Shooting at muslim cartoon event?

[namvet]

you Americans are the laffin' stock of the world

 

[protectionist]

Sounds like they planned poorly.

Two dead jihadists for one injured security guard.

Sounds like good planning to Me.

BTW that injured guard wasnt a member of this retarded madness. He was just working the event. The retarded organizer should have her ass thrown in jail for putting him at risk.

So your approach is to hide from the enemy (we're at war in case you hadn't noticed), and forgoe even your basic Constitutional rights (in this case, free speech), to appease the enemy in hope that he'll leave you alone.

We all have a choice, We can fight or flight. If we flee, then we have handed the enemy a victory on a silver platter. He turns American society into how he wants it to be (according to his Islamic design), rather than what we Americans have had it be for 226 years. You're pathetic.

So being respectful is a foreign concept to you huh? Figures because idiots like you have no respect for anything including yourself. I dont fight over stupid shit. When it becomes important to me to disrespect someone just because I can then I will fight. Sounds more like someone gave you a script to read. If I were to kick your ass on the street because you wore a shirt with a racial slur on it, you wouldnt do shit at all. Dont try to claim you would fight. Leave that to people much braver than yourself.

You don't be respectful to filthy criminal mass murderers (and all the other vile things that Mo the pedophile was) unless you are a complete idiot. You have contempt for such people if you have a brain in your head. ANd you have contempt for the vile ideology of Islam, if you have any clue what it is.
And your big, tough talk just makes you look more like an idiot. You probably couldn't fight your way out of paper bag, much less against a trained, army veteran like me who could kill you in seconds, if the need arose.

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds like they planned poorly.

Two dead jihadists for one injured security guard.

Sounds like good planning to Me.

BTW that injured guard wasnt a member of this retarded madness. He was just working the event. The retarded organizer should have her ass thrown in jail for putting him at risk.

So your approach is to hide from the enemy (we're at war in case you hadn't noticed), and forgoe even your basic Constitutional rights (in this case, free speech), to appease the enemy in hope that he'll leave you alone.

We all have a choice, We can fight or flight. If we flee, then we have handed the enemy a victory on a silver platter. He turns American society into how he wants it to be (according to his Islamic design), rather than what we Americans have had it be for 226 years. You're pathetic.

So being respectful is a foreign concept to you huh? Figures because idiots like you have no respect for anything including yourself. I dont fight over stupid shit. When it becomes important to me to disrespect someone just because I can then I will fight. Sounds more like someone gave you a script to read. If I were to kick your ass on the street because you wore a shirt with a racial slur on it, you wouldnt do shit at all. Dont try to claim you would fight. Leave that to people much braver than yourself.

You don't be respectful to filthy criminal mass murderers (and all the other vile things that Mo the pedophile was) unless you are a complete idiot. You have contempt for such people if you have a brain in your head. ANd you have contempt for the vile ideology of Islam, if you have any clue what it is.
And your big, tough talk just makes you look more like an idiot. You probably couldn't fight your way out of paper bag, much less against a trained, army veteran like me who could kill you in seconds, if the need arose.

Youre a fucking moron. That is all.

 

[2aguy]

I hate socialists of the German 1930s kind, the other socialists aren't as dangerous, but yeah, they had a right to march.

 

[2aguy]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

 

[protectionist]

Jesus, this guy is so fucking stupid I have to wonder who bought him a computer to inflict his idiocy on the rest of the internet?

So the muslims would find some other rationale / excuse to use as a ruse to attack and murder people? Should the rest of humanity hide in a cave, hoping that some angry muslims don't come attack us? What if they used the excuse we wore ties and suits? Or sang happy birthday? You are either trolling, or paid to be here, no one can be this fucking stupid as you.

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

No stupid. Its a worldwide recognized religion.

It does matter what they say. Thats why some of the nutcases kill people to show you it matters.

Mohammed was a prophet. Google it.

