CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST

[ScooterSissy]

Again, no argument from me as to the right to do so; but how can anyone possibly say that a contest to portray Mohammed in cartoons was not directed at Muslims?

I have not advocated at all any sort of repression of her rights, so I don't quite understand how "millions have died so we can all have that right" is germane to my statements.

As far as what does it matter - simply a subject for discussion.

Simply as a matter for discussion, I cannot understand why you're so concerned about offending millions of Muslims when you don't utter a peep about the almost daily barrage of offenses against millions of Christians? And that list includes the genocide directed against Christian men, women, and children taking place every day in many countries. To me, the dichotomy and apathy in America is troubling.

What makes you think I "don't utter a peep"? Bring them up for discussion if wish, you'll almost certainly see me chime in, especially if my view differs in some way from the major flow of what everyone else says.

Frankly, I'm not overly concerned even about the offenses against the Muslims in this particular case. I'm "bothered" enough that I'm willing to comment on it in a forum when it's brought up, but I doubt I'd take it much further than that. I'm in it for the discussion and exchange of ideas.

I'm still of the belief that, that she was totally within her rights, Geller did little to further her cause, and I still don't see this particular tactic to be much different than those of the Westboro folks.

BTW, for the record, in the case of those folks, I am concerned enough that I do more than post on a discussion forum. A lot more.

[ShootDontTalk]

Except for the glaringly obvious fact that in the case of the Patriot Guard and Westboro neither side showed up with guns.

With all due respect though, the silence about offending Christians in this country is deafening. And I dare say there are far more Americans complaining about whatever Ms. Geller did than there are Muslims world wide complaining about the guys showing up with guns to kill.

BTW I think you know that if America ever becomes a majority Muslim country the age of discussion and exchange of ideas will be over.

On a personal note. I'm not aiming my comments specifically at you. But you will have to admit that there are a great number of people in this country who gleefully tolerate open warfare on Christians. Isn't it odd that there is a profound concern for not doing the same thing to Muslims. I wonder why that is.

[ScooterSissy]

...
On a personal note. I'm not aiming my comments specifically at you. But you will have to admit that there are a great number of people in this country who gleefully tolerate open warfare on Christians. Isn't it odd that there is a profound concern for not doing the same thing to Muslims. I wonder why that is.

True 'dat.

[bilgerat57]

...
On a personal note. I'm not aiming my comments specifically at you. But you will have to admit that there are a great number of people in this country who gleefully tolerate open warfare on Christians. Isn't it odd that there is a profound concern for not doing the same thing to Muslims. I wonder why that is.

True 'dat.

Is it gleeful tolerance or just plain indifferent apathy?

There's not a great deal of concern that a radical Christian will detonate a suicide bomb on ones premises. I have to wonder if we could get the WBC on the radical muslim dirt list sometimes. Fortunately the tactics developed by the PGR and the assistance of legislators and LEA have largely shut down WBC. Now, we PGR members can concentrate on rendering honors and paying respects as a priority rather than protection.

[ScooterSissy]

...
On a personal note. I'm not aiming my comments specifically at you. But you will have to admit that there are a great number of people in this country who gleefully tolerate open warfare on Christians. Isn't it odd that there is a profound concern for not doing the same thing to Muslims. I wonder why that is.

True 'dat.

Is it gleeful tolerance or just plain indifferent apathy?

There's not a great deal of concern that a radical Christian will detonate a suicide bomb on ones premises. I have to wonder if we could get the WBC on the radical muslim dirt list sometimes. Fortunately the tactics developed by the PGR and the assistance of legislators and LEA have largely shut down WBC. Now, we PGR members can concentrate on rendering honors and paying respects as a priority rather than protection.

Agreed! It's funny, after last posted on this thread, I thought about one of the comments that was made, to the effect of - When Westboro showed up, those opposed didn't show up with guns and threats of violence.

I thought about it some, and realized, that statement isn't entirely true. In the earlier days, I had been on some PGR missions in small towns where Westboro threatened to show, and non-PGR folks made threats about what would happen if they did show. There were even occasions where Westboro had tires slashed and windows busted.

