some minor inaccuracies though:
"These statements are being rejected"
Well,that is true, but is it the truth.
Do you believe that Geller truly is not anti-Muslim?
She is only rejecting things to appear less biased then she really is, and gain popularity.
I am anti-Muslim and an anti-christian since I am an anti-theist.
I do see the theist as deluded and dangerous person, a state which is not the mentally healthy state anyone should be in.
I am not biased in my assertion since i am not one of them, but Geller being a theist herself she cannot say that without appearing biased by her religion.
It is all politics what they say. Look at their actions to have a hint of what their motivation/position is.
"It seems to me that there shouldn't be one law for Muslims or one sect and another law for the rest of us and all views, on both sides of the argument should be respected."
Yes you are right, cartoonist are not offending but are provoking.
Muslims need to understand that their religion is not superior to the others or any other belief, when they get down from that level of arrogance they have, they will realize that this provocation happens to any subject of discourse.
We are provoked everyday on our opinions,beliefs and even on what we know it is true.
This happned mostly as an act of criticism that if taken in a mature way can help us to get to the truth.
here is where the problem of religion truly hurts us as a specie.
Religions do not care for the truth, they see it as an enemy of their dogmatic belief.
Religions force their cult members to despise any form or way to find the truth.
Muslims are some of the most deluded people on this act.
"(My apologies to Dogma watch. We seem to have wandered off-topic and onto what to do about religious violence in response to certain cartoons published in the press, including the Egyptian press by the way)."
Well maybe after a month or more he will read your post if he reads it at all.
@mykckob4
I agree on some things Pamela Geller said.
What I disagree about is to use some of the things she mentioned to promote her position.
Islam is as radical as Christianity was.
I do not see how she fails to see that moderate Muslims are like the Christians of today after the christian reformation.
"I never think violence is the answer for anything"
Sometimes violence is the only answer left after using all other methods.(this is a fact proven by history)
With regards to violence against a cartoonist it is obviously a pathetic idea.
CARTOONISTS ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG
They are criticizing an idea in a funny way.
Why do you see this act of provocation as wrong, you do it all the time.
Whenever you disagree with someone in public, you are provoking him to respond.
If he responds with violence, was it because you did something wrong? or because he is insane?
This is just the end result of how theism effects the brain and how much a government is needed to bring it in its place by force.
You try and kill your neighbor for working on Sunday and you will see how the police will bust your ass pronto.
So what do theist do?
They start coming with excuses to conform to the laws of the government and excuse the claims of their holy book.
Pathetic hypocrites.
At least some Muslims are not hypocrites and follow their book to the latter.
We call them extremists for that.
You are all over the place. I can't tell if you are making a separate point, supporting my point or disagreeing with my point.
I am mainly disagreeing with your point but also pointing out everything I agree and disagree about what you guys are taking about.
"I never think violence is the answer for anything"
Disagree
"Geller is nothing but a right-wing nut that wants a holy war and will do anything to that ends."
Disagree
She wants to get popularity using any means necessary, a holy way might be just a means to an end if she wants a holy war at all.
"I think we all agree that drawing cartoons is neither as bad or as "wrong" as violence about them."
I agree that cartoonist are not as "bad or as "wrong"" because I can't see them as doing anything wrong at all.
"What we should criticize is the crimes of terrorist, not give them cause for even more violence."
Completely disagree.
If violence is generated by simply criticizing something, then the root of the violence is not the criticism but the non hypocritical theistic religion itself.
Only a hypocrite Muslim would not follow doctrine for death for apostasy written in the Quran etc..
The accepted Moderate Muslims are asked by law to be hypocrites of their own doctrine to be accepted in a decent society.
Some Muslims do not accept that and follow their book to the latter.(extremists)
The problem is the book and there is no way to change that.
You cannot put the blame on the cartoonist because you would be wrong.
They are provoking in the same manner we provoke people when we disagree with them.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Well You completely disagree with me even though every expert concerning Geller agrees with what I have stated. I produced proof of such. You can't see what the cartoonist are doing as wrong, even though it has been proven to incite violence for the purpose of doing so.
