Support NeoGAF

[PBalfredo]

Have these people at this Mosque killed anyone or advocated for someone to be killed for drawing a picture?

While I can't tell you what's in the hearts and minds of all current members, we can identify one previous member who did advocate this by action.

So why Phoenix? According to Mashable, the two men behind the attack in Texas were from the Phoenix area, and one had studied at this specific mosque for years.

 

[Suikoguy]

This goes way over the line from emphasizing the concept of free speech, to being a disrespectful twat.
Oh, and what Cyan says below \/

 

[Cyan]

I mean, it's important that those who don't partake of a religion are allowed to criticize and to ignore that religion's blasphemy rules without fear of violent retribution...

But this really sounds like they're trying to incite violence.

 

[Seventy70]

This is taking dickishness to the next level. Idiots.

 

[Deified Data]

While I encourage anyone and everyone to try their hand at drawing whomever they wish for whatever reason they choose, this is straight-up intimidation. Hoping the Mosque-goers keep their cool and ignore this obvious attempt at baiting violence.

 

[Muffdraul]

Exactly. I have the right to fart in a lift during rush hour but I really probably shouldn't.

Perfect analogy, because there is a certain religion where one of the precepts is that if you fart in public you must die, even if you aren't a believer in that religion.

 

[Lamel]

While I encourage anyone and everyone to try their hand at drawing whomever they wish for whatever reason they choose, this is straight-up intimidation. Hoping the Mosque-goers keep their cool and ignore this obvious attempt at baiting violence.

Yeah I hope everyone keeps their cool. I wouldn't even go up to these people, for all we know they are trigger happy idiots and may shoot at any sort of confrontation.

 

[Kettch]

Now this is the kind of thing people shouldn't be doing. I'll defend to the bitter end anyone's right to draw Muhammad for their magazine or to hold a draw Muhammad exhibit. If someone gets offended by that, the solution is to simply not look at it. Problem solved. People who get offended by the existence of Muhammad images or by the people who draw them can just fuck off, I don't give a shit about their issues.

Holding it right outside of a Mosque, however, I would consider harassment. Plenty of people get offended by all kinds of things, and as long as they only apply that to themselves, there's no issue. People who get upset by seeing the image of Muhammad are not the problem, and you should not protest the real problem by forcing people to look at it.

 

[Phobophile]

So the pen is mightier than the sword, but guns just shoot the shit out of them both.

 

[iMax]

Perfect analogy, because there is a certain religion where one of the precepts is that if you fart in public you must die, even if you aren't a believer in that religion.

Except such a religion has no such precept—only its extremist, most orthodox followers condone such actions.

 

[Amir0x]

I mean, it's important that those who don't partake of a religion are allowed to criticize and to ignore that religion's blasphemy rules without fear of violent retribution...

But this really sounds like they're trying to incite violence.

yeah I am fully for drawing Muhammad and giving the middle finger to extremists who would try to scare people into submission, but this is clearly meant as a provocation to try to get people to that line of violence.

There's better ways to demonstrate one's commitment to free speech.

 

[Slayven]

While I can't tell you what's in the hearts and minds of all current members, we can identify one previous member who did advocate this by action.

SO guilt by association?

 

[Muffdraul]

Except such a religion has no such precept—only its extremist, most orthodox followers condone such actions.

The extremist fundamentalists are the ones who are following the religion to the letter. The moderates are cherry picking apostates who would be largely irrelevant, except that they legitimize the extremists. Whether they mean to or not.

 

[Slayven]

The extremist fundamentalists are the ones who are following the religion to the letter. The moderates are cherry picking apostates who would be largely irrelevant, except that they legitimize the extremists. Whether they mean to or not.

wait what?

 

[Lamel]

The extremist fundamentalists are the ones who are following the religion to the letter. The moderates are cherry picking apostates who would be largely irrelevant, except that they legitimize the extremists. Whether they mean to or not.

Interesting application of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

 

[iMax]

The extremist fundamentalists are the ones who are following the religion to the letter. The moderates are cherry picking apostates who would be largely irrelevant, except that they legitimize the extremists. Whether they mean to or not.

