Islam and Mental Illness

[Coyote]

Mental Illness as an organic brain disease - the major mental illnesses have distinct biological changes to brain and brain chemistry - schizophrenia and bipolar. Those are the two most likely to cause severe behaviorial problems.

The Neurobiology of Bipolar Disorder
The Brains Of Bipolar Disorder Patients Look Different
Evidence That Schizophrenia is a Brain Disease

Those are BEGINNING to be recognized as true brain disease.

No, they are not "beginning" to - there has been a considerable body of evidence building to support this.

The kind of mental screening suggested by your OP for proclivity to go full radical terror -- or become homicidal against symbols of America are not generally "organic brain disease".. It's largely a matter of matter of cultural reference who is awkwardly violent or threatening. In Yemen, they wear full battle dress to go the market. Don't think "psychological testing" would even be required here to declare that "abnormal behaviour".. An impromptu "Death to America" rally is a HAPPY NORMAL event in Iran. Wanna analyze the psych risk that might prompt in "western" methods?

My OP was not about screening for terrorists, not about screening in other countries - but screening for mental illness that could lead to violence - and educating people about it. Did you read the article?

None of the examples you give above are in and of themselves signs of mental illness.

The Aurora Theatre shooter, the VA Tech shooter, Gabby Giffords' shooter, the Ft Hood shooter, the Sandy Hook Shooter all had evidence of serious mental illness. In some cases, family members recognized it but were helpless to do anything about it because the person was an adult. In other cases, the warning signs were there and noted, but weren't acted upon due to PC (Ft. Hood). The VA Tech shooter's parents were Korean immigrants - another culture that does not recognize mental illness but views it as family shame. A bit similar to the Muslim community that does not recognize it as an illness that needs treatment. These days, many mental illness' are being recognized and treated much earlier in communities where resources and education exist. Kids with violent, unstable or erratic behavior might get noticed and help might get sought before a tragedy, if the families and communities are educated and have access to resources.

I gave the Orlando shooter as an example because he was American born and raised - not an immigrant. He was schooled in the US and raised in the US, but raised in a family who's culture does not recognize that behavior as mental illness and who's culture hates homosexuals. The article in my OP was a call out to the Muslim community to not bury mental illness.

The other two examples I gave both received their own threads here - threads in which their religion was blamed for their erratic behavior (the London man and the Somali woman) even in the presence of evidence of mental illness. If a sick person happens to be Muslim, he gets a double whammy - his religion won't acknowledge he needs help and his religion means the public labels him as a Religion, not a person.

 

[Coyote]

the displaying of the idiot "Jesus in piss" and "Mary made of elephant dung " exhibitions were funded by TAX MONEY?

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[citation needed] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[13]

Piss Christ was included in "Down by Law", a "show within a show" on identity politics and disobedience that formed part of the 2006 Whitney Biennial. The British Channel 4 TV documentary Damned in the USA explored the controversy surrounding Piss Christ.

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

 

[irosie91]

not so easy-------in fact---criminal behavior does not come close to describing a "disease" and in many cases that which is called
BIPOLAR DISORDER and treated as such does not come close to fulfilling any kind of definition of "DISEASE" Diseases are caused by specific pathogens or are associated with specific structural abnormalities or abnormalities of physiology. A belief in the details of an ideology generally accepted as a RELIGION-----is----by the consensus of the world's psychiatrists NOT defined as a disease. A muslim who believes that it is right to
kill a person for "insulting" muhummad is---BY DEFINITION----
NOT MANEFESTING ABNORMAL THINKING (aka psychosis)

 

[Coyote]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

 

[irosie91]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

oh------some people like to claim that other people say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS"-----of course, such people are liars

 

[Coyote]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

oh------some people like to claim that other people say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS"-----of course, such people are liars

"All" and "Always" are seldom accurate.

 

[irosie91]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

oh------some people like to claim that other people say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS"-----of course, such people are liars

"All" and "Always" are seldom accurate.

that is true----but it does not stop the liars who post here to make the libelous claim "you said all muslims are terrorists"

 

[Coyote]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

oh------some people like to claim that other people say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS"-----of course, such people are liars

"All" and "Always" are seldom accurate.

that is true----but it does not stop the liars who post here to make the libelous claim "you said all muslims are terrorists"

Or "all bipolar people kill"...

 

[irosie91]

try to remember------NOT ALL BIPOLAR people kill-----in fact MOST DO NOT. The statement "ALL BIPOLAR PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS"----IS DANGEROUSLY
"RACIST" and A GROSS AND UNACCEPTABLE
GENERALIZATION

NO ONE SAID ALL (OR EVEN MOST) BIPOLAR PEOPE KILL.

oh------some people like to claim that other people say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS"-----of course, such people are liars

"All" and "Always" are seldom accurate.

that is true----but it does not stop the liars who post here to make the libelous claim "you said all muslims are terrorists"

Or "all bipolar people kill"...

why are you playing parrot?

 

[irosie91]

the displaying of the idiot "Jesus in piss" and "Mary made of elephant dung " exhibitions were funded by TAX MONEY?

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[citation needed] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[13]

Piss Christ was included in "Down by Law", a "show within a show" on identity politics and disobedience that formed part of the 2006 Whitney Biennial. The British Channel 4 TV documentary Damned in the USA explored the controversy surrounding Piss Christ.

