Two suspects killed, guard shot outside ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest in Texas

[White Peacock]

There's a certain "damn the man" mindset amongst certain liberals that says it's okay to be an unfair prick if its against someone who is part of an advantaged group.

The tone of my post wasn't reprimanding people for being hostile to Christian political aggression (which is definitely a thing). Rather, it's a reprimand for not carrying that same hostility to every group trying to limit the rights of others and using faith as their base for doing so. Christians have it coming; so do the Muslims.

[Urbanized]

The violent narrative of religious rivalry - The Washington Post

The Violent Narrative of Religious Rivalry
By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

The sign of a first-rate intelligence, according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, is “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” When it comes to Islam and blasphemy, many Americans are having trouble accepting even consistent ones.

Under the law, blasphemy is fully protected speech, precisely because there is no public orthodoxy. Elevate the crucifix in a processional or dip it in urine — the state neither genuflects nor cringes. The defense of unpopular or offensive speech plays a particularly important role in our constitutional order; it defines the expansive boundaries of First Amendment guarantees. Religious people of all backgrounds should recognize that this legal neutrality on religion has produced a society remarkably amenable to religion. Those who attempt to intimidate or silence the believer or the blasphemer are attacking a central tenet of the American creed. And if they resort to violence, they may end up as chalk outlines on the pavement. At the same time: Under most moral codes, setting out to demean or mock the deepest, defining beliefs of your neighbor is rude and cruel. While permissible in our constitutional order, it is ethically disordered behavior — malicious and dehumanizing. It violates the Golden Rule and all its variants across the faiths. It deserves protection but not sympathy.

There is no contradiction between First Amendment absolutism and a moral commitment to the cultivation of mutual respect among the Abrahamic faiths (and outside them). Just as there is no inconsistency between the vigorous defense of the United States against terrorists and a respectful engagement with Islam. They are, in fact, inseparable.

I can hardly be described as a softy when it comes to the global war against terrorism. I participated in an administration (headed by President George W. Bush) that pursued this war aggressively. Precisely for this reason, I know that it can’t be won without Muslim allies — loyal U.S. citizens who report suspicious activities; allies and proxies who fight against violent Islamism; hundreds of millions of people around the world who repudiate Salafism by the peacefulness and tolerance of their daily lives.

When Americans engage in high-profile, attention-seeking acts of blasphemy, they are not joining U.S. military and intelligence forces at the front line; they are complicating and undermining their work. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State thrive on the narrative of the West vs. Islam. The United States and our Muslim allies benefit from the narrative of civilization vs. barbarism. Both radical Islamists and some of their most vociferous American critics share the same conviction: that the most authentic form of Islam is the most violent form. If this view prevails in the Muslim world, no amount of drone strikes or commando raids will shield America and our allies from eventual and serial catastrophe. The isolation rather than elevation of radical Islamism is essential to the successful conduct of the war against terrorism.

Modern technology has made the job of ideological containment much harder by creating a forum for endless provocation and offense taking, not to mention radicalization and recruitment. The alternative, however, is not to demand that religious people become less religious — a hopeless task when much of the world will become less secular in the 21st century.

What is needed is “theological work,” according to the former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks. Speaking at a recent conference of the Faith Angle Forum, Sacks argued that religion remains “the most powerful creator of groups, stronger than ideology, race, nationalism.” When monotheism is tied to dualism — the belief that history is a cosmic conflict between the children of light and the children of darkness — it becomes “the most dangerous doctrine ever invented,” allowing people to “commit evil with a clean conscience.”

Both Judaism and Christianity have made progress over the centuries in weeding out dualism — reinterpreting their violent scriptural texts and finding resources of “respect for the other.” For Christianity, this transition wasn’t easy, involving the Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War. But this bloody, chaotic process eventually produced a flowering of powerful ideas in the 17th century: the social contract, human rights and liberty of conscience.

Islam is a younger faith, going through a similar internal struggle. Sacks believes that serious, sympathetic dialogue among the Abrahamic faiths can “speak to our better angels” and challenge the violent narrative of sibling rivalry. He may prove naive, but it is certainly a better strategy than mockery.

[Prunepicker]

Im not a fan of hating on Islam just because you are a scared and staunch Christian..

Hating that "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity. If someone hates something
it's a personal decision of their own and probably based on bad information.

[kelroy55]

Hating that "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity. If someone hates something
it's a personal decision of their own and probably based on bad information.

and continuing to use terms like "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity, it's a tenet of bigotry.

[jerrywall]

So it's not a religion of peace?

[kelroy55]

So it's not a religion of peace?

For the vast majority of Muslims it is but not in the way PP is using it.

[White Peacock]

For the vast majority of Muslims it is but not in the way PP is using it.

Given that it's responsible for nearly all religious inspired terrorism across the globe, the sarcastic tone is more than appropriate.

[Jersey Boss]

Given that it's responsible for nearly all religious inspired terrorism across the globe, the sarcastic tone is more than appropriate.

I would not be so quick as to say it is the inspiration. A group under siege is a unifier. If radical terrorists can get their target to paint the whole of Islam as radical terrorists they have effectively made allies by the millions. It appears to be working quite well.

[Prunepicker]

So it's not a religion of peace?

