# The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Was The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) wrong to hold the event "Draw Mohammed"?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Wrong?
That's a big can o' worms, isn't it?
LOL
In today's world, you're going to find that definition very elusive.......

I had to look at who she was and her background because I had heard about her a few times but didn't know much other than that.
To answer your question though.......yes, it was wrong.
Making fun of something with the intention of provoking anger is never a good idea.
Obviously it worked well, I'm just glad when the shooting started, a vigilant officer was ready and skillful.
It could have been much, much worse.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

She knew what would happen. So did the many that attended.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Poke the bear, kick the hornets nest, tease the pit bull on a chain....you know what the response will be. It's not some noble, honorable act.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I see it as asserting a freedom.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I don't understand the position that it is the responsibility of the non-Muslim people to not offend these barbarians just so everyone can live with there heads stuck in the sand and fool themselves about this peaceful religion. I am offended regularly by (choose your group here) but I recognize their right to their opinion and their right to express it if they choose to do so.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Wrong?
> That's a big can o' worms, isn't it?
> LOL
> In today's world, you're going to find that definition very elusive.......
> ...


Pamela had security plus paid $10k for local police security.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I don't understand the criticism, especially from the media. Pamela responds to radical Islam. She reacts, not provokes. She organized this event in reaction to the murders at Charlie Hebdo in France.

Sharia calls for killing anyone who creates an image of Mohammed, which is radical Islam's justification for the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Danish cartoons violent protests, the murder of Theo van Gogh for making a film criticizing the treatment of woman under Islam. I don't remember the details, but there was a woman in the pacific Northwest who (I think) made a cartoon about Mohamed and is still in hiding many years later. The person who won the AFDI contest is in hiding and has received several death threats.

For an American to criticize what Pamela did seems to me to place Sharia over the Constitution. As Americans we are free to criticize, mock, reject, etc religion or lack of religion. Christianity is criticized and mocked on a daily basis. Jews are stereotyped and criticized. There is a play making fun of Mormons. The media often takes an anti-Christian slant. No murders! 

The analogy most often being used is the way a woman dresses provoking rape. Or a woman not having dinner ready provoking her husband to beat her. How about NARAL holding pro-abortion rallies? If someone attempted to attack the rally, would the media say that NARAL provoked the attack? Remembe_r the Satanic Verses_ by Salmon Rushdie? He is still in hiding over 25 years later.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

A religion not just condoning, but encouraging murder should be shown for what it is. If Pamela Geller's intention was to draw attention to the murderous teachings of islam, she succeeded.

Cowering in fear of any group, afraid to offend, is not an admirable act. Too many people, not just liberals, are willfully blind to the 7th century barbarism practiced in the name of a documented murderer and terrorist. 

The analogy of "poking a bear" is a disingenuous argument, but let's put it in context. If other bears claim bears are harmless, and the species is falsely maligned, poking it will expose the truth of the matter.

This isn't so much a matter of free speech, although free speech and thought are basic to freedom, it's more a matter of awakening the apologists and appeasers to the danger of their belief that a free society can coexist with such a murderous cult.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

There's no option for "draw Mohammed and get shot by ISIS was a psy-op."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I don't understand the position that it is the responsibility of the non-Muslim people to not offend these barbarians just so everyone can live with there heads stuck in the sand and fool themselves about this peaceful religion. I am offended regularly by (choose your group here) but I recognize their right to their opinion and their right to express it if they choose to do so.


Post of the millenneum.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't understand the criticism, especially from the media. Pamela responds to radical Islam. She reacts, not provokes. She organized this event in reaction to the murders at Charlie Hebdo in France.
> 
> Sharia calls for killing anyone who creates an image of Mohammed, which is radical Islam's justification for the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Danish cartoons violent protests, the murder of Theo van Gogh for making a film criticizing the treatment of woman under Islam. I don't remember the details, but there was a woman in the pacific Northwest who (I think) made a cartoon about Mohamed and is still in hiding many years later. The person who won the AFDI contest is in hiding and has received several death threats.
> 
> ...


Another post of the millenneum award.
However, I voted for 'inappropriate' but I certainly do not think it was "WRONG".
We cannot live under a theocratic political movement bent on destroying us & the rest of the western world. We have our own Constitution to live by.
Just a couple of months b/4 this, a 'seminar'? a 'conference' on Islamaphobia was held in the same building. So maybe this was appropriate following that conference.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow two post of the millennium in one thread !


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Ozarks Tom said:


> The analogy of "poking a bear" is a disingenuous argument, but let's put it in context. If other bears claim bears are harmless, and the species is falsely maligned, poking it will expose the truth of the matter.
> 
> This isn't so much a matter of free speech, although free speech and thought are basic to freedom, it's more a matter of awakening the apologists and appeasers to the danger of their belief that a free society can coexist with such a murderous cult.


This needs to be shouted from the roof tops and instilled in every child in school!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree it is wrong to provoke someone to anger for the simple intent of ridicule.

I do not see AFDI doing that. I think they were showing that no one, like the Danish press, Comedy Central, Charlie Hebdo, or the NYT, no one, should be intimidated and cower in fear to terrorist and their horrible methods.

But in 2006, when âSouth Parkâ wanted to weigh in on a controversy that erupted after Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published cartoons satirizing Muhammad, it was not given the same latitude: a character said to be Muhammad was concealed behind a large black box labeled âCENSORED.â The measure was taken by the âSouth Parkâ producers partly at the insistence of Comedy Central, and partly as a commentary on the networkâs policy of not allowing them to show the character, which the episode equated with giving in to the demands of extremists.

In a statement, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone wrote: âIn the 14 years weâve been doing âSouth Parkâ we have never done a show that we couldnât stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central, and they made a determination to alter the episode.â

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html?_r=0

Standing up to a bully has risk. Sometimes you get a bloody nose. Islamic Terrorist are nothing but bullies, really bad bullies..


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Obama has said that it was an attempted terrorist attack and that it is unclear how involved ISIS was in the Texas attack.
IMO he needs to say that Islam has a problem with the radical Islamists.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Poke the bear, kick the hornets nest, tease the pit bull on a chain....you know what the response will be. It's not some noble, honorable act.












They knew what might happen but took action anyway.











Does that mean it was "not some noble, honorable act"?














They saw what was going on, did nothing resulting in. . .










Who are the more noble and honorable? Those who take actions in the name of freedom when those actions might result in harm or those who do nothing and let freedom be lost and result in harm?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> They knew what might happen but took action anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pu-lease. There is no comparison between the cartoon exhibit and the civil rights movement. None.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I don't understand the position that it is the responsibility of the non-Muslim people to not offend these barbarians just so everyone can live with there heads stuck in the sand and fool themselves about this peaceful religion. I am offended regularly by (choose your group here) but I recognize their right to their opinion and their right to express it if they choose to do so.




I spent some time in Proverbs in coming to my answer.
There you will find wisdom and understanding.





MoonRiver said:


> I don't understand the criticism, especially from the media. Pamela responds to radical Islam. She reacts, not provokes. She organized this event in reaction to the murders at Charlie Hebdo in France.
> 
> For an American *to criticize what Pamela did seems to me to place Sharia over the Constitution.* As Americans we are free to criticize, mock, reject, etc religion or lack of religion. Christianity is criticized and mocked on a daily basis. Jews are stereotyped and criticized. There is a play making fun of Mormons. The media often takes an anti-Christian slant. No murders!



Nope.
Not Sharia, Yaweh.
See above reply.




Ozarks Tom said:


> A religion not just condoning, but encouraging murder should be shown for what it is. If Pamela Geller's intention was to draw attention to the murderous teachings of islam, she succeeded.


For those that were NOT aware of the murders taking place in the name of Allah, it should be obvious to a wise man that further examples are useless.
They are fools.




Ozarks Tom said:


> Cowering in fear of any group, afraid to offend, is not an admirable act. Too many people, not just liberals, are willfully blind to the 7th century barbarism practiced in the name of a documented murderer and terrorist.



I would never cower, but stand without fear.
Differentiating between His will and mine is one of the keys to understanding what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> There's no option for "draw Mohammed and get shot by ISIS was a psy-op."


