From Erinn Cawthon, CNN
New York (CNN) - A controversial advertisement that critics say is hateful toward Muslims will appear in New York City subway stations starting next week, despite the city's attempts to halt the campaign.
New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority initially rejected the ad, which reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
The authority's decision was overturned last month when a federal judge ruled that the ad is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Jihad - Arabic for "struggle" - is considered a religious duty for Muslims, although there are peaceful and violent interpretations of what it means.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative, which produced the ad, has been fighting to place the message in New York's subway system since last year after the authority refused to display it.
How could Israel call itself the 'civilized nation' after using cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions in its recent war with Lebanon? I'd imagine that weapons of mass destruction and radioactive warfare are not exactly the high road.....
Reblogged this on peace2alldotme.
Prayer changes things
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs! `
the word means holy war and should be defeated – one who is a true practi.tioner of these so called peaceful religions should want this too – seems at odds with their beliefs to desire otherwise!
lets be simple about it – if there was no Jihad in the beginnings of the belief then none should exist at all in its existence. my reasoning is simple – if the person whom the belief stems from didn't create this nor did they create a basis for it in the first place then it should not be present in the religion now. They afterall ARE the basis for the belief...how many did jesus run off and kill for being not christian? How many did muhammad kill?
I wish the ad would have been anti jayhad, and not pro zion ist. Both sides are evil and wrong
is this really going to support israel ? is it going to make jihadists look bad ? or is going to flame some violence in NYC? some one help me with an answer please
I wanted to say, before it gets buried in noise of a 1,000 spam bots,
Failure to include anyone in hte above should be taken as a message of exclusion, but those are the ones I've been conversing directly with.
So thanks for not being spam-bots ;-)
Thank you all for making comments and discussion. Not just posturing. Agree or not you've all been (so far at least ;-) civil and fun to discuss this with.
Thank you, I have been enjoying this as well :)
should *not* be taken as a message of exclusion.
Whoops, sorry about that.
Good thing you fixed that. I am recalling the half-dozen drones that were zeroing in on your position. lol
Thank you my friend, for *including* me in your list of people of civil discussions.
Also, just got back and I'm going to respond to our discussion below in the appropriate discussion thread.
there goes the argument that there are no extremists on this side of the fence..
For a better understanding of the history of Islam and the Middle East we invite you to read the articles ‘World History and Developments in the Middle East’, ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and ‘CNN Belief Blog – Sign of the Times’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca
All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how and by whom this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.
@AVG: "Revelation 12:9-And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
where in this crack ass statement of yours does it say anything about anything other than about another piece of your fairytale.
atleast if you're going to use the bible to attack people, use the correct verses, not just any ol' thing.
Revelation?? Everyone knows that whoever wrote that mess was high as a kite. St. John the Opium Addict, evidently.
This poster is a TROLL on this site. They are proven liars and only want to sell their book to support their cult plus their website also full of lies. Don't bother visiting their site, click the report abuse link to get rid of this TROLL!!
Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is the right thing to do.
I have taught my son to look at a situation, analyze it and then do the right thing. Unfortunately, some people don’t.
Agreed, but as long as something is legal, it is NEVER anyones place to declare it the wrong thing to do.
Do as you see fit, and let others do the same. It's the American way!
As long as you obey the law, NOBODY has the moral authority nor right to compell you to change your behavior to what they prefer.
"Agreed, but as long as something is legal, it is NEVER anyones place to declare it the wrong thing to do."
Gotta disagree with you on that one.
Nazis created laws to persecute the Jews. In your world, no one could EVER say any of these laws are the wrong thing to do.
The law is the law.
You can disagree, I often do, but if you try and coerce or compell people to some other standard it is your bad.
Change the law if you like, but crime is crime.
Cannot one say, 'I'll will defend your right to say it, even though I think you are wrong to say it and therefore should not say it."?
Just because something is legal does not make it right and vice versa.
For the record, 'compel' has only one 'l'. You've had it two and you said it twice. Go get a remedial.
Having ridden NYC and DC subways a good portion of my early years, I don't think I ever got excited about posters on the trains...Now with cell phones and IPods etc. No one looks up anyway!
I grew up in the big city, but I hadn't been back in a long time.
I passed through on business, and took a ride for “old time’s sake”
My impression of the subway at this point is NOT good.
Imagine if you will a sewer pipe beneath the UN that backed up. Raw human sewage from every nation on earth, all swirled together like some syphilitic ice cream sundae.