Now mind you, those types of actions were never taken by the PGR, and PGR leadership would have dealt harshly with such an action by members had it ever happened. However, as you alluded to, threats were not what shut down Westboro, nor was it confrontation. It was a group of people whose patriotism and concern for their veterans ran so deep, that they rose up and said "No" together. No threats, no violence, just an overwhelming number of men and women standing up in front of them, and saying we will meet your disrespect with something more powerful - respect. And it worked.

Though the disdain for that group ran deep among the PGR members, they never returned disrespect for disrespect. Never shouted back, and certainly never held an organized rally to show disrespect for Westboro. Instead, they hammered home how deep runs respect for our military.

That was what worked.

I don't think the type of tactics Geller used in Garland are the answer. Unfortunately, it may be the best we've have, until people find whatever it is that we (as a people) have lost in the last few decades, and say "This is not going to happen here".

[ShootDontTalk]

I agree 100% that the PGR approach worked perfectly as long as you are confronting basically non-violent people. In the case of radical Islam, with a stated goal of bringing the whole world under the rule of a caliphate, those tactics are suicide.

We need to remember history. There is only one response that other such tyrannies we have frequently confronted truly respect. The use of force. I suppose the modern parlance is "in your face." They perceive ANY other response as weakness. Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The exception might be the Soviet Union, but the threat was very real and they knew it. History clearly teaches us how to confront radical Islam. The question is will we learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Perhaps it is just ignorance that drives other responses. I wonder how many Americans really understand that Islam is NOT "just another religion." It is more a theocratical system of government practiced under the rule of the Imans. A study of Iran will shed light on what I am saying. It is alien to American understanding.

As for glee or apathy, leftists and those who hate the idea that there might be a God gleefully join in the attacks on Christians while condemning those who provoke radical Islam. Curious behavior.

Apathy? It is difficult to convince Christians to stand up for themselves. As long as it doesn't happen to them personally, no one even notices. Shades of 1937 Germany. The only part of WWII my father-in-law ever spoke of was the complete idiocy of Germans who, in 1945 as the death camps were being liberated, insisted they didn't exist. It was only when they were forcibly dragged into those camps and made to bury the tens of thousands of dead that they came face to face with their own apathy.

[ShootDontTalk]

Except for the glaringly obvious fact that in the case of the Patriot Guard and Westboro neither side showed up with guns.

I suspect what I said was true. I don't think anyone confuses the PG with the Hell's Angels or any other non-PG group. It is certainly true that others showed up (frequently) with the veiled threat of violence against WBC, but, as you said, the PG would not have tolerated it.

I also wonder if WBC caved to the respect of the PG (relatively few in number compared to the crazies) or if the avalanche of hate and threats directed at them from all quarters finally had an effect. We will probably never know for sure. I would like to think they caved to decency, but that may be a stretch for such indecent people.

[The Annoyed Man]

Apathy? It is difficult to convince Christians to stand up for themselves. As long as it doesn't happen to them personally, no one even notices.

I wouldn't call it apathy, per se. There are complex reasons for why this is so.

One reason is that no less a person than Jesus tells us to respond charitably to injustice: Matthew 5:38-41 - "38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

Also, the apostle Paul writes in Romans 12:18, 19 - "18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

These things do not mean that we should not protect ourselves, but they do mean that we are not to seek revenge for insults - whether they be religious, cultural, or physical insults. No revenge doesn't mean that you don't fight back in self-defense, but it does mean that you forego the right to exact punishment. So on one hand, you have the central character of the faith telling us to accept the insults (because we will be persecuted for our faith), but his most prolific prophet telling us that A) we are to live in peace with everybody in so far as it is possible, B) that we are to leave revenge up to God, and C) that God's justice will happen according to his plan, not ours.

So right there, just in those two passages (and there are others), you've got scriptural instruction not to seek payback.

Then, Christian scripture also tells us that we will be persecuted for the faith, and to understand that when it happens, God's prophecies are being fulfilled, and to rejoice in that fulfillment. So what you end up with is a believer who is not passive (we are free to pray all we want), but who is enjoined to be nonviolent in so far as it depends upon that believer, and to not seek revenge for insults. The product is a person who will perhaps act quickly to defend someone else from these kinds of depredations, but may seem more resigned to it when it happens to directly themselves.

I am unaware if Islam teaches anything similar. If it does, then modern Islamicists are failing radically to uphold their religion.

