Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly and truly believe that if every irreverent cartoon towards every single religion was no longer printed, then the killings would stop? Not hardly.

What excuse do you give to the murderer who purposely sought out the Jewish grocery store and executed four Jewish men? The 123 children massacred in Paskistan?

This is protest is about the rant of extremism and annihilation of free speech, not about cartoons.

OP here: I agree that this extends well beyond merely the publishing of cartoons that were deemed offensive.

FWIW, I am presently outside of the US in a country that has had to face terrorism from radicalized Muslims. But many - who are not Muslims - view the cartoons as having been needless provocation even as they condemn the attacks in Paris.

This was not intended to be a political post which is why I posted it on this forum. My focus was really the fact that there is needless disparaging of people's religions and often it is Christians who receive the brunt of it. The difference is that they don't usually react violently unlike some Muslims.

PP again. I am also a liberal Christian and nobody defines what or how I should believe. This Christmas, I received a humorous card with a 'picture' of Christ that said 'Christmas, my favorite jam.' I thought it was funny and received a high five from me. Btw, a jam means a favorite of something but usually a song.

There are fundamentalist Christians who would not only berate me for enjoying the card but, if it was in their power, shut down the store that sells it (a secular store). However, they have the freedom to protest outside of the store but they DO NOT have the right to go in and slaughter the staff.

Nor does another Christian have the right to threaten or kill this Christian because I have a card that might be defined as irreverent, blasphemous, or provocative. That's where the line is drawn in the sand.

So, why don't you ask "some Muslims" why they react violently to words or drawings on a piece of paper?

I don't understand a publication made up of satirical cartoons. Seems like late-night monologues in print. Kind of pointless to make a living out of it, but no one should be hurt/killed over it.

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly and truly believe that if every irreverent cartoon towards every single religion was no longer printed, then the killings would stop? Not hardly.

What excuse do you give to the murderer who purposely sought out the Jewish grocery store and executed four Jewish men? The 123 children massacred in Paskistan?

This is protest is about the rant of extremism and annihilation of free speech, not about cartoons.

OP here: I agree that this extends well beyond merely the publishing of cartoons that were deemed offensive.

FWIW, I am presently outside of the US in a country that has had to face terrorism from radicalized Muslims. But many - who are not Muslims - view the cartoons as having been needless provocation even as they condemn the attacks in Paris.

This was not intended to be a political post which is why I posted it on this forum. My focus was really the fact that there is needless disparaging of people's religions and often it is Christians who receive the brunt of it. The difference is that they don't usually react violently unlike some Muslims.

Do you honestly and truly believe that if every irreverent cartoon towards every single religion was no longer printed, then the killings would stop? Not hardly.

What excuse do you give to the murderer who purposely sought out the Jewish grocery store and executed four Jewish men? The 123 children massacred in Paskistan?

This is protest is about the rant of extremism and annihilation of free speech, not about cartoons.

Anonymous wrote:I am not blaming the victims or even the cartoonists for exercising their right of free speech. But I do think we should all be aware of the consequences of our actions.

It is not unlike the preacher in Florida who wanted to exercise his right to burn the Koran. He has the right to do so but if it results in innocent lives being lost because some Muslims feel that they need to respond violently, should he not consider the consequences of his action?

Consider the consequences of his actions. You are condoning the whims of terrorists to choose what type of speech or action is inappropriate then reap the penalty they deem fit.

Should the freedom marchers back in the 60s not have marched because some evil, ignorant people "felt they needed to respond violently?" Many innocent people were hurt and some lost their lives. By your reasoning, should they have "considered the consequences of their actions and not marched"

Anonymous wrote:I am not blaming the victims or even the cartoonists for exercising their right of free speech. But I do think we should all be aware of the consequences of our actions.

It is not unlike the preacher in Florida who wanted to exercise his right to burn the Koran. He has the right to do so but if it results in innocent lives being lost because some Muslims feel that they need to respond violently, should he not consider the consequences of his action?

Yes you are.

Anonymous wrote:I am not blaming the victims or even the cartoonists for exercising their right of free speech. But I do think we should all be aware of the consequences of our actions.

