TexasCHLforum.com

bilgerat57 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:...
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 wrote:...
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.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: 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.

Now see, on that one, I agree 100% (believe it or not). Here's where I see the difference.

The standard behavior for the news, is to report the news (or at least, it should be). I don't recall any "self-censorship" when news outlets ran photos of both "Piss Christ" and "The Holy Virgin Mary". Those photos (when they were in the news) was newsworthy. Newspapers did not publish the pictures in an effort to incite or insult anyone or any religion, but only to report what happened. They did not refrain from reporting (including photos) because someone may be offended.

However, in the case of the Garland event, they self-censored in order not to offend a religion. They modified their actions out of ... was it fear? (I suspect so).

RoyGBiv wrote: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.

Then to add to that shame, there are news outlets that are acting as if the terrorists somehow had the right to be that offended.

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: I don't see this particular event as "calling out hatred"; instead, she disrespected and insulted the religion of millions, to invite, and thus demonstrate the unreasonable hatred of a few. I don't think that was a good trade. It worked in both calling out that hatred (by a few), and even (probably unexpectedly, but thankfully) demonstrating that in some areas, like Texas, it's not a good idea to act on that hate.

Not only do I disagree with your hypothesis that this was directed AT Muslims...... Even if that WAS her purpose, she has the right to do it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would I choose this method of expression..... Why does that matter one iota?
Pam Geller followed every applicable law and she has the right to say what she wants to say, regardless of whether it is offensive.

Millions have died so that we all can have that right.

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.

Thank you TAM, for a well thought out response (as is typical for you).

I agree with much of what you said, but do want to point out a couple of things:

On the issue of the urine encased crucifix, and feces covered madonna - I understand the parallel you are making, but don't agree that it's the same. Those were isolated instances. Granted, there are many such isolated incidents (just as there are many isolated incidents of disrespectfully portraying Mohammed). Imagine instead, an event that promised a $10,000 prize for the "best" of such "artwork". Touted along the lines of "Please, give us MORE art, similar to Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary (the artwork with the Madonna and elephant dung), only BETTER.

I would be offended (no, I wouldn't attack them, but that's not the thrust of my discussion). I would also denounce them.

What originally got me thinking about all of this, especially in linking it to the Westboro inbreds, was what if this was all turned around? Originally I thought - what if Westboro showed up at a Muslim soldier's funeral, with their claim to Christianity (which you and I likely agree is false), and their "God hates f*gs" signs with representations of stick figures doing the dirty deed? I further postulated (in my mind) what if the Muslim family, offended by those "Christians", decided to hold a contest for artwork portraying Christ in homosexual acts, since that would obviously offend the "Christians" that had offended them.

That would have more closely paralleled what Pam Geller did in this case. I didn't go with that parallel, simply because it was a bit complex. Now that one of the problems with the parallel I tried to draw was pointed out, that the Westboro Inbreds go to funerals, I'm thinking my point made have been better made using that.

I don't like what Geller did. She was within her rights to do it, but that doesn't make it right. I'm against using disrespect to try to prove a point. It seldom really works.

Along those same lines, you said "As a Jew, Pam Geller feels that this disparity in hatred needs to be called out for the evil that it is. If it insults some people to see their sin called out .......well, that's too bad.....sin flees from the light." I don't see this particular event as "calling out hatred"; instead, she disrespected and insulted the religion of millions, to invite, and thus demonstrate the unreasonable hatred of a few. I don't think that was a good trade. It worked in both calling out that hatred (by a few), and even (probably unexpectedly, but thankfully) demonstrating that in some areas, like Texas, it's not a good idea to act on that hate.

I will say this, something I think we can all agree on. She picked the right state in which to do this, and apparently lucked out in getting the right security detail!

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:As far as the cartoon contest being targeted at those who would promote violence, or even simply Sharia law - the problem is that may have been who it was aimed at, but there were millions of Muslim believers who also had their religion besmirched who have not done anything wrong.

Sticks and stones.

Like we learned in 2nd grade.

My convictions get besmirched all the time. I manage not to kill anybody over it. Haven't even considered it.

Seriously? How many times do I have to say, my comments have nothing to do with the attempted killing over the event - merely about the event itself.

I would no more say this event was a good thing than I would the actions of the Westboro idiots. That was my point. Maybe some folks didn't catch the "100%" portions...

Personally, I though this event was a bad idea before there was an attack. Not because of the possibility of an attack, but simply because it was meant to inflame. And in that deliberate, intentional inflammation against people that deserve it, they also insulted and inflamed people that didn deserve it. Much like the Westboro folks do.

