I'm not sure what the organizers expected putting on a show all Muslims deem offensive, or if they wanted something to happen. The show organizers have been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


Two gunmen were killed and a security guard wounded Sunday outside a “Draw Muhammad” contest organized by a free speech group at a school arena in Garland, Texas, police said.

The attackers drove up and opened fire on the security guard as the event was finishing up about 7 p.m. (8 p.m. ET), said Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland police.

Officers at the heavily-policed event returned fire, killing the men.

The suspects’ bodies remained at the scene because investigators were concerned there could be a bomb in their car. A bomb squad robot was checking the vehicle, Harn said.

There were no immediate clues to the identity of the attackers.

The area was evacuated, and the 200 or so participants were taken away from the scene on buses, said Harn.

The Garland Independent School District identified the unarmed security guard as Bruce Joiner, who was treated for a gunshot wound to the ankle and released from a hospital several hours later.

School tests due to take place at the center Monday would no longer be held there, it said.

The FBI was involved in the investigation and the area would remain an active scene until the morning, NBCDFW reported.

The contest was described as a “free speech” event by its sponsor, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an active anti-Muslim group. It offered a $10,000 top prize and featured Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is known for his anti-Muslim views, as its speaker.

Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott issued a statement late Sunday calling the shooting “senseless.” He said Texas authorities were “actively investigating to determine the cause and scope” of the attack.

“This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?” Pamela Geller, the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, wrote on her website. “The war is here.”

“Right when we were beginning to drive away, we heard gunshots,” Cynthia Belisle, who attended the event with a friend, told NBC News. “We thought they were fireworks, but they were not.”

Belisle said that dozens of cops sprang into action and that she was told to stay put.

She said she heard a second round of shooting and saw police rushing toward the far end of the parking lot with arms drawn.

“We were scared,” she said.

The arena hosted a “Stand With the Prophet” event in January. It held that event as well as the “Draw Muhammad” event because it has a non-discriminatory policy, according to The Dallas Morning News.

In January, gunmen in France attacked and killed 12 people at the Paris offices of magazine Charlie Hebdo, after it published satirical cartoons depicting Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, which has come to be considered blasphemous by many Muslims around the world.

I'm really conflicted on this. Obviously the shooters got everything they deserved. But pouring gasoline onto a fire doesn't accomplish anything, except for making the fire bigger. The entire premise behind the event is asinine.

I'm really conflicted on this. Obviously the shooters got everything they deserved. But pouring gasoline onto a fire doesn't accomplish anything, except for making the fire bigger. The entire premise behind the event is asinine.

I agree with you. I read the American Freedom Defense Initiative is from out of state and Pamela Geller — who is president of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and is also listed as a hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center helped organize the event. The only reason they held the event there was because a couple months ago the Islamic conference — Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect held it's conference there.

Im not a fan of hating on Islam just because you are a scared and staunch Christian. But I am a fan of openly practicing freedom of speech. If a person, group, or even a nation wants to draw pictures of a historical figure, then so be it. People should not be silenced due to the threat of violence. I'd prefer this issue go away not because we are scared into silence, but because militant Muslims realize we dont bow down to their threats.

Im not a fan of hating on Islam just because you are a scared and staunch Christian. But I am a fan of openly practicing freedom of speech. If a person, group, or even a nation wants to draw pictures of a historical figure, then so be it. People should not be silenced due to the threat of violence. I'd prefer this issue go away not because we are scared into silence, but because militant Muslims realize we dont bow down to their threats.

I agree but these people hate all Muslims, not just the militant ones and the cartoons are offensive to all Muslims.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Interpret that how ever you like.

I'm really conflicted on this. Obviously the shooters got everything they deserved. But pouring gasoline onto a fire doesn't accomplish anything, except for making the fire bigger. The entire premise behind the event is asinine.

I don't know that I agree. Considering the Charlie Hebdo shooting, this is in many ways a form of sit-in or protest against that violence (whatever the goals of the group behind it).

I also liked the one Israeli response to the Muhammad cartoon controversy years ago -

Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_antisemitic_cartoons_contest)

Police kill two gunmen outside Muhammad cartoon event in Garland - Fox4News.com | Dallas-Fort Worth News, Weather, Sports (http://www.fox4news.com/story/28965628/shooting-outside-garland-ctr-after-muhammad-art-exhibit)

One officer took them down with his service pistol. They had assault rifles and body armor. This officer deserves a medal.