There's no real evidence ISIS actually had anything to do with the incident, and not everything is a big conspiracy


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Now they need to have a mohamade jar of urine art exhibit .:catfight:So mo cow are you against freedom of speech which is a civil right?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

This is asking the wrong question. The question is why anyone would find inappropriate speech should be subject to restriction because people more horribly intolerant will take violent action. 
If it is inappropriate, is it also inappropriate to offend fundamentalist Christians by calling homosexual relations a marriage? Or criticizing the Pope, who is infallible accoding to Roman Catholic theology? Should that also be restricted?
The foundation of freedom of speech is to allow inappropriate speech. If someone believes it was inappropriate, it effects not a dust mite in what should happen.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I have mixed feelings about this.
I fully support their right to hold the contest, but I also don't go around insulting others religious beliefs even if I find them (to me) foolish.

Having said that, I see Islam as the 2nd most dangerous obstacle to peace in the world. Greed in its many forms [especially lust for power], being the 1st.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

michael ark said:


> Now they need to have a mohamade jar of urine art exhibit .:catfight:So mo cow are you against freedom of speech which is a civil right?


Of course I am "for" free speech. 

But I am also for people having some judgement, some maturity, and not doing anything and everything just because they can. Like the misguided young men who were strolling into family restaurants with AR's and scaring old ladies because it was "their right". 

I never said the exhibit should not have been allowed to take place. If the city, county or another branch of GOVERNMENT prohibited it from being held, that's what would constitute the infringement of free speech. 

I wouldn't attend your urine exhibit either, but I wouldn't expect the government to censor it for me. See how that works?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

So because Geller knew it would insult muslims-it is wrong?
Don't gays know they insult islam, infadels, even their own women insult the religion just being Women. So people are supposed to cower because they might insult islam? Are we sitll America anymore? 
I'm insulted that someone stomps on the flag or insists a crucifix be taken down. I'm insulted that marriage has been changed for sinners-BUT, I'm not going to condone anyone that kills because they are prvokeing us.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

7thswan said:


> So because Geller knew it would insult muslims-it is wrong?
> Don't gays know they insult islam, infadels, even their own women insult the religion just being Women. So people are supposed to cower because they might insult islam? Are we sitll America anymore?
> I'm insulted that someone stomps on the flag or insists a crucifix be taken down. I'm insulted that marriage has been changed for sinners-BUT, I'm not going to condone anyone that kills because they are prvokeing us.


Not holding a tacky exhibit, is not "cowering". 

Now if this had been an annual exhibit but they decided not to hold it this year in light of the France happenings, that could be considered "cowering". 

Is this still America? Of course it is. It isn't the America you remember, and it never will be again. Today's America is better in some ways, worse in others. We just can't have it all.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Pu-lease. There is no comparison between the cartoon exhibit and the civil rights movement. None.


Yes there is. They are both about freedom to exercise rights w/o fear. Change the cartoon from being about Muhammad to one about the President (anyone not just the one in office now) and the shooters from Islamic extremist to the police. Does that thought scare you? 

Now before you say it could never happen here read a little history. A good place to start would be the history of Germany from about 1920 to 1940. I'm sure if you had told the average German on the street in 1920 what Germany would be like in 1940 he'd laughed in your face and told you it could never happen. But it did happen and it happened because most of those very people stood by watching and doing nothing to stop it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Of course I am "for" free speech.
> 
> But I am also for people having some judgement, some maturity, and not doing anything and everything just because they can. Like the misguided young men who were strolling into family restaurants with AR's and scaring old ladies because it was "their right".


You must ask yourself why are those old ladies scared? They are scared because they have been conditioned to be so because the press and powers that be have told them that the only reason anyone buys an "assault" weapon is to kill people and anyone carrying an "assault" weapon must be a crazed killer who is just looking for people to kill. The more people these old ladies see carrying the less fear they will have because they will see Its the 'fear' of scaring old ladies which leads to people being afraid to exercise their right. 

There are plenty of old ladies in restaurants in Israel who don't wet themselves when they see a group of young men stroll into a family restaurant. Why? Because they are used to seeing such things and know that anyone who strolls in carrying a weapon is someone who is willing to use that weapon to protect others.

Those who are on the edge of free speech are the very ones we should admire, even if we vehemently oppose what they say. They are the ones who keep that freedom strong. If you only do easy things you wind up fat, weak and lazy. Then when someone strong does come along you are in no shape to defend yourself.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Not holding a tacky exhibit, is not "cowering".


Care to explain that. How is deciding not to do something just because you are afraid of how others will react not "cowering"?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

And why what you choose to say is inappropriate has anything to do with the danger posed by those who object?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> Yes there is. They are both about freedom to exercise rights w/o fear. Change the cartoon from being about Muhammad to one about the President (anyone not just the one in office now) and the shooters from Islamic extremist to the police. Does that thought scare you?
> 
> Now before you say it could never happen here read a little history. A good place to start would be the history of Germany from about 1920 to 1940. I'm sure if you had told the average German on the street in 1920 what Germany would be like in 1940 he'd laughed in your face and told you it could never happen. But it did happen and it happened because most of those very people stood by watching and doing nothing to stop it.


You left a little something out. Freedom to exercise rights w/o fear of TPTB. If the city or the county or the state or the feds blocked the event, freedom of speech would be in danger. But nobody blocked it from taking place, and the question asked in the OP was whether it was appropriate. Not whether or not the future of the free world depended on it!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> Care to explain that. How is deciding not to do something just because you are afraid of how others will react not "cowering"?


Oh come on. If I refrain from telling the big, butch looking biker chick at the bar, how ugly she is and her breath stinks, am I "cowering" or just exercising good judgement to avoid getting my butt kicked? A little discretion never hurt anyone and has nothing to do with "rights".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> You left a little something out. Freedom to exercise rights w/o fear of TPTB. If the city or the county or the state or the feds blocked the event, freedom of speech would be in danger. But nobody blocked it from taking place, and the question asked in the OP was whether it was appropriate. Not whether or not the future of the free world depended on it!


IIRC, you claimed it was inappropriate because of the _possible_ actions it could cause others to take. My point is if you fail to take an action based on how it could affect others then you are allowing them to censor you. That lets others know that all they have to do to shut you up is to make you think your speech or actions would lead to a reaction you would not like.

What do you think would have happened if the blacks who were thinking about peacefully sitting at whites only lunch counters had thought they might be shot and decided to not do it? Or if the government decided not to force integration because it could possibly lead to violence?

Giving in to bullies makes them stronger and you weaker. The more you give in the stronger they become and the weaker you become until at some point they are too strong and you are too weak to fight.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Oh come on. If I refrain from telling the big, butch looking biker chick at the bar, how ugly she is and her breath stinks, am I "cowering" or just exercising good judgement to avoid getting my butt kicked? A little discretion never hurt anyone and has nothing to do with "rights".


Cower (_emphasis mine_- -to move back or bend your body down because you are *afraid*; to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that *menaces*, domineers, or dismays

Yes. You are not saying it because you are afraid of getting your butt kicked because she is menacing and domineering to you. Does that not line up with the very definition of cowering?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Oh come on. If I refrain from telling the big, butch looking biker chick at the bar, how ugly she is and her breath stinks, am I "cowering" or just exercising good judgement *to avoid getting my butt* *kicked?* A little discretion never hurt anyone and has nothing to do with "rights".


If I were you I'd find a different analogy. If your goal for the bar visit was to point out how violent butch biker chicks can be, then yes, refraining would be cowering.

This thread isn't a discussion about hurt feelings. It's about the appropriateness of showcasing for those who refuse to admit it that islam is not a religion of peace. In a very real sense, a matter of life or death for a free society.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

All of y'all who think the future of the world rests on a showing of tacky cartoons, I'll expect the announcement of your own event real soon. If you believe so strongly then surely action will follow your words.

Good nite!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Is the only reason for not thinking this was appropriate, because of cowardice?
Has it not occurred to y'all that acts of bravery are committed everyday without any malice towards another human being?

I certainly would defend the right of this contest to be held, as the anti-Christian art displays in NYC and burning American flags.

I wouldn't approve of them either, nor would I think someone cowardly for thinking the same way.
The constitution protects the fool and the wise alike.
Fortunately the venue was held in a place that doesn't tolerate killing someone for their freedom of expression either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I do consider what AFDI inappropriate, provocative and in the poorest of taste. Despicable is maybe a good word for what they did. It made me cringe.

That said, I would defend what AFDI did as an act of free speech as a statement of such. 

