BruceVC

When you say "stepping over the line" in what context do you mean? All people who commit crimes...Muslims who commit crimes...Europeans who commit crimes? Sorry I'm not clear on your meaning ? Also I'm not suggesting we legislate that people can't print images of the Prophet, we just accept that its not something we do as a society. But I am not saying we make it illegal So in other words if no one was prepared to support the art exhibition then they wouldn't have had it in the first place ?

No you right you can't But we can balance that freedom of speech against consequences can't we? And no I'm not suggesting now every time someone wants to say something they need to go through a formula to determine if someone somewhere around the world will be offended and what the consequences will be ...I am talking about the obvious things, like images of the Prophet and what the reaction we KNOW will occur

Oh I also didn't get it ..now I understand the ridicule I received That is quite funny

It is not up to "us" (a.k.a. society) to decide which art is necessary or worthwhile. Artists can make whatever art they want for their own reasons; it's called freedom of expression. Absolutely they can..and no one is questioning what freedom of expression means But this also doesn't help when we ask questions like " how can we integrate the Muslim community into Western society in a way that works for everyone " if we refuse to at least accept that Muslims consider images of the Prophet fundamentally prohibited ? We don't allow many traditions or aspects of Muslim culture in Western countries if we consider them illegal or contrary to basic human rights, things like forced marriages, honor killings or genital mutilation. We also respect and protect the sexual orientation of people. So its not like in the West we are giving up our culture or way of life because of the Islamization of our countries...we aren't and we aren't going to and thats not going to change But come on... we can reasonable and not support images of the Prophet in some art exhibition which IMO was just done to insight the Muslim community ?

Why is this instance different? I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique. I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ causes without logic or reason So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by bomb hoax( a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition? I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

Yes but it don't mean that topic is not worth to talk nevertheless Remember the definition of Trolling on these forums for some people is when someone makes a point you don't like, agree with or just don't understand I am not Trolling, I stand by my points on this topic. I may be wrong thats not the same thing as trolling I took it more that you try get people give their reactions, opinions, objections, etc. for the topic without actually giving your view point for the topic. In other words fishing reactions, which is something that is at least past considered as trolling. Trolling isn't inherently bad, even though it meaning and how people react towards it is changed quite lot in past two decades, as now internet troll seems to mean criminal, people that are offensive towards other members of forum/social media/etc.. Internet vocabulary expands and evolves so fast that it is nearly impossible to keep up with it. Okay maybe, I never thought of Trolling like that before. I see Trolling as a negative thing where people make a point just to get a emotional reaction and have no intention of really debating the issue And in this case I have stated my own opinion but I am still interested in what others have to say

No we don't have the two sides balanced I don't think there is a single person on these forums who doesn't think that Boko Haram is a reprehensible and anachronistic organisation that deserves to be annihilated , I started the original thread condemning them and there actions http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66161-boko-haram-and-the-kidnpping-of-the-school-girls/?hl=%2Bboko+%2Bharam But I fail to see why we can't be aware of things that basically offend the entire global Muslim community, and this is no excuse for acts of violence, and also unequivocally condemn the likes of Boko Haram? I don't see the connection between the two? Well the connection is that we are not cutting heads of muslims in our western society because of some Boko Haram muslim representatives Why would we as Westerners want to chop-off the heads of random Muslims? We operate as a civil, intelligent and rational society in most cases....we are nothing like the people in ISIS, Al-Shabaab and other extremist groups. So once again I fail to see the point of highlighting the actions of Boko Haram and then suggesting " well we aren't acting like that as Westerners" Of course we aren't, we hold ourselves to a higher standard

I can't be sure in this particular case, because I haven't seen any actual art from this exhibition, but usually in these cases people just try make things that they think people will find offensive and some better ones try to put them in form of political satire or social commentary, but as general these kind exhibitions try to cause outrage in some subsection of people who exhibition organizers don't like. Because by doing so they get press time for their opinions and world view that they wouldn't get otherwise. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/02/sold-out-may-3rd-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest-in-garland-texas-photos/ Here are some of the art exhibitions, take a look and tell me what message they are trying to express in your opinion?

Yes but it don't mean that topic is not worth to talk nevertheless Remember the definition of Trolling on these forums for some people is when someone makes a point you don't like, agree with or just don't understand I am not Trolling, I stand by my points on this topic. I may be wrong thats not the same thing as trolling

No we don't have the two sides balanced I don't think there is a single person on these forums who doesn't think that Boko Haram is a reprehensible and anachronistic organisation that deserves to be annihilated , I started the original thread condemning them and there actions http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66161-boko-haram-and-the-kidnpping-of-the-school-girls/?hl=%2Bboko+%2Bharam But I fail to see why we can't be aware of things that basically offend the entire global Muslim community, and this is no excuse for acts of violence, and also unequivocally condemn the likes of Boko Haram? I don't see the connection between the two?

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective and since when are religions rational? Well, islam tells them that stoning is right punishment. Do you support stoning to please them? Or do you at least sympathize with it? If something is religion dogma it doesnt mean i have to sympathize with it correct? Yes Stoning is still used in some countries, I think it is an appalling and inhuman way to implement the death penalty There are other way to kill people that are much more humane so I don't support or sympathize with it But this is not the same thing as me saying "I respect the wishes of Muslims when they ask I don't create images of the Prophet " ?

Fair enough, but does it not concern you that there will be people ( we have already seen the 2 gunmen ) who will not go to the gallery and or demonstrate peacefully but will attempt to inflict maximum carnage on anyone they feel is associated with the gallery (so basically targeting any Westerner )? And they wouldn't have acted like this if it wasn't because of the art exhibition ? So do you feel the organizers of the art show have no reason to feel any sense of responsibility about what happens after this?

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective and since when are religions rational?