My initial reaction when I heard about the "event" was they wanted something to happen and sure enough it did

Achmed would probably be proud.

How does this event differ in any way from the Satanists at the Civic Center that those who oppose this supported wholeheartedly?

How does this event differ in any way from the Satanists at the Civic Center that those who oppose this supported wholeheartedly?

Wouldn't differ at all had there been shootings and mass murders by Christians at recent Satanist events.

I agree but these people hate all Muslims, not just the militant ones and the cartoons are offensive to all Muslims.

Why does it matter who is offended by it? The non-militant Muslims who are offended by it will act like grown-ups and get over it, because in this country you don't have a right to not be offended.

I'll never understand the compulsion of people who are critical toward Christians to be overly protective of Muslims. Intellectual consistency should see Muslims getting just as much, if not more, flack than the Christians are getting, yet there's this inexplicable need to protect their delicate ears and eyes as a minority, despite the fact that they hold onto a faith that's even more loathsome than that of the Jews and Christians.

There shouldn't even be a debate as to whether or not this group, bigoted or not, should have held their event. Personally, I think things like this (blasphemous toward any topic that's considered off-limits) should be a regular occurrence until all of the easily-offended morons littering our landscape become desensitized to it enough that they can finally start contributing to the advancement of the species instead of trying to drag it back down into the primordial ooze.


http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-74fa35ecafb2af97a601a8e29647be93?convert_to_webp=t rue

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) This was funded by American tax payers and nobody was killed over it even though it is disgusting. The problem is not us. Link is probably nsfw or even this forum.

Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) This was funded by American tax payers and nobody was killed over it even though it is disgusting. The problem is not us. Link is probably nsfw or even this forum.

Read the wiki. It was not funded by taxpayers, it happened to win at an art event that received some funding, irrespective of content, from the NEA.

My bad. I am guilty of not reading the whole thing. I just remember the incident. Still, nobody was murdered over it.

My bad. I am guilty of not reading the whole thing. I just remember the incident. Still, nobody was murdered over it.

That's very true. People were upset, threatened to defund the NEA (misplaced anger), and we're quite vocal. But no one died. And of course the artist of Piss Christ was hoping to antagonize, just as the people in Texas. There's a pretty big difference in the outcomes, for sure.

Whenever I'm offended by something I am told to be open-minded, or more tolerant, or less old-fashioned. In other words, no one gives a rat's buttocks. Normally I do not go out of my to offend people but it is becoming more and more tempting.

Lot of butt hurt but no blood.

It does take the phrase" Don't Mess With Texas" to a whole new level.

I find mostly everyone in this situation to be horrible.

This organization wanted a reaction and they got it. Absolutely nobody deserves to be hurt for practicing free speech. With that in mind, groups that aim to antagonize and nothing more are not worth my time.

If members of the KKK were hurt after holding a rally in a black neighborhood, would anyone bat an eye?

I find mostly everyone in this situation to be horrible.

This organization wanted a reaction and they got it. Absolutely nobody deserves to be hurt for practicing free speech. With that in mind, groups that aim to antagonize and nothing more are not worth my time.

If members of the KKK were hurt after holding a rally in a black neighborhood, would anyone bat an eye?

Probably not. Just like I wouldn't have shed a tear if, say, a truck driver lost control and drove through a Westboro protest.

Why does it matter who is offended by it? The non-militant Muslims who are offended by it will act like grown-ups and get over it, because in this country you don't have a right to not be offended.

I'll never understand the compulsion of people who are critical toward Christians to be overly protective of Muslims. Intellectual consistency should see Muslims getting just as much, if not more, flack than the Christians are getting, yet there's this inexplicable need to protect their delicate ears and eyes as a minority, despite the fact that they hold onto a faith that's even more loathsome than that of the Jews and Christians.