You mistakenly think that the Koran promotes violence even though Islamic experts says that it doesn't despite what the jihadist and terrorist say.
I must say that I completely disagree with you.
According to your post nothing can incite violence.
I say that inciting violence through insults for the purpose of inciting such violence is just as wrong as the violence itself. And the law agrees with me.
"The phrase refers to a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), a Supreme Court case that explored the limits of First Amendment protection of free speech.
The exact quote is: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Holmes point was that there is no absolute right of free speech, because there are always circumstances in which unregulated expression can create problematic or dangerous situations. The need for safeguarding the public (or, in the case of Schenck, the government) against certain forms of speech creates exceptions that are not protected by the First Amendment. "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre" is an example illustrating Holmes' point."
I emphasize the words "unregulated expression can create problematic or DANGEROUS situations."
I contend that Geller's intention was to cause a dangerous situation, egging on jihadist terrorist so she could blame the whole islamic faith.
"Well You completely disagree with me even though every expert concerning Geller agrees with what I have stated."
That is what is called an argument of popularity fallacy.
"You can't see what the cartoonist are doing as wrong, even though it has been proven to incite violence for the purpose of doing so."
They made games about killing people and movies and cartoons, it never incited violence why do you claim that it does now?
You have to understand that you are making an extraordinary claim, we know that cartoons do not usually incite violence since they never did before.
If you want to claim the opposite is true, you must present real evidence.
I claim that the religion is the reason that makes people not being able to handle criticism.
I am ready to provide evidence for it, even though I do not need to.
I do not need to show that cartoonists are not the problem since you made a claim first and the burden of proof is on you.
Provide the really best points you have that cartoonists in general are inciting violence here and we can debate that claim.
And NO links are not valid evidence or points
That is how children support their nonsense by expecting anybody to read and filter pages of text/books to find a word that might be relevant to their claim.
Quote the points then link where you found them.
"You mistakenly think that the Koran promotes violence even though Islamic experts says that it doesn't despite what the jihadist and terrorist say."
Lol just lol
Mohammed being a conqueror does not give the example of how to treat people that disagree with him?
He personally had killed the Jews that originally supported him but later disagreed with his theology.
Yes, he sent his men to kill them all.
That is what the Quran teaches, of how to deal with people who criticize you, kill them all.
The prophet did it for peace, god wills it.
The non hypocritical Muslims do the exact same thing.
"According to your post nothing can incite violence."
Where did I say that?
I said that any form of criticism cannot incite violence unless the person involved is violent by nature.
Distinguish the difference between making fun of an idea/opinion and insulting a living and breeding person PERSONALLY.
Theism makes theists mix the self with a god and thus makes them feel offended when they shouldn't if they were sane people.
Theism is the problem not the criticism.
The exact quote is: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Yes because free speech is when you have an opinion/belief and not when your actions involve hurting people in some way.
Fire or false claims of fire could hurt people.
We are not talking about some figure 1300 years ago, we are taking about lives here and now.
Shouting fire is not only an opinion but also an action that has immediate consequences.
"Falsely shouting fire in a theatre" is an example illustrating Holmes' point."
Holmes was simply wrong since that point does not matter to the topic at hand.
You cannot stop criticizing anything because people do not like it.
As simple as that.
I emphasize the words "unregulated expression can create problematic or DANGEROUS situations."
Yes it does so?
Does it mean that it incites violence?
NO, it means that the person receiving is not mature to handle unregulated expressions.
In case of fire, the most mature option is to check by getting out of the building as soon as possible in an educated manner.
Was there violence there?
If on the other hand the people started to rush and a 5 year old was crushed to death, is it the fault of the guy who called fire or the fault of the savage beasts that cannot handle themselves and panic?
That is why there is education(not to use lifts, assembly point, etc.. to educate people because WE KNOW the fault is in lack of maturity.
(it is irrelevant if the fire was real or not)
"According to your post nothing can incite violence."
Actually anything can incite violence really.
What we are debating is whose fault it would be.
I could fart right now and incite people to kill me.
