So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that
religion in a very negative light, repeatedly, implying he was mentally ill, a charlatan, a con artist, and an abusive, pathological liar, among other things.
They not only criticized (some would even say, "mocked"
the founding, central figure and other prominent religious authorities of that faith, they expressly pointed up the absurdities of some of the most sacred, central tenets of that religious belief, likewise subjecting them to mockery.
So... according to some arguments I keep reading, it would appear HBO was guilty of bigotry, "hate speech", "shouting fire in a crowded theater". Had any adherent of that faith reacted violently- and, certainly, there was enough evidence provided in the documentary that some adherents of this religion have resorted to violence, harassment, or potentially criminal activity in defense of the faith, in the past; so HBO would definitely have "foreknowledge" that they might be "inciting a riot"-- according to these arguments I've read, any violent acts stemming from a reaction to this documentary would have been the responsibility of HBO.
And if I plug these arguments into this situation, they all seem to be saying that what HBO did was NOT protected speech, in fact it was a criminal act which ought to be subject to government censorship.
HBO- dangerous criminals? What's the verdict?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Yeah, good luck on that.
Nigerian scam artists should be exposed, but the whole world must not draw pictures of God-Man because God-Man has said pictures make him angry?
I don't think ANYONE'S magical beliefs get special dispensation to be immune from criticism, that's my point.
Just as there are scientologists who get stuff out of the e-meters and auditing, but take Xenu with a grain of salt.
However, the people who are so deeply invested in the worldview that, for instance, they feel the need to try to shoot people who draw "blasphemous" cartoons, I suspect also take a lot of other doctrinal stuff very literally.
Sid
What exactly constitutes this 'journalistic manner' that seems to make speech valid and worthy of protection?
People arguing that Blasphemy should be outlawed falls neatly under that category.
Good link, BTW. 
why you're one of my favorite people on this site. 
She was told and knew threats had been made. It is not known if she had let these attendees know so they could decided weather or not to attend despite the threats.
Personally, I feel she put everyone that attended that event in danger for the sake of provoking a reaction- which she got. I think she should be held accountable for that. 
Sounds about right.
My tablet is now showing me an ad for Scientology below this thread. 
Here's a link that shows a couple. The prize winning one was drawn by a former Muslim. It's actually very good.
https://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/312509-here-is-the-prize-winning-cartoon-of-muhammad-that-2-islamic-terrorists-in-texas-tried-to-snuff-out/
I don't know anything about this source so please don't attack me on that. It's just the first one that had some pics of the cartoons.
Saraswathi Gora, Julian Assange, Christopher Hitchins, Thomas Jefferson and Zachie Achmat for a short lost...
Not to mention christians are the ones passing anti-lgbt laws in this country RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
How blind does one have to be to point to what Germany and the Soviet Union did in the last century as what?
Proof that religion doesn't have a homophobia problem?
Needs another --
Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 03:34 AM - Edit history (1)
It's necessary to defend muslims against their persecutors but not lgbt people because they have it easy.
They're riding that pink pony all the way to a SCOTUS victory. Then they'd better stfu and sit down.
First you said the Nazis "espoused no real religion except a vague sense of "providence.""
And you were told that Hitler was a christian and reminded of Gott Mitt Uns.
Then you said the Nazis weren't religious and backed it up with expert historical analysis, oh, wait you didn't back it up at all, did you? You just told us your thoughts on the matter. Because you're completely unbiased.
To which you were given numerous examples of Hitler professing to be a christian.
And now you rebut those with "Obama said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA"
Oh, and your personal belief that he wasn't a christian, because you're neutral on the subject and you're just going along with all those historians who also have no evidence.
Show me one quote from Hitler that proves he wasn't a christian, skip the hearsay, I've seen it all before.
Find me ONE shred of evidence to refute these quotes and many many more just like them:
As a human being it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did that old civilization two thousand years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin by the Jews. . . I am convinced that I am really a devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as Christ did two thousand years ago, against those who are steeling and exploiting these poverty-stricken people.
