Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty funny to see conservatives cheer on two atheists who mock religion and despise the Republican Party, just because they dislike Islam.

That is a ridiculous comment. Disliking Islam has nothing to do with anything. You're a moron.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why muslims can't just become agnostic athiests and not be so serious?

I just want to ask them all in my Joker costume, 'WHY SO SERIOUS?!?!?!?!?!"

Bill Maher is bang on right on this. The left needs to put the muslim world on blast even more than we do christians (they are silly too).

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, good point about the insults. Nobody should be insulted in a mean-spirited way. So, how about my points re the open season on Catholics and Wiccans here at DCUM? Why aren't you butthurt on behalf of DCUM's Catholics and Wiccans? You're even in a position to do something about it. (Again, I'm not Catholic or Wiccan.)

I have repeatedly asked for posters to use the "report" button to let me know about anti-Catholic posts. They almost never get reported. I have not read the Wiccan thread and there have been no messages from that thread reported. I can't do anything about posts of which I am unaware. I want to make one distinction between Islam and Catholicism. There is a Catholic Church with a structure and hierarchy and so on. I consider criticism of that institution to be fair game (unless the criticism has no basis in reality). There is not a similar institution within Islam. Therefore, criticism tends to target an amorphous "Islam" or "Muslims" which would be similar to criticizing "Catholics". All such cases are likely to raise my hackles.

If you were the one who asked about Landon, I repeatedly intervene in Landon threads. I even discovered paid sock-puppets in a Landon thread (one of my proudest moments).

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
I think you are confusing two separate things. The free speech case involving Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt was about a cartoon. I am not surprised that the cartoon was published in law school textbooks. But, I pretty sure it was not published by the mainstream media that is now publishing anti-Muslim cartoons. But, I was actually talking about Larry Flynt getting shot, which is separate from the lawsuit. The shooter was upset because of interracial photos in the magazine. Nobody would expect the Washington Post to publish those X-rated photos to show that Larry Flynt's free expression wouldn't be infringed upon by someone with a gun. Ironically, nobody would expect the Post to publish x-rated photos because they would offend the Post's readers. But, apparently, offending Muslims is no big deal.

Also, I would distinguish between publishing the cartoons as a means of demonstrating the type of drawings published by CH and publishing the drawings as an act of solidarity. As a news item, I think a range of drawings -- not only those about Muslims -- should be shown. A full understanding of CH requires knowing how it represents Jews and Christians. Otherwise, a distorted view of the magazine would be presented. But, again, the media wouldn't want to show a cartoon captioned "Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" that illustrates the trinity with a drawing of males engaged in anal intercourse. That would offend someone other than Muslims.

Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.

Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.

As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?

Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.

And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)

Actually, some of the CH cartoons are X-Rated, they have X-Rated pictures of the Prophet (saw) that I unfortunately stumbled upon, distasteful and Very offensive, so your point is moot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

Amen. This is why even people like Muslima are ultimately contributing to the problem, even if they don't realize it.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks.

Is it just me, or is this statement inconsistent?