Point behind this kind events is to get some idiots riled so much that they attack/try attack the show (when you do such shows enough of times you eventually find someone/s that are just crazy and idiotic enough to do such attack), because that make public see all the people belonging to same broad group as attackers to be dangers to society that need to be watched and whose rights can be violated. Should such controversial shows be legal, yes. Should they such idiots (meaning people that purposefully try get violent reaction from people so that they can claim that those belonging same group (religious, racial, national, sports fan club, etc.) of people who attacked them should not have same rights as them) that do them get protection of law, yes. But in my opinion press should do better job not making such people some heroes of free speech, because they really aren't such, as they usually think that only right sort of people should have right to free speech and their whole act is to get public opinion to same wave length. But anyway to your question it is worth for the organizers to have this kind event, because they convey their message better than anything else, as most other cases their message would go unheard as public would mainly ignore it as idiotic and something that is against their values, but when they make events that get threatened by attacks or better attacked their message will get in news and it becomes easier to public accepts it and usually it don't put them at risk as most of the risk goes to those who protect them from the possible attack/attack. This is an interesting post but I need to ask you a question " What is the message the art exhibition is trying to get across " in your opinion ?

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection? Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective but what are the consequences? Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners" So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ? Not sure what are you still asking. Many people here already replied to you. Lets rephrase your question. 'Is it worth protect freedom of speech if someone will kill people because of it?' reply and we will see I don't believe it is worth someone else getting killed because I exercise my freedom of speech So for example Wilders and the organizers of the exhibition probably won't get killed because of this but the reaction and targets of the outcry will be in countries outside the USA...as normally happens And if someone does get beheaded who has nothing to do with this art exhibition how would that make you feel? Would you still believe this is a price we as Westerners pay for free speech? And I'm not suggesting now we can't criticize Islam, I am only talking about this particular event and its consequences

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection? Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective but what are the consequences? Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners" So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ?

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice

I don't disagree with everything you are saying, maybe this is a case of people getting tired of the double-standards to how Christians are treated in certain places and are now saying " we know this exhibition may get attacked but we don't care because this is about freedom of expression and in our culture this is sacrosanct" Sure I can understand that..I still do not think this was best the platform to make this kind of point but I can understand it

Yeah I agree, its probably the dumpiest location to attempt to attack something and the private security was more than adequate to deal with it. That's not the point I am making though

As if to prove my point, there you go. In the Middle East there is hardly any democratic government or free expression. The last Christian churches are being demolished in Iraq and Syria. We all know how the Saudis treat women. I don't see you hopping up and down about any of this, but a politically incorrect cartoon competition in faraway Texas results in you putting on your SJW superhero costume. Edit - Visual representations of living things is, by the way, Haram to Islamists. Might be why you don't see the type of art you describe, although I've seen lots of performances in that part of the world that involve burning the Stars and Stripes. I think you guys are completely missing my point, in summary if you know something is going to offend people and quote possibly lead to violence or attacks on that institution then why do it? We also know the Middle East isn't very tolerant around other religions within there own countries but what has that got to do with Western countries and how we manage our own civil rights and human rights ...its like saying " now because Coptic Christians were attacked in Libya by ISIS we should be fine with Mosques being attacked within this Western country " Don't we hold ourselves to a different standard than ISIS or any extremist group? I agree 100 % But it doesn't change the reality that people do get killed because some get offended...so why not look at reducing this source of controversy? And this art exhibition was very controversial, even the locals didn't want it in the area. So there should be no doubt that people were concerned about the reaction

Are there art exhibitions in the Middle East that mock other religions? I don't think there are But I get your point around the usage of violence. But we already know there are such things are Islamic extremists who do commit reprehensible acts, so whats the point of now provoking them?

But guys did you look at some of the art? Its not even objective....its blatantly anti-Islam, also one of the key note speakers was Geert Wilders, ask anyone who lives in the Netherlands to tell you about him and his views on Muslims Was this really about art? To me it seemed like this whole exhibition was organised under the pretense that its " about freedom of expression" but the organizers are well aware that this could lead to violence because of the controversial nature of the artwork...and then guess what? Extremists do attack the event and now what? Does this feed the narrative that " you see..Islam is a violent religion..you can't even have an art display without Muslims wanting to destroy it " Yet wouldn't you say this was about provocation and actually the desired result the organizers could have anticipated?

Yeah I agree this is a muddy one which is exactly why I want views Just to be clear if there was an art exhibition and pictures of Jesus were being displayed like in this one I would also find it offensive..my view is " what is the purpose of this whole event" ? To show the world that the organizers think that Muslims are violent? I don't get the overall point

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/gunmen-killed-anti-islam-exhibition-150504020750642.html So the organiser of this event Pamela Geller has been known to make controversial and anti-Islamic comments and has been behind this art exhibition known as the "Muhammad Art Exhibit" because it displays images of the Prophet Muhammad which is considered blasphemy by Muslims, in there religion you don't show images of the Prophet. You can see some of the images below from the exhibition ( some I find offensive and I'm not even religious ) http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/02/sold-out-may-3rd-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest-in-garland-texas-photos/ So here is my question, we know these types of events are legal in the USA despite being offensive to most Muslims...so why have them? Do we balance the right to freedom of expression against the safety of people and say " you are welcome to arrange this art exhibition but you are at risk and the Police cannot guarantee to protect you " Because apparently these attackers had a bomb as well and could have created real havoc..and for what? Just so someone can have some really controversial art show? So I'm not sure on this one in the sense " is it really worth having these types of events " knowing the amount of manpower that is now needed just to keep the premises safe ?

How come you guys aren't making posts saying how you sorry you are this event was cancelled? Its like your GG event and the bomb hoax...the point being the threat of violence has impacted someone saying what they want to say...we should be condemning this ?