[teraph]

TAM,
I do not know exactly what the Quran says (I cannot read Arabic), but (as far as I understand it) it says something similar. I am not an expert by any means, but I have endeavored to do my research, and there is A LOT more that I do not understand. But I do understand a bit. There is a provision in there that they must spread their Word, no matter what. And some of their laws are supposed to follow the way the Prophet Muhammed lived. Between both of those, I believe it says that spreading it by the sword is allowed, even encouraged. And, as ISIS has imposed, there IS a special tax (a jizyah tax) that some Christians can pay, in order to keep their heads. Other Muslims that have forsaken their faith (in ISIS's eyes) are dead to them, literally. At the core of it all though is the interpretation. I have known many Muslims, and none of them support this kind of violence. Most, if not all, are more than willing to stop it themselves.

Please correct me if any of y'all know better than I do. I am more than willing learn as much as I can about this.
Teraph

[mr surveyor]

.....I have known many Muslims, and none of them support this kind of violence. Most, if not all, are more than willing to stop it themselves.....

just a question .... where are they, and what are they waiting for?

jd

[philip964]

how can anyone possibly say that a contest to portray Mohammed in cartoons was not directed at Muslims?

What I was trying (perhaps unclearly) to convey is that..... it doesn't matter what her purpose was..... she has the right to say it.... and at a venue that she paid for. People who don't like it can choose not to attend or choose to protest peacefully. Her motivations are completely irrelevant. You are welcome to think what you may about her motivations. You are free to criticize here on the internet. But none of that should ever impinge on her right to express her opinion within the constraints of the law.

You know what's really the biggest shame here.... ??
Did anyone see even a single cartoon from a single contestant anywhere in any media? Certainly not on TV. Not even on Fox.

If you still think Pam Geller was directing her event AT Muslims, you're welcome to think that. I think she was talking to you and me and all those chickens on TV that didn't show any cartoons. Not even for the news value. That made her point more clearly than anything that was said that day in Garland.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[ Image ]

Shameful.

Notice the patch on his shoulder, the Garland SWAT is awesome. (it is a Texas Flag with the Punisher logo)

A strict reading of the Koran, just like a strict reading of the Bible is counter to the Bill of Rights. Most Christians don't strictly read the Bible, especially when it comes into conflict with Jesus' own words. However, many Muslims do not follow that path and do not read their Prophet Jesus' words enough.

[mojo84]

how can anyone possibly say that a contest to portray Mohammed in cartoons was not directed at Muslims?

What I was trying (perhaps unclearly) to convey is that..... it doesn't matter what her purpose was..... she has the right to say it.... and at a venue that she paid for. People who don't like it can choose not to attend or choose to protest peacefully. Her motivations are completely irrelevant. You are welcome to think what you may about her motivations. You are free to criticize here on the internet. But none of that should ever impinge on her right to express her opinion within the constraints of the law.

You know what's really the biggest shame here.... ??
Did anyone see even a single cartoon from a single contestant anywhere in any media? Certainly not on TV. Not even on Fox.

If you still think Pam Geller was directing her event AT Muslims, you're welcome to think that. I think she was talking to you and me and all those chickens on TV that didn't show any cartoons. Not even for the news value. That made her point more clearly than anything that was said that day in Garland.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[ Image ]

Shameful.

Notice the patch on his shoulder, the Garland SWAT is awesome. (it is a Texas Flag with the Punisher logo)

A strict reading of the Koran, just like a strict reading of the Bible is counter to the Bill of Rights. Most Christians don't strictly read the Bible, especially when it comes into conflict with Jesus' own words. However, many Muslims do not follow that path and do not read their Prophet Jesus' words enough.

Interesting

[teraph]

Most of them are serving in the Armed Forces of our country. One of them, that I personally work with, (however much he disagrees with the drawings) personally hates what the shooters tried to do. He supports the Constitution as a whole. And he has defended it many times over. We are not stationed near Texas. He does the same thing most of us do. He tries to educate those around him. Whereas we teach about firearms and everything related to them, he tries to educate those around him about what his faith means. The same as any Christian, Budddhist or Jew. He cannot personally effect it on a large scale. Instead he effects those around him. The same as most of us. The difference is, he doesn't try to convert, only explain why it is not his faith that is the main issue. But the interpretations and the actions of those that twist and abuse it. Kind of like the Westboro Baptist folks.

