Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

Who criticise religion with all the enthusiasm of a sneering fool. Correct. You have one right out of ....lots.

Aww...that Swedish university caved.



Much more on the subject here.

I'm struggling to keep the cool on this. I'm going to embrace the idealist in me that believes that exercising mass free speech is going to be enough to send the message here.

A
R
T

That's extremely concerning.

Lars Vilks has also made a drawing the JewSow.
Some Swedish papers refused to print it as they found it very insulting to a group of people. This does not mean that there is no freedom of speach but a normal behavior of politeness.
The Jews certainly would not have tried to kill Vilk and still the drawing was not printed.
Of the same reason some papers did not print the Muhammed drawing - it was an insult.
Do you think it was correct not to print the JewSow?

I think the point here is that you could draw a picture of Muhammad doing something really nice like helping someone across the street and it would get death threats.

I say that if you're willing to threaten violence, you better be able to defend why. I'm offended all the time, I'm certainly not entitled to harm another person because of it.

A
R
T

Ah, but IrishK's link to article was only very indirectly related to his cartoons. He was lecturing on free speech. It seems a big difference to me.

This is probably true. They are so anti-idols that there would be many who will not want to see a representation of Muhammad even if it was tasefully done.

Of course you arent, but there are always people who feel they have their back to the wall and will strike out to get more space. They dont see freedom, they see deliberate insults and sneering. A total lack of respect.

It is not only violence which is a danger but also libel tourism. This also happened in Denmark. A rich Saudi multi millionaire can afford to fight much longer than a Scandinavian news paper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7301403/How-libel-tourism-became-an-embarrassment-to-Britains-reputation.html

So we are now to assume that you have a firm grasp on what constitutes sneering and what passes for legitimate journalistic comment. What might this have come from, your 24 years of military experience, your ability to psycho-analyze, ... ?

Huh? If I threaten to kill you for exercising your First Amendment Rights in a way I don't like; feel free to encourage others to exercise their First Amendment Rights against my wishes as well. As previously noted, however, I am generally, if not always, standing in defense of the bill of rights. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't offend so and so", and the high court regularly strikes down attempts to circumvent this constitutional right. (Paraphrasing a fictional American President-->)You want freedom? Then prepare yourself to listen to a man, standing center stage, advocating at the top of his lunges that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Let me see you defend that. Celebrate that. Because only then will you understand what truly constitutes freedom of speech.

Most people are quite accurate at assessing feelings in others.
The ratio of facts to emotions is what makes it legitimate.
No need to be jealous. I am sure if you were mentally and physically in perfect shape they would have accepted you too...it is not your fault you werent good enough.
One friend has a PhD in Psychiatry and another is very high up in the government's mental health department. Both recognise my knowledge of psychology is not to be dismissed. But who are they to disagree with the likes of you ?

You point of view with law is rather amero-centric and whilst I agree whole-heartedly with freedom of speech, you try criticising the rich and see if you end up with a law suit for libel or slander. It all depends on how insulted the person feels. The poor almost always respond with violence, whilst the rich almost always respond with court action.

You probably couldnt have chosen a worse person here to say that to....I have defended freedom. I refuse to put anyone on ignore. Ever. I recommend engaging the people here that a lot simply ridicule and sneer at... I am defending now those who I oppose vehemently because understanding is the solution, not the problem.

And you're going to do that when people are traceable. (I see the future here and don't like it). On the other hand, if people aren't traceable, can they be counted?

This all reminds me of 1970 or so. I had strong opinions but did not want universities shut down, they matter to me, thus I blamed at some point both the twelve at ucla and reagan.

I think the better idea is an old one, intermingling and talking - which is mostly scornable, but also an area of hope if it is not clothed in agenda.

Maybe I think the biggest enemy is agendas.

I suppose that is impossible.

Recognize that the others have the right to the freedom of their expression and that their rights end where the rights of others for peaceful coexistence begins.

If I draw a respectful image of Muhammad they can get offended all they want (stupidity is their prerogative), but their rights end where my rights begin.



Depends on what the abuse is. I think they can call a cartoon idiotic if they want, I don't think they have the right to try to kill the cartoonist or threaten others who depict Muhammad.



The same way non-Muslims do. They have the same tools everyone else has to deal with offense.

I am certain you can see that you need special tools when dealing with the mentally ill. Fundamentalist religious people behave like they ARE God. Whereas you would'nt blame the insane for striking out, understanding is needed when dealing with groups of people who collectively are insane, though individuals dont meet the criteria.

If I draw a respectful image of Muhammad they can get offended all they want
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as a respectful image of Muhammed as there should not be any image of him at all.
Lars Vilks draws pictures to get the Muslims out of their dark ages into our enlightened western world. Do you really think that is going to help?
When a Muslim moves to a western and Christian country they have to learn to respect our values. What they do at home is none of our business.
I don´t want to say that all are like this, but these things do happen and they should not.
1.A foreigner has to learn the language in a new country. Many of the Muslim women don´t, which is a shame as the children will not be as good in the language spoken in the country as the other children.
2. A Muslim cannot demand prayer rooms in a school as no Christian has a prayer room or others a meditation room.
3. They cannot demand that Muslim children have a seperate lunchroom as they do not want pork meat to be served in the same room as vegetarian food, chicken or lamb meat.
4. They cannot demand our churchbells should not ring.
5. They cannot demand that children should not take sandwiches along with leverpate or other food containing porkmeat.
6. That Muslim families are more protective about their daughters is I would say even a good thing, but when it goes so far that a girl is killed in honoury killing it goes too far. Often they use a underage son to do the killing as he will
not get into prison the same way as the father would have.

I think that much better and more effectful than a drawing would be lectures about our rules and regulations and how they could fit their way of thinking so there would be a good co existence. There are many - the majority even of Muslims that do that with great succes. The children are bilingual and speak two languages very well, they work hard and save money, the families help one another.

Lars Vilks lecture was not so much about free speach as "the border for free speach within art". When he started to show a film about homosexuality and religion the disturbances started.

I'm sorry osso, can you restate this? I'm not following what you're getting at RE: Traceable.

A
R
T