Rest assured the sub human troglodytes that infest it are far too illiterate to care, or even comprehend an advertisement of any nature.
In fact, most of its inhabitants instinctively flee any form of light at all.
No love for your fellow man, William? Shame on you.
That's America for you. Actually driving in downtown DC or NYC is being on a fools errand if you live there. Cabs will get you anywhere, but ten trips a week can get expensive!
I wanted an expedition to be sent down. I am confident there are dozens of undiscovered species down their, mutating as we speak.
I saw something like an undulating shag carpet, puss yellow, sliding up a post. Imagine if you will a two dimensional catepillar that striped paint on contact!
Montreal's subway is all right. Even London's. Perhaps NY just needs to divert the river through theirs every couple of months or so.
There's NOTHING controversial about it. Was defeating Nazism in WW II controversial? NO
The Palestinian people who have been forcibly removed from their homes are not Nazis.
Islam is not Nazism
Jihad could certainly be a just struggle. Particularly if it is the long struggle against interference and oppression by the various imperialist powers including the U.S.
Actually the Muslims to me are the Klingons, while the Israeli's are the Romulans
After 50 years and six or eight movies, you can expect the Muslims to be our allies, and the Jews to be recognized as the aggressors.
This is pretty hateful towards the Palestinians.
I am curious as to the goals of The American Freedom Defense Initiative. What do they hope to accomplish by putting up these ads? Who is their target audience? How do they believe that the said audience will react to these ads?
"What do they hope to accomplish by putting up these ads?"
To cement support for a society which is freer than those whose members have voiced support for the death penalty for thought crimes seems a reasonable idea.
For example, support Israel over Egypt, where a majority of the population has stated they would support the death penalty for those who leave Islam. That is if we have any confidence in the poll they did of Egyptians in Dec 2010.
Killing people for what occurs in their head and doesn't harm anyone is sav.age.
The Pro Palestian movement was largely secular and peaceful up until the eighties. However, since its inception, the Jewish State has used torture, murder, expropriation and exile to further its cause.
This ad reads as an attack on Isl.am not as support for Isr.ael. Yes the phrase "support Is.rael" is in the ad, but it starts by calling the opposition sava.ges and ends with "Defeat Jih.ad". Anyone with a basic education in psychology, or marketing can tell you that the first and last statements in an article are the ones most likely to stay with the audience. So if their goal is to cement support for Is.rael, they are going about it all wrong.
However, If their goal is to instigate a conflict, this is exactly how one should go about it. It starts by defining and dehumanizing the opposition while simultaneously elevating the side it represents. It then calls the reader to "Defeat Jih.ad". This is a call to action, and very near to a call to arms, it does not allow for peace or reconciliation.
That's basically how it reads to me, too... and my interpretation of it as well.
Hopefully, because of Ms. Geller, who has often put up billboards about defeating Islam, etc... there will be no riots nor killings, here or abroad, because of her "just/only wanting to exercise 'her' right to 'free speech" which just might get someone killed because of "her" need to do so.
I really wish she would consider the bigger picture here, and be a bit more responsible, about choosing when and why to exercise those rights.
"Anyone with a basic education in psychology, or marketing can tell you that the first and last statements in an article are the ones most likely to stay with the audience."
In other words paiting jihad as sav.agry, works for me. Spreading ones religion at the point of a sword, or the blast of a bomb, is sav.age imho. If you want to argue that in common usage jihad is not most commonly as.sociated with that, and not simply 'struggle' please do so. The article makes it a debatable point, imo jihad in the English speaking world is rarely used to describe a peaceful protest as opposed to describing violence.
Sav.ages are humans, but humans who we consider to have a less enlightened sense of morality. It isn't that it dehumanizes them, but presents people as less worthy of having their culture accepted. The tolerant can tolerate just about anything, except the violently intolerant.
So is killing people for thought crimes a more or less enlightened position, in your opinion, than recognizing a freedom of expression which does not?
Yes, it is a call for support, and as you say it may very well be nearly a call to arms. So one should investigate the competing claims of the sides to determine which has meirt, or which has greater merit.
We can start with five, or one, simple question on that:
1)Do you believe a Muslim in Israel is more, less, or equally as free as a Jew in:
c) Saudi Arabia
e) some hypothetical state of Palestine which If formed tomorrow would apparently be ran by Hamas and Fatah if the current makeup of the PNA is representative.
