Phoenix Atheist Will Host “Draw Muhammad” Event Tonight Just Outside Local Mosque

[rug]

May 28, 2015 by Hemant Mehta 111 Comments

I’ve said before that I don’t mind people who draw images of Muhammad if it’s done for good reason. Standing in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo? Doing it as a symbol of free speech? I could understand and defend those reasons.

Doing it to piss off Muslims or to draw attention to yourself? Now, you’re just being a dick.

Jon Ritzheimer (below) falls in that latter group.



He’s an atheist and former marine who’s taking a cue from Pamela Geller — never a good idea — and hosting a Draw Muhammad cartoon contest tonight in Phoenix.

And, just for full jackass-itude, he’s doing it outside a mosque.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/28/phoenix-atheist-will-host-draw-muhammad-event-tonight-just-outside-local-mosque/

[Kalidurga]

1. Why does it matter why?

[rug]

2. Well, for one thing, there's free spech, and then, there's being a dick, as Hemant put it.

[Kalidurga]

24. So what if he is being a dick?

I don't care if you speak badly of someone being a dick. But, other than that what do you want to do about it?

[rug]

32. It gets better.

Armed Bikers Plan to Draw Cartoons of Mohammed Outside a Mosque in Arizona

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

What do you want to do about it?

[Kalidurga]

48. nothing

[Jamastiene]

28. Being a dick isn't against the law either. n/t

[rug]

33. Neither is being a bigot.

[phil89]

3. Luckily, free speech

doesnt hinge on what Hemant Mehta thinks. What an egomaniac to presume he can dictate what a good reason is for drawing the "prophet".

[rug]

4. He must be a faitheist.

[cbayer]

11. The egomaniac is Jon Ritzheimer.

Do you stand with him?

[MellowDem]

13. I don't think he's saying...

it should be illegal, I think he's saying this particular instance seems to be based more on theatrics than providing solid criticism of Islam. But just an opinion.

[HassleCat]

5. What kind of mosque?

I'll bet he's not holding his event on the doorstep of some enclave of radical jihadists, but an ordinary mosque where Muslims go and mind their own business. In other words, he's hassling the people who don't care whether or not he draws their prophet, I have a feeling Ritzheimer is one of those "seen on Muslim, seen 'em all" type guys.

[rug]

6. It's the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

http://iccpaz.com/

The link has a quote from the mosque's leader.

Usama Shami said he respects the protesters’ right to free speech.

“Everybody has a right to be a bigot. Everybody has a right to be a racist. Everybody has a right to be an idiot,” Shami said. He added that members of the mosque have been encouraged to attend prayer services Friday evening as scheduled.

“It will be the same as every Friday evening and we’re going to tell our members what we’ve told them before: not to engage them,” said Shami. “They’re not looking for an intellectual conversation. They’re looking to stir up controversy and we’re not going to be a part of it.”

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Such a sane, rational comment from Shami

and such contrast to the maroon who is trying to stir up trouble.

[HassleCat]

8. As I suspected

Thanks for the info. The Muslims I know would be pissed off if some guy showed up at their mosque and tried to provoke them, but they would not take the bait. I suspect there will be some yelling and other back-and-forth, so it will get on national television, and this Ritzheimer guy will try to make it look like he's being persecuted by religious zealots for using his free speech rights. What they should do is take a look at the drawings and say something like, "Really? You think that's what our prophet looks like? With the big hook nose and exaggerated features? Do you draw Jesus as some kind of Jewish caricature? Sorry you're so bigoted, man."

[boomer55]

30. Considering he believes in an imaginary friend

And does what that imaginary friend tells him the word "sane" is a bit if a stretch

[rug]

34. Making a diagbosis over the internet is more of a stretch.

One might even say it's irrational.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. No diagbosis was made.

[cbayer]

51. I"ll take the guy with the imaginary friend over the guy without one in this scenario anyway.

Are you saying that all people who have religious beliefs are insane? I suspect you will not answer this.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. What would you call a person who believes in imaginary beings and does what those

imaginary beings tell him to do?

Delusional perhaps?

[Major Nikon]

97. Outside the context of religion that's a pretty fair assessment I doubt too many would argue with

Inside the context of religion, deluded seems to be the better fit.

[boomer55]

70. Why do you suspect that?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Because she wants you to think that she has some authority here that you should be in awe of.

She doesn't.

[cbayer]

74. Because I didn't think you would answer the question…. and you didn't.

[MellowDem]

14. It is funny...

to see the leader of an explicitly bigoted religion call out other's bigotry without any sort of irony, but I agree with the overall sentiment.