FALSE!! Most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion, Even some countries don't accept it as a religion, and thereby deny it religious tax status (ex. Italy). It does not not matter what these lunatics say. Hearing them and respecting their words is insanity. They are current wartime enemies of us. As my former battalion commander, Lt. Colonel Shea once said >> "In the Army, how we deal with our enemies can be summed up in 3 simple words > "WE KILL THEM!"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[2aguy]

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 are a moron......muslim terrorists trying to enforce sharia on the world caused this......

 

[Asclepias]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

Actually Pam has been banned from the UK. She and her organization is a hate group. She fools the low of intellect by spouting patriotic rhetoric but make no mistake she is in the same boat with the KKK, skinheads, and other foul packs of feral simians.

 

[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 are a moron......muslim terrorists trying to enforce sharia on the world caused this......

No. Youre a fucking idiot. Nutcase muslims reacted to the people that caused this.

 

[protectionist]

So....they now have learned that we are not France, we aren't Britain......they now realize that there are zones in America with guns that will be used to kill them.....

Um, not really. Hey, this wasn't a "good guy with a gun" as you gun fetishists compensating for your tiny peckers always say. This was a trained law enforcement officer doing what he was trained to do, and good for him.

It's just too bad he had to do it under these circumstances because a hate group incited a riot.

Not a hate group....one of the groups actually standing up to muslim hate....

It is correct to hate hatred. That is what the American Freedom Defense Initiative has done, standing up to Muslim hate lunacy.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

No stupid. Its a worldwide recognized religion.

It does matter what they say. Thats why some of the nutcases kill people to show you it matters.

Mohammed was a prophet. Google it.

FALSE!! Most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion, Even some countries don't accept it as a religion, and thereby deny it religious tax status (ex. Italy). It does not not matter what these lunatics say. Hearing them and respecting their words is insanity. They are current wartime enemies of us. As my former battalion commander, Lt. Colonel Shea once said >> "In the Army, how we deal with our enemies can be summed up in 3 simple words > "WE KILL THEM!"

Here stupid. Take a gander at this. BTW Islam is accepted as a religion even here in the US. Their mosques are tax exempt like other churches. Like I said before you are a fucking idiot. That is all.

Major religious groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

No stupid. Its a worldwide recognized religion.

It does matter what they say. Thats why some of the nutcases kill people to show you it matters.

Mohammed was a prophet. Google it.

FALSE!! Most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion, Even some countries don't accept it as a religion, and thereby deny it religious tax status (ex. Italy). It does not not matter what these lunatics say. Hearing them and respecting their words is insanity. They are current wartime enemies of us. As my former battalion commander, Lt. Colonel Shea once said >> "In the Army, how we deal with our enemies can be summed up in 3 simple words > "WE KILL THEM!"

Here stupid. Take a gander at this. BTW Islam is accepted as a religion even here in the US. Their mosques are tax exempt like other churches. Like I said before you are a fucking idiot. That is all.

Major religious groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

They are tax exempt in the idiotic, currently Obama-run USA. In countries (like Italy) doing things correctly, it is NOT tax exempt. Take a gander at this >>>

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/0...s-tax-status-2

Islam Watch - About Us

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

Islam and the Definition of Religion

Why Islam is Not a Religion > Rebecca Bynum

Former Muslim, Wafa Sultan, says, "Islam is NOT a religion" | BARE NAKED ISLAM

?Allah is Dead ? Why Islam is Not a Religion? | Logan's Warning

Islam Is Not A Religion, But A Dangerous Ideology | International

Islam: not a religion? « The Immanent Frame

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. « Avid Editor's Insights

Half Sigma: Islam not a religion?

