Machete-wielding vandal leaves 3 pounds of bacon at Florida mosque

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You have never heard of National Endowment for the Arts?

a reply to: ketsuko

I have. Do they fund all art or is it selective?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He got 15k for it.
I'm gonna do poo mohamed gonna ask for 100k.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I would probably pay not to see that.


But the point is, do they fund everything or is it selective? I like Impressionism (which is caused by Absinthe) and Renaissance art so should I get upset if they are funding Cubism or Modern Art which I cannot stand?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think arts funding through government is on a grant basis and it can go to individual artists or to galleries that give exhibits. I know there was a flap through Congress about a federally funded exhibit that featured a piece that had a crucifix with ants crawling all over it and they almost yanked funding over the offense, raising questions of censorship, funding of religious art, etc.

But National Endowment does a lot of it.

Oh, yes, and let's not forget Harry Reid and his Cowboy Poetry Festival ...

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, you start to run into the whole slippery slope of it being a restriction of free speech if this guy cannot make his piss cross.

Just so we are clear, I think it was pretty cruddy art and not at all in my tastes but I recognize that not everyone has the same impeccable tastes as me.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: rossacus
If they haven't caught the person how do you know he wasn't Muslim? It's a safe assumption but you don't know for sure.

Don't like the machete part but bacon on the door step is funny, outside the realms of PC.

*snip*

I don't know.

And I stated in the OP how it *could* be a Muslim. Of course, that is the first excuse some people run to ("Oh, I bet it was one of their own trying to start something and blame it on others,").

Possible, but unlikely IMO.

The place was mildly vandalized, so what could be gained being self-perpetuated other than to gain attention and cry victim?

Seem more likely a non-Muslim did it, imo.

What would a Muslim gain from this when it is obvious that it will just be ignored anyway?

You do not see many people claiming this sort of thing when it is the other way round do you?

I don't know what could be gained other than crying victim.

We don't see this sort of claim when a Muslim vandalized a Church, is that what you're saying? 'Cause that doesn't happen often.

Black churchs are set on fire: oh, it's probably blacks doing it to themselves for insurance and victimhood.
A Mosque is vandalized: They probably did it themselves to gain attention and sympathy.


Likely but BS.

Meet David Lopez Jackson... One of the arsonists that burned a black church down shortly after the Dylan Roof massacre. Until he was caught, it was a suspected hate crime done by a white supremacist.

www.washingtontimes.com...




Now meet Gary Nathaniel Moore. A devout muslim that attended the Houston mosque he burned down and tried to claim it was a hate crime.

www.jihadwatch.org...

originally posted by: Liquesence

It might be a non-story but it's a piece of the larger picture of hate and intolerance that is increasing in this country, and on ATS, which is evident by the number of posts that have been removed on the first two pages alone.

I disagree, Most of those posts were not hateful nor intolerant,

They were off topic bacon humor, I support anyone's right to live and worship how and where they please. Islam classifies me as an infidel, says so right in the Koran. So as such I have a nearly uncontrollable bacon fetish is all.

Maybe part of the problem with religious groups on the whole is that they're too tightly wound.

You have no proof this WASN'T a Muslim doing a false flag attack. It doesn't matter that bacon was involved, just in Texas a man SET HIS MOSQUE on fire. If a Muslim is willing to burn down his own house of worship, it proves nothing is sacred. It's called Taqiya. Muslims are allowed to be dishonest and to do Non-Muslim things if it advances the cause of Islam.

Why don't you prove a Non-Muslim did this before accusing people of Anti-Islamic crimes, seems to be a trend with Muslims and African Americans last year, I made no less than 4 topics on ATS within the last month proving people lied to paint someone as racist. I have already seen 3 more cases since then and haven't yet made topics.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, you start to run into the whole slippery slope of it being a restriction of free speech if this guy cannot make his piss cross.

Just so we are clear, I think it was pretty cruddy art and not at all in my tastes but I recognize that not everyone has the same impeccable tastes as me.

Right, and this debate (regarding piss cross, etc) boils to down to what is art and who decides as it relates to the First Amendment and free speech/expression.

Anyone can make pretty much anything they want and it's art, no matter how offesive; offensive speech is protected even if distasteful, which is entirely different (as you pointed out) from vandalism or actions caused to intimidate (such as the bacon and the pig's head).

It's all about intent, even though intent can be argued by different people.

