Shooting at muslim cartoon event?

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Anyone with the name rhodes is a fucking monkey. I read your post and you said nothing but gibberish and monkey shrieks.

 

[eots]

 

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

 

[eots]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

 

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

I'm not trying to argue the legality or morality of what occurred. Only reckless fools piss people off for no good reason just to say they can. People like the clowns at this contest are the type of fools that caused the attack on the WTC. People died. Innocent people.

 

[Asclepias]

Has nothing to do with the point. The christians that were inciting the muslim nutcases should have turned the other cheek and not held an event to piss them off.

Just had to respond to this fucking stupidity. Your posts are abject fucking garbage, to the point of total embarrassment.

Asshole moron, since you clearly have no fucking clue, let me walk you through reality...google "anti-semitic cartoons arab press" and "iran holocaust denial conference" and see what comes up. All across the arab world jews are called apes and monkeys by arab muslim writers and editors, yet we do not see jews suicide bombing or shooting up large groups of arab muslims.

We do see large numbers of minorities being slaughtered by the intolerant, racist, violent arab muslims across the mideast, often times simply for not being a muslim. We have seen multiple times how muslim terrorists, once they've rounded up large numbers of civilians, separating the non-muslims and killing them outright, while sending the muslims home.

Your stupidity, exposed by such comments as "why aren't you surprised some people got angry and attacked" is a sign you lack the intellectual capability to even begin to understand the importance of the 1st amendment, and why it must be protected. Or should the US revoke it because a handful of psychotics (likely muslims) might react with violence? Get a fucking brain, dimwit.

Dear Asclepias and rhodescholar
Since I generally know Asclepias to be reasonable and able to work through conflicts to make mutual corrections and clarifications,
there must be something else going on that Asclepias is just not expressing correctly.

A. Asclepias are you trying to get at INTENT, that you are assuming the INTENT of the cartoon contest was to PROVOKE VIOLENCE and murderous response so these people incited it? (while as for abortion and prolife, the people going through abortion are not trying to deliberately provoke those protesters to kill, although that has happened. There have been lawsuits to remove dangerous websites calling for death threats and violence targeting abortion providers at their neighborhood and residence. So THAT level is criminal when death threats are called for, but it is charged to the people MAKING the threats, not to the people who incited them by providing and practicing abortion.)

NOTE: If you are ASSUMING "all these people who got threatened or forced into lockdown" were DELIBERATELY trying to provoke murderous anger, how are YOU any different from people ASSUMING that "All Muslims are murderous Jihadists or sympathizers/enablers"

There were as many people participating in this as a protest or counterprotest and statement to civil respect for democratic FREEDOMS of speech and due process, under civil laws that were otherwise violated in incidents such as Charlie Hebdo and the targeting of the Dutch artist and other filmmakers (and even novelists like Rushdie).

So not ALL the people were trying to provoke violence.
Just like not ALL Muslims enable or excuse terrorism.

If you are saying Pam Geller's intent was not patriotism but some kind of harassment intended to incite violence, then by due process SHE should be addressed and corrected, or charged if there is some criminal abuse or threat committed, just like proving the websites incite crime if you are going to take down extreme prolife websites that target abortion doctors for violence and criminal actions.

Those charges have to be proven IN ADVANCE to be a threat before taking away people's free speech and right to protest.

So if you want to go after Geller, then do so, but within the processes of law.
Just like Christians and Constitutionalists and all citizens are required to go through.

B. rhodescholar and Asclepias
I think what Asclepias is trying to say is pointing out the Natural Law or Golden Rule that you treat others with respect if you want to claim respect for your beliefs and consent. Clearly the Muslim community and others do not consent to such provocative actions and protests, knowing that it can incite violence in radicalists.

Asclepias this is where there is a separation of church and state.

Just because it is AGAINST Christian law to "provoke your neighbor to anger"
does not mean it justifies breaking CIVIL LAW to answer to that.

The proper way to answer to a violation of Christian scripture is to enforce scripture and make the correction within that system, which calls for NOT VIOLATING IT.

So the person trying to petition or protest or object must ALSO follow the Scripture and cannot violate the very same laws. And YES Islam calls for believers to follow the Bible as well, so by Matthew 18:15-20 fellow believers are supposed to rebuke each other in private, in the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, to right the wrongs in order to RESTORE good faith relations between them (or if they cannot, by SURA 109 they are supposed to part ways in peace and allow each other to follow their separate ways, ie, there is NO compulsion in religion. Both by Muslim teachings and Christian Scripture you do not FORCE someone to correct things your way, but you present your grievance your side and you allow the truth to be established by agreement, without coercion or compulsion)

Asclepias for the CIVIL law, it turns out it is NOT against either civil or criminal law to hold such a contest UNLESS they broke some law, such as discrimination if they held this event on public property that was "free to the public" but excluded people on the basis of color, race or creed when it was held on public property as a public event.
If it was a private event, the rules may differ.