Hi -Irrational Exuberance... you make some very salient points.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
" In any war between the civilized man and the sa-v-age, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Ji-had."
As far as I can tell, most if not all of America, if not the World, is already aware of what happens in the ME, especially with certain crazy mur-derous Muslims.
So, in your opinion, what do you think the purpose of the article is for ?
Support Israel... how exactly, do you think ? Defeat "Ji-had" how, specifically, do you think ?
I believe, Ms. Geller and her group has been behind several anti-Islam billboards, not just the crazy, fan-atical ones.
So, IMHO, I am also considering who is behind this advertisement.
Her claim of 'just wanting to exercise her right to free speech' has definitely an agenda... "a call to arms" possibly IMHO.
It almost seems as if she wants a war, not prevent one. Lives hang in the balance, and I guess we will see how this plays out over time, once the advertisements are released.
*apologies*... should have read... "what do you think the purpose of the *advertisements* are for... 'not' the 'article.'
I have to step out for several hours.... but, would love to continue the discussion.
I'm very interested in your thoughts. If you reply... I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Peace2all just raised the majority of my questions so I only have one other thing to add. Your last question, is a Muslim in Israel more or less free than a Jew in another middle eastern nation, Is not germane to any point I am trying to make. What I am saying is that this add is not designed to garner support for Israel, but to provoke conflict. Furthermore it is designed to provoke conflict here in the U.S. An ad like this would not trigger a positive reaction in anyone who does not already agree with its position. And it will trigger a decidedly negative reaction if presented to a Muslim audience. This ad is designed to do nothing other than to provoke needless conflict in the U.S.
I agree with many of your statements. But do US representatives clearly and without equivocation present such a message?
And perhaps she does want a war.
Who would we be fighting, what are their ideals?
Are their ideals equitable to our own, or nearly opposite them?
Pew did the poll, chopping off hands for thievery, the death penalty for exercising a freedom of religion.
I may be an atheist, and think a person believes in myths may be a fool, but I don't advocate for the death of people who believe. And I do not know of an organized branch of Christianity of Judaism which advocates such a stance (yes, such a stance is in the bible: Deut 13:6-9, 17:3-5).
However, Islam does not suffer from nearly so much a deficiency or similar believing adherents, at least not according to the Dec 2010 Pew Poll.
But we blame movie makers for 'inciting violence'
Not possible with rational people, so our elected representatives seem to be saying we must make allowances in our speech for irrational Muslims.
I have a higher opinion of Muslims, that they can reason and turn away from what I would term sav.age ideals.
It seems to me that to justify the position of 'don't say things that will make them mad because they will resort to violence' has a much lower opinion of them.
While you may not think it is germane to your points of discussion that does not mean isn't.
Whether or not the ad is accurate will always be germane to a discussion of the ad.
They describe them as sav.ages, sava.gry is of course subjective, a descriptor of enlightenment versus barbarity if you will. So the question is entirely salient if one thinks freedom of thought and expression are any indicators of being enlightened, and thus less sav.age.
I believe we both know that an openly Muslim individual in Israel is going to be much better off than a Jew in the rest of ME. Thus their ad has quite a bit of truth in it if such a stance is any measure of civility vs. barbarity.
That you believe there is only one goal of the ad does not mean there is only one goal of the ad.
As I said, the ad should cause one to question if there is any validity to it. If there isn't it would be counter-productive to produce the ad.
My friend, I see you are still at it when you say things like "It almost seems as if she wants a war, not prevent one. Lives hang in the balance, and I guess we will see how this plays out over time, once the advertisements are released."
Your assumption that lives hang in the balance is not supported by available evidence. Your view is alarmist.
When a Muslim apologist comes to this blog and I tell them "Islam is a lie, and your Mohammad was a filthy thief and a liar.", would you put the blame on me if that Muslim then goes out and kills someone?
You are attempting to draw a line of causality that does not exist. Your assumptions of cause and effect are not rational.
That Muslim would have knowingly come to a place where "blasphemous" speech is seen daily, had some shoved in his / her face, and, as yet one more bad decision on their part, choose, quite independently, to commit violence on some unrelated person.
I have in fact said things like this to Muslims and they did not go out to kill anyone that I know of, so your assumption of guaranteed violence are also erroneous. Face it, bro, you are engaging in reasoning that is faulty.
And, yes, I know you are going to say something along the lines of "people should think before they speak", but that would be in a situation where the other people are not already seeking your death where such advice is warranted and likely to work. It won't work here at all...
