posted on May, 29 2015 @ 08:27 PM
I don't have the time to read through all 16 pages of comments so my apologies if this post is just a re-iteration of something already said.
The first amendment protects the right to assemble and associate with, whomever anyone wants too. There are laws against inciting a riot which is what
this appears to be... of course the ground of it is a bit different, as there is a conflict with the ideology of not drawing Mohammed and the freedom
of speech. The irony is if the Mosque members use the right to assemble and associate to protest the drawing event to authorities, while ignoring the
bias their dogma has about freedom of speech... it becomes a very weird situation, but a very easy one for a decision and why there is a such thing as
separation of church and state.
It simply boils down to if you believe it is wrong to draw Mohammed, then don't draw him. Trying to make that a policy outside of the religion to
force on those that drawing him or not doesn't matter... as it is not constitutionally legal to demand on the public. The bottom line is belief,
shouldn't be allowed to create any legislation as it is moral in nature... of course ethically, it's disrespectful to hold such a contest that could
incite a riot or cause unrest in the community at large. Morals and ethics are constantly mixed up as being the same thing... when they are not the
same thing at all. Morals are created off of belief or faith based ideology and a huge complicated mess if allowed into the political arena, and
ethics just deals with the concept of right and wrong from a respect in a non-discriminatory manner.
I'm not sure when the US allowed morals to get mixed up and confused with ethics... but it was a mistake, that many are trying and working to fix,
because it creates discrimination, intolerance, and conflict between believers and non believers. Ethics do not require an ideology to function like
morals do; just an unbiased concept.
My judgment, is Islam has every right to restrict it's members from drawing Mohammed as a tenet, but zero right to expect that of anyone outside of
Islam and it should remain that way... due to separation of church and state. The draw Mohammed contest though extremely disrespectful, is really a
protest to keep the tenets of the religion where it belongs ie. their own congregations.
The silliest part is, if adherents of Islam kept their tenet expectation to just themselves... a lot lot less people would be trying to draw Mohammed.
The most difficult part of this on the world stage, is the concept of a jihad. It is meant to be an internal holy war to purify oneself within... at
some point it was decided to externalize the jihad, possibly from an "out of sight, out of mind" concept. With the concept of pure and impure,
external "impurities" can only enter if someone opens them-self up to an impurity otherwise the self will remain unstained, no matter how much
wallowing one is surrounded by. Temptation to wallow, will not cease if the stimulus is removed... as thought in the external jihad. Who is going to
be more incensed or tempted by bare breasts? The one that rarely sees them, or the one that sees them all the time? The one that sees them all the
time, largely becomes desensitized to where they have little or no effect when seen.
For example; I block ads to speed up load times... I hadn't seen a single ad in close to 6 years, then the auto update for the plug-in quit working, I
saw an ad and was like whoa, what is this business? But before I started ad blocking to speed page loads, I quit even noticing ads, so it was a shock
to see them. In my opinion, the understanding of becoming desensitized to a stimulus, could help out a lot to adherents of religion that believe; a
total avoidance of a stimulus will make the undesirable desire go away... but in reality, avoidance only exacerbates the problem instead of solving
it. The avoidance business, is part of what led many priests to molestation and other sexual deviance in the Catholic church, that has the
celibacy/chastity tenet for priests to follow. Denial of ones natural urges, is an extreme ideology... because it antagonizes something that would
normally be in a healthy balance, if not avoided in such a manner.
Of course the wrench, is when someone has a particular fetish or draw to a specific stimulus... but in those cases, neither avoidance or over
stimulation will satiate the desire for whatever fetish, as that is really an addiction that requires behavioral modification to over come... if the
fetish is even, a hindrance to the quality of ones life to begin with. Obviously, if there is a victim involved in order to indulge ones fetish...
behavioral modification, is the course that should be taken.