By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
FaRmLaNd on 16 August 2010
Edit Thread
johnsobas said:
FaRmLaNd said:

Interesting that its two blocks away. From the way it was told over here in Australia it was made out to be closer. I have no issue with building a building thats partially dedicated to a being that probably doesn't exist thats not terribly close to the site. So meh, build it for all I care.

Also, depicting the prophet does not make you a an asshole. It was a neccesary protest against disproportianate reactions from certain Muslims and making the point that hurt feelings is not a reason to KILL PEOPLE. It does not make you an asshole if you protest against that at all, quite the opposite given the stakes.

Of course they have the right to protest it, and they are correct because it is their constitutional right of free speech.  If they don't want to put up with the depiction of Muhammad they need to go to a different country.  Purposefully drawing Muhammad just to piss people off is being an asshole though (not talking about a particular instance, just the idea), killing people in response is being far more of an asshole.  Going into the ghetto and yelling the N word is being an asshole, shooting the man who said it is far worse.  Do you see where i'm going here?  The first part is legal, is protected, but you have to accept the consequences of what might happen for your own actions unless you can say you didn't know that it was offensive.  Even the people who go to the mosque after it opens can't feel safe for quite a while.  

Not at all, because criticising religion is nothing like racism, ethnicity is something you're born into, that cannot be changed and makes no statements at all in regards to morality or anything at all. Religion makes numerous claims that aren't backed up by evidence, relies on faith (or belief without evidence), attempts to regulate peoples lives, makes statements about morality and can be changed or completely discarded. Criticism of religion is thus not at all the same as being racist.

And saying you have to accept the consequences is besides the point, the person that breaks the law is the one in the wrong, not the person using their free speech. Killing people for creating a film or drawing a cartoon or forcing a person to go into hiding for writing a book is NOT an appropriate response in a secular country that enshrines the rights of freedom of speech. More speech in response is what should and mostly does happen. The moment a person takes the law into their own hands because someone said something they don't like is the moment the line is crossed, not before it. If a person feels the need to change ones offense into violence then they are the ones that need to be desensitised and get over it (or debate the point or whatever). Only people using that free speech will achieve that. People who self censor only perpetuate such issues.

Blasphemy is thus one of the most important ways to exercise free speech. Because religion is one of the major institutions that have killed over such things in the past. Without criticism of religion we might as well have nothing.