[cbayer]

15. Islam is not an explicitly bigoted religion. There are people who are

members of the religion who are bigoted. There are many people who interpret it differently and are not bigoted at all.

I would say that this man is a member of the second group.

[MellowDem]

16. The Koran and Hadiths...

are explicitly bigoted in quite a few ways. Ways that can't be interpreted away, just ignored or rationalized away, which many people do, but there it is, it's in the texts, and directly supports the rampant misogyny and homophobia of much of the world.

[cbayer]

17. Yes, they can be interpreted differently

and since there are many muslims who are not explicitly bigoted, that's all you need to know.

The texts don't matter nearly as much as the individuals who practice the faith, and many of them are neither misogynistic nor homophobic.

You can choose to paint them all with the same brush, but that is a highly prejudiced position.

[MellowDem]

18. The texts matter a great deal...

as they directly inform the faithful. It seems really disingenuous to say otherwise.

I think people that identify with belief systems based on bigoted texts should have to wrestle with that, and many do, but you don't seem to think so. Why?

[cbayer]

19. No, the texts are used and interpreted by the faithful.

I am not disingenuous. I am realistic.

There are literalists and those that use parts of religious texts to further their own agendas.

But most people are not literalists and take from these texts what has meaning for them while rejecting or disregarding the rest.

I think people do wrestle with parts of the texts that underlie their religions, and I think that's a good thing.

While there are sheep out there that just swallow it whole, there are many others that struggle with their beliefs.

You seem to think that everyone that associates with a specific religion is somehow directly responsible for every bad thing that religion has ever done or said. Why?

This muslims have done a very good thing that is entirely consistent with their religion. They deserve credit, not condemnation.

Mr. Ritzheimer is apparently a member of an armed biker gang with no religious affiliation. He also thinks that the truth about Islam needs to be spread and believes the Koran is at the heart of the evil of muslims.

“I want this to be about pushing out the truth about Islam,” said Jon Ritzheimer. “I’ve read the Koran three times… the ones flying the planes into the tower, those are Muslims following the book as it is written.”

This is the danger in taking the position that the texts are what really matter.

[MellowDem]

20. The texts do really matter...

they are seen as the word of God, to say they don't matter when discussing a belief system is just dishonest.

It doesn't matter what percentage are literalists, even for cherry pickers, there are misogynistic texts to pick, which is the problem.

Any belief system with such bigoted texts faces a fundamental problem.

I think people that associate with a belief system should have to answer for what their belief system says through the foundational texts, as that is what they are identifying with and indirectly supporting.

If a member of the KKK said they just like being a member but weren't racist personally, I'd want it pointed out what his local KKK chapter says on their website about equality of the races.

This isn't a hard point, it's just a point of privilege the religious often can't see.

[cbayer]

21. You put way too much importance on the texts and not nearly

enough on the people.

Mr Ritzheimer has no texts and is an atheist. What he thinks and does is much more important than the text a good person identifies with.

I don't care about the books. I care about the actions. I think people should have to answer for their behaviors.

Being a muslim is not the same as being a member of the KKK, no matter how badly you want it to be.

You are right. This isn't a hard point. It's not a point about privilege either.

You have much more privilege than the muslims who will be harassed by this guy tomorrow night. From your privileged position it's easy to condemn all muslims, compare them to KKK members and say they need to answer to you for what parts of their texts say.

The cognitive dissonance must be stupefying at this point.

[okasha]

25. I think we should have a "Draw Geller" day.nt

[rug]

35. With skinheads for security.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. That's not very nice.

I'm 'folically challenged.'

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Ok.

I'm in.

[cbayer]

102. would love to see yours.

Here is one I found.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Holy shit that's dark.

I was going to go more river troll, or bridge troll.

[cbayer]

105. Post it when you finish it!

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Did you draw that yourself?

I don't have an anonymous image hosting service, but I suppose it's easy enough to find one.

[cbayer]

110. No, I found it with the google.

[MellowDem]

40. When evaluating a belief system...

The beliefs laid out in the text themselves are of the utmost importance. I'm not evaluating individuals here, that would be something you are bringing up separately.

Individuals that support, even indirectly, such bigotry, should have to answer for it.

If you think a person who is quite sweet but identifies with the KKK shouldn't have to answer for it, then you are being completely dishonest.