RoyGBiv wrote:Pam Geller is very easy to avoid. Don't attend her event.
The Westboro miscreants come find you and exploit your suffering when you're most vulnerable.

Huge, huge difference.
Sad that it had to be explained here.

Agreed. I think that's the first valid "there is a difference" that I've seen. Thank you.
Sorry to the other folks - the intended target of the protests does not suddenly make the tactics appropriate. That falls under "the ends justify the means".

As far as the cartoon contest being targeted at those who would promote violence, or even simply Sharia law - the problem is that may have been who it was aimed at, but there were millions of Muslim believers who also had their religion besmirched who have not done anything wrong.

rotor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

XnTx wrote:Someone said we should have a cartoon contest once a quarter. Kind of like moths to a light.

I have mixed feelings about this whole episode. Before I make my main point, I want to make a few things clear though.

• I believe 100% that the folks that held the cartoon contest were within "their rights" to do so.
• I believe 100% that no one should feel compelled to cease their normal activities because of threats of violence by a group that disagrees with those activities (as long as their legal)
• I believe 100% that the reaction of terrorists to these types of events are pure evil, and they deserve what they get.
• I believe 100% that the off-duty Garland officer is a hero

But here's the "but"...

I ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. The idiots from Kansas that "inspired" that group are exercising their "rights" when they stage the offensive protests at military (and other) funerals. In the process of their "protest", they are offending people that are totally innocent in all of this, and what they are doing is just wrong.

The folks that staged the "cartoon contest" were deliberately poking at evil people that meet civil disagreement with terror; however, at the same time they are offending many more totally innocent people of the Muslim faith that are not terrorists.

I don't see how they are any "less wrong" than the Westboro fools.

I don't understand how there can be a "but".
This was a private group holding a meeting about a cartoon contest in the USA. They don't have to refrain from holding the contest in the USA. This is not a Muslim country. As far as I am concerned, every newspaper in the country could have run the same cartoon on the front page. As far as the Westboro fools, we don't agree with them but we don't kill them. The supreme court has said they have the right to do what they do. We let them do it. I just don't agree with your "but". We need more brave people standing up for the first amendment. Our press has become a bunch of cowards. How many posted the picture that ran in Charlie Hebdo? Pamella Geller, the lady that set up the event has been threatened with a fatwa- is this the new law in the USA? Something is major wrong in this country when people are afraid to speak because it may "upset" some group.

Nowhere in what I said did I even remotely imply that we kill those with whom we disagree.

However, at least in the Westboro case, we call them all sorts of names, and look at them with disgust. The folks that held this venue were doing more than simply standing up for their rights; they were deliberately insulting the faith of millions of people that never did that group wrong.

Your response ran down areas that I didn't touch on, so I'll repeat; how are the folks that held this venue any different than the Westboro folks in what they are doing.

Both were exercising their 1st amendment rights. Both doing it as a protest. Both were being deliberately insulting to millions who had nothing to do with the "cause".

XnTx wrote:Someone said we should have a cartoon contest once a quarter. Kind of like moths to a light.

I have mixed feelings about this whole episode. Before I make my main point, I want to make a few things clear though.

• I believe 100% that the folks that held the cartoon contest were within "their rights" to do so.
• I believe 100% that no one should feel compelled to cease their normal activities because of threats of violence by a group that disagrees with those activities (as long as their legal)
• I believe 100% that the reaction of terrorists to these types of events are pure evil, and they deserve what they get.
• I believe 100% that the off-duty Garland officer is a hero

But here's the "but"...

I ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. The idiots from Kansas that "inspired" that group are exercising their "rights" when they stage the offensive protests at military (and other) funerals. In the process of their "protest", they are offending people that are totally innocent in all of this, and what they are doing is just wrong.

The folks that staged the "cartoon contest" were deliberately poking at evil people that meet civil disagreement with terror; however, at the same time they are offending many more totally innocent people of the Muslim faith that are not terrorists.

I don't see how they are any "less wrong" than the Westboro fools.

talltex wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.

This was not a religious function. It was purely a political function.

n5wd wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Free speech

Garland PD

The "security officer" was an unarmed security officer. Hit in leg, discharged from hospital in less than four hours. Everyone's hopeful for a speedy recovery!

"Free speech"? Yes, but like yelling " Fire" in a crowded theatre, it shoulda been obvious that some sort of negative reaction was going to happen. SWAT was already on scene due to that possibility.

There were apparently no Muslim demonstrators there at the Center - wonder if someone knew something was afoot?

Sorry, I disagree with the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy. It is not. The problem with yelling fire in a crowded theater (assuming there is not fire) is that you are causing an alarm over a situation that does not exist, and such a false call is designed to instill panic.

In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.