(In Tomball a couple won a lawsuit against the city renting a public facility for a Klan event that excluded people by race. They petitioned to change the rules where by the Fourteenth Amendment the city could not discriminate by color at an event held on public property.)

But again, even so, there is a DUE PROCESS for addressing any such breach; and it is illegal to answer with shooting at people.

Asclepias if you are trying to enforce
* natural laws, then neither can the two gunmen violate natural laws if they are going to protest and say the hosts of the event were provoking violence and disrupting natural law and order. You could have had a natural law argument if the two men followed natural law and protested civilly instead of violating the very same laws about "reciprocity"

* civil laws and respect for Constitutional religious freedom of Muslims, then neither should the two men have violated civil laws and Constitutional freedoms either.

If I had to guess what you are TRYING to argue,
you are saying by NATURAL LAWS of course there is going to be provocation
and risk of violent reaction like what happened.

So you are saying there was deliberate "intent or RISK (not assuming intent)"
of inciting crime, and this was either harassing or abusive.

Obscene, harassing and abusive speech is only illegal in CERTAIN contexts.

So you are going by the SPIRIT of the laws, and not the civil laws that citizens are required to follow. You are going by MORAL laws, similar to Buddhists advising not to cause suffering or Christians teaching not to provoke one's neighbor to anger, or to act as a stumbling block and cause others to sin out of anger, unforgiveness etc.

These are MORAL principles, but people here are arguing CIVIL laws.
So these MORAL laws are not required under CIVIL or CRIMINAL laws of the govt/state, or else that would Violate Separation of Church and State.

And guess what, the people who took justice into their own hands did just that,
violated separation of church and state by executing actions (such as shooting or intent to kill) that are reserved for police and govt through regulated procedures for that.

So even if you enforced those standards, the shooters violated the same standards also.

On all counts, if you look at moral laws, natural laws, civil and criminal,
Christian and Muslim, the shooters violated any of these laws you could possibly enforce.

But I understand you if you are trying to enforce a higher moral law, and not provoke anyone to violence, anger and suffering. It just can't be imposed by public laws; but what you are seeking is best established by example, by enforcing the same standards.

And these two gunmen did not.

My prayers to them and all people involved or affected by this incident,
that we may uplift one another, and grow to be better for the lessons learned.
May all hearts, minds, souls, relations and communities be healed and united
with greater understanding that we may prevent such grievances and grief in the future.

For the love of God and unity in Christ Jesus
that brings Restorative Justice and peace to all, Amen.

You would have to be living under a rock not to know who the prophet muhammad is and the fact it makes muslims super angry when you mock their religion. Of course all the people participating in the event had the same intent. I dont think at all the intent was to provoke violence but it damn sure was to provoke and mock Muslims. When you provoke committed people bad things are bound to happen.

View attachment 40814

Is that you and your girl?

 

[featherlite]

We have always been able to insult everyone and everything. We are Americans
I know free speech and all...but this was pretty lame.
Its one thing to have a cartoon contest and not shy away from insulting extremist Islam...but to have a "draw Mohamed contest "is equivalent to kids throwing sand in another kids face.
Of course there will be a bad outcome ...you purposely antagonized people.

 

[Pogo]

Unfortunately it is there for everyone to see -- unfortunate because it reveals you to be an illiterate idiot since that's not what it says.

Why don't you tell the class how I said George Bush shot Kennedy now...

My sigline really bothers you, doesn't it (after more than a year...lol)? I don't need to explain anything, they can just click on the link and see it for themselves. You'd give anything to be able to delete it, wouldn't you, dickwad?

On the contrary it's a continuous source of hilarity that you're bottom-of-the-barrel stupid enough to carry it around all this time and still not understand it. So no way I want that deleted. It saves me the trouble of pointing out what a moron you are... you do it for me.

Matter of fact I might just take a screenshot and use it as my sigline. It's that moronic.

Sure, buddy. That's why you keep whining about it a year later. Nice try but it's staying up there.

"Whine"?? Perish the thought. I just like to watch you try to squirm out of it when I challenge you to prove your point.
Like you just did.