In a situation that is already violent with people who are already seeking the death of everyone and where they already have plenty of so-called "reasons" for attacking innocent people, you want us to appease their "religious sentiments" without any guarantee (in fact the opposite is indicated) that they would stop being violent and stop murdering innocent people.
Not gonna happen that way, bro. Sorry if you've already covered this in your email reply, but I felt your unrealistic stance needed to be addressed here...
You are arguing that because, in your opinion, the charge of sava.gery is true the ad is morally defensible. My argument is that the veracity of the ad is irrelevant. The fact that it is intentionally insulting, and provoking a group of people makes it morally indefensible. Should this ad be illegal? Of course not, it is protected speech. Is this ad moral? Absolutely not. Just because an idea falls into the category of protected speech does not make it good or moral to disseminate said idea.
@Deeter – peace2all is quite possibly the least alarmist of any poster that's ever been on this blog. What's your real beef, here?
1. a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.
If you will read my post again, you will see that I point out my view that he does not have sufficient reason, that he is exaggerating dangers and is indeed prophesying dangers, so you would be wrong there.
Also, we have been going back and forth in emails about this and since he is commenting here, I thought to provide a counter-point to his alarmist views on the matter. No beef with my friend who has a thick skull at times, just a friendly back-and-forth. Thanks for asking.
@Huebert – your claims of it being immoral are according to your personal morals relative to your perceived environment.
We all use moral relativism as human beings. As protected speech, the ad should be allowed. Your claims of moral superiority, however, are certainly open to debate. What makes it "immoral" in your view? The tenuous characterization of an unnamed group as sav.ages while later implying that Jihadists are sav.ages? What is it you do not like?
"The fact that it is intentionally insulting, and provoking a group of people makes it morally indefensible."
Truth should be spoken, that includes both objective truth:
The Earth is not the center of the solar system
Insulting or provoking speech is morally indefensible.
Without allowing subjective truth there can be no discussion of ethics, or morality. Paradoxically your own postings become morally indefensible.
All it takes is someone to find your ideas insulting, or perhaps lead them to action, even if that action is (by someone else's standard) unreasonable.
Are you sure that is the standard you wish to use?
Facts are not immoral and anyone who takes offense at the truth is an idiot.
To me what makes the ad immoral is the fact that it is intentionally insulting and dehumanizing. Calling another group of people sav.ages Is a blatant attempt to insult and ostracize said group. As to your statement that facts can't be immoral, I agree. But I would add that while facts can't be immoral sharing said facts can be. If you present information for the purposes of harming another person or group, or if harm is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence it is immoral to share said information.
I see you are once again claiming some sort of moral superiority here. What morals are you even talking about, really?
Don't you understand that moral relativism is what all humans use? Why should we believe you when you say this is immoral when morality is a subjective view? Would you kill a stranger because your neighbor flipped you off? Seriously?
I stand by the standard I used though I didn't explain it well. If insult or harm are a foreseeable consequence of your speech and you present said speech anyway, that is an immoral action. Calling a group of people sava.ges is so obvious an insult that it must have been done intentionally. If this ad had said "Support Israel over Palestine" I would have had no problems with it. Heck it could have said "Support Christianity over Islam" or vice versa and I would have no objections. My objection to this ad is based on it's direct and intentional insult.
Where am I claiming moral superiority? My only claim is that it is immoral to insult a group of people. I do understand moral relativity. I also understand that you do not accept my standards, if you did we would not be having this discussion. My moral view is ultimately based on minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure, if you have a better system please share. And where in the world did get the idea that I would harm someone over an insult?
You Said: @therealpeace2all – " I agree with many of your statements. But do US representatives clearly and without equivocation present such a message? No. "
I'm not sure that I'm following your question ? Specifically, when you ask... "But do US representatives clearly and without equivocation present such a message ? - What message, *specifically* are you speaking of ?
You Said: " And perhaps she does want a war. Who would we be fighting, what are their ideals? Are their ideals equitable to our own, or nearly opposite them? "
Again, I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning here. But, I'll take a stab at it. What does Geller possibly wanting to start a 'war' have anything to do with whether or not Muslim's ideals, etc... are equitable to our own, or opposite ?
You Said: " Pew did the poll, chopping off hands for thievery, the death penalty for exercising a freedom of religion.
I may be an atheist, and think a person believes in myths may be a fool, but I don't advocate for the death of people who believe. And I do not know of an organized branch of Christianity of Judaism which advocates such a stance (yes, such a stance is in the bible: Deut 13:6-9, 17:3-5).