There shouldn't even be a debate as to whether or not this group, bigoted or not, should have held their event. Personally, I think things like this (blasphemous toward any topic that's considered off-limits) should be a regular occurrence until all of the easily-offended morons littering our landscape become desensitized to it enough that they can finally start contributing to the advancement of the species instead of trying to drag it back down into the primordial ooze.


http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-74fa35ecafb2af97a601a8e29647be93?convert_to_webp=t rue

Christians have more political power in this country. There's a certain "damn the man" mindset amongst certain liberals that says it's okay to be an unfair prick if its against someone who is part of an advantaged group. Minorities have to be protected from the awful majority. There's a conflict there where their desire to always root for the underdog meets the actions of insane Islamic radicals who spit on free speech and hate the ideals the liberal stands for.

A few years ago, the Onion had an article. "No One Murdered Because of This Image". I'm not going to link to it because it's a family friendly forum. Don't Google it while you're at work. It involves the major religious figures of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism engaged in a gay orgy with one another. The article then talks about how the religious people who saw the drawing shook their heads in disgust, and then went on with their day, but no bomb threats were made and the artist who drew it went home without a single death threat made against him.

I'm half surprised this event wasn't a combination "Mohammed Drawing Contest and Gun Show". It almost seems like it was a trap, with the event organizers hoping they were going to get a chance to shoot Muslims. I can't say I feel any real kinship with a group of people who intentionally insult the religion of several hundred million people, but drawing mean pictures is way waaaay less wrong than trying to murder people over it.

" "No One Murdered Because of This Image". " I have that pic from another forum. You're right it's not work or family friendly. Puts a new spin on Interfaith cooperation.

The host of the Texas "Draw Muhammad' contest that ended with police killing two armed gunman outside called for more, similar events as a defense of free speech.

Pamela Geller, executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, told NBC News that "we should be holding these meetings every month."

"We absolutely must have other events like this to stand up for free speech...," Geller said. "I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages."

Geller called the drawings of the Muslim prophet "political critique."

"I do believe western civilization is superior," she said

And she defended the views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who spoke at Sunday's event, saying he "shouldn't have to be worried about being slaughtered for his opinion."

"There is a problem in Islam," she said. "The problem is we can't talk about it."

Alia Salem, the executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said she fully supports the First Amendment, but "we must ask ourselves, at what point does free speech become hate speech?"

At a Monday afternoon news conference, Salem condemned the actions of the gunmen saying the attack was "not done in my name or in the name of millions of law abiding Muslims."

She said the Muslim community in northern Texas had made a collective decision not to protest the "Draw Muhammad" event.

"We just didn't want to give her the time of day. … We didn't want her to get more publicity than really what she deserved," said Khalid Y. Hamideh, an attorney who represents Muslim organizations in Texas.

"The actions of the criminals who tried to shoot up the place do not represent Islam or the prophet of Islam," Hamideh said. "These fringe groups do not represent what this country stands for," he said, referring to the American Freedom Defense Initiative and the gunmen.

Among the problems Geller cited was that the daily Muslim prayers curse Christians and Jews in Arabic.

Zead Ramadan, the chair of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called Geller's assertion "absolutely asinine."

He said the daily prayer, the Salat, calls for God to "bring peace upon and bless the children of Abraham," which, according to Biblical tradition, includes Christians and Jews.

He accused Geller of not translating but fabricating.

"She likes to cause chaos and hatred and have people die," Ramadan said. "She's hiding behind the skirts of our liberties.

"She lies and then says, 'I have the right to lie'"

Terming herself a "human rights activist," Geller blasted the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "radical leftist organization" that has never condemned a jihadist, genocidal group.

"That's just a lie," countered Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project, who said the organization has Been listing anti-Semitic and anti-gay mosques on its site since 2010.

And, Beirich said, the organization devoted an entire publication to studying American jihadis.

"We're equal opportunity," she said.

There's a certain "damn the man" mindset amongst certain liberals that says it's okay to be an unfair prick if its against someone who is part of an advantaged group.

The tone of my post wasn't reprimanding people for being hostile to Christian political aggression (which is definitely a thing). Rather, it's a reprimand for not carrying that same hostility to every group trying to limit the rights of others and using faith as their base for doing so. Christians have it coming; so do the Muslims.

The violent narrative of religious rivalry - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-radical-necessity-of-loving-thy-neighbor/2015/05/11/70db588e-f807-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html)


The Violent Narrative of Religious Rivalry
By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

The sign of a first-rate intelligence, according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, is “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” When it comes to Islam and blasphemy, many Americans are having trouble accepting even consistent ones.

