Antitheist Ex-Marine To Hold Draw Muhammad Rally in AZ Friday

[Faith No More]

I don't doubt there are moderates speaking out that the West filters out, but you'd think with hundereds of millions of moderates out there having their religion abused like that, it would be hard to silence them all.

From what we've seen here, the moderates are more interested in blaming Western media Islam's image than they are on condemning the radicals.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like I said, I don't think it's the radicals that are the bulk of the problem. How do you define mainstream Islam? Is the government of Saudi Arabia mainstream? It's the religious center of Islam and they are a far bigger problem then the occasional shooting in the west (not that I would defend that in any way.) I don't think that a few westernized Muslims at all represent Islam. Quite to the contrary, we see what happens when there is a Muslim majority in almost any country, and that's a repression of free speech.

As has been pointed out many times on this forum, the difference between Islam and Christianity is not a matter of what the leaders of each faith would like to do, but rather, what political strictures have been emplaced around each faith. Thanks to the 30 Years' War, Christianity in Europe was largely defanged as a political force, and just as thankfully, we Americans carried that attitude forward, in our own fashion.

There has been no political opposition to the political implications of the Islamic faith, but that doesn't mean that the KSA defines moderate Islam better than does the average Muslim on the street. Islam is splintered as well, but the real issue is that the political structures in Muslim countries aren't strong enough to keep religion out of politics, and when the vast majority of Muslims are at the socioeconomic bottom, they're more worried about day-today needs than changing the world's (mis)perceptions of their religion.

It's very enticing to focus on one target at the expense of others -- I'm guilty of it when I castigate Catholics for supporting a hierarchy which protected molesters -- but in cases where entire societies are being analyzed, focusing on one and only one aspect is a sure way to arrive at a faulty conclusion. The world is much more complex, and there are multivarious reasons why people hold given religious views with varying intensity.

But judging an entire swathe of people by one sliver of their pie-chart is silly. Do you demand that moderate Republicans disavow fascism before you vote for them? Do you require libertarians to disavow Ted Kaczinsky? Do you require atheists to disavow Mao?

Likewise, there are many strains of Islam ranging from Islam-in-name-only to beheaders. Broad brushes are useless for filling in detail ... but in this case, the details are human beings. Be careful making broad pronouncements, lest you head down the road to dehumanization.

---

I don't doubt there are moderates speaking out that the West filters out, but you'd think with hundereds of millions of moderates out there having their religion abused like that, it would be hard to silence them all.  

From what we've seen here, the moderates are more interested in blaming Western media Islam's image than they are on condemning the radicals.

I'd imagine most of those moderates are far too busy working for a living to worry about seeking out a Western microphone to ease Western fears.

---

I don't know if it's the same in America but in England it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.  After every terrorist attack every person in Authority, starting with the prime minister has to say that the terrorist attack wasn't done by Muslims practicing the real Islam and all the major newspapers have to print according to that storyline.  That along with articles dedicated to what the moderate Muslims say about the attack.

Well, here in America, our President will hurry to the podium to explain that the latest attackers don't represent the real Islam -- whatever that might be -- but as for Muslims themselves, their words are reported only very rarely in the broader media.

Personally the way I see it is if someone wants to attack one religion and wear a T shirt telling to to fuck off then that's good.  Especially if this one religion right now seems to be the one trying to cause limitations on freedom of expression.

This isn't an even game at all in terms of allowances of freedom to express yourself against all religions.  We've had the Jesus is a cunt T shirts, Jesus has appeared on south park as a main character, the life of Brian, the passion of the christ and so on and so on.  I think it's about time someone wore a fuck Islam T shirt and told Muhammad to fuck off, nothing personal against him it's just all the people who follow him who are still acting like it is the dark ages.

And that's great. I think narrow-minded ideologies which preach death ought to be challenged in public debate and discussion, and subject to a healthy "fuck off."

What irks me, and what I see happen so often, is this acceptance of a tiny fringe as representative of an entire group of people, and too often such stereotyping is based only on media exposure -- such stereotyping is held by folks who haven't met Muslims and take their impressions only from a media that is dedicated to ratings, rather than accuracy.