Islam in Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from Former Muslims - WikiIslam

The Patriot Factor: Islam is NOT a Religion

Why Islam Should NOT Be Protected Under the US Constitution! | CatchKevin.com

Islam: Politics In Religious Garb

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion -- Denied Religious Tax Status - Atlas Shrugs

Info on Islam: Islam is not a religion

Islam Is Not A Religion It Is A Cult

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/...d-as-a-religion-denied-religious-tax-status-2

Islam is NOT a Religion

Islam Does Not Qualify Under US Constitution ?Freedom of Religion? Rights « Northeast Intelligence NetworkNortheast Intelligence Network

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source

Islam is a political system ? NOT a religion | Creeping Sharia

Islam is not a religion, but a death cult of misogynistic pedophiles

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Likewise Asclepias you'd have to be in oblivious denial to ignore the fact that to Christians who believe abortion is murder and not a choice, half the country has been outraged and aggrieved that this is LEGAL.

Christians have been fighting this for years, since 1973, and are still expected to follow CIVIL DUE PROCESS.
Even though to them, murder is illegal, is never justified as a "choice," and the same as abortion.

Asclepias, I think you are taking for granted that
A. Christians are expected to FORGIVE, so they are not supposed to go around and kill.
The Scriptures call for Christians to RESPECT CIVIL AUTHORITY and laws.
Even if this means being persecuted and facing injustice, they are supposed to use these occasions to TESTIFY.
And ASK and PETITION civilly to change laws that allow injustices and abuses to occur.

B. You FORGET that MUSLIMS are ALSO UNDER SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

So if you look at the law abiding Muslims, they did follow civil standards, and protested and petitioned PEACEFULLY against this event. They asked using the same free speech that the event supporters were using, so that is EQUAL.

The faithful Muslims I know ALSO follow Restorative Justice which makes them neighbors in Christ.

I think you are excusing the violent reactions as something "these people could not help."
If they are THAT mentally ill that they cannot follow the laws, they should be required to get treatment!

Lastly Asclepias
In trying to understand what you could possibly be saying,
I THINK you are saying the equivalent of warning people "don't post your SSN and personal information online
and claim free speech, then complain when someone responds by stealing your identity and committing fraud or theft"

Even though it is LEGAL to post our information online, our children's photos, and address and school/business etc. by "freedom of speech and of the press"
You are saying it is ill advised to provoke a crime, since that is almost inevitable that someone would take advantage.

So is this a violation of free speech? To have to limit what we post online because of the criminal behavior of others?

Yes, we'd blame the identity thieves for committing such crimes if they did that.

But YES I agree with you, we would WARN citizens DON'T POST YOUR PERSONAL INFO ONLINE.
Especially not your children. We already warn them DON'T post personal info or statements on facebook because your employer can find that, and it can possibly affect your job.

So if this is what you mean, yes, it is NOT ADVISABLE to set yourself up for criminals to take advantage. It is better NOT to tempt people if you know this will INVITE crime.

Asclepias is that closer to what you are trying to say?

Don't leave the house or car unlocked, with keys in the ignition or someone could try to break in and steal property.
Don't leave your purse in the cart at the store and walk away.

Is it legal to do these thing? Yes, but it is ILL ADVISED and not safe.
For the sake of security and deterring crime, it is best to lock up and not INVITE criminals.

I am guessing this is what you mean?
Close enough?

 

[emilynghiem]

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

No stupid. Its a worldwide recognized religion.

It does matter what they say. Thats why some of the nutcases kill people to show you it matters.

Mohammed was a prophet. Google it.

FALSE!! Most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion, Even some countries don't accept it as a religion, and thereby deny it religious tax status (ex. Italy). It does not not matter what these lunatics say. Hearing them and respecting their words is insanity. They are current wartime enemies of us. As my former battalion commander, Lt. Colonel Shea once said >> "In the Army, how we deal with our enemies can be summed up in 3 simple words > "WE KILL THEM!"

Here stupid. Take a gander at this. BTW Islam is accepted as a religion even here in the US. Their mosques are tax exempt like other churches. Like I said before you are a fucking idiot. That is all.