I could not defend GLOBAL JIHAD and ISIS's CALLS FOR 'SLAUGHTER' OF PAM GELLER.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Pam did what she did and where she did it because of an event the muslims held there recently.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You must ask yourself why are those old ladies scared? They are scared because they have been conditioned to be so because the press and powers that be have told them that the only reason anyone buys an "assault" weapon is to kill people and anyone carrying an "assault" weapon must be a crazed killer who is just looking for people to kill. The more people these old ladies see carrying the less fear they will have because they will see Its the 'fear' of scaring old ladies which leads to people being afraid to exercise their right.
> 
> There are plenty of old ladies in restaurants in Israel who don't wet themselves when they see a group of young men stroll into a family restaurant. Why? Because they are used to seeing such things and know that anyone who strolls in carrying a weapon is someone who is willing to use that weapon to protect others.
> 
> Those who are on the edge of free speech are the very ones we should admire, even if we vehemently oppose what they say. They are the ones who keep that freedom strong. If you only do easy things you wind up fat, weak and lazy. Then when someone strong does come along you are in no shape to defend yourself.


Those old ladies in Israel likely don't wet themselves because if those young men walking in are carrying weapons they're also likely wearing uniforms. Private gun ownership in Israel isn't that common and is highly restricted. It's a little more common to see guns in the settlements but they're probab&#322;y more necessary to defend stolen ground.

There's a pretty big trial going on in Colorado right now concerning a guy who just happened to go into a public place with a gun. Is it the media promoting an agenda covering an event like this, or is it news? I saw some pretty good coverage of an armed robbery suspect shot and killed this past weekend by a concealed carrier. Who's agenda does that coverage serve?

As to the event in question. The organizers had every right to do what they did. They got the best result they could hope for. An attack by Muslim extremists, especially one that resulted in only their own deaths, served to not only reinforce their point that Muslims are violent but gave them publicity they otherwise would have never seen. Ms. Geller is more well known and I'm sure is making more money today spreading her message than she was last week. Without having seen any of the artwork in question I can't really judge its appropriateness. Good political cartooning can be controversial, cutting edge, insulting and appropriate. Bad political cartooning can be controversial, cutting edge, insulting and inappropriate. It's a fine line between enlightening and thought provoking and just provoking.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> You must ask yourself why are those old ladies scared? They are scared because they have been conditioned to be so because the press and powers that be have told them that the only reason anyone buys an "assault" weapon is to kill people and anyone carrying an "assault" weapon must be a crazed killer who is just looking for people to kill. The more people these old ladies see carrying the less fear they will have because they will see Its the 'fear' of scaring old ladies which leads to people being afraid to exercise their right.
> 
> There are plenty of old ladies in restaurants in Israel who don't wet themselves when they see a group of young men stroll into a family restaurant. Why? Because they are used to seeing such things and know that anyone who strolls in carrying a weapon is someone who is willing to use that weapon to protect others.
> 
> Those who are on the edge of free speech are the very ones we should admire, even if we vehemently oppose what they say. They are the ones who keep that freedom strong. If you only do easy things you wind up fat, weak and lazy. Then when someone strong does come along you are in no shape to defend yourself.


I'd venture to say its not the 'old' ones who are scared...we grew up handling rifles in public, kids walked to school w/one to go hunting after school. Its 'young' ladies who cringe b/c firearms are considered 'bad' due to the lib indoctrination in our schools.
When the boy scouts did their 'gun training' I think about age 11, 12? young moms had a fit. This has gone on for generations but somehow its become fearful.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> IIRC, you claimed it was inappropriate because of the _possible_ actions it could cause others to take. My point is if you fail to take an action based on how it could affect others then you are allowing them to censor you. That lets others know that all they have to do to shut you up is to make you think your speech or actions would lead to a reaction you would not like.
> 
> What do you think would have happened if the blacks who were thinking about peacefully sitting at whites only lunch counters had thought they might be shot and decided to not do it? Or if the government decided not to force integration because it could possibly lead to violence?
> 
> Giving in to bullies makes them stronger and you weaker. The more you give in the stronger they become and the weaker you become until at some point they are too strong and you are too weak to fight.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I do consider what AFDI inappropriate, provocative and in the poorest of taste. Despicable is maybe a good word for what they did. It made me cringe.
> 
> That said, I would defend what AFDI did as an act of free speech as a statement of such.
> 
> I could not defend GLOBAL JIHAD and ISIS's CALLS FOR 'SLAUGHTER' OF PAM GELLER.


Thing is, right after the massacres in France, an Islam group held a 'conference' in that building called "Islamaphobia Awareness". Everything was directed at indoctrinating the USA about how we are strangely and INAPPROPRIATELY afraid of Islam.
It was after this that Geller's org planned their 'exhibit'.

oh, & there were protests at that Islamaphobic event. Funny, no one was shot at. However there were plenty of feel good libs denouncing the protesters as WRONGWRONGWRONG. Its the same ones, practically, who are going on about how awful the exhibit was.
Geller wanted to shed light on this also. On how we've become used to appeasment of those who are out to abolish western civilization.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I do consider what AFDI inappropriate, provocative and in the poorest of taste. Despicable is maybe a good word for what they did. It made me cringe.
> 
> That said, I would defend what AFDI did as an act of free speech as a statement of such.
> 
> I could not defend GLOBAL JIHAD and ISIS's CALLS FOR 'SLAUGHTER' OF PAM GELLER.


Thing is, right after the massacres in France, an Islam group held a 'conference' in that building called "Islamaphobia Awareness". Everything was directed at indoctrinating the USA about how we are strangely and INAPPROPRIATELY afraid of Islam.
It was after this that Geller's org planned their 'exhibit'.
There were protests. Strangely enuf, no one was shot at! However, the media & other feel good libs denounced the protesters mightily. 'Bout the same ones who are saying how wrong this exhibit was. Anyone surprised?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> All of y'all who think the future of the world rests on a showing of tacky cartoons, I'll expect the announcement of your own event real soon. If you believe so strongly then surely action will follow your words.
> 
> Good nite!


I'm not as brave as Pamela Geller and never said I was. 

Pamela is one of the bravest people I know. She has daughters and is still willing to stare down radical Islam. She travels with security and even needs security just to go out for dinner. The sacrifice she is making for this country is beyond what almost any American is willing to make. What she has done since 911 is an American story that needs to be told.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It is confusing when terrorist wrap themselves in religion. 

Who are we fighting? The religion? The terrorist groups? Is there a difference?

Even more confusing is the recruiting success these Islamic terror groups have. 

There is nothing simple about any of this.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> It is confusing when terrorist wrap themselves in religion.
> 
> Who are we fighting? The religion? The terrorist groups? Is there a difference?
> 
> ...


I think it is simple. Islam is incompatible with democratic principles like free speech.

ETA: Just read this on Red State by Eric Erickson.



> But it is increasingly clear that Islam and the First Amendment are not compatible, which means Islam and our constitutional system are not compatible. For every &#8220;peaceful Muslim&#8221; out there, there are far too many who want to maim, kill, and destroy ideas, people, and cultures they find incompatible and there are too few &#8220;peaceful Muslims&#8221; willing to stand up and speak out against their brethren.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The actions of the Muslim attackers was inappropriate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Why wasn't the FBI ahead of this? Why weren't THEY waiting in Garland for these guys? THey tweeted they'd be there, & for what reason they were going. 
Oh, its b/c they get tooo many tweets!

http://joemiller.us/2015/05/officia...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-80570bc932-230980529


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Why wasn't the FBI ahead of this? Why weren't THEY waiting in Garland for these guys? THey tweeted they'd be there, & for what reason they were going.
> Oh, its b/c they get tooo many tweets!
> 
> http://joemiller.us/2015/05/officia...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-80570bc932-230980529


As of last night on Hannity, no one from the federal government (FBI, Homeland Security) had contacted Pamela. It appears to me the federal government is playing politics with this.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Thing is, right after the massacres in France, an Islam group held a 'conference' in that building called "Islamaphobia Awareness". Everything was directed at indoctrinating the USA about how we are strangely and INAPPROPRIATELY afraid of Islam.
> It was after this that Geller's org planned their 'exhibit'.
> There were protests. Strangely enuf, no one was shot at! However, the media & other feel good libs denounced the protesters mightily. 'Bout the same ones who are saying how wrong this exhibit was. Anyone surprised?


Aha, the old "they started it" logic. Popular with children...of all ages. 