The other way to think of it is that the moderates have evolved the evolution alongside societal changes throughout the years and the extremists have not.

Every religion has this. Hell, even atheists do this. It's a moral issue, not a religious issue.

 

[aeolist]

i'm sure if we organized an event where people shit on pictures of jesus outside of baptist churches in mississippi and georgia everything would go just fine because christians respect the first amendment

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Now this is the kind of thing people shouldn't be doing. I'll defend to the bitter end anyone's right to draw Muhammad for their magazine or to hold a draw Muhammad exhibit....



People who get offended by the existence of Muhammad images or by the people who draw them can just fuck off, I don't give a shit about their issue.

So which is it? You'll defend group voicing their freedom while the other should not?

I never get the hypocrisy of people saying Muslims shouldn't be offended. Muslims should be angry, even furious. Then take that and express it with boycotts, civil disobedience, social media campaigns etc etc etc. Muslims have every right to be upset and show it peacefully as much as any bigot can hold these events. If you are going to beat the free speech drum, defend it all not only the one you agree with.

 

[Delta Assault]

I think we all know what "biker" is code for here.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not oppose to drawing Muhammed as a form of critique. Doing this intentionally outside of a mosque with guns is straight up antagonization. Terrible people.

 

[bidguy]

lets poke the bear and then shoot it

 

[Muffdraul]

The other way to think of it is that the moderates have evolved the evolution alongside societal changes throughout the years and the extremists have not.

Exactly. I just wish everyone would hurry up and take cherry picking to its obvious logical conclusion, and put their "holy books" where they belong,
on the shelf next to the ones about Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology etc.

 

[JDSN]

We are going full fedora here.

 

[The_Dama]

I've been to the mosque before and a lot of my friends go there on a daily basis. There are a lot of kids that go there to play soccer after school.

The bikers obvisusly never been to the mosqe before and they are just doing this to do whatever they are trying to do.

 

[block tower]

Fascists.

Which group, those who want to draw Muhammad or the people who get upset if Muhammad is depicted?

lets poke the bear and then shoot it

There's no valid reason a bear should get upset of a depiction of a deity. So no , your mindset is wrong. While the bikers are fuck heads , anyone anywhere willing to get upset or violent in reaction to a drawing of Muhammad need to do the world a favor and fuck off .


OT: the biker group seems to be fucking idiots, why a random Mosque is a target of some larger point seems to completely invalidate what they're doing. Also being armed doing this is broadcasting that your intentions are likely less about freedom of speech or more about freedom of hate. Fuck the biker group .

 

[blackflag]

I'll be staying far away in Ahwatukee.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

people are dying over this. they've been dying for years, starting with the danish cartoon in 2006

dying over CARTOONS. that's unfucking acceptable. so if you publish a work of satire, you have to be afraid for your life. this hampers freedom of speech. if we concede to it, its a slippery slope.

so if everyone draws mohammed then it will dilute their threat. so by taking part in that you can save lives. what you are drawing is besides the point. its not about being a dick, but even if someone did it to be a dick, i will defend them.

They're doing it right in front of a mosque and encouraging people to bring guns. This event is clearly designed to bait some sort of violent conflict and I find that just as deplorable as harming others over art.

 

[subrock]

Once again confusing Freedom of Speech with freedom to be an asshole to someone's face

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

These soldiers for Christian America and free speech should enlist if they really want to make their mark

 

[FiggyCal]

Once again confusing Freedom of Speech with freedom to be an asshole to someone's face

But that's the thing. I haven't heard the government show any interest in banning these demonstrations. Like clearly they already have the freedom to do this sort of thing.

I can only imagine that the rights their looking to defend have to do with their guns, and they are just lumping that in with a more controversial issue. But as far as the right to mock the Muslim prophet -- I have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[DirtyManos]

Wonder what'd happen if another group decided to show up next to this and exercise their 1st ammendment rights and just start burning American flags in front of them.

Wonder if they wouldn't feel those people were assholes trying to provoke them.