[ShootDontTalk]

We need to remember that we have not only the words of Scripture to direct us, but we also have an exemplary life lived as revealed by those same words. How are we to understand Jesus making a whip and driving the money changers from the Temple courtyard? How are we to understand His provoking redress of the Pharisees and Saducees? How are we to explain the OT instructions to the children of Israel to "cleanse the Promised Land?" God is a bit more complex than we understand so simply. We dare not interpret Scripture based on just a few verses, but rather the whole Word of God. After all "His ways are not our ways."

Of course one may interpret Scripture for themselves, but might I suggest that anyone who uses a firearm to defend himself or his family may run into a terrible dilemma with the inviolate admonition to turn the other cheek and surrender the cloak - if they interpret all of what God's Word says based on one verse. Why? Because there is no Scripture that adds the words "but in this situation...." Are those verses what God intends our response to be for every situation? No. Only for issues involving revenge. Jesus is speaking to those who are held hostage by a hostile army and would enjoy nothing better than a little revenge.

In my view standing up for ones' rights and principles hardly falls into the category of revenge. No one is issuing a call to arms for Christians. Indeed, the whole attack on Christianity is to sit down and shut up and to only practice your faith inside the church walls. Anyone who does not do so is promptly shouted down. Often the loudest voices are other Christians.

In any event, this is not the place for theological discussions - except perhaps the Quran. There are numerous perfectly usable English translations. I have read it, several times. If you really want to understand Islam, that is a good start. Just don't stop there. As I said, make a careful study of countries with a majority Muslim population.

Added: teraph...good words. I agree. There are Muslims who despise what is happening. One difference you should ask those Muslims you know is their opinion about about whether radical Islam is a "twisting distortion" of the Quran, or if it is a call to orthodoxy. Then you might want to read the book entitled "Unveiling Islam" by Dr. Ergun Caner and his brother Emir Caner. The book will be money well spent.

[teraph]

ShootDontTalk,

I am not of the religious sort. Not to say that I don't believe in anything, but for me it is something else. That does not prevent me from learning about any of the other religions, and protecting those of different faiths. I have read the Bible a few times (King James and a few "easier to read" versions) and I am working on the Quran right now. I have found a translation (through my university's library) that seems pretty accurate. And I do not plan on stopping there.

I agree with you about the lack of the calling of the arms. And you are right. It does not fall into the realm of revenge. Simply by saying that Christians are being persecuted once again, and we (either as individuals or a country) must stand up against the theological tyranny of certain groups. Yet, it should not matter what creed or faith we are protecting against or for. If Hindus were the ones perpetrating such acts, against some Druids, then we should act the same. (And yes, I know, Hinduism preaches non-violence, even though Ghandi preached self defense.)

Revenge: to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit (Dictionary.com)

Per this definition, revenge must be vindictive/resentful punishment. However mad we may be about what has happened, we must push for justice and not revenge. The justice we must push for must be commensurate to their acts of evil. It sometimes sucks being the "lawful good" individual, but that is the line we must hold. Not as mad Christians, but as an American people. We should not stoop to their level. That does not mean that we don't "let slip the dogs of war", but we must not degenerate to their level. We must hold the moral high ground. I believe the passages that TAM posted makes this point. We should not be wrathful and full of hatred when we make these decisions. We must be just and fair.

The trick is knowing when enough is enough, and how far we should go. I am of the belief that we need to figure out a better way to a) train and fight effectively enough that b) the country that we are fighting in can stand up and c) run itself when we are done. We do not need to be the world's police, we have enough issues of our own to deal with.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I have had a fair few Soldiers try to pull the "play by their rules" card on me. Many of them have been young Soldiers, that did not fully conceptualize that the Army is a Profession of Arms, and that we must act as Professionals at all times. Not to mention it is part of my job to convince those around me to listen to our reports.

P.S. Thanks for the discussion. It is definitely helping make work go by a little faster. And thanks for the suggestion. It will go on my reading list. And most of them do tend to agree that it is twisted interpretation. The biggest basis on that lies at the definition of a Caliph and the Caliphate. And THAT discussion definitely doesn't belong in this section. IT would take up way to much space.