You could say that my fart incited violence true but it is not my fault if people are not so tolerant is it?
It touches on what is just and what is moral a bit.
We know that criticism does benefit society and whoever cannot handle it, his motives must be put in question.
The theistic beliefs are at fault for making deluded people think that by criticizing it is a sin or something.
It makes intolerance as a good thing.
Mind control is the problem even if it was morally right in a particular situation.
The fact that it takes the power from the individual and give it to the few is enough to make it a problem.
A problem which has results like getting cartoonist/critics killed for putting forward their opinion.
Does it matter if one claims that Allah is evil or shows it in a cartoon?
Should we all that think that Allah is evil and publicly claim it, be in the wrong?
According to you we should all just give in and shut up our criticism to Allah.
A problem you seem not to understand at all.
EDIT:
If cartoonists are intentionally provoking Muslims is because Muslims NEED to learn that they have the right to say whatever they want about Mohammed Allah etc.. because it is their right for an opinion on the subject.
Muslims just don't want to accept that everybody has equal rights, they think they are so superior to command people what to say and what to think and they do practice it in their own countries.
Well even if you think it is, you are deadly wrong.
I can claim the Horus is an evil god and shout it to the winds everywhere I want without thinking twice about offending Horus believers because Horus believers know that I have the right for my voice to be heard just like they have one.
They have the right to put forward the claim that Horus truly existed and so do I.
I have the right to claim that Horus never existed, is an evil character and had sex with Mohammed and Allah in the story.
It is my right to invent stories and even lies just like religious people do all the time.
The only difference is that I do not force it on others by claiming that whoever disagrees with me is offending me, but theistic religions do.
Excuse me? Links aren't valid? You said: "And NO links are not valid evidence or points
That is how children support their nonsense by expecting anybody to read and filter pages of text/books to find a word that might be relevant to their claim."
1st of all I provided links( which are perfectly valid and not childish at all, just because you are lazy isn't my fault) and I posted the specific quote from those links.
I provided the Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion because it directly illustrates the effect of provocative speech (cartoon).
Just drawing a cartoon isn't the problem. The problem is drawing a cartoon that you know will cause violence and causing that violence is your purpose in the first place. I showed WITH EVIDENCE that that is the case with Paula Geller.
You said: "A problem which has results like getting cartoonist/critics killed for putting forward their opinion.
Does it matter if one claims that Allah is evil or shows it in a cartoon?
Should we all that think that Allah is evil and publicly claim it, be in the wrong?
According to you we should all just give in and shut up our criticism to Allah."
"According to you..." I never said anything like that. I am not advocating that one cannot criticize allah.
I am saying that those who purposely incite violence are just as guilty who react to that incitement an commit violence.
You said: "If cartoonists are intentionally provoking Muslims is because Muslims NEED to learn that they have the right to say whatever they want about Mohammed Allah etc.. because it is their right for an opinion on the subject.
Muslims just don't want to accept that everybody has equal rights, they think they are so superior to command people what to say and what to think and they do practice it in their own countries."
Me; Muslims, muslims? Don't you mean terrorist? You cannot denigrate the whole of Islam for the actions of terrorist.
As an atheist I have a problem with all religions but I cannot blame the actions of a relatively few people that are terrorist on the whole of that belief.
At some point and time every religion has committed murder in the name of their god. Atheist have actually committed murder in the name of atheism. They don't even teach that Koran justifies violence in Iran. In Iran they understand that war is a political situation. Only a few Imams teach that Koran demands that infidels are to be murdered. ISIS isn't Islam, even though they use their religion as an excuse for their crimes.
Here is the difference between editorial journalism and what Geller does. Editors are provoking thought and expressing and opinion to effect change. Geller provokes violence for the purpose of provoking violence and inciting hate.
Note: Don't make claims of what I think, and don't be inaccurate about what I wrote. Links and quotes from those links are not childish and valid.
I quoted case law AND the link from where I got the quote. That IS evidence. And there is no need to be condescending....that is being childish.
"Excuse me? Links aren't valid?"
No they are not valid in a mature debate.