The comparison wasn't directly between a Muslim and KKK member, which is so obvious you'd almost have to be intentionally trying to think of it some other way, but one bigoted belief and another, and the different ways they are treated by society because of religious privilege. Though, both are very bigoted, so there is one similarity at least.

My privilege is irrelevant, but it's not unlike you to make things personal when you can't have a discussion.

[Leontius]

68. "I'm not evaluting individuals here..."

So you're using your preconceived beliefs to describe a groups characteristic beliefs and behavior. Guess what that is called?

[MellowDem]

73. Democratic Underground?

These aren't my preconceived beliefs, these are beliefs explicitly written down in text, that defines a belief system.

What sort of disingenuous argument do you want to push? Do you think criticizing conservative beliefs as stated in various policy positions is using your preconceived beliefs to describe a groups characteristic beliefs and behavior? How dishonest do you want to get?

Do you in criticizing fascism is fascistphobia? Is ridiculing the trickle down system a form of anti-libertarian bigotry?

[Yorktown]

100. So, hate speech is OK as long as it's not acted upon?

I don't care about the books. I care about the actions.

So, books calling for hatred of others are OK, as long as (or until) people do not act on them?

[Rob H.]

22. You're arguing about the importance of the Koran

...with someone who admits she's never read it. Just FYI.

[cbayer]

50. So what? I'm arguing about the writings in a text being less important

than the actions of those that use that text.

Have you read the Koran? Do you think all those who adhere to Islam should be held accountable for what is in it.

[Yorktown]

54. You still do not understand

In Islam, the Quran is the perfect word of God. Ask any imam of your choice.

So yes, any person who "adhere(s) to Islam should be held accountable for what is in it."

Because by being muslims, they accept the Quran to be the perfect word of God.

[MADem]

53. I don't think you are correct in your assertion.

Some people regard the texts as memories, passed down over the years, and written down some three hundred years after the fact. Some people regard the texts as illlustrative stories to present a theme. Not everyone regards them as the word of God--certainly not the Gospels. And then there's the matter of editing. The Bible is just the pieces of a whole shitload of text that a bunch of guys picked out.

So, for you to DEMAND that people behave like fundamentalists because it makes it easier for you to pidgeonhole them, well, that's just not on.

I think people who are religious are the ones to decide how they interpret their little books and writings. Even when their leadership doesn't agree with them, it's up to the congregants at the end of the day--those coins in the collection plate are what keeps the show on the road, and the church has to adapt, or die. Many churches have done this, indeed, new churches have sprung up that make church more like a day at the fair, with giant tv screens and lots of jazzy singing and happy little life lessons. That isn't very "fundamentalist" but it keeps the people in their seats and the coins coming in to keep the lights on.

[MellowDem]

57. I don't demand they act fundamentalist...

I demand they own up to the bigoted bullshit they're indirectly endorsing and supporting by identifying with such texts.

If they don't want to, and if they don't believe it anyways, then all they need to do is stop identifying with such bullshit.

For much of the Islamic world, I understand why many who want to don't, and don't hold it against them, Islam, being the supremely bigoted religion it is, doesn't think too kindly of nonbelivers or apostates in its texts.

[MADem]

66. Yes, that is what you are doing. You are insisting that they follow their religion the way YOU want

them to do. You are demanding that they take texts they regard as "referential" or parable-like, and use your fundamentalist interpretation instead.

You can demand that till the cows come home, but you're not going to get your way.

Your monolithic view of Islam is a perfect example of your prejudice. You do realize that many Muslims don't "follow" the Quran at all, because, well, they can't READ. They follow the five pillars, and that's enough. They inform their behavior and world-view, not arcane "thou shalt nots" written by people long dead. Those five pillars can be memorized without benefit of literacy.

They make up Muslim life, prayer, concern for the needy, self purification and the pilgrimage. They are:

Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger
Salat: ritual prayer five times a day
Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy
Sawm: fasting and self-control during the holy month of Ramadan
Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime[5][6] if one is able[7]

[MellowDem]

67. Bullshit...

I'm simply stating they should own up to the vile shit on their own texts, no matter how dishonestly they rationalize it.

Literacy rates are irrelevant, a belief system is a belief system, and has to answer for the shit it explicitly states. The five pillars are enough eh? According to who? It's fundamentally dishonest to pretend the Koran and Hadiths aren't incredibly important to Islam in order to not have to deal with all the bigotry in them.

And even of the five pillars, you have the ultimate promoter of bigotry in the first one, to claim there is only one God, and their interpretation is right. That's the basis of much bigotry right there.