Under the law, blasphemy is fully protected speech, precisely because there is no public orthodoxy. Elevate the crucifix in a processional or dip it in urine — the state neither genuflects nor cringes. The defense of unpopular or offensive speech plays a particularly important role in our constitutional order; it defines the expansive boundaries of First Amendment guarantees. Religious people of all backgrounds should recognize that this legal neutrality on religion has produced a society remarkably amenable to religion. Those who attempt to intimidate or silence the believer or the blasphemer are attacking a central tenet of the American creed. And if they resort to violence, they may end up as chalk outlines on the pavement. At the same time: Under most moral codes, setting out to demean or mock the deepest, defining beliefs of your neighbor is rude and cruel. While permissible in our constitutional order, it is ethically disordered behavior — malicious and dehumanizing. It violates the Golden Rule and all its variants across the faiths. It deserves protection but not sympathy.

There is no contradiction between First Amendment absolutism and a moral commitment to the cultivation of mutual respect among the Abrahamic faiths (and outside them). Just as there is no inconsistency between the vigorous defense of the United States against terrorists and a respectful engagement with Islam. They are, in fact, inseparable.

I can hardly be described as a softy when it comes to the global war against terrorism. I participated in an administration (headed by President George W. Bush) that pursued this war aggressively. Precisely for this reason, I know that it can’t be won without Muslim allies — loyal U.S. citizens who report suspicious activities; allies and proxies who fight against violent Islamism; hundreds of millions of people around the world who repudiate Salafism by the peacefulness and tolerance of their daily lives.

When Americans engage in high-profile, attention-seeking acts of blasphemy, they are not joining U.S. military and intelligence forces at the front line; they are complicating and undermining their work. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State thrive on the narrative of the West vs. Islam. The United States and our Muslim allies benefit from the narrative of civilization vs. barbarism. Both radical Islamists and some of their most vociferous American critics share the same conviction: that the most authentic form of Islam is the most violent form. If this view prevails in the Muslim world, no amount of drone strikes or commando raids will shield America and our allies from eventual and serial catastrophe. The isolation rather than elevation of radical Islamism is essential to the successful conduct of the war against terrorism.

Modern technology has made the job of ideological containment much harder by creating a forum for endless provocation and offense taking, not to mention radicalization and recruitment. The alternative, however, is not to demand that religious people become less religious — a hopeless task when much of the world will become less secular in the 21st century.

What is needed is “theological work,” according to the former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks. Speaking at a recent conference of the Faith Angle Forum, Sacks argued that religion remains “the most powerful creator of groups, stronger than ideology, race, nationalism.” When monotheism is tied to dualism — the belief that history is a cosmic conflict between the children of light and the children of darkness — it becomes “the most dangerous doctrine ever invented,” allowing people to “commit evil with a clean conscience.”

Both Judaism and Christianity have made progress over the centuries in weeding out dualism — reinterpreting their violent scriptural texts and finding resources of “respect for the other.” For Christianity, this transition wasn’t easy, involving the Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War. But this bloody, chaotic process eventually produced a flowering of powerful ideas in the 17th century: the social contract, human rights and liberty of conscience.

Islam is a younger faith, going through a similar internal struggle. Sacks believes that serious, sympathetic dialogue among the Abrahamic faiths can “speak to our better angels” and challenge the violent narrative of sibling rivalry. He may prove naive, but it is certainly a better strategy than mockery.

Im not a fan of hating on Islam just because you are a scared and staunch Christian..
Hating that "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity. If someone hates something
it's a personal decision of their own and probably based on bad information.

Hating that "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity. If someone hates something
it's a personal decision of their own and probably based on bad information.

and continuing to use terms like "religion of peace" isn't a tenet of Christianity, it's a tenet of bigotry.

So it's not a religion of peace?

So it's not a religion of peace?

For the vast majority of Muslims it is but not in the way PP is using it.

For the vast majority of Muslims it is but not in the way PP is using it.

Given that it's responsible for nearly all religious inspired terrorism across the globe, the sarcastic tone is more than appropriate.

Given that it's responsible for nearly all religious inspired terrorism across the globe, the sarcastic tone is more than appropriate.

I would not be so quick as to say it is the inspiration. A group under siege is a unifier. If radical terrorists can get their target to paint the whole of Islam as radical terrorists they have effectively made allies by the millions. It appears to be working quite well.