[robvalue]

I'd like to also like to say fuck all religions, including Islam. Religions are stupid. Ideas should be subject to criticism and ridicule, all of them. Fuck saying fuck to things. Fuck atheism. Fuck Allan and baby Jebus.

Drawing things is great, and doing so as a protest to being told you can't draw things is to me the correct response to show how unreasonable the demand is and to show you won't be silenced.

I'm not sure how I feel about doing this right outside a Mosque though. Is there a reason they chose this Mosque in particular?

[abaris]

And now, for everyone fearing the big bad Islamistic conspiracy against our precious Western societies, here are some facts, based on Europol and FBI statistics. Less than 2 percent of terrorist attacks in the EU have been motivated by religion. That doesn't even say, the lot of the less than 2 percent have been motivated by Islam.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/0...sm-europe/

And here's an article linking to different statistics going back all the way to 1980.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...close.html

Here's another one, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings, festuring again the Europol statistics. I wonder why the mainstream media doesn't show the same figures to alleviate the fears of their viewers.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/15/the-number...u-5023616/

And here's the backclash after the Charlie Hebdo killings. Now pigheads may be disgusting but they don't threaten anyone's life. But gunfire, firebombs and grenades are a different matter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...77423.html

That's only France. There have been similar incidents in Sweden and various other countries of the EU. That of course doesn't make headlines. It also doesn't make headlines that ISIS killed more than 9000 fellow muslims, whereas the dozen or so Westerners they killed are splashed all over the front pages.

[paulpablo]

And now, for everyone fearing the big bad Islamistic conspiracy against our precious Western societies, here are some facts, based on Europol and FBI statistics. Less than 2 percent of terrorist attacks in the EU have been motivated by religion. That doesn't even say, the lot of the less than 2 percent have been motivated by Islam.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/0...sm-europe/

And here's an article linking to different statistics going back all the way to 1980.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...close.html

Here's another one, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings, festuring again the Europol statistics. I wonder why the mainstream media doesn't show the same figures to alleviate the fears of their viewers.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/15/the-number...u-5023616/

And here's the backclash after the Charlie Hebdo killings. Now pigheads may be disgusting but they don't threaten anyone's life. But gunfire, firebombs and grenades are a different matter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...77423.html

That's only France. There have been similar incidents in Sweden and various other countries of the EU. That of course doesn't make headlines. It also doesn't make headlines that ISIS killed more than 9000 fellow muslims, whereas the dozen or so Westerners they killed are splashed all over the front pages.

But none of this has much to do with anything, I personally didn't mention terrorism in response to this protest.  It's to do with free speech. 

I don't know what the jewish, latino or left wing acts of terrorism were but I doubt they would involve murdering people for the sake of comments made in cartoons, books and T shirts.

For example, I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to bet that the Jewish attacks didn't involve killing artists in the street, they were probably more political.  And also probably less crude than chopping up someone in the streets with a machete in the middle of the day or gunning them down.

From what I can see quite a few of the attacks are from environmental and animal rights activists who burned some buildings down, but they probably aren't doing it because someone drew a cartoon of a rabbit, it's more likely to do with product testing on animals or something of that nature.
Just in the same way I doubt that the latino acts of terrorism are to do with being insulted over the speedy gonzales cartoons or anything like that, it's probably more of a political thing.

[abaris]

From what I can see quite a few of the attacks are from environmental and animal rights activists who burned some buildings down, but they probably aren't doing it because someone drew a cartoon of a rabbit, it's more likely to do with product testing on animals or something of that nature.
Just in the same way I doubt that the latino acts of terrorism are to do with being insulted over the speedy gonzales cartoons or anything like that, it's probably more of a political thing.

So are there good and bad motivations to carry out terrorist attacks? As long as it's not over cartoons it's better, or what is the point, if there is one?

And my post wasn't adressing you. In fact, I didn't even read your last post. I was adressing the general anti islamic sentiment and the realities that don't make it into the media.

[paulpablo]

From what I can see quite a few of the attacks are from environmental and animal rights activists who burned some buildings down, but they probably aren't doing it because someone drew a cartoon of a rabbit, it's more likely to do with product testing on animals or something of that nature.
Just in the same way I doubt that the latino acts of terrorism are to do with being insulted over the speedy gonzales cartoons or anything like that, it's probably more of a political thing.