[Yorktown]

41. The faithful? Faithful to what if not the texts?

Sure, anyone is free to brew his own brand of religion from the texts.

But the texts are what define what the religion is.

More so for a mainstream Muslim than for, say, a liberal Jew.

[arcane1]

27. Typical crazed muslin, as compared to the sane and rational Christian who is planning this.

[rug]

36. Actally, Ritzheimer is a self-declared atheist.

[arcane1]

37. Darn, my sarcasm was poorly calibrated

[cbayer]

10. Yeah, I really hate that "seen one (fill in the blank), seen 'em all" types.

People that make broad brush assumption about any group based on their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs are prejudiced at best and bigots at worst.

[cbayer]

9. Once again, this isn't about free speech, this is about being an asshole.

He's a full blown bigot who's making a mockery of the 1st amendment.

Good for the mosque's leader taking such a pro-active and positive stand.

I am fully with Mehta in his hopes that no one lets this guy get to them and that the only response is that the members of the mosque will walk proudly in for their Friday services with their heads held high.

[Jim__]

12. It's a shame that this clown gets interviewed on TV.

He's just another jackass.

[hrmjustin]

23. Oh Lord another idiot!

[arcane1]

26. I wonder if he's one of those "10 Commandments are the foundation of our legal system" idiots.

Because he's going to violate at least one of them

[rug]

38. Somehow I doubt that.

Atheist Jon Ritzheimer Organizes Armed Biker Gang To Terrorize Arizona Mosque

http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/05/atheist-jon-ritzheimer-organizes-armed-biker-gang-to-terrorize-arizona-mosque/

[arcane1]

39. I don't know how I breezed right past that in the freakin' HEADLINE

And I'm an atheist

[blm]

29. Easy paycheck and notoriety from the RW fool crowd.

.

[Vincardog]

31. I say he should demonstrate the courage of his convictions and have it in MECCA.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Why's that?

What do you think would happen if he did? And what are your reasons for what you think will happen?

I mean, I know free speech laws are different there. Is that the point you were making?

[Vincardog]

69. He would be surrounded by Muslims instead of Baptists. Who better to judge the contest?

[ladjf]

42. This makes no sense. Why would an atheist care one way or the other

about Islam? nt

[Yorktown]

46. Because of its potential danger to democracy?

[ladjf]

58. I don't buy that reasoning. To me, it seems

that the event will stir up trouble for no real reason.

[Yorktown]

63. That particular event, yes.

I posted as much in my first post on this thread.

BUT, in general terms, there is a need to challenge, in words or through cartoons,
the edict by fundamentalist Sunnis that muhamd should not be represented or criticized.

And I would be all for finding the most peaceful way to do so.
But said fundamentalists will never think you are submissive enough to their 'no criticism' blanket rule.

[immoderate]

52. If he's an atheist troll, it's a sure way to find victims.

--imm

[cbayer]

56. He's a hateful bigot. It has nothing to do with his atheism, imo.

[ladjf]

59. Yours is the most likely explanation.

(Still say you've got the best avatar on the DU.)

[cbayer]

60. Thanks ladjf!

My boat is currently out of the water and I miss it terribly, so the image is even more meaningful to me right now.

[ladjf]

61. Well at least you have a boat. I am boatless.

airplaneless and motorcyless. nt

[cbayer]

62. I wish for you one day to have one of those things or

anything else that will grant you freedom.

[ladjf]

71. I've already had them all. But,

that was during another period of my life. I'm still enjoying life even without those machines from by gone days.

[Yorktown]

43. Ritzheimer appears to be an unsavory character.

And organizing a drawing contest just outside a mosque is unneeded provocation.

This having been said, the principle of organizing a 'draw muhamad' event in a neutral place would be a nice peaceful way to state that intimidation will not stifle freedom of speech.

People who dislike religions should be able to express that view, and cartoons are one means to do so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Notice he is not doing this in Salt Lake City

Outside the Tabernacle...so it has nothing to do with religion in general....just one brand in general...which is why it is just hatred towards certain people....who are an easy target..

[okasha]

44. I have my doubts about the bikers even showing up.

Garland+Waco=a decent respect for one's own hide, if not one's fellow humans.

[struggle4progress]

45. Nitwits all imagine themselves as edgy and witty

but it has all been done before: this drawing ("Alexamenos worships God&quot , found in Caligula's palace, seems to be from some jolly third-century Roman "Draw a cartoon of Jesus" contest

[edhopper]

47. I actually agree with rug on this

unless this Mosque was making some kind of public warning about drawing Mohammed or something like that.