So it's not a religion of peace?
It's what THEY call themselves.

It's what THEY call themselves.

Black people often call themselves N***er to each other or in music, does that mean it's OK for you to call them that too? Not to mention Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

Black people often call themselves N***er to each other or in music, does that mean it's OK for you to call them that too? Not to mention Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

Respectfully, that's a major false equivalence.

Respectfully, that's a major false equivalence.

I agree and I thought that after I posted it. So just use the Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

... Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the
mocking way you do...
There is no mocking on my part. None whatsoever.

I agree and I thought that after I posted it. So just use the Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace are not using that in the mocking way you do, there is a difference and to just say "It's what THEY call themselves" is cowardly.

To be fair, that is the go-to defense every time a Muslim does something horrible. It's a response that's kind of become a parody of itself. Of course it's true that not all Muslims are bad. Most are decent people outside of their faith, but the fact is, they're adherents to a religion that came to life in violent fashion, and it hasn't done anything to demonstrate its status as a religion of peace since its inception. At least the Age of Reason made great strides in neutering Christianity so that the biggest threat we see from the latter is political. The Age of Reason has yet to reach the religion of Islam, and many people die -- on a regular basis -- at the hands of those who have taken it upon themselves to enforce the tenets of the faith.

A Christian extremist that harms another person is an anomaly, but a Muslim extremist that harms another person is expected. This is why I say that Islam deserves a special degree of scrutiny, and I remain baffled that liberals who are quick to bash Christians are so protective of the delicate feelings of the Muslims. Keep it consistent: bash 'em all.

There is no mocking on my part. None whatsoever.

I find that very hard to believe.

I find that very hard to believe.
"O, Ye of little faith . . ." =)

(I know, I know, "belief" isn't the same thing as "faith")

"O, Ye of little faith . . ." =)

(I know, I know, "belief" isn't the same thing as "faith")

LOL I have neither the faith or belief on what he said to be true.

Idiots

'Draw Muhammad' contest planned in Phoenix (http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/05/27/draw-muhammad-contest-phoenix-anti-islam/28029579/)

Idiots

'Draw Muhammad' contest planned in Phoenix (http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/05/27/draw-muhammad-contest-phoenix-anti-islam/28029579/)

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. There is no reason that someone shouldnt be able to have a drawing contest if thats what they want to do. Just like there is no reason the Satanic Church shouldnt be able to have a black mass that Catholics find offensive. This is free speech stuff. Muslims cant expect non-muslims to hold things sacred if its something they dont believe in or honor. Simply put, Muslims need to be less offended by what non-muslims do.

Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. There is no reason that someone shouldnt be able to have a drawing contest if thats what they want to do. Just like there is no reason the Satanic Church shouldnt be able to have a black mass that Catholics find offensive. This is free speech stuff. Muslims cant expect non-muslims to hold things sacred if its something they dont believe in or honor. Simply put, Muslims need to be less offended by what non-muslims do.

Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

Exactly. If Muslims were simply shaking their heads, or were just praying about it, or even smiling smugly and saying "well I hope those guys enjoy burning in hell" then I'd have a lot more sympathy for them. And to be fair, most Muslims are simply doing that. It's sad that one small group is defining the public perception of an entire religion of people.

I see no problem with this. I don't agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs
Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing.
I agree 100%.

I see no problem with this. I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing. Are the organizers of these events just antagonizing Muslims? Probably. But they dont need to stay silent because of threats of violence or because someones favorite book says no.

Phoenix (CNN)Jon Ritzheimer is a former Marine, and he has no middle ground when it comes to Islam.

A T-shirt he wears pretty much says it all: "F--- Islam."

Ritzheimer is the organizer of Friday's "Freedom of Speech Rally" outside the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix.

It's the mosque that Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attended for a time. They're the men who drove from Arizona to a Dallas suburb to shoot up a Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest there. Both were killed by police early this month.

Many Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemous and banned by the Islamic holy book, the Quran.

"This is in response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorist(s), with ties to ISIS, attempted Jihad," the event's Facebook page said.

Some 600 people say they're attending.

It's scheduled to start at 6:15 p.m., about the time evening prayers are taking place inside the center. The rally also features its own cartoon contest, similar to the one targeted in Texas.