So are there good and bad motivations to carry out terrorist attacks? As long as it's not over cartoons it's better, or what is the point, if there is one?

And my post wasn't adressing you. In fact, I didn't even read your last post. I was adressing the general anti islamic sentiment and the realities that don't make it into the media.

What I'm saying relates to the original post.  The original post is about a protest involving freedom of expression towards Islam and it being a result of many Muslims being violently sensitive to cartoons, books and statements made about Islam.
I'm not saying the rest of the terrorism is good terrorism because it doesn't relate to cartoons.

How can you say that the realities you presented don't make it into the media when the links you posted were from 4 different online distributors of media, some of them who are publishers of newspapers and each of them have thousands and thousands of readers?

[abaris]

How can you say that the realities you presented don't make it into the media when the links you posted were from 4 different online distributors of media, some of them who are publishers of newspapers and each of them have thousands and thousands of readers?

Well, do you get these figures from the mainstream networks when turning on you tv?

I happened to watch the Breijvik attack unfold live on the German news and event channel Phoenix. When the bomb exploded, the first thing they did was to call an expert on islamic terror into the studio, while I was there thinking, why the hell would Islamists attack Oslo of all places?

That should give you the right impression of how the mainstream media goes about their coverage.

[Napoléon]

All this talk of drawing mohammed gives me an idea for a thread...

[DeistPaladin]

Radicals do not define a movement, to the rationally- minded. One has to be terribly blinkered to se a sliver of a minority as representative ... that's like upholding Stalin and his Chekists as representative of leftists.

Silly, just bloody silly.

Well, let me explain it in more detail and let's use a non-religious example. 

Let's say you're on a game show. You have to predict the political views of two people. The only information you're given is one proudly says he's a "radical libertarian" and the other says he's a "moderate libertarian". You are then asked a series of questions pertaining to their views on various issues of government involvement with the economy, regulation, education, civil liberties or the "safety net". 

The radical you can pretty well predict. He might surprise you in a few ways but you can fairly confidently predict that he'll tow the line when it comes to anything that pertains to libertarian ideology. 

With the "moderate" you might as well be blindfolded and throwing darts at a board. He could believe anything. For example, maybe he thinks that "some" government safety net is a good thing, just not too much, and your guess is as good as anyone else's as to how much that is. Those who self-identify with "moderate" labels tell you next to nothing about what they believe.

In sum:

• Radicals believe wholeheartedly. 
  
• Moderates kind of believe "...but..." 
  

Hence, show me the radicals of any ideology and I'll show you what that ideology in its purest form teaches. Radical Muslims are Muslims. Moderate Muslims are sort of Muslim ...ish. 

This is why "oh, don't worry, those are just the tiny fringe of radicals" falls flat with me. Even if we assume that they really are only a tiny fringe of the ideology, that only tells me only those who really take their Islamic faith seriously will turn into homicidal maniacs. Thanks but that's not a comfort. 

And Capt.Awesome makes a refreshingly astute point to ask what Muslim-majority country represents these "moderate Muslims"? Indonesia, perhaps? I've been to this country and trust me, you don't want to be a non-Muslim, a non-believer or gay in this country. 

---

And now, for everyone fearing the big bad Islamistic conspiracy against our precious Western societies, here are some facts, based on Europol and FBI statistics. Less than 2 percent of terrorist attacks in the EU have been motivated by religion. That doesn't even say, the lot of the less than 2 percent have been motivated by Islam.

This kind of logic reminds me of when Fox Noise was reporting on American casualties in W Bush's Iraq War of Aggression, that they were insignificant in comparison to the number of Americans who die in auto accidents, so really it's no big deal. 

Or the cigarette executive who once, on camera, admitted "sure smoking is dangerous but so is eating too much apple sauce." The logical fallacy he floundered on being apparently that sure, smoking is bad but really, the odds are good that you can just as easily die from something else anyway. 

I'm struggling to identify how to categorize this particular fallacy: "Sure, this is dangerous, but hey, look at all the other danger that's out there, so it's no big deal."