If some branch of government had tried to prevent the exhibit, I'd be right there with you on the "free speech" aspect. But there was no govt. interference so free speech isn't the issue. 

The wisdom of holding the event in the first place, and any value it had, are subject to individual interpretation. After all what is more subjective than art? 

I'm done getting dumped on and drug thru a knothole for not being a fan of the exhibit. I don't care who agrees or disagrees and I don't care if anyone is convinced to come over to "my side". I do appreciate the irony that the same people ranting about "free speech" are the very ones trying to stifle mine..........


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Aha, the old "they started it" logic. Popular with children...of all ages.
> 
> If some branch of government had tried to prevent the exhibit, I'd be right there with you on the "free speech" aspect. But there was no govt. interference so free speech isn't the issue.
> 
> ...


Disagreeing with you is not stifling your speech.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I think it is simple. Islam is incompatible with democratic principles, like free speech.


Maybe. 

Consider though, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Maldives or maybe Pakistan. Maybe not beacons of freedom, but they do compare well to Sharia theocracies like Iran or the wannabe state ISIS.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill OâReilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a âfatwaâ: 

âThe attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,â the message reads. âOur aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we donât care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.â


Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Further...

What Pamela Geller is about â courageously and boldly â is standing up for freedom. Thatâs it. Thatâs all. âMy country is in danger,â she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday â and she is right. When OâReilly says âInsulting the entire Muslim world is stupidâ¦ It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,â he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isnât Gellerâs job to defeat ISIS. Thatâs the Presidentâs job. It isnât her job to provoke â or not provoke. It isnât her job to be smart â or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech â and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.

What concerns with all this criticism? In effect what the critics are saying is that we should start curtailing American freedoms â the Constitution â to avoid âprovokingâ or offending someone. Muslims today, gays yesterday, rioting Baltimoreans last week. And so on through some catechism of political correctness. 


Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

HT is a reflection of America at large... It is a messy country with all our different opinions and ideas. I admire, and admonish, all of you who think it is simple.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Yes there is. They are both about freedom to exercise rights w/o fear. Change the cartoon from being about Muhammad to one about the President (anyone not just the one in office now) and the shooters from Islamic extremist to the police. Does that thought scare you?
> 
> Now before you say it could never happen here read a little history. A good place to start would be the history of Germany from about 1920 to 1940. I'm sure if you had told the average German on the street in 1920 what Germany would be like in 1940 he'd laughed in your face and told you it could never happen. But it did happen and it happened because most of those very people stood by watching and doing nothing to stop it.


I hear People call Islam the Nazi's of this era.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Watcher, I read this earlier about Pam and thought of you.

&#8220;&#8230;if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman&#8217;s hand.&#8221; 
[Ezekiel 33:6]

We are all called to be watchmen. Some respond to that call.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd venture to say its not the 'old' ones who are scared...we grew up handling rifles in public, kids walked to school w/one to go hunting after school. Its 'young' ladies who cringe b/c firearms are considered 'bad' due to the lib indoctrination in our schools.
> When the boy scouts did their 'gun training' I think about age 11, 12? young moms had a fit. This has gone on for generations but somehow its become fearful.


My later teen years in the country- Hunters got opening day off school and time allowed at planting time and harvest off from school. It was normal to see gun racks in trucks in the school parking lot.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Further...
> 
> What Pamela Geller is about â courageously and boldly â is standing up for freedom. Thatâs it. Thatâs all. âMy country is in danger,â she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday â and she is right. When OâReilly says âInsulting the entire Muslim world is stupidâ¦ It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,â he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isnât Gellerâs job to defeat ISIS. Thatâs the Presidentâs job. It isnât her job to provoke â or not provoke. It isnât her job to be smart â or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech â and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.
> 
> ...


Post of the millenneum.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

So, do y'all know how to catch wild hogs?

Sprinkle corn out in the woods where they've been seen.
When they're used to coning there for food, put up a fence along one side of where the corn is.
When they come & are used to the fence, put one up next to it, right angles.
When they are used to this & keep coming for the FREE food, put up another fence, fencing 3 sides.
Then, fence the last side, w/open gate. When they all come to feed off the free food, slam the gate.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> I hear People call Islam the Nazi's of this era.


Catchy but doesn't really fit. Islam doesn't really care about your race or ethnic background or nationality. As long as you are a follower of Mohammad you are ok. Well there is the Shea-Shiite thing. . .


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The poll totals should be 
7 to 26

I fat finger it .

I heard about the contest and regretted my lack of talent.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

watcher said:


> Catchy but doesn't really fit. Islam doesn't really care about your race or ethnic background or nationality. As long as you are a follower of Mohammad you are ok. Well there is the Shea-Shiite thing. . .


From what I've seen they're equal opportunity murderers. ISIS is sunni, but they're killing sunnis in occupied Iraq for not being their kind of sunni. Now, ISIS will kill shiites all day long, no matter how devout they are.

It's getting to where you can't tell the players without a program.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Aha, the old "they started it" logic. Popular with children...of all ages.
> 
> If some branch of government had tried to prevent the exhibit, I'd be right there with you on the "free speech" aspect. But there was no govt. interference so free speech isn't the issue.
> 
> ...


Seems as tho you are the one who is attempting to 'stifle' our beliefs on this! Who here has tried to 'stifle' you free speech? Pointing out our side of this does not prohibit you from showing yours.
Trying to tell us that if we believe this way, you're waiting for us to hold one of these exhibits. How silly!Do you set up conferences for every belief YOU have? 
C'mon, MO. We are living in a time where appeasement of a huge group of people who's views are NOT just 'different' than ours, their views are in DIRECT opposition to our Constitution, is being pushed! In MANY ways, not just the 1st amendment. IMHO, as well as that of many, many others, there SHOULD NOT be any appeasement of those views!

Know how to catch wild hogs?

I prolly shoulda voted differently. I voted 'inappropriate'. B/c I think it was RIGHT! But prolly not so appropriate. It wasn't a trick ? was it?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> Catchy but doesn't really fit. Islam doesn't really care about your race or ethnic background or nationality. As long as you are a follower of Mohammad you are ok. Well there is *the Shea-Shiite thing*. . .


I am not even sure that is it.

I think it might be nothing more than a pure power play, using religion as its honey pot.

I think it might be about subjugation to strict 14th century ways, purging themselves of all things western, of all things modern.

Whatever it is, it is not at all compatible with the 21st century, much less a republic or democratic form of government.

If it is Islam, if it is what it means to be a Muslim, it is evil, vile and brutal, whatever IT is.

Ignoring it will not make it less evil, or make it go away.

Appeasement does not work. How can one accommodate something so brutally vile?

It looks entirely mad to me.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Personally I do not care if they have a "draw (insert icon)" contest. Maybe they can do the Pope next if they are into drawing leaders of groups.

I also do not see anything wrong with poking the bear at any time. We poke the bear at our own government all the time...what is one good reason that freedom of speech is this country only applies to statements about the USA and its citizens.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

sisterpine said:


> Personally I do not care if they have a "draw (insert icon)" contest. Maybe they can do the Pope next if they are into drawing leaders of groups.
> 
> I also do not see anything wrong with poking the bear at any time. We poke the bear at our own government all the time...what is one good reason that freedom of speech is this country only applies to statements about the USA and its citizens.


A comparison between ISIS and the government as being the poked bear is apt enough. How about we draw Obama next?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> A comparison between ISIS and the government as being the poked bear is apt enough. How about we draw Obama next?


That would be a rabid bear.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> There were protests. Strangely enuf, no one was shot at! However, the media & other feel good libs denounced the protesters mightily.


 Was that the rally where ignorant yokels were yelling at Muslim Americans to 'go home'??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Ignoring it will not make it less evil, or make it go away.
> .


 And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psycopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psychopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.


Use my entire post, not just a snippet to make yourself feel justified in your opinion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psycopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.


It appears you don't know anything about Pamela Geller.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psycopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.




WELL.....SEEMS LIKE SHE HAS NO ISSUES WITH NON EXTREMIST.
oh... do you simply assume that it is correct that a drawing causes someone to kill?

Or is it That no Muslim is safe when they are not getting their way in your mind....how far are you going to bend over for them.

If you choose to live in fear and limit your choices fine.... cower....that is your choice ....some stand up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psycopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.