Major religious groups - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

They are tax exempt in the idiotic, currently Obama-run USA. In countries (like Italy) doing things correctly, it is NOT tax exempt. Take a gander at this >>>

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/0...s-tax-status-2

Islam Watch - About Us

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

Islam and the Definition of Religion

Why Islam is Not a Religion > Rebecca Bynum

Former Muslim, Wafa Sultan, says, "Islam is NOT a religion" | BARE NAKED ISLAM

?Allah is Dead ? Why Islam is Not a Religion? | Logan's Warning

Islam Is Not A Religion, But A Dangerous Ideology | International

Islam: not a religion? « The Immanent Frame

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. « Avid Editor's Insights

Half Sigma: Islam not a religion?

Islam in Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from Former Muslims - WikiIslam

The Patriot Factor: Islam is NOT a Religion

Why Islam Should NOT Be Protected Under the US Constitution! | CatchKevin.com

Islam: Politics In Religious Garb

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion -- Denied Religious Tax Status - Atlas Shrugs

Info on Islam: Islam is not a religion

Islam Is Not A Religion It Is A Cult

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/...d-as-a-religion-denied-religious-tax-status-2

Islam is NOT a Religion

Islam Does Not Qualify Under US Constitution ?Freedom of Religion? Rights « Northeast Intelligence NetworkNortheast Intelligence Network

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source

Islam is a political system ? NOT a religion | Creeping Sharia

Islam is not a religion, but a death cult of misogynistic pedophiles

Dear protectionist
to be fair, you'd have to separate the civil Muslims who do respect civil authority and Constitutional principles
from JIHADISTS and ISLAMISTS who don't believe in Due Process as part of Natural Laws our civil laws are based upon.

Even Pam Geller has clarified the distinction between peaceful Muslims she has NO problem with,
versus the CRIMINAL type who bypass civil authority and take on justice and violence in their own hands.

This is like separating extreme militant ZIONISTS and ARMAGGEDDONISTS
from Jews and Christians.

It isn't FAIR to lump Zionists together with Jews and Armaggeddonist/Apocalyptic warmongerers
in with Christians.

I don't have a problem with coming up with a legal label for the illegal cults.

I would even support each State in requiring Constitutional standards for all "Collective Organizations"
that file for corporate status to operate under the State -- including some guarantee of responsibility for "due process" for its operations, leaders and members, where grievances are received and possibly mediated to protect equal interests of the public.

So you don't end up with Jehovah's Witness, LDS, or Catholic authorities suppressing charges of child abuse
and religious abuse of authority, hiding under religious freedom to act outside the state. They still would have to
follow civil laws and not violate any civil or criminal laws, so why not hold them to Constitutional standards as well.

Something to protect individuals from unchecked abuse of collective authority, influence or resources.
Instead of singling out Islam, why not apply this to any religious or political organization that could abuse power?
Why not hold Corporations in check? Businesses, nonprofits or schools, so any abuse is reported and checked?

This would solve many problems and reduce the burden on govt to intervene in cases
if more abuses could be reported and corrected at the first sign of complaint or grievance.

And if all organizations are held to the same standards, this isn't targeting just Muslims or Christians,
but any group, even political parties that tend to abuse their influence to impose their BELIEFS through govt,
in violation of Constitutional laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Youre confused. Fools like him caused 9/11. Muslim terrorists reacted. Basically what you are saying is the person that throws the switch to electrocute someone is not the executioner and claiming the electricity actually is.

Jesus, this guy is so fucking stupid I have to wonder who bought him a computer to inflict his idiocy on the rest of the internet?

So the muslims would find some other rationale / excuse to use as a ruse to attack and murder people? Should the rest of humanity hide in a cave, hoping that some angry muslims don't come attack us? What if they used the excuse we wore ties and suits? Or sang happy birthday? You are either trolling, or paid to be here, no one can be this fucking stupid as you.

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

Dear protectionist and Asclepias
You are talking about two totally different followings and cultures.

The political religion of Jihadism worships Jihad and is Antichrist.

The peaceful religion of Islam lives in peace and are neighbors in Christ with Jews and Christians.
It is like an extension of Christianity when practiced peacefully and inclusively.
just like the Jews who receive Christ see this as a completion or fulfillment of their laws.
All these join in Christ.

So one is Antichrist and one is Christ.