It is not unlike the preacher in Florida who wanted to exercise his right to burn the Koran. He has the right to do so but if it results in innocent lives being lost because some Muslims feel that they need to respond violently, should he not consider the consequences of his action?

You're insane. Violence is not a natural consequence of any speech. If you choose to live in a civil society, you give up your right to respond to speech with violence.

If we all behave as if this is not true, then it might as well not be true. I don't want to live in the society that you envision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is prompted by the recent acts of terrorism in Paris.

Nothing that I say should be viewed as condoning what happened because it was horrific. But what passes my mind is why anyone would use freedom of speech and expression to mock someone else's faith and cause them to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost. What was really gained by publishing these cartoons that caused such offense?.

WHOAH. The cartoonists did not "cause [the murderers] to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost."

Distorted ideology and fundamentalism caused it. Don't for one second try and turn this around and imply that they were just asking for it.

+1

I am not blaming the victims or even the cartoonists for exercising their right of free speech. But I do think we should all be aware of the consequences of our actions.

It is not unlike the preacher in Florida who wanted to exercise his right to burn the Koran. He has the right to do so but if it results in innocent lives being lost because some Muslims feel that they need to respond violently, should he not consider the consequences of his action?

Anonymous wrote:My question is prompted by the recent acts of terrorism in Paris.

Nothing that I say should be viewed as condoning what happened because it was horrific. But what passes my mind is why anyone would use freedom of speech and expression to mock someone else's faith and cause them to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost. What was really gained by publishing these cartoons that caused such offense?.

WHOAH. The cartoonists did not "cause [the murderers] to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost."

Distorted ideology and fundamentalism caused it. Don't for one second try and turn this around and imply that they were just asking for it.

You just did a great job at blaming those victims. Free speech is for everyone.

You're not wrong, but Voltaire and all that.

And free speech, unless most things, is a right and not a privilege.

Muslims don't have Skokie moments. KWIM?

Anonymous wrote:My question is prompted by the recent acts of terrorism in Paris.

Nothing that I say should be viewed as condoning what happened because it was horrific. But what passes my mind is why anyone would use freedom of speech and expression to mock someone else's faith and cause them to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost. What was really gained by publishing these cartoons that caused such offense?

I am a Christian though my views are so liberal that fundamentalist Christians would challenge my claim to being a Christian - however, that is neither here nor there. But I see the endless mocking of other people's religious beliefs - and especially Christianity - being increasingly prevalent. Most Christians don't react to this with violence in the US though there are other countries where people would likely be ostracized for challenging conventional beliefs.

I genuinely respect atheists who don't believe in God and would not seek to mock or challenge their belief system. But I see on this forum - and other forums - how atheists choose to disparage those who do believe in an Almighty. I would not seek to persuade anyone else to my own views on religion - my faith is between me and God.

Do the cartoonists who published what was deemed offensive by Muslims think they changed the minds of anyone? What did they really achieve? We know the end result was that innocent people were killed and injured. It seems like a terrible price to pay for the right to publish some offensive cartoons.

So we should all shut our mouths now b/c we should fear for our lives.

Is that what you're saying?

My question is prompted by the recent acts of terrorism in Paris.

Nothing that I say should be viewed as condoning what happened because it was horrific. But what passes my mind is why anyone would use freedom of speech and expression to mock someone else's faith and cause them to act in a manner that resulted in innocent lives being lost. What was really gained by publishing these cartoons that caused such offense?

I am a Christian though my views are so liberal that fundamentalist Christians would challenge my claim to being a Christian - however, that is neither here nor there. But I see the endless mocking of other people's religious beliefs - and especially Christianity - being increasingly prevalent. Most Christians don't react to this with violence in the US though there are other countries where people would likely be ostracized for challenging conventional beliefs.

I genuinely respect atheists who don't believe in God and would not seek to mock or challenge their belief system. But I see on this forum - and other forums - how atheists choose to disparage those who do believe in an Almighty. I would not seek to persuade anyone else to my own views on religion - my faith is between me and God.

Do the cartoonists who published what was deemed offensive by Muslims think they changed the minds of anyone? What did they really achieve? We know the end result was that innocent people were killed and injured. It seems like a terrible price to pay for the right to publish some offensive cartoons.