It's what THEY call themselves.

[kelroy55]

It's what THEY call themselves.

Black people often call themselves N***er to each other or in music, does that mean it's OK for you to call them that too? Not to mention Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

[White Peacock]

Black people often call themselves N***er to each other or in music, does that mean it's OK for you to call them that too? Not to mention Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

Respectfully, that's a major false equivalence.

[kelroy55]

Respectfully, that's a major false equivalence.

I agree and I thought that after I posted it. So just use the Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

[Prunepicker]

... Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the
mocking way you do...

There is no mocking on my part. None whatsoever.

[White Peacock]

I agree and I thought that after I posted it. So just use the Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

To be fair, that is the go-to defense every time a Muslim does something horrible. It's a response that's kind of become a parody of itself. Of course it's true that not all Muslims are bad. Most are decent people outside of their faith, but the fact is, they're adherents to a religion that came to life in violent fashion, and it hasn't done anything to demonstrate its status as a religion of peace since its inception. At least the Age of Reason made great strides in neutering Christianity so that the biggest threat we see from the latter is political. The Age of Reason has yet to reach the religion of Islam, and many people die -- on a regular basis -- at the hands of those who have taken it upon themselves to enforce the tenets of the faith.

A Christian extremist that harms another person is an anomaly, but a Muslim extremist that harms another person is expected. This is why I say that Islam deserves a special degree of scrutiny, and I remain baffled that liberals who are quick to bash Christians are so protective of the delicate feelings of the Muslims. Keep it consistent: bash 'em all.

[kelroy55]

There is no mocking on my part. None whatsoever.

I find that very hard to believe.

[RadicalModerate]

I find that very hard to believe.

"O, Ye of little faith . . ." =)

(I know, I know, "belief" isn't the same thing as "faith")

[kelroy55]

"O, Ye of little faith . . ." =)

(I know, I know, "belief" isn't the same thing as "faith")

LOL I have neither the faith or belief on what he said to be true.

[kelroy55]

Idiots

'Draw Muhammad' contest planned in Phoenix

[onthestrip]

Idiots

'Draw Muhammad' contest planned in Phoenix

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. There is no reason that someone shouldnt be able to have a drawing contest if thats what they want to do. Just like there is no reason the Satanic Church shouldnt be able to have a black mass that Catholics find offensive. This is free speech stuff. Muslims cant expect non-muslims to hold things sacred if its something they dont believe in or honor. Simply put, Muslims need to be less offended by what non-muslims do.

Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

[hoya]

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. There is no reason that someone shouldnt be able to have a drawing contest if thats what they want to do. Just like there is no reason the Satanic Church shouldnt be able to have a black mass that Catholics find offensive. This is free speech stuff. Muslims cant expect non-muslims to hold things sacred if its something they dont believe in or honor. Simply put, Muslims need to be less offended by what non-muslims do.

Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

Exactly. If Muslims were simply shaking their heads, or were just praying about it, or even smiling smugly and saying "well I hope those guys enjoy burning in hell" then I'd have a lot more sympathy for them. And to be fair, most Muslims are simply doing that. It's sad that one small group is defining the public perception of an entire religion of people.

[Prunepicker]

I see no problem with this. I don't agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs
Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing.

I agree 100%.

[kelroy55]

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

Phoenix (CNN)Jon Ritzheimer is a former Marine, and he has no middle ground when it comes to Islam.

A T-shirt he wears pretty much says it all: "F--- Islam."

Ritzheimer is the organizer of Friday's "Freedom of Speech Rally" outside the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix.

It's the mosque that Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attended for a time. They're the men who drove from Arizona to a Dallas suburb to shoot up a Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest there. Both were killed by police early this month.

Many Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemous and banned by the Islamic holy book, the Quran.

"This is in response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorist(s), with ties to ISIS, attempted Jihad," the event's Facebook page said.

Some 600 people say they're attending.

It's scheduled to start at 6:15 p.m., about the time evening prayers are taking place inside the center. The rally also features its own cartoon contest, similar to the one targeted in Texas.

"I think the whole thing, the cartoon contest especially, I think it's stupid and ridiculous," Ritzheimer said, "but it's what needs to take place in order to expose the true colors of Islam."
************************************************** ********


I wonder if people would still consider it free speech if Muslims started doing protests outside churches during Sunday services and doing things they know are offensive to Christians? This seems to be showing the true colors of bigotry.

[jerrywall]

How many people were shot by Christians during the black mass in Okc?

[Lord Helmet]

I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing.

First: I'm not sure this is simply about free speech. The dude organizing it wears a F*** Islam Shirt, and they are doing it outside of a mosque. Clearly they are trying to send a message to Muslims...I see it as provoking them...others may disagree.

Second: Freedom of speech... Just because you can doesn't mean you should...

Finally: Any time you are partaking in something where exercising your SECOND amendment right may need to be warranted, you're partaking in the wrong activity.

[jerrywall]

People are only in the right to bitch about this, if they attacked the black mass which was obviously done to provoke Christians in OKC. On the other hand, if you said... "stupid christians, quit complaining/protesting about the black mass"? You better defend this. Otherwise, we know you're full of BS. And I'm happy to jump to that thread and bring over some quotes.