Let us think about this. People decided they wanted to exercise their right of free speech. In doing this others decided to kill the first people. Your logic says that being threatened with death for saying, or drawing something in this case, isn't threatening free speech. Care to explain that logic tree to me?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Know how to catch wild hogs?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Let us think about this. People decided they wanted to exercise their right of free speech. In doing this others decided to kill the first people. Your logic says that being threatened with death for saying, or drawing something in this case, isn't threatening free speech. Care to explain that logic tree to me?


 Those folks in Texas were well within their Constitutional rights to say whatever they wanted. Their right to 'freedom of speech' as codified in the First Amendment has not been threatened in ANY way. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee there won't be a reaction from that choice. 
You may call those people 'free speech' advocates, and that may be partially true, but their main goal is eradication of Islam from America. Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots is a more apt description.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If the reaction is an attempt to remove freedom of speech and the right to assemble thru fear, threat, attacking and acts of violence....and if people bow to that .....is there freedom?

Why would anyone fear a person of a peaceful religion?.... are not the majority peacefully.....if you fail to believe that the majority of Muslims are peaceful....what is you stand then on settling known terrorist in our land at the cost of taxpayers.... should Americans be financings terrorist?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Those folks in Texas were well within their Constitutional rights to say whatever they wanted. Their right to 'freedom of speech' as codified in the First Amendment has not been threatened in ANY way. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee there won't be a reaction from that choice.
> You may call those people 'free speech' advocates, and that may be partially true, but their main goal is eradication of Islam from America. Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots is a more apt description.


And they are doing by having a bunch of people draw pictures? Sounds like a very strange way to eradicate it to me.

You will have to admit that the actions taken by the professed followers of Islam is doing a much better job than the group in TX did. If the followers of Islam had just ignored the actual event and expressed their views rationally and peacefully in an event of their own the little gathering in TX would have been a local story. 

Actions speak louder than words. I know if I were a member of a group and someone claimed to be a fellow member did something like this in its name I'd be doing everything I could to let people know they didn't truly represent the views of the group. Kind a hard to do when you have example after example after example after example though. It reminds me a lot of how the Klan used to say it didn't believe in violence against blacks.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Those folks in Texas were well within their Constitutional rights to say whatever they wanted. Their right to 'freedom of speech' as codified in the First Amendment has not been threatened in ANY way. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee there won't be a reaction from that choice.
> You may call those people 'free speech' advocates, and that may be partially true, but their main goal is eradication of Islam from America. Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots is a more apt description.


If you go to PG's site you can look at all the pictures of "honor killings" which some didn't die. So do you consider regular ol family members(muslims) that pour acid on a womans face -"extreamists". How about mutilation of their female parts, coverings,child marriage, ect. Go read and then you will have a understanding. Because I sure don't have a understanding of anyone that defends the religion-especially liberials.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> And acting as if ALL Muslims are hate filled psycopathic jihadists won't do anything either. It only fosters MORE hate. Pam Geller is a prime example. Going out of her way to cause even MORE strife. Shes not 'standing up for free speech', no ones 'free speech' was threatened. She was promoting hatred, pure and simple. Not just for 'Muslim Terrorists', but for ALL Muslims. Which, as I said, is completely UN-AMERICAN.


Wow, how to cower. Really. No one said "all muslims are hate filled psychopathic jihadists"- NO ONE. A little projection an your part?

"Going out of her way to cause more strife". Hmmmm. Ya see, your jihad appeasement is showing. 
These days, virtually everyone knows about making an image of Muhammod. Soon, everyone will know about our 1st amendment. And perhaps the Constitution will again matter in our country.

BTW, its not just 'cartoons' of the pediphile murderous profit, its any image at all. Just in case some have not realized how twisted, how violently crazy those who believe in 'jihad' are.

4 familes of muslims live in my immediate neighborhood. All seem perfectly wonderful. Well, actually there's only 3 now. One who set up a daycare in their home, who-according to them-had moved many times since coming from Iran, have abruptly sold all their biz equipment & moved. No reason or no notice.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Those folks in Texas were well within their Constitutional rights to say whatever they wanted. Their right to 'freedom of speech' as codified in the First Amendment has not been threatened in ANY way. However, the Constitution doesn't guarantee there won't be a reaction from that choice.
> You may call those people 'free speech' advocates, and that may be partially true, but their main goal is eradication of Islam from America. Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots is a more apt description.


http://www.thegospelintheendtimes.com/islam/allah-means-curse-hebrew/


In a culture where the media and even the Pope are claiming that Allah and YHWH are the same, we need to answer that lie with a response that is short and easily understood. This simple fact presented in this post might be the answer: that 2000 years before Islam was created, YHWH programmed the Hebrew language so that the name of Islamâs god would mean âcurse.â No supreme being would ever allow his name to mean curse in any language; unless, of course, he wasnât a supreme being. The Hebrew language pre-dated Islam by thousands of years. An all knowing being would be aware of the Hebrew word for curse, so obviously Allah is not all knowing.

Besides proving that Allah is not a supreme being, this simple fact proves YHWH is because he pre-knew that someday these prophetic passages would give the world a subtle hint that Islam was to be a curse upon the whole world.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> BTW, its not just 'cartoons' of the pediphile murderous profit, its any image at all. Just in case some have not realized how twisted, how violently crazy those who believe in 'jihad' are.


 I think we all know how 'twisted and violently crazy' jihadists are. Thankfully the vast vast majority of Muslims don't think or act that way. 
And by the way, it is not 'cowering' to show respect to other peoples beliefs. I don't fault them for not wanting images drawn of their prophet, actually the Christian bible says pretty much the same thing. Now killing someone over that, that is another story, and killing remains an actual crime, not like making some stupid drawing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I think we all know how 'twisted and violently crazy' jihadists are. Thankfully the vast vast majority of Muslims don't think or act that way.
> And by the way, it is not 'cowering' to show respect to other peoples beliefs. I don't fault them for not wanting images drawn of their prophet, actually the Christian bible says pretty much the same thing. Now killing someone over that, that is another story, and killing remains an actual crime, not like making some stupid drawing.


Well, what about images of Mohammed that mock or deride the man and his religion? There's no question that many Islamic countries have laws mandating all sorts of punishments, including death, for blasphemy and apostasy. Writing in USA Today, Britain-based cleric Anjme Choudary flatly asserts

_Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. *The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.*"_​
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/does-islam-prohibit-images-of-mohammed-n


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I think we all know how 'twisted and violently crazy' jihadists are. Thankfully the vast vast majority of Muslims don't think or act that way.
> And by the way, it is not 'cowering' to show respect to other peoples beliefs. I don't fault them for not wanting images drawn of their prophet, actually the Christian bible says pretty much the same thing. Now killing someone over that, that is another story, and killing remains an actual crime, not like making some stupid drawing.


It comes down to why you are doing something. Standing and placing your hat over your heart when the national anthem plays because you respect the nation is one thing. Doing it because you feel those around you would beat you into a bloody pulp if you didn't is another. One is a sign of respect the other is cowering in fear.

Let's see if I understand your thinking. Islamist have a different belief system and moral code then the majority. You must respect the Islamist's beliefs and morals even though they are different than yours. If you do something which the Islamist see as disrespecting their belief system and they react violently its understandable and is actually your fault for being insensitive. That sound about right? 

Now take that paragraph and replace "Islamist" with either "The Bloods", "The Crips", "MS13" or just the generic "Street gangs" and think about it again.

Then you have how the press reports things. 

A man is driving along in Selma and sees a huge dog attacking a child. He jumps out of his car leaps on the dog. After a hard fight resulting in many bites he manages to chokes it to death with his bare hands. As he lays bleeding on the ground gasping for breath a newspaper reporter runs over all excited saying he saw the entire thing and has never seen anything so brave and amazing. The reporter says the guy will be a hero the paper will have a huge headline "Selma man risked life to save child". Our hero tells the reporter he's not from Selma. Ok new headline "Brave Mississippian mauled saving child" To the reporter's regret the hero tells him he's not from Mississippi he's from New York. The next day there's the headline "Yankee savagely kills family pet" with a story about how a wonderful family dog was brutally choked to death on a city street before the very eyes of a child.