However, Islam does not suffer from nearly so much a deficiency or similar believing adherents, at least not according to the Dec 2010 Pew Poll.
But we blame movie makers for 'inciting violence' "
O.K... so again, we already know that is how they (a lot ) of them are, so what are you saying exactly... in that would do you suggest we do differently ?
You Said: " Not possible with rational people, so our elected representatives seem to be saying we must make allowances in our speech for irrational Muslims. "
Well, sometimes... *maybe* it is better, depending on the situation, to make allowances. Our own military even thinks so. They have on numerous occasions asked for restraint on burning Qur'an's, etc...
Don't get me wrong here... I'm a big believer in the 1st amendment and free speech, and... with that comes a sacred responsibility to make sure we think... before we say/do things, that could have real world ramifications on others around the world. And I'm certainly no Islamic apologist. I pretty much dislike and have -0- use for all of the monotheistic religions. There are certainly some wise words of advice that come from the world's different religions, but for the dogma... not for me.
You Said: " I have a higher opinion of Muslims, that they can reason and turn away from what I would term sav.age ideals.
It seems to me that to justify the position of 'don't say things that will make them mad because they will resort to violence' has a much lower opinion of them. "
I understand, and respect what you are saying... and... I think what we *wish* they would be like, is far different from what they *are* like in the real world. I wish they would act differently too.
I guess my final question is, and I have been going back and forth with my good friend @Deeter... the question is... What do we do about it ?
Hey my friend.
O.K...let me make a very clear example:
You and your family are out in a park. There are a group of Muslim's who are nearby. You, because of believing in your right of free speech at any time basically, and... wishing that the Muslim's *should* behave differently than they do... "You" go and get in their face and show them a cartoon of Muhammed, tell them Muhammed is a pedo, etc... etc...
The Muslims kill you and your family. Who's fault is that... ? First, the crazy murderous Muslims that commited this illegal and deadly act upon you and your family are at fault, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And... however much I would definitely mourn the loss of my good friend, I would absolutely, without question say that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do on *your* part... as... you knew better than to do that, given the probability of crazy- a ss dangerous responses from the psychotic Islamic fundies.
Yes... there would be some responsibility for your actions on 'you' as that would be a very dumb thing to do...IMHO.
You evidently feel that such an action is reasonable, so I assumed you shared the specious religious morality of Muslims.
This is because you said, "If you present information for the purposes of harming another person or group, or if harm is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence it is immoral to share said information."
By saying that, you are declaring such a thing as reasonable as well as foreseeable and so I gave you the question.
Killing a stranger because your neighbor insults you is the exact same sort of response that Muslims are giving to those who they say insult them. They kill their own children because of their "honor" and their religion...and you evidently feel that this is not only reasonable of them, but that it is foreseeable in every circu.mstance.
I do not agree with such a position. You think they are being "reasonable" in killing total strangers for what other, completely different, strangers do. You seem to insist that we must fall all over ourselves to not "insult" them, and see nothing wrong with that. You want me to give up my rights and freedoms so that these psychopathic murderers MIGHT suddenly stop killing random innocent people.
You want the greatest pleasure. So why aren't you a heroin addict? You want to minimize harm, so why aren't you killing murderers and other sociopaths? Your morals do not seem to be reasonable to me, since they include letting murderers go free unopposed in any way lest they "take offense" and kill other unrelated people.
They do not have your values, yet you assume they do or else you would not feel that their actions are "reasonable" or "foreseeable", right?
If a mobster comes into your house, kills your family, and then tells you it is because someone else insulted them, what would you think about that? From what you have said so far, I can only assume that you would seek to apologize to the murderer for someone else insulting him and castigate those other people for insulting him.
You are knuckling under to bullies and you want the rest of us to join you. I refuse to be dictated to by foreigners who are clearly insane. I do not allow foreign psychotics to dictate my actions here in the USA. They are bullies who want to deny me my rights and freedoms that they have no right to say anything about, much less force things in the US to change.
To them, killing anyone is reasonable. To you, perhaps it is not, yet you think their responses are "reasonable" responses to insults.
They will kill for insults, but that is no reason why we should stop insulting them, their religion, or any of the thousands of idiotic and psychotic things they do and think..because they also kill for their religion regardless of insult, regardless of what we do, regardless of any law outside of their religion.