These two can never be called the same.
That is like calling Satan the same as God.

So these two paths are polar opposites and cannot be mixed together.

So you are both right.

protectionist is denouncing the political cult which does exist and oppresses and kills in a genocidal manner.
Asclepias and I are discussing the peaceful Muslim faith which is consistent and an extension of Christianity.

There is no need to argue when you are both right within the context you each are addressing
* the political Antichrist cult warmongering Jihadism that is a scourge
* the peaceful practice of Islam consistent with natural laws, Constitutional laws, and Christianity/Jewish
respect for God, Torah and Bible Scripture in addition to the peaceful teachings from Islam.

Where the history of warmongering stays in the past as the stages when Mohammad was a military leader
and created the empire by conquest, similar to when the US was created by war and committing genocide
against Native Americans and enslaving both poor Europeans, imported Black slaves, Chinese workers, etc.

The common factor where we agree on laws are
respect for Christian and Constitutional laws for all people.

So we no longer live by the old ways and old days where we conquered by war and slavery.

Today we still have that going on with political and corporate abuses, so these things need to be checked by enforcing Constitutional laws and standards to stop abuses of individuals by larger Collective institutions.

Both the Muslims and Christians I know who respect civil laws want to establish peace and justice
through civil democratic means, inclusively, without any such violence.

So we are equally against the "Antichrist/Retributive Justice" of political abusers, cults and jihadists, which protectionist is denouncing, and we are united with the "Christ/Restorative Justice" side of respect for civil laws and democratic due process. Where Asclepias and I both recognize the peaceful Muslims as a valid religion. And I take it further by seeing how Islam aligns with Jews and Christians under Scriptural authority which calls all these believers to respect civil authority.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

They have no right to act violently no matter how angry this event made them feel. There were many Muslims that knew the event was going on and ignored and forgot about it. The crucifix in a jar of urine upset many Christians, they are committed people, yet no violence came of the artists.

Everyone has the right to free speech, your opinions piss people off, they have no right to become violent toward you. You are committed to your causes, you have no right to become violent toward those that mock you. We learned this in grade school.

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way.
So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

 

[protectionist]

Jesus, this guy is so fucking stupid I have to wonder who bought him a computer to inflict his idiocy on the rest of the internet?

So the muslims would find some other rationale / excuse to use as a ruse to attack and murder people? Should the rest of humanity hide in a cave, hoping that some angry muslims don't come attack us? What if they used the excuse we wore ties and suits? Or sang happy birthday? You are either trolling, or paid to be here, no one can be this fucking stupid as you.

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

Dear protectionist and Asclepias
You are talking about two totally different followings and cultures.

The political religion of Jihadism worships Jihad and is Antichrist.

The peaceful religion of Islam lives in peace and are neighbors in Christ with Jews and Christians.
It is like an extension of Christianity when practiced peacefully and inclusively.
just like the Jews who receive Christ see this as a completion or fulfillment of their laws.
All these join in Christ.

So one is Antichrist and one is Christ.

These two can never be called the same.
That is like calling Satan the same as God.

So these two paths are polar opposites and cannot be mixed together.

So you are both right.

protectionist is denouncing the political cult which does exist and oppresses and kills in a genocidal manner.
Asclepias and I are discussing the peaceful Muslim faith which is consistent and an extension of Christianity.

There is no need to argue when you are both right within the context you each are addressing
* the political Antichrist cult warmongering Jihadism that is a scourge
* the peaceful practice of Islam consistent with natural laws, Constitutional laws, and Christianity/Jewish
respect for God, Torah and Bible Scripture in addition to the peaceful teachings from Islam.

Where the history of warmongering stays in the past as the stages when Mohammad was a military leader
and created the empire by conquest, similar to when the US was created by war and committing genocide
against Native Americans and enslaving both poor Europeans, imported Black slaves, Chinese workers, etc.

The common factor where we agree on laws are
respect for Christian and Constitutional laws for all people.

So we no longer live by the old ways and old days where we conquered by war and slavery.

