Lars Vilks home, arson attempt!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Xilvius
Maybe I'm retarded, but my common sense is wondering how someone can get sooooooo offended just because their "prophet" is depicted as a cartoon. I mean seriously, what kind of 4 year old mentality is that?

According to their religion, any depiction of their prophet is forbidden, and if people kill because of soccer, what's so surprising about killing in the name of religion?

It's just an excuse for their violent behaviour, just that.

As far as this arson attempt on this hero of sorts, I think the childish extremist punks should be beaten and shot.

What extremists? Has this case been made more clear and we really know who were the responsibles?

As things are now, if someone that doesn't like Lars Vilks throws a stone in his direction it will be considered an extremist's attack, they are now the perfect escape goats.

\

This is very true. For all we know could of been a couple of white kids just having fun. I hadn't even thought of it till just now.

There is an incredible propaganda campaign against religious extremists, primarily Muslim ones. In an attempt to garner support for what I call another Holy War against Islam itself and all those who subscribe to it.

~Keeper

I will do my two cents to help Lars and on the day that everybody is supposed to draw what his name, the leader of Islam, i will take part.

VIVA LIBERTINE! lol

reply to post by whiteraven

I will not, for two reasons.

1 - The fact that someone draws Muhammad doesn't help Lars Vilks in any way.

2 - Most importantly, why would I make something that is considered a disrespect to a religion? The fact that I enjoy the freedom to draw what I want is not an excuse to purposely disrespect a religion, our freedoms should stop when other people's freedom begins, so if I want to maintain my respect for freedom I should respect other people's freedom of choosing their own religion.

reply to post by ArMaP


To each his own.


I have a hard time adopting suppression to any form of the suppression of free speech.

reply to post by whiteraven


I don't like suppression of free speech either (and I live in a country where free speach was forbidden for almost 50 years), but I don't see why should someone offend someone else's religion just because he/she can.

What's the purpose? That's not using free speech, that's abusing free speech.

reply to post by ArMaP


mylifedump.com...

Abusing Free Speech
Edward Mitchell
Georgetown Law Weekly Newspaper
Published 4/28/10

Freedom of speech is undoubtedly one of our country’s most distinguishing characteristics.

It easily sets us apart from fellow powerhouses China and Russia, where the baton or the bullet often greets those who “doth protest too much.” Our reverence for free speech even distinguishes us from some Western countries like Germany. There, it’s a crime to deny the Holocaust. Here, uniformed Neo-Nazis can spew their madness on a city street in broad daylight.

Such is the extent to which we revere the right to generally say what you want, when you want, where you want (short of yelling “Fire!” in that proverbially crowded theater, of course).

That First Amendment freedom has benefited our country in many ways. Among other things, it has protected and fostered the free flow of ideas, creativity, and political debate. Further, that right has been guaranteed by the blood of soldiers and exemplified by men who lost their lives while speaking out for good, but at-the-time controversial causes.

It is therefore more than a shame when our fellow citizens abuse free speech.

For over a decade, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been a two-man case study in such abuse. The pair has gotten away with much, from lampooning Tom Cruise as a closeted homosexual to depicting various respected global figures engaged in all manner of debauchery.

You got your terms mixed up.

You can.t abuse slave speech.

Thar's laws against that.

reply to post by whiteraven


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that post.

Originally posted by whiteraven
I have a hard time adopting suppression to any form of the suppression of free speech.

If you want to make a stand against the suppression of free speech, you could go to the White House and make inciteful threats against the president, just to make a point.
You could go up to a stranger and say ''things'' about his mother, to make a point about free speech.

The point is, that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are fine, but sometimes expediency, courtesy and civility are the order of the day.

You wouldn't insult someone's mother, because;

a( It would be rude, insulting and uncivilised; and the only motive to do so, would be to anger and upset the recipient of your insults.
b( There is a strong chance that you would come to some physical harm if you insulted someone in this way.

Any publicly viewable depiction of the prophet Mohammad falls under both 'a' and 'b' above.

Mr. Vilks knowingly drew his cartoons, and was fully aware that they may upset a portion of people that number around 1.5bn worldwide. It is clear that there was a potential that the more extreme and psychotic members of this group would attempt to harm him and others associated with him.
I understand the point he was trying to make about freedom of expression, but he can't really complain too much when the subsequent events after his cartoons were printed, panned out as most people - including him - could see they would. It was entirely his choice.