I think intimidate is the key word. Piss cross might be offensive, but I doubt created to simply intimidate.

originally posted by: Liquesence
Anyone can make pretty anything they want and it's art, no matter how offesive; offensive speech is protected even if distasteful, which is entirely different (as you pointed out) from vandalism or actions caused to intimidate (such as the bacon and the pig's head).

Agreed. If this 'Piss Christ' was actually done on the steps of a church unbiden I no longer think it is art, just like whomever placed the bacon on the mosque cannot claim in retrospect it was art.

a reply to: chuck258

It's possible, but I don't know. Somehow, I think burning their own mosque down is less objectionable than actually touching bacon or other pork would be. And at least in the California incident, the bacon was wrapped around the door handles.

Liken touching bacon to handling human feces (and not your own) that are extremely nasty and stinky and then having to take time to do something intricate with them.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Liquesence

It might be a non-story but it's a piece of the larger picture of hate and intolerance that is increasing in this country, and on ATS, which is evident by the number of posts that have been removed on the first two pages alone.

I disagree, Most of those posts were not hateful nor intolerant,

They were off topic bacon humor, I support anyone's right to live and worship how and where they please. Islam classifies me as an infidel, says so right in the Koran. So as such I have a nearly uncontrollable bacon fetish is all.

Maybe part of the problem with religious groups on the whole is that they're too tightly wound.

I would say that *is* the problem with religious groups.

As far as the removed posts, I never read any of them, so I don't actually know. It was a slightly educated guess, since all I saw were a TON of posts removed for "serious T&C violations" and "off topic" posts. Of course, bacon humor is pretty off topic.

a reply to: LSU0408

So, two examples prove what? It proves nothing.

I have said that we don't know who did this or why. I have also said it is possible it *was* done by a Muslim.

What's your point? That it is possible it was a Muslim? We KNOW it's *possible,* but that doesn't mean it's NOT a result of what we are seeing in our society and the backlash against Muslims.

a reply to: Liquesence

And at the same time, most people know enough to understand that bacon is seen as unclean, but how much do they understand what that means? For most of us bacon is raw meat like any other raw meat, but for Muslims, it's something quite a bit different.

Basically, it's like asking a Christian to bake a wedding cake for gays to wrap bacon around the door handles of a mosque in some ways. You are asking them to risk committing sacrilege/become spiritually unclean to remove it.

Most people simply don't understand that. They see only raw meat or a cake that needs baking.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Basically, it's like asking a Christian to bake a wedding cake for gays to wrap bacon around the door handles of a mosque in some ways. You are asking them to risk committing sacrilege/become spiritually unclean to remove it.

Most people simply don't understand that. They see only raw meat or a cake that needs baking.

They are nowhere *near* the same thing.

One has to do with discrimination and the other direct intimidation based on religion/culture.

a reply to: Liquesence

Your post comes across as you saying people will blame blacks for black churches burning and will blame muslims for mosques being vandalized just so they can blame blacks and muslims. I only gave you the links to the two latest black churches and mosques being burned down, and who did it.

a reply to: Liquesence

I told you most people don't get it. See? You prove my point.

For the people being forced to confront those things, they have the same depth of spiritual disgust/affront.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

I told you most people don't get it. See? You prove my point.

For the people being forced to confront those things, they have the same depth of spiritual disgust/affront.

Your point is not proved.

You fail the see the bigger issue, which doesn't surprise me, and there's nothing I can do to convince you.

Intimidation versus discrimination.

While discrimination might be used to intimidate, simply not baking a cake is personal (the people not wanting to bake it); leaving bacon or pigs head is direct intimidation. Not baking a cake is not *purposefully* intimidating in itself; leaving bacon and a pigs head is. Personal religious preference which happens to be discrimination vs. just being a mean SOB, which happens to be intimidation.

Two different issues.

We've been around this issue in other threads (and I've seen your posts), and it has no relevance (the gay cake thing) to this thread.

At all.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

And at the same time, most people know enough to understand that bacon is seen as unclean, but how much do they understand what that means? For most of us bacon is raw meat like any other raw meat, but for Muslims, it's something quite a bit different.

Basically, it's like asking a Christian to bake a wedding cake for gays to wrap bacon around the door handles of a mosque in some ways. You are asking them to risk committing sacrilege/become spiritually unclean to remove it.

Most people simply don't understand that. They see only raw meat or a cake that needs baking.

Excellent analogy, imo. If your religion condemns something as unclean, whether supporting gay marriage or touching pork, you will be outraged at having to do it. In your example, however, one is being forced to do something they consider unclean and the other is not being forced to do anything.