I guess I just find abject stupidity entertaining.

Hell no, I don't want that quote to go away -- YOU do.

That's right, like I just did, which is to leave the link there so others can read your post in all its glory. But do keep whining about it, I enjoy watching you cry.

Not at all, Illiterati. What I said there was that George H.W. Bush, alone among the entire US population old enough to remember at the time, cannot recall where he was at the time of the assassination. Which is a fact.

Now you go ahead and essplain to the class in what way, on your planet, that that means he shot Kennedy.




Dumb shit.



You STILL don't get it, do ya?

 

[eots]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..

Needs to be the response...

 

[jon_berzerk]

too bad that is a fake

bible quote

--LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the two guys the cop killed got just as much talking as they deserved........and if you empathize with the killers fuck you.....they were monsters.....and people who plan on murdering people over cartoons need to be put down......

So do people who draw cartoons with the intention of inspiring murderous rage.

So essentially, you are siding with the hate group.

I suppose in 1978, you'd have sided with the Nazis wanting to march in Skokie.

I side with free speech.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with 'free speech.'

First Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed – not the relationship between or among private persons or organizations – prohibiting the state from seeking to engage in an unwarranted effort to limit or preempt free expression in violation of the Constitution.

No government or jurisdiction is seeking to prohibit the creation or exhibition of 'Muhammad cartoons,' nor does any government or jurisdiction seek to disallow persons to gather to display such 'cartoons,' consequently there is no free speech 'issue,' and no First Amendment 'violation.'

 

[Asclepias]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..
View attachment 40815 Needs to be the response...

With those freedoms comes responsibility. If you want to be a juvenile then maybe you shouldnt have those freedoms. Sorta like we do with kids and cars. Fools like you cause things like this....

 

[eots]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..
View attachment 40815 Needs to be the response...

With those freedoms comes responsibility. If you want to be a juvenile then maybe you shouldnt have those freedoms. Sorta like we do with kids and cars. Fools like you cause things like this....

you really think that happened cuz the hate are freedoms..

 

[eots]

 

[Asclepias]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..
View attachment 40815 Needs to be the response...

With those freedoms comes responsibility. If you want to be a juvenile then maybe you shouldnt have those freedoms. Sorta like we do with kids and cars. Fools like you cause things like this....

you really think that happened cuz the hate are freedoms..

No fool. It happened because "terrorists" hate this country for its disrespect and meddling.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And the two guys the cop killed got just as much talking as they deserved........and if you empathize with the killers fuck you.....they were monsters.....and people who plan on murdering people over cartoons need to be put down......

So do people who draw cartoons with the intention of inspiring murderous rage.

So essentially, you are siding with the hate group.

I suppose in 1978, you'd have sided with the Nazis wanting to march in Skokie.

I side with free speech.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with 'free speech.'

First Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed – not the relationship between or among private persons or organizations – prohibiting the state from seeking to engage in an unwarranted effort to limit or preempt free expression in violation of the Constitution.

No government or jurisdiction is seeking to prohibit the creation or exhibition of 'Muhammad cartoons,' nor does any government or jurisdiction seek to disallow persons to gather to display such 'cartoons,' consequently there is no free speech 'issue,' and no First Amendment 'violation.'

lets keep it that way

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course the likes of Pamela Geller and other 'anti-Muslim' nitwits are trying to contrive the propagate the lie that this is a 'free speech' issue, when in fact it's not.

 

[eots]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..
View attachment 40815 Needs to be the response...

With those freedoms comes responsibility. If you want to be a juvenile then maybe you shouldnt have those freedoms. Sorta like we do with kids and cars. Fools like you cause things like this....

you really think that happened cuz the hate are freedoms..

No fool. It happened because they hate this country for its disrespect and meddling.

what disrespect.. outside of the meddling

 

[Asclepias]

we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion..and to anyone be they muslim or whatever that uses murder and violence to to take those Freedoms..
View attachment 40815 Needs to be the response...

With those freedoms comes responsibility. If you want to be a juvenile then maybe you shouldnt have those freedoms. Sorta like we do with kids and cars. Fools like you cause things like this....

you really think that happened cuz the hate are freedoms..

No fool. It happened because they hate this country for its disrespect and meddling.

what disrespect.. outside of the meddling

Take a wild guess.

 

[eots]

Of course the likes of Pamela Geller and other 'anti-Muslim' nitwits are trying to contrive the propagate the lie that this is a 'free speech' issue, when in fact it's not.

She has the right to be an idiot..go and come buy, sell be drunk or sober...however she choose