Today we still have that going on with political and corporate abuses, so these things need to be checked by enforcing Constitutional laws and standards to stop abuses of individuals by larger Collective institutions.

Both the Muslims and Christians I know who respect civil laws want to establish peace and justice
through civil democratic means, inclusively, without any such violence.

So we are equally against the "Antichrist/Retributive Justice" of political abusers, cults and jihadists, which protectionist is denouncing, and we are united with the "Christ/Restorative Justice" side of respect for civil laws and democratic due process. Where Asclepias and I both recognize the peaceful Muslims as a valid religion. And I take it further by seeing how Islam aligns with Jews and Christians under Scriptural authority which calls all these believers to respect civil authority.

The problem with the peaceful part of Islam (and I bless great American Muslims who have served in the US military), is that the basis of Islam still is the Koran. And this is a warring dogma that has existed since the 7th century. So why not reform the Koran and remove the hatred and jihad (holy war) ?

Problem is Muslims believe this book to be the word of God, and that the word of God can never be changed. This is why not one word of the Koran has ever been changed, in 1400 years.

 

[emilynghiem]

Youre a fucking idiot. If muslims attacked because we wore suits I would be the first one signing up to rid the earth of their existence. As it is youre a fucking moron trying to compare wearing suits to drawing cartoons of their prophets and disrespecting their deity.

Their deity is perhaps the worst trashbag that ever set foot on this earth. He was a mass murderer, severe misogynist, wife-beater, pedophile, slavemaster, looter, etc, and not did these things a but spread his mental sickness to millions of others, which has resulted in the killings of 270 million people, over 14 centuries. It's hard to find another human being with a more horrific record. even Adolf Hitler pales in comparison.
And how many people would complain about "disrespecting" Adolf Hitler, during World War II, or now ?

Thats all very informative you fucking idiot, but has nothing to do with anything. The point is that its their religion. Their prophet. They have said dont draw pictures of him. They have killed people over this before. Adolf Hilter does pale in comparison. He is not a religion nor prophet.

1. It's not a religion. It's a pathological ideology asking religion as a shield, as it has for 1400 years, and you fall for it.

2. It doesn't matter what they say. Since when do we allow a bunch of uncivilized, barbaric savages to tell us what we may or may not do ? We didn't allow the Nazis or the Japs to do that to us in the 1940s, and we're not allowing it now either, with these dirtbags.

3. Mohammed was an illiterate trashbag criminal, not a prophet, deity, or anything positive.

Dear protectionist and Asclepias
You are talking about two totally different followings and cultures.

The political religion of Jihadism worships Jihad and is Antichrist.

The peaceful religion of Islam lives in peace and are neighbors in Christ with Jews and Christians.
It is like an extension of Christianity when practiced peacefully and inclusively.
just like the Jews who receive Christ see this as a completion or fulfillment of their laws.
All these join in Christ.

So one is Antichrist and one is Christ.

These two can never be called the same.
That is like calling Satan the same as God.

So these two paths are polar opposites and cannot be mixed together.

So you are both right.

protectionist is denouncing the political cult which does exist and oppresses and kills in a genocidal manner.
Asclepias and I are discussing the peaceful Muslim faith which is consistent and an extension of Christianity.

There is no need to argue when you are both right within the context you each are addressing
* the political Antichrist cult warmongering Jihadism that is a scourge
* the peaceful practice of Islam consistent with natural laws, Constitutional laws, and Christianity/Jewish
respect for God, Torah and Bible Scripture in addition to the peaceful teachings from Islam.

Where the history of warmongering stays in the past as the stages when Mohammad was a military leader
and created the empire by conquest, similar to when the US was created by war and committing genocide
against Native Americans and enslaving both poor Europeans, imported Black slaves, Chinese workers, etc.

The common factor where we agree on laws are
respect for Christian and Constitutional laws for all people.

So we no longer live by the old ways and old days where we conquered by war and slavery.

