Tag Archives: Muhammad

national news, State news

Is this the same as yelling 'fire!'?

It’s been said many times about the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that free speech is protected except when you yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

Therefore, I’m wondering if it’s fair to ask if staging an event that you know could provoke a violent reaction from someone offended by is the same as yelling “fire!”

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Activist-blogger-says-9-11-inspired-criticism-of-6249483.php

Pamela Geller told The Associated Press she has no regrets over playing host to a contest to draw the Muslim prophet Muhammad in Garland, near Dallas. The event resulted in gunfire by two Muslims who then were shot to death by a Garland police officer.

Free-speech advocates — and I’m one of them, to be sure — suggest that Geller was exercising her right of free speech as a leader of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. She stands by her constitutional right. Her organization is virulently anti-Muslim. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls it a hate group.

The Constitution’s right of free political expression is rock-solid. Everyone knows that.

However, is it responsible to engage in free speech when you can expect with some reasonable certainty that it’s going to result in violence?

This is a troubling question for me. I don’t have the answer. I’m looking for help.

I’m all ears.

International news

Islamic state takes 'credit' for Garland attack

Bet on this: If the State Department and the spooks at the CIA prove that the Islamic State actually is responsible for the Garland shooting involving the “Muhammad cartoon contest,” we’ll hear from those who will contend that the terrorists have infiltrated the United States.

Except that the White House says it’s too early to know whether the terrorist monsters can legitimately claim credit for the shooting.

http://news.yahoo.com/claims-texas-attack-via-official-radio-station-084314386.html

This brings to mind something I consider whenever I hear such claims of credit.

Can anyone make such a claim? Just because the Islamic State says it’s responsible for something, are we supposed to assume the worst instinctively?

Two Muslims opened fire in Garland when a right-wing group sponsored a “contest” for illustrations showing the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is offensive under Islamic tenets. The sponsoring group knew that it was offensive, but it sponsored the event anyway, provoking the two men to open fire.

Garland police shot them both to death on the spot.

The Islamic State is taking credit for it. Did the terrorist hierarchy order the men to open fire?

I prefer to wait for proof that the terrorist cult is responsible before believing what it says.

These hideous monsters are capable of saying — let alone doing — anything.

national news, religious news

Free speech does have its limits

3 Comments

Garland police officers responded as they should have when two gunmen opened fire at a “contest” to draw the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

They shot the men dead.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/be-thankful-innocent-people-didnt-die-but-dont-tell-me-the-garland-conference-was-about-free-speech.html/

Now the debate has ensued. Were the provocateurs — the folks who sponsored a contest they knew would provoke that kind of response from Muslims — merely exercising their rights of “free speech”?

My answer? No.

They knew that illustrating the prophet is offensive to Muslims. Indeed, the group that sponsored the “contest,” an outfit called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been identified as an extremist anti-Muslim group.

So, do you think these folks knew what to expect when they staged this event? My guess is that they knew.

The shooters were described as Islamists. One of them, Elton Simpson, allegedly wrote a good-bye note to his friends and family before he started shooting. He knew he’d meet his end in Garland.

As Jim Mitchell of the Dallas Morning News writes in his blog: “Islamic extremism is a global curse. Cartoon contests in Garland aren’t going make a bit of difference in combating it. But insensitive contests like the one yesterday will provoke lone wolves and insult an entire religion. And I ask, to what purpose? This wasn’t discourse; it was a opportunity to draw offensive cartoons for the sake of drawing offensive cartoons. My idea of defensible free expression has a higher and more noble purpose.”

It’s widely established and known around the world that Muslims don’t react well when Muhammad is depicted in cartoons or illustrated simply for the sake of producing a worldly image. Do non-Muslims agree with this religious tenet? No. But it’s not non-Muslims’ place to judge how those who worship a certain religion are supposed to believe.

We should be grateful that the FBI had tipped off the Garland Police Department.

Its officers responded correctly.