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

 

[Coyote]

the displaying of the idiot "Jesus in piss" and "Mary made of elephant dung " exhibitions were funded by TAX MONEY?

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[citation needed] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[13]

Piss Christ was included in "Down by Law", a "show within a show" on identity politics and disobedience that formed part of the 2006 Whitney Biennial. The British Channel 4 TV documentary Damned in the USA explored the controversy surrounding Piss Christ.

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

 

[irosie91]

the displaying of the idiot "Jesus in piss" and "Mary made of elephant dung " exhibitions were funded by TAX MONEY?

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[citation needed] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[13]

Piss Christ was included in "Down by Law", a "show within a show" on identity politics and disobedience that formed part of the 2006 Whitney Biennial. The British Channel 4 TV documentary Damned in the USA explored the controversy surrounding Piss Christ.

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

 

[Coyote]

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]

During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.[citation needed] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.[13]

Piss Christ was included in "Down by Law", a "show within a show" on identity politics and disobedience that formed part of the 2006 Whitney Biennial. The British Channel 4 TV documentary Damned in the USA explored the controversy surrounding Piss Christ.

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[17][18] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Beginning September 27, 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York, at the Andres Serrano show "Body and Spirit."[19] Religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce the artwork, comparing it to the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims that the White House had condemned earlier that month.[20]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

 

[irosie91]

So what's the EXCUSE for this exactly? One nun regarded the work as "non-blasphemous"? I'm afraid her interpretation is subject to review by the majority of Christians who reserve the right to feel pretty damned offended.

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

 

[Coyote]

I have no idea. What is the excuse? You tell me.

I don't much care for it, and I certainly see how Christians would be very offended. What is your point exactly because I'm not defending it.

What I"m saying is there appears to be a disconnect.

Piss Christ - is offensive, but according to the artist, not intended to be.
The Mohammed Cartoon Contest - is offensive, and is INTENDED to be offensive towards a particular group of people and those putting the exhibition on were hoping for provocation.

So right there - you have differences in intent and scale. One piece, one artist, vs an exhibition of multiple pieces that got plenty of media attention.

But the biggest difference is this - it's POLITICALLY CORRECT to offend Muslims. A significant portion of the public supported and applauded it. Now, what do you imagine would happen if you put on a Holocaust Denial Cartoon contest in THIS country? How would the public react? Would they be applauding free speech and hailing it as a victory for free speech (well, maybe Odius and his buddies)? Or would there be a lot of voices speaking out in condemnation? I applaud the Texas muslim community, for turning their backs and ignoring it. That's the American way.

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

 

[irosie91]

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

Ignoring atrocity is that which leads to world wide disaster.
We ALLOW it and let it grow. Return fire is always ---not only legal---but mandatory

 

[Coyote]

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

Ignoring atrocity is that which leads to world wide disaster.
We ALLOW it and let it grow. Return fire is always ---not only legal---but mandatory

No one is talking about ignoring atrocity.

 

[yiostheoy]

I support a muhummad cartoon contest as a CORRECT RESPONSE to Islamic propaganda which----is UBIQUITOUS--it shows up wherever there are muslims and long before anyone ever made a cartoon of muhummad. RETURN FIRE IS ALWAYS LEGAL. Spoofing muslims is the same as spoofing Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

Coyote you are a sweetheart for going thru this deep long analysis to try and understand why the rag heads are wacko.

As to whether they are more wacko than the rest of the world is unlikely.

Their religion is wacko and their imams are wacko and they have come up with this 72 virgins wacko interpretation which facilitates their own insanity.

But this insanity is just a bunch of pinpricks against the rest of the world.

It makes good news copy and it keeps everyone riveted to their TV's.

But it really does not accomplish much for the wacko's.

If anything it just unites the world against them even more.

 

[yiostheoy]

I support a Mohammed Cartoon Contest for the same reason I support Piss Christ. It's free speech. And I support the right of people to protest against it as well.

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

Ignoring atrocity is that which leads to world wide disaster.
We ALLOW it and let it grow. Return fire is always ---not only legal---but mandatory

Well if you are talking about being armed yourself and being vigilant then I agree.

But I do not agree that the Islamists are accomplishing anything at all.

They are just wasting their own blood and making a few pin pricks here and there.

 

[irosie91]

Now you are being logical------I also support a BURN THE KORAN day in response to the protocol in effect in Saudi arabia which includes the shredding of bibles. In response to the Iranian habit of stomping on various flags----I support the stomping upon of muslim flags----especially the one with the
"shahadah" printed on it As to the "jesus in piss" manner of expression-----whether you do or do not support it------it IS legal in the USA. Just what from of PROTEST do you consider acceptable against these laudable forms of art?

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to base our actions on what other countries do.

Actually, I think it's kind of stupid to acquiesce because it ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS those people across the
globe who engage in such filth to imagine that we ACCEPT THEIR FILTH and that it is a successful course of action. By winking we FACILITATE IT just as Chambelain facilitated nazism

Choosing not to base our conduct on what worse nations do is not "acquiescing" .

Ignoring atrocity is that which leads to world wide disaster.
We ALLOW it and let it grow. Return fire is always ---not only legal---but mandatory

Well if you are talking about being armed yourself and being vigilant then I agree.

But I do not agree that the Islamists are accomplishing anything at all.

They are just wasting their own blood and making a few pin pricks here and there.

My role in the military did not include carrying a rifle or a bayonet-----your response is silly