They come here and refuse to follow our laws when they murder their children in "honor killings". And we are just supposed to roll over when they do that? We are supposed to avoid, impossibly, any so-called "insults" to their honor when they clearly have none? We are supposed to avoid any possibility of insult when we can't do that?
But Huebert will tell us when we are being "immoral"....right. You will explain it all to us and we will live together in harmony...right.
You don't have any morals, Huebert. All you have is a mess.
Sorry, but I do not think that is a good example.
Your example is closer to being like a KKK member putting a burning cross on someone's lawn, yet you are saying this advertisement is like that. Nope. Not gonna agree on that.
That advertisement isn't even like an insult beyond saying that murderers act in a sav.age manner and that rational people should oppose these religion-based murderers while also supporting Israel.
Not very insulting and not really something you can say will cause actual deaths, foreseeable or not.
Yet these people are so insane, so irrational and unreasonable, and so indoctrinated to have overblown ideas about "honor", religion, culture, etc., that I will gladly insult them and their insanity and violence every day no matter what sort of silly reactions they might have to my words. They are not rational and you cannot put any blame on me if their irrational insane response just happens to be a violent one no matter the provocation they might think is there.
Yes, I agree that it is stupid to insult someone who is trying to enjoy themselves at a park when I have my family with me, especially when the other people are insane. Insane people should be in special facilities, not sitting around in a park where they might suddenly lash out or decide that a female in my family is disrespecting him by not covering her face when there are no signs to tell me that this is his guaranteed response.
He might not feel insulted by a female without a head covering, but that is not a reason to murder or assault people no matter how insulted he might feel.
How am I supposed to know how he will react? He might agree with me for all you know. Why isn't this guy killing other people in the park, like the Christian telling him he will go to hell and that he is a filthy sinner before "god"?
That is insulting, isn't it? Yet I do not kill people when Christians say things like that to me.
The problem here is their religion, their insanity, and their stupidity. It is not that they are insulted, but that they consider any insult to be used as an excuse to kill.
Let me put it another way: If I say I will kill random people any time someone insults me, then I'd better not perceive anything as an insult or there are going to be bodies all over the place. It is dependent upon my perception and if I am overly sensitive as well as violent, do I have the right to insist and demand that everyone in the world refrain from insulting me lest I kill some random people as a response?
Does just anyone have the right to demand politeness and if we don't get it we can kill? Is that what you are saying?
Because there's this guy who flipped me off three years ago and I might just wipe out a small town because my invisible friend is also insulted and must be defended with the death of non-related people. Riiight.
I absolutely refuse to be bullied unless they have a gun to my head. I refuse to negotiate with terrorists because they are all insane. I refuse to respect any religion or religious follower because they are all insane.
What I respect is the law, and they do not. I follow the law and they refuse to even consider it because their "holy" bullshlt is given them by a bullshlt god and they think that this gives them the right to demand all sorts of insane things.
Well, their god doesn't exist. There is no god to make them sane or direct their actions. They are insane period.
I have the right to insult anyone I want. Maybe it will provoke a response, but maybe it won't. You can't expect one or the other because they are irrational, illogical, unreasonable, insane, crazy, ignorant, stupid, and all that.
You would hold that guy who flipped me off three years ago as directly responsible for me wiping out random people.
And you don't see any problem with that. Okay. The fact that such action on my part would clearly be insane has no bearing on your expectations even though you cannot predict whether or not I will actually bother to wipe out these random people.
Oh, good grief. I have been unduly provoked many many times and have not killed anyone. But you think it's okay to assume that they will not only murder but that it is an accepted response and that we should honor their murderousness by appeasement within our own borders.
Our borders are the issue here. They want to dictate to us here in the USA and are willing to murder whoever they want to get their way....and you are willing to let them!
If a group of people are sava.ge then calling them sava.ges may be insulting, but it is true. Truth does not have to be held back because it may offend.
If I call a person a child ra.pist that is insulting, but if they actually are one it is also true. Irrespective of any offense they take.
This is why examining the charge is an important one.
But your standard is an impossible one, or rather it is a capitulation to whoever is the least reasonable in the audience. Simply denying that Islam is true is enough to set of some Muslims. If you state that Mohammed rap.ed a child you will offend them. But their own books say it occurred. So do we deny speaking the truth because it would offend and we know ahead of time it would offend.