Everyone used to know that was a joke but in this day and age you could very well think it was a true story.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

So many people do not value their own western culture that has evolved to create a place where people feel free to express almost any idea without being in fear of their lives being lost as a result that they are willing to sacrifice that value for a bland, nebulous political correctness which is in conflict with it.
Some people seem to be willing to use that very freedom to demand it be curtailed because it offends others who basically want to end that freedom.
When it comes down to it, either Islam loosens its clerical stranglehold on opposing offending speech or it should be condemned for not doing so.
That facet of Islam that demands adherence to the strictly Muslim religious values by everyone else must be thoroughly condemned no matter how many "moderate Muslims" are offended. That a western person can't differentiate between resisting the erosion of free speech (ie actions of suppression by any group) and bigotry (the group itself) will only shows they do not understand that you can advocate for the protection of religious free speech of Muslims at the same time you advocate for the protection from Islam's call to suppress the freedom of others.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Let's see if I understand your thinking. Islamist have a different belief system and moral code then the majority. You must respect the Islamist's beliefs and morals even though they are different than yours. If you do something which the Islamist see as disrespecting their belief system and they react violently its understandable and is actually your fault for being insensitive. That sound about right?


 Nope, not even close. No one is excusing violent behavior.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Nope, not even close. No one is excusing violent behavior.


Just opposing those peacefully opposing it?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Simply complaining about persons with the true understanding of freedom of speech and assembly.


Those who wish to coward.... have every right to do so.

It is odd that those who believe in that can be so bold as to complain when others choose differently....stand up from being silenced against extremist forcing their beliefs on us by groups that openly plan on killing any that opposes them and fearful folk suddenly get bold enough to squawk about those who defied the extremist.

Why the bravery is it because we are peaceful... we do not promise to declare a fatwa on you..


Fine it is your choice to run and hide its our right to stand up so that those who chose to use their freedom to hide can still hide


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Nope, not even close. No one is excusing violent behavior.


Hum . . . If someone gets bitten by a dog because they ignored a "Beware of Dog" sign would you blame the person or the dog for the harm to the person? 

You seem to be saying if those "Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots" had not ignored the "Do not disrespect Islam" sign there would not have been a shooting. That means you put the blame for the shooting not on the shooters but those who disrespected Islam. After all they should have realize that doing so could have resulted in a violent reaction because of the sign.

If that's wrong please tell me how you do view it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> So many people do not value their own western culture that has evolved to create a place where people feel free to express almost any idea without being in fear of their lives being lost as a result that they are willing to sacrifice that value for a bland, nebulous political correctness which is in conflict with it.
> Some people seem to be willing to use that very freedom to demand it be curtailed because it offends others who basically want to end that freedom.
> When it comes down to it, either Islam loosens its clerical stranglehold on opposing offending speech or it should be condemned for not doing so.
> That facet of Islam that demands adherence to the strictly Muslim religious values by everyone else must be thoroughly condemned no matter how many "moderate Muslims" are offended. That a western person can't differentiate between resisting the erosion of free speech (ie actions of suppression by any group) and bigotry (the group itself) will only shows they do not understand that you can advocate for the protection of religious free speech of Muslims at the same time you advocate for the protection from Islam's call to suppress the freedom of others.


Post of the milleneum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Let us think about this. People decided they wanted to exercise their right of free speech. In doing this others decided to kill the first people. Your logic says that being threatened with death for saying, or drawing something in this case, isn't threatening free speech. Care to explain that logic tree to me?


Sorta like the woman who was raped being charged w/asking for it b/c of her dress.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

---- Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. 

It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was *sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency* that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/----_Christ


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high by 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including oil paint, glitter, and polyester resin, and also elephant dung and collaged pornographic images. 

The work was protected by a plexiglass screen, but was damaged when Dennis Heiner smeared white paint over the canvas on 16 December 1999. Heiner was charged with second-degree criminal mischief


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Virgin_Mary


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Hum . . . If someone gets bitten by a dog because they ignored a "Beware of Dog" sign would you blame the person or the dog for the harm to the person?
> 
> You seem to be saying if those "Xenophobic, Islamaphoic bigots" had not ignored the "Do not disrespect Islam" sign there would not have been a shooting. That means you put the blame for the shooting not on the shooters but those who disrespected Islam. After all they should have realize that doing so could have resulted in a violent reaction because of the sign.
> 
> If that's wrong please tell me how you do view it.


 If you choose to ignore a 'Beware of Dog' sign, and you get bit, its your fault. You're supposed to be smarter than that. 
As to provoking people of different faiths, its still not a good idea. You're totally free to do it, the Constitution guarantees your right to be free of Government interference. Does that mean you should go out of your way to insult people who haven't done anything to you?? The vast vast majority of Muslims are NOT radical jihadists. PaM Gellar, by her dimwitted and provocative actions, placed a target on her back ON PURPOSE, the only reason being she wanted the publicity.
Ultimately, the only *actual *crime is the one perpetrated by the Muslim radicals, lets get that point clear. Just stop pretending having this event was 'standing up for free speech'. This was grandstanding by bigots, saying 'come and get me'. I hope she is happy for the carnage her actions brought. Luckily only the terrorists got killed.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Just opposing those peacefully opposing it?


 I am not 'opposing' anyone for using their 1st Amendment rights. I support their right to be heard 100%. That doesn't mean I think its a good idea to provoke for the sake of provoking. 
I realize there is an Islamic terrorist problem worldwide... but trying to alienate the majority of Muslims who are NOT radical jihadists doesn't help the situation, in my view.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I am not 'opposing' anyone for using their 1st Amendment rights. I support their right to be heard 100%. That doesn't mean I think its a good idea to provoke for the sake of provoking.
> I realize there is an Islamic terrorist problem worldwide... but trying to alienate the majority of Muslims who are NOT radical jihadists doesn't help the situation, in my view.


And you feel the same way about Christians too, right?


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I guess I just view it a bit different. I do not see the contest as provoking Islamist, rather it gave the Islamist the opportunity to show who they really are. There are those who are intent on burning our house down and they make no effort to hide their agenda, even though folks seem to try their hardest to not believe what they say they want to do. I am constantly amazed at the number of people living in our house who are just as intent to help them arrange the kindling.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> If you choose to ignore a 'Beware of Dog' sign, and you get bit, its your fault. You're supposed to be smarter than that.
> As to provoking people of different faiths, its still not a good idea. You're totally free to do it, the Constitution guarantees your right to be free of Government interference. Does that mean you should go out of your way to insult people who haven't done anything to you?? The vast vast majority of Muslims are NOT radical jihadists. PaM Gellar, by her dimwitted and provocative actions, placed a target on her back ON PURPOSE, the only reason being she wanted the publicity.
> Ultimately, the only *actual *crime is the one perpetrated by the Muslim radicals, lets get that point clear. Just stop pretending having this event was 'standing up for free speech'. This was grandstanding by bigots, saying 'come and get me'. I hope she is happy for the carnage her actions brought. Luckily only the terrorists got killed.


I think you have it backwards. It was radical islamists who provoked and insulted the West by killing 12 people at Charlie Hebdo. Either we in the US stand up for freedom of speech or give in to fear.

Again, your post indicates you know nothing about Pamela Geller other than what is posted on liberal web sites. Pamela fights back against Islamists including CAIR. She doesn't provoke, she responds to Islamist provocations - and she uses their own words to fight them.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> I think you have it backwards. It was radical islamists who provoked and insulted the West by killing 12 people at Charlie Hebdo. Either we in the US stand up for freedom of speech or give in to fear.
> 
> Again, your post indicates you know nothing about Pamela Geller other than what is posted on liberal web sites.


 Again, you have freedom of speech. What you choose to do with it is your business. If you think inflaming tensions is the way to go, then go for it.
And I am most certainly not 'giving in to fear'., unlike those anti-Muslim protesters who are telling AMERICANS to 'go back home'. I am prepared for things to get ugly, but I don't go out of my way to make them moreso. 

And what I know about Pam Gellar comes from Pam Gellar, and her own websites and words. I don't go to 'liberal websites' to find out what to think. I can see plainly what she is and what she represents.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Again, you have freedom of speech. What you choose to do with it is your business. If you think inflaming tensions is the way to go, then go for it.
> And I am most certainly not 'giving in to fear'., unlike those anti-Muslim protesters who are telling AMERICANS to 'go back home'. I am prepared for things to get ugly, but I don't go out of my way to make them moreso.
> 
> And what I know about Pam Gellar comes from Pam Gellar, and her own websites and words. I don't go to 'liberal websites' to find out what to think. I can see plainly what she is and what she represents.