But they were probably going about there own business.

It is as dick move.

[struggle4progress]

64. Celebrating the right to be an idiot

... While it's considered an insult to draw images of the Islamic prophet, I would certainly defend Ritzheimer's right to do so if he was really making a stand for free speech. But this isn't about free speech. It's about provoking an attack and, of course, promoting Ritzheimer. There's a lot that could be said about this guy's methods. But Usama Shami, speaking to Dana, already said it best, noting that he respects the protesters' right to free speech. "Everybody has a right to be a bigot. Everybody has a right to be a racist. Everybody has a right to be an idiot."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2015/05/28/anti-muslim-rally-draw-muhammad-contest/28090203/

[cbayer]

75. Protest heated but peaceful at Phoenix mosque

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/protest-heated-peaceful-phoenix-mosque/28199545/

Brenna Goth and Jim Walsh, The Arizona Republic 12:04 a.m. EDT May 30, 2015


Phoenix mosque protest
(Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic)

PHOENIX — Police officers lined barricades separating protesters and counter-protesters who gathered outside a Phoenix mosque Friday evening in response to a planned "freedom of speech" demonstration where attendees were encouraged to bring weapons and "draw Mohammed," an act offensive to many Muslims.

Police presence increased by 6:30 p.m. to physically separate the two sides outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

About 20 cars and 15 motorcycles traveled from a protester meeting point at a nearby park to the mosque around 6 p.m., where people from the two sides used megaphones to yell at each other and were at times nose-to-nose.

A large group of counter protesters held signs reading "Love not Hate," as others waved American flags and one man ripped the Quran in half.

more at link

[struggle4progress]

82. Today's Daily Mail has many photos

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103341/ISIS-calls-lone-wolf-attacks-Phoenix-man-planning-purposefully-provocative-Draw-Muhammad-competition-organizer-asks-attendees-bring-guns.html

[cbayer]

84. I think he lost this. He did not get the reaction he craved.

The pictures just make them look like a bunch of ignorant bigots.

[Major Nikon]

77. Sure, because hating on people for making depictions of Muhammad is not at all like being a dick

[cbayer]

78. Oh, not, that would be very dickish indeed.

Thankfully, and probably much to his disappointment, that didn't happen.

[Major Nikon]

79. I'm sure it did

Just perhaps not where he intended. Certainly not all Muslims are narrowminded enough to believe that nonsense and certainly most don't, but also certainly many do feel that way.

There's no doubt this guy's methods were a good example of assholery, but at some level it does serve to inoculate other assholes from their own assholery. The problem is not that there are too many Charlie Hebdos in this world. The problem is there's not enough.

[cbayer]

80. Well, if there was a negative response, it didn't get any press.

The leaders of this mosque gave a really great response that really took the wind out of this guys sails.

This is no Charlie Hebdo, not by a long shot.

[Major Nikon]

81. He is a Charlie Hebdo

Just a much dumber version with no creativity. And he did get plenty of press which is one of the reasons we are discussing the event.

[cbayer]

83. Charlie Hedbo has content. It's political satire that pushes the edges.

This guy has no content and his only message is that he craves attention.

[Major Nikon]

85. The content in question is religious satire

Which is the same thing this guy is at least trying to do and the only reason he gets any press at all. As I said, he's just a dumber and less creative version.

[cbayer]

86. Ok, feel free to put them in the same category.

I simply don't agree.

I will defend Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech in general, but I won't defend this guy or Geller because they are bigots pursuing a bigoted agenda. Charlie Hebdo is not.

[Major Nikon]

87. How many Charlie Hebdo cartoons have you seen?

This isn't the worst of it, btw.

[cbayer]

88. I've seen a lot of them, why?

If you were trying to paste one here, the link doesn't work.

The point is that Charlie Hebdo spares no one. They produce sharp political satire and while their intention is to provoke, it is to provoke with a purpose.

This jerk is a jerk and he only hates muslims. There is nothing satirical in his cause and his intention is to provoke blindly, hoping that someone will give him cause to shoot them.

Again, if you want to put them in the same category, go ahead, but I think it's critical to look past the cartoons and understand the motives. The motives in this case couldn't be more different.

[Major Nikon]

89. The link works fine on my end

I suspect it may be filtered on your end because of...wait for it...bigotry.

Charlie Hebdo was widely criticized for bigotry on DU and many other places. If you don't want to put them in the same category, go ahead. As I said, the one I posted wasn't the worst of it. If I were to post the worst of it, I'd most certainly get a hide. Many of his images were also quite racists and anti-Semitic. Google is your friend here.