 

[ponpo]

Wonder what'd happen if another group decided to show up next to this and exercise their 1st ammendment rights and just start burning American flags in front of them.

Wonder if they wouldn't feel those people were assholes trying to provoke them.

No need for anyone to intervene. Divine retribution will be enacted on those traitors.

 

[Kettch]

So which is it? You'll defend group voicing their freedom while the other should not?

I never get the hypocrisy of people saying Muslims shouldn't be offended. Muslims should be angry, even furious. Then take that and express it with boycotts, civil disobedience, social media campaigns etc etc etc. Muslims have every right to be upset and show it peacefully as much as any bigot can hold these events. If you are going to beat the free speech drum, defend it all not only the one you agree with.

Other people are not constrained by the Muslim religion. If I were to draw Muhammad right now it would have absolutely no effect on you. There is absolutely no reason for you to be offended by it. Your argument is essentially "why are you being intolerant of intolerance".

People also get offended by violent video games. And if they try to ban such video games, they can fuck right off in my opinion. Because their morals are not mine. If you don't like violent video games, the easy solution is the not play them. Just like the easy solution to not wanting to see Muhammad is to not buy the magazine or not go to the exhibit.

Now, if someone were to go outside the house of someone who was offended by violence in video games and started playing one on a big screen TV, I would have a big problem with that. It's harassment, plain and simple.

 

[Chariot]

drawing mohammed is good but stick with the Gandhi route, non-violent protest

The all american remake: Gundhi.

 

[Necromanti]

Which group, those who want to draw Muhammad or the people who get upset if Muhammad is depicted?

What's fascistic about getting upset at one's beliefs (and in turn, one's identity) being openly and directly insulted? That seems like a normal human reaction. (How they follow up after that reaction is a different matter, obviously.)

 

[orochi91]

The all american remake: Gundhi.

+1

I want this on your tombstone.

 

[block tower]

Other people are not constrained by the Muslim religion. If I were to draw Muhammad right now it would have absolutely no effect on you. There is absolutely no reason for you to be offended by it. Your argument is essentially "why are you being intolerant of intolerance".

People also get offended by violent video games. And if they try to ban such video games, they can fuck right off in my opinion. Because their morals are not mine. If you don't like violent video games, the easy solution is the not play them. Just like the easy solution to not wanting to see Muhammad is to not buy the magazine or not go to the exhibit.

Now, if someone were to go outside the house of someone who was offended by violence in video games and started playing one on a big screen TV, I would have a big problem with that. It's harassment, plain and simple.

Good post! 👍🏽

 

[orochi91]

This is straight up harassment, these clowns want those folks at the mosque to do something.

And someone will absolutely take the bait.

Fuck.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

The all american remake: Gundhi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ega5Rcct2s

Yes, I do believe these bikers are fuckheads.

 

[commedieu]

This is straight up harassment, these clowns want those folks at the mosque to do something.

And someone will absolutely take the bait.

Fuck.

Someone will, but it more than likely won't be the people observing their religion at their neighborhood mosque. But yeah, this is threatening.

 

[not psycho]

You no longer get to claim the admirable quality of a "peaceful protest" when you show up armed.

I'd still consider them to be misguided assholes if they showed up unarmed to harass people in front of a mosque, but by bringing weapons they are dangerous assholes.

 

[block tower]

Well, we used to be a nation free of persecution for one's religious beliefs.



Almost

Anyone has a right to their feelings and that includes feeling offended. No one has a right to tell you how you should or shouldn't feel.

With that said, we are all responsible for our subsequent actions. If I get pissed, in theory, i can grab my gun or I can just drop my pants and rub one out. A picture or word has no direct influence over my actions.

Nobody is advocating the limitation of religious freedom, what people are advocating or making clear is that someone else's religious beliefs do not dictate mine or anyone else's own personal views or beliefs. If someone wants to get offended, upset, or violent over the depiction of the prophet Muhammad then so be it, but it's not mine or anyone else's responsibility to abstain from drawing a picture of Muhammad because it could possibly elicit that sort of negative response. Just because a religion deems a topic above criticism or expression doesn't mean that holds true for others who do not follow that religion. So the very idea that drawing a picture of Muhammad in of itself is antagonistic is absurd, what is antagonistic is showing up armed with guns and drawing a picture of Muhammad outside of a mosque; although that still doesn't justify a reaction out of the people inside the mosque even if it is a very antagonistic move by the biker group.