Sooner or later a terrorist will manage to be offended no matter how hard some seek appeasement. Such an exhibit would simply be a noise in the background, to be ignored as an irritating nuisance, if the people so ever ready to be offended did not have a belief in the absolute rightness of their ways AND be willing to use and encourage violence to ensure that it prevails.
Nothing Geller could have done would have provoked anything if Muslims had the basic belief in freedom of speech. 
They don't honor that concept and that is why it needs to be protected from the use of violence they choose as the way to silence others. A acquiescence to that is to be as bad as the creators of violence themselves.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> As to provoking people of different faiths, its still not a good idea.


Neither is testifying against gang members but is people letting fear stop them a good thing?




greg273 said:


> You're totally free to do it, the Constitution guarantees your right to be free of Government interference. Does that mean you should go out of your way to insult people who haven't done anything to you?? The vast vat majority of Muslims are NOT radical jihadists.


Ok, then the vast majority of them should have no problem with what happened. Lets say only 1% of Muslims are radicals. There are 2 to 8 million Muslims (depending on who's data you use) so lets split the difference and say there are 5 million. That gives you 50,000 people who are perfectly willing to kill you just because you disagree with them. Until and unless the "moderate" Muslims start exposing and dealing with this 1% I think showing the world how dangerous they are is a good thing.




greg273 said:


> PaM Gellar, by her dimwitted and provocative actions, placed a target on her back ON PURPOSE, the only reason being she wanted the publicity.
> Ultimately, the only *actual *crime is the one perpetrated by the Muslim radicals, lets get that point clear. Just stop pretending having this event was 'standing up for free speech'. This was grandstanding by bigots, saying 'come and get me'. I hope she is happy for the carnage her actions brought. Luckily only the terrorists got killed.


If that's what it worked very well because it sure made the followers of Islam look like nothing but brutes who only want to kill those who disagree with them. BTW, just what did these bigots manage to do which lead to videos of Islamist beheading people, burning people alive, shooting captives and all? Are there many leaders of the big moderate mosques been speaking the out against these actions, here and around the world? If so I must have missed it.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

All of this debate and tolerance of intolerance has me wondering. Where are the men and women of valor and substance in this country anymore. Where are the people who stand for something other than "Can't we all just get along". Some will probably call my next statement radical, maybe that is the problem, the ideals and beliefs of our forefathers and those who fought and died to give us the freedom we seem so intent to give away are no longer viewed as mainstream, as they once were. Call it grandstanding if you will, but I say we need to take a similar stance as Captain John Parker did at the battle of Lexington back in 75
"Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, then let it begin here!"

Make no mistake, they mean to have a war with us, that is unless we simply hand everything over to them, which certainly seems to be the intention of some?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SNL and the 1st amendment.



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa19EQUJvCo[/ame]


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Muleman said:


> I guess I just view it a bit different. I do not see the contest as provoking Islamist, rather it gave the Islamist the opportunity to show who they really are. There are those who are intent on burning our house down and they make no effort to hide their agenda, even though folks seem to try their hardest to not believe what they say they want to do. I am constantly amazed at the number of people living in our house who are just as intent to help them arrange the kindling.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Sooner or later a terrorist will manage to be offended no matter how hard some seek appeasement. Such an exhibit would simply be a noise in the background, to be ignored as an irritating nuisance, if the people so ever ready to be offended did not have a belief in the absolute rightness of their ways AND be willing to use and encourage violence to ensure that it prevails.
> Nothing Geller could have done would have provoked anything if Muslims had the basic belief in freedom of speech.
> They don't honor that concept and that is why it needs to be protected from the use of violence they choose as the way to silence others. A acquiescence to that is to be as bad as the creators of violence themselves.


Post of the week award.

Some think we should live our lives-all of us-tip-toeing around so as not to offend jihadists. This WILL get more & more difficult. It will come to jihadists crashing gay weddings, places who 'cater' to gays. Maybe not in my lifetime but it will come to that. Places that sell 'immodest' clothing for women. Perhaps they wont come in w/AK-47s massacring everyone but the demand will be there. 

Know how to catch wild hogs?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Muleman said:


> All of this debate and tolerance of intolerance has me wondering. Where are the men and women of valor and substance in this country anymore. Where are the people who stand for something other than "Can't we all just get along". Some will probably call my next statement radical, maybe that is the problem, the ideals and beliefs of our forefathers and those who fought and died to give us the freedom we seem so intent to give away are no longer viewed as mainstream, as they once were. Call it grandstanding if you will, but I say we need to take a similar stance as Captain John Parker did at the battle of Lexington back in 75
> "Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, then let it begin here!"
> 
> Make no mistake, they mean to have a war with us, that is unless we simply hand everything over to them, which certainly seems to be the intention of some?


Post of the millennium award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I posted this in politics-will here for those who don't go there-

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/

Prolly won't get read but there's a boatload of great letters to the editor in today's dallasmorning news. There's a couple of ignorant folks letters too who have no clue what it means to defend free speech.
I'll copy & paste a few bits...

When a liberty is threatened, the best defense is a good offense &#8212; even if offensive. It&#8217;s been said over and over that popular speech needs no protection; it&#8217;s the unpopular speech that does. This is true, but there is more.

Those who would try to stifle speech by threats of violence must be met with defiance. If intimidation can shut down unpopular speech because it threatens one&#8217;s safety or the public&#8217;s safety, because it offends someone&#8217;s sensibility or is hurtful, then the censors have won. That is called the &#8220;heckler&#8217;s veto&#8221; and cannot be permitted if we are to have free expression.

No matter what one thinks of Geller and Geert Wilders, their provocations have torn the lid off of hell and forced the complacent to look at it. The would-be killers, and all those like them, were savages and were dealt with as savages should be.
Bob Reagan

Another-referring to a positive article on 1st amendment-

Thank you, William Murchison, for reminding us that the devil is now on our doorstep. He arrived last Sunday night &#8212; motoring in from Phoenix &#8212; in the form of two Islamic terrorists hellbent on murder and mayhem.

Should we all cringe in intimidation? Is Islam unassailable? Can we not reason and negotiate with old Satan? These are questions with which some of us must struggle.
Robert Perkins


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> There's a couple of ignorant folks letters too who have no clue what it means to defend free speech.
> I'll copy & paste a few bits...


 Yep, and you copied and pasted some great examples of that.
Heres a question, I if throw a 'Draw the Hook-Nosed Jew Contest', is that exercising free speech, or me just being a racist agitator?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Yep, and you copied and pasted some great examples of that.
> Heres a question, I if throw a 'Draw the Hook-Nosed Jew Contest', is that exercising free speech, or me just being a racist agitator?


Free speech and I'm willing to bet you wouldn't need armed guards and heavy police protection to keep some radical Jew from showing up and trying to kill the contestants. 

And its funny you bring this up. I just saw this today.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

But to have a fair comparison, would it simply be "Draw a Jew" contest, as the "Draw Mohammed" contest did not contain any other expletives did it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Muleman said:


> But to have a fair comparison, would it simply be "Draw a Jew" contest, as the "Draw Mohammed" contest did not contain any other expletives did it?


Actually it'd have to say "Draw Moses" to be closer.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Muleman said:


> But to have a fair comparison, would it simply be "Draw a Jew" contest, as the "Draw Mohammed" contest did not contain any other expletives did it?


 Coming from the 'Stop Islamization of America' people, it was absolutely implied. Pretending otherwise is a waste of time. 
Listen, If you don't like Muslims, don't become one, but they have as much right to be American citizens as you, me, or anyone else either born here or naturalized here. 
No one said coddle the extremists. Last I checked shooting someone for ANY reason other than self-defense is still a crime in all states.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Last I checked shooting someone for ANY reason other than self-defense is still a crime in all states.


 The sad part is, we don't know what they look like till they pull out their knife and gut ya. Advantage, "them".
G.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Coming from the 'Stop Islamization of America' people, it was absolutely implied. Pretending otherwise is a waste of time.
> Listen, If you don't like Muslims, don't become one, but they have as much right to be American citizens as you, me, or anyone else either born here or naturalized here.
> No one said coddle the extremists. Last I checked shooting someone for ANY reason other than self-defense is still a crime in all states.


I really don't know where you are getting this stuff. Stop the Islamization of America is against Sharia law being implemented in the US and that the Constitution is the law of the land.



> Through SION, AFDI establishes a common American/European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.


SION


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I really don't know where you are getting this stuff. Stop the Islamization of America is against Sharia law being implemented in the US and that the Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> SION


Yay! Wonderful! Thought this was known but apparently not.