I was referring to your original post witch consisted of a bunch of links with no quotes.
"I provided the Oliver.."
And I replied to those since they were a mature quotation even though they lacked the link to provide a suitable context for me to read those quoted phrases in context.
"The problem is drawing a cartoon that you know will cause violence and causing that violence is your purpose in the first place."
And I replied that it is OK to do it even if it can expose Islam intolerance.
Actually I stated that that is in fact a good thing.
It is a good thing that Muslims learn their place.
"According to you we should all just give in and shut up our criticism to Allah."
"According to you..." I never said anything like that."
You implied it when you claimed that the cartoonists did something wrong in just displaying their opinion.
Just like when someone displays his opinion to criticize Islam.
"Muslims, muslims? Don't you mean terrorist? You cannot denigrate the whole of Islam for the actions of terrorist."
NO I MEAN MUSLIMS and Christians alike. All theists think of themselves as loved by god which automatically makes them in a special set of people that think of themselves as superior to others, They think they recognized a revelation from god while others did not.
Arrogance mascaraed as humility.
Terrorist(aka. non hypocritical Muslims/Christians) just drown even deeper in this arrogance and superiority complex.
They all think they are superior but Extremists even more.
But all of them fuken think that their religion is the best and last true one.
If that does not shout in your face that they think of themselves as superior I do not know what does.
That not counting the concept of them deserving heaven and the rest hell.
They need to learn their place that while they are on this earth they have equal rights to everybody else.
Christians learned their place with regards to gays rights Muslims are still not there yet.
"As an atheist I have a problem with all religions but I cannot blame the actions of a relatively few people that are terrorist on the whole of that belief."
I can because i have a better picture of the cause of the theism, I can see the reasons why those acts can happen.
I can see the effects of indoctrination that creates easy to manipulate subjects to their leaders will.
You have a very distorted picture of reality my friend, if u think that this is a problem which is not rooted in theism.
It is not about the actions, but the doctrine, if the doctrine teaches to despise criticism and champion ignorance, then the results are a worse political situation, more abuse, more wars and more division,
"Geller provokes violence for the purpose of provoking violence and inciting hate."
I do not care what Geller said, that was never the point of the argument.
The point was that those cartoonists do not incite violence but only expose those who are intolerant to free speech.
They are helping us to know who do we have to eradicate from society.(kick them out)
Those who do not follow the basic human rights laws and are taking their religion too seriously.
"I quoted case law AND the link from where I got the quote."
Yea only 1 out of the 7 or so links that you placed which I fully replied to and proved how irrelevant that claim was.
Which BTW you did not bother to reply.
"That IS evidence."
No that is not evidence at all.
That was just an opinion, not even supported by logic but something that a bunch of people might have agreed with in a particular context, not the claim you were making.
As I explained it was irrelevant to your claim and you did not even bother to deny it.
You seem to ignore this point... and focus on the childish remark which you seem to think I accused you of.
I just said that you should pay attention on how you support a claim because putting a bunch of links is childish.
I did not say you were childish but your action could be mistaken to be one.
This is how to support your claim at the bare minimum:
I claim that a Fact is an "observation that has been repeatedly confirmed"
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientif...
-Make the claim
-Provide a direct copy paste quote which supports your claim.
-and where did you get it from.(sometimes even provide the line)
No, it is not lazy.
It is how everybody that wants to be taken seriously does it.
Okay. I'm through debating this with you. You have descended into condescension an insults that are not warranted. I will not insult you.
I'll just say that I provided quotes and the links that I got that information and more than proved my point.
I disagree with you and for me that is the end of the matter. If but not responding any further that makes you feel that you have won, sobeit. You haven't, it's not a game.
Generally I agree with you about theist in general. I just don't agree with you that the cartoonist bare no responsibility. Geller in particular. She is a hate monger.
I did not win anything in making more enemies on this forum because I am too stubborn in not being a hypocrite.
So it nearly never is a win for me to try to be always as unbiased as possible.
It brings haters from all directions.