 

[PBalfredo]

SO guilt by association?

What guilt? I'm giving all the other members the benefit of the doubt despite the confirmed terrorist emerging from their congregation. If you're going to open up the question on the congregation's views on extremism as a counter to whether a protest against extremism is appropriate at that location, don't bulk at being pointed out the only public confirmation of a congregation member's views.

 

[Kettch]

Well, we used to be a nation free of persecution for one's religious beliefs.



Almost

Anyone has a right to their feelings and that includes feeling offended. No one has a right to tell you how you should or shouldn't feel.

With that said, we are all responsible for our subsequent actions. If I get pissed, in theory, i can grab my gun or I can just drop my pants and rub one out. A picture or word has no direct influence over my actions.



Thank YOU.

Maybe you guys are reading more into my post that what I said. I'm not advocating for people who protest the existence of Muhammad images to be arrested or banned from doing so. They can feel free. I'm fine with racists being allowed to do their marches as well after all, and that's even worse. I simply don't give a shit about their plight or their feelings. The offense they're taking is unreasonable, as they're attempting to apply it to other people.

 

[devilhawk]

Now this is the kind of thing people shouldn't be doing. I'll defend to the bitter end anyone's right to draw Muhammad for their magazine or to hold a draw Muhammad exhibit. If someone gets offended by that, the solution is to simply not look at it. Problem solved. People who get offended by the existence of Muhammad images or by the people who draw them can just fuck off, I don't give a shit about their issues.

Holding it right outside of a Mosque, however, I would consider harassment. Plenty of people get offended by all kinds of things, and as long as they only apply that to themselves, there's no issue. People who get upset by seeing the image of Muhammad are not the problem, and you should not protest the real problem by forcing people to look at it.

So how far then? 50 feet? 500 feet? 2 miles? 500 miles? What distance must I be to draw a cartoon and not be subjected to violent reprisal?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Other people are not constrained by the Muslim religion. If I were to draw Muhammad right now it would have absolutely no effect on you. There is absolutely no reason for you to be offended by it. Your argument is essentially "why are you being intolerant of intolerance".

People also get offended by violent video games. And if they try to ban such video games, they can fuck right off in my opinion. Because their morals are not mine. If you don't like violent video games, the easy solution is the not play them. Just like the easy solution to not wanting to see Muhammad is to not buy the magazine or not go to the exhibit.

If you were to draw Mohammed and a Muslim was to see it, should he not be mad? Does that person not have the right to dislike what you have done simply because he is the minority opinion? The Muslim in the situation has every right to be mad and voice his opinion, even if you do not like it. That person cannot make you stop drawing or drawing another, and you can't stop them from expressing their anger non-violently. What you want if freedom of expression for a certain group.

Using your example people can not like, or hate violent video games. They can express that anger by voting in someone who wants to ban them. Just like you can do the opposite. Silencing a minority is not freedom of speech, it is just opposite.

 

[Kettch]

So how far then? 50 feet? 500 feet? 2 miles? 500 miles? What distance must I be to draw a cartoon and not be subjected to violent reprisal?

You should never be subjected to violent reprisal. If you're close enough and displaying them in an attempt to antagonize, you should be subjected to whatever harassment laws are on the books though. I don't have a specific distance number in mind, but as long as it's reasonable, I'm fine with it.

 

[effzee]

So how far then? 50 feet? 500 feet? 2 miles? 500 miles? What distance must I be to draw a cartoon and not be subjected to violent reprisal?

Wait you don't consider what they are about to do harassment?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Can vs should and all that.

I just wonder how these folks would feel and react if Muslims came and protested "peacefully" in front of a church...with guns.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

If Allah hits em with a bolt of lightning, i wouldn't be mad at all