When you can back up your claims let me know, until then please leave the President out of it. He has enough problems without you throwing him up as proof that Hitler lied about his faith.
Seriously,
And Goebbels didn't?
How can anyone not be amused by that logic?
They are a vile organization on so many issues - women's rights, LGBT rights, pedophile priests, corruption and worse.
I'm stunned.
Talk about hate speech, have you heard the things the pope says about lgbt people and gender theory?
The only mistake Geller made is not camouflaging her hatred as religious belief.
Thanks for being intolerant of another's religion and making the op's point.
I hope the producers don't fly in any small planes. 
To my knowledge, there is no central tenet of $cientology forbidding the mockery of it, as there is in Islam forbidding depiction of the Prophet. They just object quite strenuously to it. 
Her post made my irony meter explode.
There's no need to mock scientologists, it's not free speech.
Glad you cleared that up.
I am not making that up, someone actually compared pissing off muslims to playing with a loaded gun.
And they call anti-theists bigots?
You don't want anyone to mock islam but have no problem declaring one group of religious believers unworthy of the title.
At least when it comes to religion, I'm an equal opportunity mocker.
Dude.
and argued that intent mattered (I also brought up the example of Brandon Lee).
The fact that in order to ridicule it you need to present part of my example with it's intent (adding honey being "attempted murder" because we're considering intent) while framing Geller's without it ("drawing of a cartoon" seems to underscore the fact that you understand the point just fine and are no being evasive. If you actually think I was making a comparison between the two (I wasn't; I was giving an example), it would be correct to either compare both actions ("adding honey to a drink is like drawing a cartoon" or both intents ("attempted murder is like trying to incite violence" . Again, I wasn't comparing the two actions (but an example of why it's ludicrous to ignore intent), but those would be the two way one would honestly take the comparison if I was.
To reiterate, the fact that you felt the need to include intent for one action and hide it for the other in order to make you argument work seems to show that you understand this difference. So maybe it's time to stop pretending intent doesn't matter?
I'm sure HBO felt they were shining a light on a repressive, intolerant, overly rigid belief system that manipulates its adherents, to the extent of -some might say- "brainwashing" them.
I suspect, rightly or wrongly, Pam Geller might try to make a similar case for what she was doing with the Mohammed cartoons.
I'm not being evasive. The central salient point that is being evaded here is, you are talking about fundamentalists who feel entitled to try and murder other people who draw cartoons they don't like.
Without that, this conversation wouldn't be happening in the first place.
(Emphasis added)
What is the objective difference between those two things, in the case of a blasphemous cartoon contest?
There isnt one.
You also completely ignored my question about the word "cause", there.
I've seen people advance the massively fucked up position that we should give fundamentalists the power to determine the limits of free speech. Namely by reacting violently- in which case, the person doing the speaking that "forced" the violent reaction, should be the one criminally charged.
Another thing that blows me away are all the people here who can't figure out why any of that would be objectionable to progressive minded people. "But why is it such a bigggg deeeeeal if we junk the 1st Amendment at the behest of violent, intolerant extremists?"
Derp.
Wahabbism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular "cult of saints", and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centered on the principle of tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18]
The alliance between followers of ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) proved to be a rather durable alliance. The house of bin Saud continued to maintain its politico-religious alliance with the Wahhabi sect through the waxing and waning of its own political fortunes over the next 150 years, through to its eventual proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and then afterwards, on into modern times. Today Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab's teachings are state-sponsored and are the official form of Sunni Islam[3][21] in 21st century Saudi Arabia.[22]
Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Michael Izady) giving a figure of fewer than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region (compared to 28.5 million Sunnis and 89 million Shia).[22][23]
With the help of funding from petroleum exports[24] (and other factors[25]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[3] The movement is centered on the principle of Tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18] The movement also draws from the teachings of medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and early jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal.[26]
Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[27][28] and for causing disunity in the Muslim community by labeling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates[29] (takfir), thus paving the way for their bloodshed.[30][31][32] It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.[33][34][35] The "boundaries" of what make up Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[36] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are often used interchangeably, and considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[37][38][39] But Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism",[5] or an ultra-conservative, Saudi brand of Salafism.[40][41]
The essential guide to Potters House False Doctrines
Waymanite Doctrines That Are Harmful #5
Another one of Wayman’s doctrines that causes quite a bit of harm to people, and pain, is the doctrine of Shunning.