Don't misunderstand me, I understand your position, and in some respects agree with it. If it was a case of lying to insult them I'd agree, reprehensible. But the ad, while distasteful, can not be termed morally indefensible without first examining if the claim is true. And to do that we must determine the relative civility of the combatants.
"What message, *specifically* are you speaking of ?"
When our representatives cannot condemn acts of violence without first making pains to express just how much they may find a video objectionable they begin to equivocate the wrong of offending a person with the wrong of physical violence. There is no equalizing the harm caused by a video which no one is forced to watch and killing a person. not in any way, shape or form. The video offends, so what. If it offends, don't watch it. To me, and I think to others too, the condemnation of the video is an appeasement of their demands. Which is a dangerous message to send.
"What does Geller possibly wanting to start a 'war' have anything to do with whether or not Muslim's ideals, etc... are equitable to our own, or opposite ?"
You introduced the idea that perhaps they want a war. It was an exploration of what if they got their wish and the US had to pick sides. In such a case then the culture of the combatants and compatibility with our own morals would very much matter.
" in that would do you suggest we do differently"
Cease the capitulation so many make, and is ongoing, with the rush to condemn someone for saying something that offends Muslims. Stand up for freedom of speech, not acquiesce for demand for an apology. Perhaps if the US government had been the one making the video, some rogue element of the government making it and thus no longer remaining silent on matters of religion, then I would find an apology fitting. But that isn't what happened, the apparent rush to appease violent people encourages more violence or at least threats of violence.
" What do we do about it ?"
This is the hard answer. We must remain firm to ideals respecting freedom of expression. Yes, holding firm with that belief carries with it a risk. A risk that those who don't respect that will resort to violence.
If we capitulate, or start to make special exceptions for this group, then what are we telling other groups?
The message is very clear, violence works, hurt us to get what you want. And if you do that on a matter like freedom of expression then the freedom becomes useless because it ceases to exist.
If I haven't said it before, I do not think all Muslims are just itching to force their views on others. Just as not all religions are the same neither are all adherents of a religion the same.
At some point our culture has to decide what we will do. Do we cheapen freedom of expression to the degree demanded by those who resort to violence, or do we say we will not capitulate to threats of violence.
Nicely put! I am jealous but I'll get over it. Thx.
@Irrational Exuberance, @Deeter & @Heubert
IMO... everyone made some great points here in the discussion thread.
Thanks guys !
What a Truth in Advertising Ad should say about Islam:
Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.
If there is an appropriate line which defines hate speech, it may very well be when such speech dehumanizes a specific group.
" 'In any war between the civilized man and the sava.ge, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.' "
This is clearly implying that Muslims are "sava.ge[s]".
p.s. I'm not saying it should be illegal necessarily
"This is clearly implying that Muslims are "sava.ge[s]"."
Only those engaging in jihad, which in popular usage carries the connotation of using violence to spread Islam.
Actually, I think it would infer anyone opposed to Israel, since support is supposed to be for the civilized, in this ad's view Israel, anyone opposed to Israel, would by inference be a sava.ge, correct?
Sorry, 'imply' not 'infer'
The Arabs have used hate speech for decades, encouraging suicide bombings in Israel and referring to Israelis as pigs and dogs
So what? Even if "Arabs" have (whatever you mean by that, because I'm certain not all Arabs did) , that doesn't make this ad's use right.
You are as.serting they present a fallacy of the excluded middle, they do not. You may be interpreting it that way, but the ad does not express such a message. It does not say you are with us or against us, it does not say failure to support them makes one a sav.age. Given the regularity with which people are told you must pick a side I can see how people could have been primed to read such a message into it, but it is not there.
It says that those opposed to them are sav.ages, a matter of opinion. It says in such wars one ought to support civilized over sav.agery and advocates for support. But they do not as.sert that failure to agree with them makes one a sav.age.
The legalized protection of hate speech is a necessity.
I don't think they are presenting such a fallacy, necessarily, and I don't think they are claiming all who disagree are sava.ges. While the use of "Jihad" might imply all Muslims, as I mentioned earlier, since (lower case j) jihad, or spiritual struggle, is a tenet of Islam, I think, while (upper case j) "Jihad" is usually connotes violent struggle, an equivocation fallacy perhaps, one could argue that they are only speaking of Palestinians.
Regardless, I think they are directly implying that Palestinians, at least, and Muslims at most are sava.ges, and therefore dehumanizing them.