"I think the whole thing, the cartoon contest especially, I think it's stupid and ridiculous," Ritzheimer said, "but it's what needs to take place in order to expose the true colors of Islam."
************************************************** ********


I wonder if people would still consider it free speech if Muslims started doing protests outside churches during Sunday services and doing things they know are offensive to Christians? This seems to be showing the true colors of bigotry.

How many people were shot by Christians during the black mass in Okc?

I dont agree with doing it because of a Christianity vs Islam kind of thing but as an American free speech kind of thing.

First: I'm not sure this is simply about free speech. The dude organizing it wears a F*** Islam Shirt, and they are doing it outside of a mosque. Clearly they are trying to send a message to Muslims...I see it as provoking them...others may disagree.

Second: Freedom of speech... Just because you can doesn't mean you should...

Finally: Any time you are partaking in something where exercising your SECOND amendment right may need to be warranted, you're partaking in the wrong activity.

People are only in the right to bitch about this, if they attacked the black mass which was obviously done to provoke Christians in OKC. On the other hand, if you said... "stupid christians, quit complaining/protesting about the black mass"? You better defend this. Otherwise, we know you're full of BS. And I'm happy to jump to that thread and bring over some quotes.

People are only in the right to bitch about this, if they attacked the black mass which was obviously done to provoke Christians in OKC. On the other hand, if you said... "stupid christians, quit complaining/protesting about the black mass"? You better defend this. Otherwise, we know you're full of BS. And I'm happy to jump to that thread and bring over some quotes.

Satanists organizing a Black Mass wouldn't want Christians to stop complaining or protesting. High profile blasphemy in the US is always dual purpose: it's a "f*ck you" to a group one dislikes, and a free exercise of the First Amendment. That's what the Black Mass was at the Civic Center, and that's what Draw Muhammed events are. If you think one should be banned, then on principle you support the other being banned, whether you realize it or not.

Agreed.

But evidently, if you do it to Muslims, it's bigotry and hate speech, but if you do the same or similar to Christians, then it's freedom of expression and religious equality. Funny how that works.

I'm glad it turned out this way....

Anti-Muslim rally inspires good - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/31/opinions/obeidallah-anti-muslim-rally/index.html)

But evidently, if you do it to Muslims, it's bigotry and hate speech, but if you do the
same or similar to Christians, then it's freedom of expression and religious equality.
Funny how that works.
Yes, funny how that works. Odd that Christians get blamed for something that has
nothing to do with Christianity while many who know nothing about Christianity
assume what Christianity is all about.

The ridiculous part is that that "religion of peace" gets a free ride while doing exactly
what Mohammad would do, i.e. kill, murder, force conversions accept pedophilia, etc...
which is their doctrine while nothing of the sort exists in Christianity. Priests that
molest young boys aren't practicing Christianity. Practitioners of that "religion of
peace" that have sex with nine year old virgins are following their esteemed prophet
to a T.

Can anyone seriously show us where killing, murdering, forcing conversions and
accepting pedophilia as a norm was condoned by Jesus? Seriously. Provide one
single piece of evidence

In the meantime I'll provide evidence that sex with a 9 year old is acceptable to
practitioners of that "religion of peace".

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzQxa6m0M&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube .com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds1IzQxa6m0M&has_verified=1

Yes, funny how that works. Odd that Christians get blamed for something that has
nothing to do with Christianity while many who know nothing about Christianity
assume what Christianity is all about.

The ridiculous part is that that "religion of peace" gets a free ride while doing exactly
what Mohammad would do, i.e. kill, murder, force conversions accept pedophilia, etc...
which is their doctrine while nothing of the sort exists in Christianity. Priests that
molest young boys aren't practicing Christianity. Practitioners of that "religion of
peace" that have sex with nine year old virgins are following their esteemed prophet
to a T.

Can anyone seriously show us where killing, murdering, forcing conversions and
accepting pedophilia as a norm was condoned by Jesus? Seriously. Provide one
single piece of evidence

In the meantime I'll provide evidence that sex with a 9 year old is acceptable to
practitioners of that "religion of peace".

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzQxa6m0M&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube .com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds1IzQxa6m0M&has_verified=1

Matthew 15:4
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
And basically the entire Old Testament.

Matthew 15:4
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
And basically the entire Old Testament.