"Generally I agree with you about theist in general. I just don't agree with you that the cartoonist bare no responsibility. Geller in particular. She is a hate monger."
It is well within your right to think cartoonist bare responsibility and I do not deny that, actually I love people with different positions or ideas regardless of how ridiculous I think they are.
They bring more food for thought and clarity in my positions on things.
The problem here was that you claimed to have evidence and appeared to claim things as facts in your original post and that is simply not true.
It is just your opinion and I am fine with that.
BTW I do agree "She is a hate monger." too, but that does not mean she is inciting violence.
Definitely irresponsible and might increase the violence of what actually is inciting violence.
Whoever is promoting INTOLERANCE and the DISRESPECT for the laws of a country.
mykckob4 : The same cretins who use violence against cartoonists would use violence against you because you have stated you are an atheist. Is your atheism inciting violence ? By your logic it is. Here is a small sample of the people you are inciting to violence :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpvgEHzh6js
"I say that inciting violence through insults for the purpose of inciting such violence is just as wrong as the violence itself. And the law agrees with me."
Not "just as wrong". Using provocative (insulting if you like) words and pictures are not as serious as violence in terms of consequences and effects on people and society. The law is proportionately sterner against using actual violence than against incitement. Violence (and the threat of it) is provocative too, especially if it is so unjustified - and it doesn't just provoke debate. The law is against specifically inciting violence, not attacking people's beliefs in words or pictures. I don't regard the Mohammed cartoons in appropriate places as incitement at all.
I also agree with what JeffVL has posted.
Satire and free expression (including Mohammed cartoons) aren't about insulting people. The Mohammed cartoons have undoubtedly been effective in making people question assumptions about what must be held sacred by other people, whether they are non-believers or just the wrong religion or sect. I would call into question the very concepts of "sacred", "blasphemy" and "apostate". Lampoons challenge important assumptions.
It is wrong to unduly take offence as well as to offend.
I would describe Ms Geller's opinions as "Trumpette". I think contributors here will understand the adjective:-)
Was the risk of violence a good reason to SELF-censor? That is for the individual to decide not the law, which is why the convention was permitted. The law apparently decided it wasn't incitement and the organizers apparently didn't break any laws.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=extremists+in+uk+images&rlz=1C1EODB_en...
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it".
Speaking of cartoons....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/turkish-government-publishes-car...
"It is wrong to unduly take offence as well as to offend."
Well put, and that is exactly what most if not all Muslims do when being criticized about their belief.(even more then Christians)
Speaking of cartoons..
Holy shit, that is sick.
Theism loves messing with children, child physical and mental rape seems to be rampant in theism.
Even more so when there is no decent authority to put them in their place.
"Speaking of cartoons....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/turkish-government-publishes-car..."
Whaaaat?!
"Turkish government publishes cartoons 'glorifying martyrdom' to children which compares suicide bombing to feeling a pinch"
So they want more suicide attacks, not less?
An important point about the post-massacre Charlie Hebdo...
The original cartoons had a limited following but from what I saw of them were actually quite good. They weren't widely liked because they were extremely course and often obscene. Many felt they were gratuitous sometimes, but never did everyone feel that way about them. They did seem to keep within certain bounds and make a point. That collective intellect is now literally dead and the newcomers aren't chosen on merit but simply aspirants trying to carry on as best they can. They produced one cartoon that crosses a line with almost everyone to lampoon religious superstition and the handling of the refugee crisis...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=charlie+hebdo+refugee+child+drown+cart...
Such gross insensitivity and poor targeting have probably killed Charlie Hebdo as a serious observer and rightly so, but one shouldn't impugn the names of the dead with the deeds of others. Charlie Hebdo liked to be seen as people unafraid to address anything in the most confrontational way. Islamists feared it for exactly that reason - unlike concepts like democracy, religion cannot withstand ridicule or mockery, still less a successful lampoon. The Islamists did kill Charlie Hebdo after all, though the name lives on as a hollow shell.
Let's not attribute blame to the dead that belongs to the living. From what I have read, the murdered cartoonists were very nice, responsible people and intellectually honest whether one likes their work or not.
Pages