Today we still have that going on with political and corporate abuses, so these things need to be checked by enforcing Constitutional laws and standards to stop abuses of individuals by larger Collective institutions.

Both the Muslims and Christians I know who respect civil laws want to establish peace and justice
through civil democratic means, inclusively, without any such violence.

So we are equally against the "Antichrist/Retributive Justice" of political abusers, cults and jihadists, which protectionist is denouncing, and we are united with the "Christ/Restorative Justice" side of respect for civil laws and democratic due process. Where Asclepias and I both recognize the peaceful Muslims as a valid religion. And I take it further by seeing how Islam aligns with Jews and Christians under Scriptural authority which calls all these believers to respect civil authority.

The problem with the peaceful part of Islam (and I bless great American Muslims who have served in the US military), is that the basis of Islam still is the Koran. And this is a warring dogma that has existed since the 7th century. So why not reform the Koran and remove the hatred and jihad (holy war) ?

Problem is Muslims believe this book to be the word of God, and that the word of God can never be changed. This is why not one word of the Koran has ever been changed, in 1400 years.

If you follow the WHOLE of the law, then by the Christian Scriptures you live by Restorative Justice and the New Testament and are not under the spirit of the old laws. The Old Testament was still under Retributive Justice before Christ is received.

Once you receive Christ, then the law is made complete.
The laws also include Natural Laws (also created by God and thus respected by Muslims naturally)
which our Constitutional laws are based on. So these are fulfilled in Christ Jesus as well.

The faithful Muslims I know are also good Christians, even though some may be more under natural laws like the Secular Gentiles, and follow Civil Authority first. Either way, both authorities are respected, so there is no violation of either one.

As long as we agree in the spirit of Restorative Justice, this is the same spirit as Christ Jesus.
So the old laws are made new in this spirit, and there is no more retribution or enslavement by the letter as in the old days.

As Jesus said, he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
When we live by Equal Justice, there is no more Antichrist, no more wars for retribution, the old ways are ended.
We will finally be able to live by the laws by which man is created to live in peace and harmony, spiritual balance and perfection.

All the peaceful Jews, Christians and Muslims I know follow the same God and live by the same laws, whether favoring the branch under scriptural authority, or favoring the secular gentiles under natural laws and civil authority; both are respected equally in Christ Jesus or equal Justice and peace for all.

 

[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.

They have no right to act violently no matter how angry this event made them feel. There were many Muslims that knew the event was going on and ignored and forgot about it. The crucifix in a jar of urine upset many Christians, they are committed people, yet no violence came of the artists.

Everyone has the right to free speech, your opinions piss people off, they have no right to become violent toward you. You are committed to your causes, you have no right to become violent toward those that mock you. We learned this in grade school.

Dear Asclepias
1. If you provoked someone by how you used free speech, intentional or not,
would you fault yourself if someone killed you for it?

So if you had been in Pam Geller's shoes, and if one of these gunmen had
shot you, would you blame yourself for bringing it on?

If you answer yes, at least you are consistent.
But maybe you are biased because you already wouldn't ever provoke a Muslim extremist this way.
So this hypothetical would never happen.

2. What about people opposed to you that you wouldn't restrain your free speech for?
What if your arguments here, caused someone to say
Hey you say that again, I am going to show up at your door and shoot you dead.
And you knew this person would do this.

Would you give up your free speech because you knew this "nutcase" couldn't help but react by killing you?
Or would you defend your free speech, and if they come at you, you'd call the cops.
Or would you let them shoot you and blame yourself for pushing their buttons?

3. In either case, 1 or 2, would you justify a violent person
killing you for expressing your free speech, even in protest.

Would you say it was your fault for provoking such an attack?

1. Yes

2. No I wouldnt give up my free speech. I'm only "endangering" myself. I actually would welcome someone opposed to my views threatening me then actually having the balls to come to my home. It would be the last thing they were able to do before I put them 6ft under.

3. "Justify" isnt the word I would use. The phrase would be more like "not surprised" Yes it would be my fault for provoking such an attack. I didnt have to provoke anyone.