While I disagree with much of PP's premise, I also disagree with selecting a bible quote to reflect on the current status of Christianity at all. Pre-Reformation? Absolutely. Crusades, inquisitions, etc. But post Reformation is different. Where folks get it wrong using Christianity's past to reflect their present and defend current Islam is that Islam has yet to have their "Reformation" movement.

But honestly, go into anyone's past long enough I guess you'll find something that invalidates any sort of moral high ground.

Sounds like the whole thing was a scam......


Jon Ritzheimer, the man who organized an anti-Muslim protest rally and “draw Muhammad” cartoon contest on Friday in Phoenix, reportedly launched aGoFundMe page to raise $10 million to “protect his family.”

KPNX television reporter Brahm Resnik tweeted on Sunday that Ritzheimer had set up a GoFundMe page to raise $10 million to “protect his family or run against” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Ritzheimer told television station KSAZ on Friday that he was going into hiding after the rally, which drew hundreds of people, including many who opposed him.

“I’m having to sell my house,” Ritzheimer told the station. “My family’s been threatened, so they’re in hiding right now. I’m having to go into hiding after this because they’re calling for lone wolves to come and behead me.”

That Anti-Muslim 'Free Speech Event' Was Just A Scam After All | Crooks and Liars (http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/anti-muslim-free-speech-event-was-just)
Arizona Anti-Muslim Activist Tries To Raise $10M As He Goes Into Hiding (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jon-ritzheimer-gofundme-10-million)

People have never needed religion to attack others. Any excuse will do. Historically, people are violent and murderous.

Religion influences our perception of the world and of morality, but it's just one factor in what makes a society what it is. In the West, you had the Reformation, the Enlightenment, you had philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill, you had tremendous increases in wealth and standards of living, the Industrial Revolution, and even television. All these things came together to moderate our own violent and murderous tendencies. A Christian who is living in Oklahoma today, who drives to work in his pickup, eats Billy Sims barbecue for dinner, and watches the Thunder game on TV is a very different person from a Christian living in Europe in 800 AD who tills a field full of rocks with hand tools, doesn't even have a Kindergarten level education, and lost 4 of his children to plague. When your survival is at stake, when you are starving and scared, it is very easy to justify attacking others. Remember that the Spanish who came to the New World and unleashed holy hell upon the natives had themselves just finished driving out Muslim invaders in 1492 after about 700 years of war. So they were a little fiery.

The problem with modern Islam is that it generally isn't modern in any way. The majority of the people practicing it are from dirt poor rat-hole countries where there is awful violence and horrible instability. Even those who have moved to wealthier European or American cities still have cultural ties to those third world nations, and they are upset when they see their spiritual brothers get the short end of the stick time and time again. Yes, the Koran has some violent language in it. It's a lot more Old Testament stab-your-enemies than New Testament hold-hands-and-sing-songs. And a lot of the Muslim religious leaders, at least the ones making the news, are totally into the converting others at the tip of a sword thing. Holy war and Jihad is a major force in the Islamic world right now. But a large part of that is simply the state of international politics. It's as much due to "dirt poor country" and "lots of oil" and "we feel bad that the Nazis killed you so please take this land that belongs to these other people" as it is their religion. You can't separate one from the other.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a sustained period of stability in that region. Like a few generations of it. That part of the world needs better education and a more diverse economy. If your average Afghani has a good job, a 401k, and watches their version of SNL where unfunny comedians do bad impressions of politicians (it was so much better when Achmed Belushi was on it -- like the controversial episode where he tried to draw Mohammed but wasn't a very good artist, so no one knew they were supposed to behead him), then you'll see real change. Islam will moderate because the conditions of those countries will not be as harsh. Unfortunately, right now we're probably at least 50 years from something like that happening.

While I disagree with much of PP's premise, I also disagree with selecting a bible quote to reflect on the current status of Christianity at all. Pre-Reformation? Absolutely. Crusades, inquisitions, etc. But post Reformation is different. Where folks get it wrong using Christianity's past to reflect their present and defend current Islam is that Islam has yet to have their "Reformation" movement.

But honestly, go into anyone's past long enough I guess you'll find something that invalidates any sort of moral high ground.

I agree, I was mostly being sarcastic. I don't believe for a minute that the West is similar to the Arab world, in terms of social progress. I've lived in both.