"It says in such wars one ought to support civilized over sav.agery and advocates for support"
Are they not claiming the position of "civilized" in the "war"? Would that not imply that their opponent in the "war", i.e. the Palestinian, is the sava.ge,
"But they do not as.sert that failure to agree with them makes one a sav.age."
Agreed, but I wasn't making that inference either.
I apologize, I had misread part of one of your statements, part of my reply was from that misunderstanding.
I don't disagree at all that the ad does say their conflict is one between civilization and sava.gry. I do disagree that it says all Muslims are sav.ages.
The use of jihad in the US has an immediate connotation with conflict for the spread of a religion. Upper case or lower case I believe that in the context of the ad "In any war" it is clearly speaking of such a war conflicts, not protest or internal struggles. So I would agree, those who try and worm the other definitions into it are working towards committing a fallacy of equivocation.
The context is one of warfare, so whether or not the positions it holds are true is an important one. In a war between a sav.age and a civilized foe should one support the civilized one? I would answer that in most cases yes. Some may say it is better to not take a position at all. I think that invites the war to eventually spread to just such a party depending on the nature of the warfare and the reasons for it. Non-intervention in a war that doesn't currently involve a party may be more dangerous than involvement if the war is likely to end up on their doorstep.
From there it comes down to whether or not their characterization is accurate. Is the conflict in Israel rightly described as just such a conflict?
Jihad – Arabic for "struggle" – is considered a religious duty for Muslims. Although there are peaceful and violent interpretations of what it means, many others engage in violence and the threat of violence to attain their goals. This has been demonstrated in recent days as Muslims have attacked embas.sies and killed people to advance their theory that blasphemy of Islam is a capital offense.
I saw you had an incomplete thought CNN.
So I fixed that for you.
this is complete and utter BS. how can people think that if you poke and poke and poke at people they won't get mad enough to fight.
yes i understand that a stupid video kicked things off overseas, but seriously why all the anti-islam ads and things over here targeting peaceful people? why advertise your stupidity for all to see?
in the words of guns and roses "live and let die."
"how can people think that if you poke and poke and poke at people they won't get mad enough to fight."
Because the idea is that as adult human beings they are able to exercise a modicu.m of control over themselves. That they would understand that violence in response to words is wrong.
If you would like to argue they are incapable of exercising that control, have at it.
If you think it is bad speech the cure for bad speech is more speech, not less.
"but seriously why all the anti-islam ads and things over here targeting peaceful people?"
Because there is a contingent of utterly ignorant people over here who think all religions are the same. These people have been condemning all anti-islam speech indiscriminately, characterizing all speech about Islam as the same. Be it the video in question, or a discourse on exactly what the Qur'an has within it on the proper role for Islam, upon which Muslim draw their justification for action. Anything which does not sing the praises of the religion of subjugation is painted as islamophobia, or hate speech.
@irrational: i agree people should show a measure of restraint; however when a person is continues to be verbally attacked, just like dealing with a bully you punch them in the nose. then they back off.
not only islam finds justification for violent actions in their religious book. christians are just as guilty of committing such acts in the name of their god. i seem to remember extremeist christians bombing abortion clinics, these people are no different.
Sorry, physical violence for speech is not acceptable. And your example has a large flaw.
You bring up an example which seems to imply a captive audience. A bully tormenting another person brings up an image of someone forcing the other to take the abuse, their choice is listen, or be physically hurt. Perhaps even restrained and forced to endure the message, I imagine the imagery of a group of girls encircling one girl and continually taunting their victim. In those examples you have a person resorting to violence because they are being threatened with violence for not capitulating.
This ad is not representative of that.
And you have no argument from me on others who use their books to justify violence. I agree whole-heartedly the Bible is replete with violence and blood thirstiness, the Old Testament to an even greater degree than the New. However, there is a difference in the rate of violence between the two. For example, The Last Temptation of Christ, or even the television show Family Guy, often presents a highly inflammatory picture of Jesus.
How many people were or have been killed for the religious offense that movie and show presents to Christians?
Now compare that to a movie which had 10 people in the audience.
The pot calls the kettle black.
I wonder in the NYCTA would publish a Muslim ad supporting the Holocaust?
as long as it's not directed at anyone, just the event then the NYCTA wouldn't have a choice. same as other things on the sides of buses that they have had to place a disclaimer beside.
They might, but your idea is not properly equivalent to this subway ad.
To be equivalent, a Muslim-supporting ad might go like this: ""In any war between good Muslims and the blasphemous infidels, support the good Muslims. Support Iran. Defeat Zionism."
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.