Goes to show ya, there's that element in our Country, those on the left, who are in agreement w/this admin that our country is soooo awful, has been forever, and a dose of other's laws would prolly be good for us. We just shouldn't be waving that OLD tired Constitution around. Offends some of our immigrants.That's the thing there-offends immigrants! There's places so far left they don't allow the flag b/c they say it offends immigrants. So, it stands to reason, that an org who's mission is to stop Sharia law here & to uphold the Constitution would be sooo offensive to them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The main difference is this exhibition (with the caveat that the actual works are unknown) is that years of murdering those who 'insulted the Prophet" has taken place.
That make this, unlike those who blithely insult other religious while feeling perfectly secure, an act of courage and a defiance of violent bullying under the guise of religion. And something that needed doing. 
To couch this argument in terms that the actual perpetrators choose is to side with their violence. If the exhibition or other incidents stood without attack, then there would be no harm to Islam. It would not be banned from practice, its adherents not targeted. 
The only excuse for the violence created by some and clearly not opposed by most Muslims in any effective way is that they are insulted. Well, a society that has its justice, diversity , etc ruled by how insulted an individual feels will be subject to continued violence, retribution and vengence because that is the only solution for "feeling insulted." It become just what is seen in so many Islamic States- that non-muslims must keep below the radar, that 'eye for an eye' justice is seen as appropriate, where death is meted out to solve social abrasions and it becomes a monolithic rule of religion.
Yet the same people who will not tolerate refusing to sell a cake to a gay seem to find nothing wrong in standing by, or even opposing those who will not stand by, watching murder dealt for speaking out. Why not demand that Islam find in itself adaption to western values, at least as far as restraining themselves from murder?
It appears that voicing opposition to the "ills" of their own society is more important to some than actually effectively dealing with imported violence. They rather safely carp at those who are distasteful than take an uncomfortable stand against those who would murder.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> No one said coddle the extremists. Last I checked shooting someone for ANY reason other than self-defense is still a crime in all states.


Well not quite. You can use deadly force to defend others and I do believe in TX you can use deadly force to protect personal property.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> I really don't know where you are getting this stuff. Stop the Islamization of America is against Sharia law being implemented in the US and that the Constitution is the law of the land.
> 
> SION


 One look at the comment page on the SIOA and Gellars Facebook page, or their own website shows that to be a lie. They are xenophobic hatemongers, much like many other xenophobic movements in the past. 'Out with the Irish', 'Out with the Italians' etc etc. This isn't new ground here. There have been pinheads throughout the history of this great nation who want to slam the door on everyone else not fortunate enough to have immediate ancestors here. 
And 'Sharia Law' is not illegal within the Muslim community,much like the Jewish 'Rabbinical Laws', they are still subject to the laws of the State and the US Constitution.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sharia Law should be illegal here.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> The main difference is this exhibition (with the caveat that the actual works are unknown) is that years of murdering those who 'insulted the Prophet" has taken place.
> That make this, unlike those who blithely insult other religious while feeling perfectly secure, an act of courage and a defiance of violent bullying under the guise of religion. And something that needed doing.
> To couch this argument in terms that the actual perpetrators choose is to side with their violence. If the exhibition or other incidents stood without attack, then there would be no harm to Islam. It would not be banned from practice, its adherents not targeted.
> The only excuse for the violence created by some and clearly not opposed by most Muslims in any effective way is that they are insulted. Well, a society that has its justice, diversity , etc ruled by how insulted an individual feels will be subject to continued violence, retribution and vengence because that is the only solution for "feeling insulted." It become just what is seen in so many Islamic States- that non-muslims must keep below the radar, that 'eye for an eye' justice is seen as appropriate, where death is meted out to solve social abrasions and it becomes a monolithic rule of religion.
> ...


Post of the milleneum award.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sharia Law should be illegal here.


 Anything in 'Sharia Law' that would go against the law of this country is *already illegal,*and the rest of it is protected by the 1st Amendment, the same Amendment that protects the free expression of every other religion.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Anything in 'Sharia Law' that would go against the law of this country is *already illegal,*and the rest of it is protected by the 1st Amendment, the same Amendment that protects the free expression of every other religion.


Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> One look at the comment page on the SIOA and Gellars Facebook page, or their own website shows that to be a lie. They are xenophobic hatemongers, much like many other xenophobic movements in the past. 'Out with the Irish', 'Out with the Italians' etc etc. This isn't new ground here. There have been pinheads throughout the history of this great nation who want to slam the door on everyone else not fortunate enough to have immediate ancestors here.
> And 'Sharia Law' is not illegal within the Muslim community,much like the Jewish 'Rabbinical Laws', they are still subject to the laws of the State and the US Constitution.


Ever read comments on moveon.org? Mediamatters? dailykos?
So, are you saying sharia law IS illegal here or not? Are you saying its 'legal' in muslim communities? Why should that be?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> One look at the comment page on the SIOA and Gellars Facebook page, or their own website shows that to be a lie. They are xenophobic hatemongers, much like many other xenophobic movements in the past. 'Out with the Irish', 'Out with the Italians' etc etc. This isn't new ground here. There have been pinheads throughout the history of this great nation who want to slam the door on everyone else not fortunate enough to have immediate ancestors here.
> And 'Sharia Law' is not illegal within the Muslim community,much like the Jewish 'Rabbinical Laws', they are still subject to the laws of the State and the US Constitution.


Well, the original native tribes couldn't enforce their xenophobic pinheaded attempts to keep out immigrants who came to murder either. That did not turn out well for them. With that example in front of us, maybe some level of discrimination is wise even if it doesn't meet the radical sniff test. 
I wonder if there has ever been a time in the USA's history where immigration of people who actually hate everything about the US but its money and have murdered for that reason alone would have found welcome anyway.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/15/407048785/why-no-one-wants-the-rohingyas

An artilcle on other areas reactions to Muslim immigration.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

From the WIWT article..

At best, the migrants have been received with resignation &#8212; at worst with contempt &#8212; even by the region's Muslim nations. As we've reported recently, many are victims of human traffickers.

The Thai and Malaysian navies have both turned away refugee boats in recent days. Indonesia has taken in some migrants but is now refusing to accept them.

Predominantly Buddhist Thailand has been battling an Islamist insurgency in its south for decades and has "no stomach" for bringing in more Muslims, says Lex Rieffel, a nonresident senior fellow and expert on Southeast Asia at the Brookings Institution.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> So, are you saying sharia law IS illegal here or not? Are you saying its 'legal' in muslim communities? Why should that be?


 
I am saying exactly what I said. 


> Anything in 'Sharia Law' that would go against the law of this country is *already illegal,*and the rest of it is protected by the 1st Amendment, the same Amendment that protects the free expression of every other religion.


 So NO, 'Sharia Law' is not illegal, except for the parts that ARE according to US law. Muslims are free to practice their religion and adhere to its laws, just as any other faith is, unless they do something that goes against US law. THis is pretty simple stuff. Do you really want the 'government' regulating what religion is acceptable?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> From the WIWT article..
> 
> At best, the migrants have been received with resignation â at worst with contempt â even by the region's Muslim nations. As we've reported recently, many are victims of human traffickers.
> 
> ...


Last I checked none of those countries had a large statue in the harbor of their largest city inscribed with the words "..Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" and point to it when explaining to the rest of the world that American exceptionslism we're all supposed to espouse.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep yearning to be free.... but not to free to overthrow and control.....


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Last I checked none of those countries had a large statue in the harbor of their largest city inscribed with the words "..Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" and point to it when explaining to the rest of the world that American exceptionslism we're all supposed to espouse.


Americans, especially New Yorkers, have always been suckered in by a freebie. They forget all the strings attached. At least until they get jerked around by them. 
You have to remember the original meaning of "live free" was to have to opportunity to do what you choose in life. Then it became "live free" as in someone else owes you what you want. Oh the trouble with evolving language- we simply don't speak 19th century anymore.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I am saying exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> So NO, 'Sharia Law' is not illegal, except for the parts that ARE according to US law. Muslims are free to practice their religion and adhere to its laws, just as any other faith is, unless they do something that goes against US law. THis is pretty simple stuff. Do you really want the 'government' regulating what religion is acceptable?


They continue to do things that are against our Constitution & most of sharia law is. So, regulating a theocratic political group bent on the destruction of all things western is a + in my book.


----------