This has two parts. The first is shunning “the world.”
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? (NAS)
James 4:4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (NAS) These are two of the Scriptures that are twisted to mean what Wayman wants them to mean in regards to shunning “unsaved” people. The main function of this doctrine is to cut you off from those who might have enough influence over you, and might care enough about you, to get you to see through Wayman’s religious scam. Most of the timeit is the convert’s relatives who are shunned. Families naturally become concerned when they see their relative start to turn into a Waymanite zombie with a really weird speech pattern. The pastor quickly paints the picture of these concerned family members as being absolute tools of Satan to destroy the new convert’s salvation in Jesus. It is taught that the Devil is using family members to cause the new convert to stumble and backslide.
So, the solution is to get the convert to violently witness to family members, and make sure that the convert tells their family that they are going to hell. This becomes especially emphasized if the family is at all Christian. The convert’s family will be painted out to be lukewarm, and not “really saved,” and the convert will be told to turn up the fires of his or her witness. The frequent result of this is that the convert become alienated from his or her family, and ends up shunning family members, believing them to be under Satan’s power.
The above Scriptures do not teach this. They are simply saying that the believer has to maintain a moral separation from the world. The Christian doesn’t go to bed with the world, so to speak, but that does not mean that he shuns the non Christian people of the world, but rather shuns entering into sin with them.
1 Corinthians 5
-10 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. (NAS)
Paul clarifies his position here, concerning separation from immoral Christians, as opposed to the non Christian peoples of the world. Paul notes that the Christian believer would associate with various types of sinners in the world, the same way that Jesus did. There is nothing about cutting off people in the world because they are not Christain believers in any of the New Testament. Jesus did say that He would bring division to families, but the implication was that it would be the unbelievers who would have a problem with the believers, not the other way around.
https://croydongate.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/the-essential-guide-to-potters-house-false-doctrines/
Most people here understand that saying something that pisses people off, or saying something that REALLY pisses people off, is still protected under the 1A. That's good. It would be profoundly depressing, if the results had been much different.
That doesnt mean I'm not going to refute the arguments of the few people here who have spent the past few days in a scramble for some rationale, under decades old SCOTUS rulings, to cobble together an argument under which she could be charged with "incitement" or "shouting fire in a crowded theater" or some such.
(And the irony of the fact that ALL of those cases involved government trying to censor speech most here would agree, ought to be free to be aired- stuff like protests against the vietnam war, draft, etc- seems TOTALLY lost on those folks.)
People who are anti-choice, or anti marriage equality, are a distinct minority here on DU, too. Does that mean conversations about the importance of reproductive freedom or marriage equality are irrelevant, here? Or that we should just ignore it when those couple people post massively wrong-headed arguments?
It's not about Pam Geller. She's an ass, and a bigot. People keep comparing her to fred phelps. Fine, so treat her like him- respond to her bigotry with humor, mocking, etc. More speech.
What people dont seem to want to acknowledge is, if some fundamentalists didnt lose their shit to the point of violence over stuff like "blasphemous" cartoons- and again, it's not just Pam Geller, it's Charlie Hebdo as well- we wouldnt even be having this discussion, would we?
Just like not all Christians are Fred Phelps or even Pat Robertson.
I do think objectively that, yes, anyone who flips the fuck out over a cartoon, any cartoon, to the point of committing an act of violence against the person who drew it- there is something wrong with their head, and whatever interpretation of their belief system they are running as an operating system, up there.