[cbayer]

90. Why would bigotry filter it on my end?

This is the link:


This is the message I get when I try to link to it:

ERROR

The request could not be satisfied.

Bad request.
Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront)
Request ID: YD2a0BI_b2Wc1HfZLHqMcXtD0BVW3gE5DRvcsD5nJu6BZ5WgH1n05A==

Google images comes up with zero when I enter this link.

At any rate, I saw primarily support for CH, even if people didn't personally like the images. I've seen the ones that mock islam and the ones that mock christianity and the ones that mock judaism.

But, thanks for the advice about google, cause I really don't know how this internet thing works.

What do you think about the images produced by CH? What do you think their purpose is/was? Did/do you support what they are doing?

What do you think about the event in this article.? What do you think the purpose was? Do you support what they did?

Do you see any difference at all or do you find them identical?

[Major Nikon]

91. I've already told you what I think

Here's a few others...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026093391

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026096176

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026054516

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026061622

I'm not going to argue the point. If you don't think CH was a bigot you might be right, but lots of people don't hold that opinion.

[cbayer]

92. I agree with the title at your last link - Charlie Hebdo is heroic and racist.

OTOH, this guy is just racist. There is not a hint of heroism here, and that's the difference.

I still don't know where you stand other than that they are essentially the same.

[Major Nikon]

93. You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes?

I will defend Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech in general, but I won't defend this guy or Geller because they are bigots pursuing a bigoted agenda. Charlie Hebdo is not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218201385#post86

[cbayer]

94. No, I did not. I said that I did not think CH was pursuing a bigoted agenda

and that this guy is.

I think the CH agenda is much more than pursuing bigotry even if there is racism contained within the images.

OK?

Now are you going to tell me what you think or just find something to pick apart in this post?

[Major Nikon]

95. So CH is a racist, but not a bigot

I think I've gone about as far down the rabbit hole as I care to go.

[cbayer]

96. You are so adept at pouncing on the message while never really showing your hand.

I've definitely gone as far down that rabbit hole as I care to go.

See you next time.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. I've only ever seen CH throw racism back in the faces of actual racists.

For instance, the National Front, or as CH depicted them, rassemblement bleu rasciste.

[cbayer]

106. Whether one finds their work racist or not is a matter of opinion, but

the point you raise is the one I was trying to make.

[Thinkingabout]

101. This person is a very sick pos, he is a nothing.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. well, this event happened and nobody shot anybody.

Which means there are a lot of upset people over how this turned out.

[rug]

108. Which side are you on, warren?

Those exercising their First - and Second - Amendment rights with the asshole outside the mosque, or those in front of the mosque opposing them?

[Warren Stupidity]

111. Case in point.

[rug]

112. Ah, a non-answer.

Even though I know your answer, feel free to exercise your free speech right.

[Yorktown]

113. Knowing some surahs teach hate of the unbelievers, which side would you have been on?

There is such thing as a false dichotomy.

[rug]

114. In terms of this demonstration, absolutely I oppose the armed assholes stalking this mosque.

What about you?

[Yorktown]

115. I oppose both

the armed assholes stalking this mosque,

and people who believe in violent surahs (5% of total ayahs, more after Mecca cancellations)


Your false dichotomy is just that.

[rug]

116. The demonstrastors opposing the assholes were both Musllim and non-Muslim.

Nary a mention of violent surahs.

A red herring does not make a false dichotomy.

You know, Yorktown, sometimes you just got to put down the pose and take a stand.

[Yorktown]

117. Non muslims in the counter demonstration were useful idiots (Lenin's terms)

Supporting the right of people NOT to have their ideological leader mocked is idiotic.

The counter demonstration was not about security (the police presence was enough)

The counter demonstration was about arguing against the right to mock imaginary 'prophets'.

And if you ask for a stand, I won't stand in your false dichotomy.

Making cartoons of muhamad in front of a mosque is unnecessary provocation.
Making cartoons of muhamad and agitating like Geller isn't nice.

Making cartoons of muhamad in a peaceful and pro free speech way, I will stand for.

[rug]

118. Why, I believe you jjust answered which side you're on.

That wasn't hard.

[stone space]

119. Jon Ritzheimer will not be hosting any more Ammosexual events anytime soon.

Which is probably a good thing, given how angry he seems these days.

It took a while, but he's finally in custody.

[rug]

120. Not for 10 - 20.