The only people I think are "demonizable" from the blasphemous cartoon shooting situations- and again, at this point there have been a number of them- are the people who react violently.
Same with a Christian terrorist like Eric Rudolph, who is "forced" to bomb a lesbian bar. Does that mean that the existence of gays and lesbians is a provocation to the 'oppressed' Christian population, because "one or two snap" and do something violenct?
No, see, I think the onus is on the individual who can't live in a pluralistic, secular world that includes gay bars and offensive cartoons, without "snapping" and doing something violent- THEY are the problem, not the gay people or the blasphemy.
And yes. I've said it before, the 1st Amendment is important. Maybe not as important, to some people, as living in a world where no one draws cartoons of favorite mythological figures, but to me? Fuck yes.
If it's not important to you, fine, but obviously something here is making you hang out in the thread and argue.. whatever it is you think you're arguing.
Because you've started two for Pamela Gellar (that I know of).
I mean, you keep telling us how passionate you are about this -- you must have started other threads defending the rights of other bigots and assholes?
I've addressed the issue of the cartoons multiple times but what I've said doesn't fit YOUR preferred narrative so you ignore it
No you haven't. You seem far more interested in trying to find some way to call me a bigot.
Honestly, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fuck whether you think I'm one, or not. I stopped giving a shit about being called names when I was 12.
You're right about one thing, I don't start threads all that often. But fuck a duck, these past two have gathered such enthusiastic response, I'm thinking maybe I'll do it more!
Anyway, like it or not, this thread is about free speech, and the special rules some people want to play by when we're talking about (some) religious beliefs.
I am not a subscriber to total moral or cultural relativism. I do not believe that just because someone believes it, that means it's off limits to criticism or ridicule. Forcing women to wear head-to-toe coverings all day, FGM, bombing abortion clinics, pushing for laws against contraception, Orthodox Jewish "modesty patrols" who attack 8 year old girls for how they're dressed, every form of religious-sanctioned nastiness against gay people all the way from denying them the right to legal marriage, to the death penalty in some countries and cases- religious based beliefs or practices that I think are unequivocally full of shit and worthy of all-day-long criticism. As is killing people over cartoons.
Similarly, Ken Ham's belief that early humans rode dinosaurs and the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the idea that Xenu put people in volcanoes or Joseph Smith got magic gold tablets that no one else was allowed to see, AND the idea that no one on the planet is allowed to draw so much as a stick figure if they call it "Mohammed".... I believe an objective case can be made that those are all FUCKING RIDICULOUS THINGS TO BELIEVE IN, and I will call them such and mock them until the god-damn sacred cows come home.
If that means I'm a bigot, fine. I'm a bigot against fundamentalist fairy tales. But at least I'm consistent.
Otherwise they might hurt us. And if they do, then WE will be blamed if we failed to appease them sufficiently.
It is our solemn duty to mock those who would take away our hard-won freedoms, whether by force or by extortion using threats of force. To those who would rather bend over and obey, be my guest. Just don't expect me to play the appeasement game with you. And when you lose those precious freedoms, you will have nobody but yourself to blame.
All religions are bunk and baloney, and if somebody hadn't mocked and shamed them we'd still be living in the Inquisition. Bowing down to the demands of terrorists is a vote in favor of a new inquisition.
No point in further discussion. Leaving to play video games for a while.
It's totally the kind of thing where... it almost makes me sad, because I know it indicates my brain aging and becoming more, rigid, if you will... but minecraft is the kind of thing I would have been ALL over, when I was younger. I look at it now and I'm like "sigh... who's got the time?"
The stuff people build, the mods, the whole open-ended thing..... it's just phenomenal.
Like, somebody built a working 64-bit calculator. Just INSANELY amazing things people do.
Westeroscraft- King's Landing:
Just blows me away, all of it. So cool.
