Monday, June 15, 2015

Here We Go Again (In the Name of Free Speech)...


ROCHESTER (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — A New Hampshire man wants to defy an Islamic prohibition on depicting the prophet Muhammad in pictures and plans to host a “Draw Muhammad” art contest in August.

Jerry Delemus, a 60-year-old former Marine, says the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps any religion’s limitations on such expression, “If we back away from our freedom as citizens a little bit at a time, the next thing you know, we don’t have any freedoms left,” DeLemus explained to the CBS affiliate WGME.

Damn straight! I'm down with free speech and the right to express ones viewpoints peacefully. In writing and comedy for sure.

DeLemus said he hasn’t heard from the local Islamic community, but residents in the area aren’t sure the event is a good idea. Eric Adema said, “I don’t understand the point of inciting violence, it’s just going to cause more problems.”

On the other hand the residents have a point, I suppose. Keep quiet so as to not to upset. Wonder if the Muslims plan on stopping terrorist activity in the name of Allah.

A venue has yet to be determined, but DeLemus says the contest will likely take place in August. He says he recognizes there are risks inherent in hosting such an event, but adds that he plans on having plenty of security on hand.

In early May police killed two gunmen and a security guard was injured at a similar event in Garland.

Early this year, a gunman killed 12 people at the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo magazine for publishing satirical pictures of Muhammad.

Jerry Delemus plans on holding his own “Draw Muhammad” contest — despite what happened in Garland: http://cbsloc.al/1JMMJ6F

All things considered it seems reasonable to not relinquish our first amendment rights of free political; and religious speech just to play nice with those who have done us harm. Then again god taste does on occasion pay great dividends.

What say you all?

Via: Memeorandum

31 comments:

  1. Other than violence, what's his point? If he's a Christian, he should explain what the Apostle Paul means when he says "all things are legal, but not all are prudent"

    Free speech is legal for all of us. Period. Why shove something in someone else's face, especially if it might incite violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muslims have embraced violence in their "religion of peace"....

      Delete
    2. LL, good to see you. Hope all is well

      Yes, SOME Muslims have embraced violence and SOME Muslims are bent on destroying western and secular civilizations worldwide. They are our enemies and free people everywhere need resist them and their advance.


      Delete
    3. Dave, I agree with what you say, it is ultimately logical and common sense. I struggle however with why some Muslims are intent on forcing their beliefs and expect non Muslims to accept and accommodate them. Same with some Christians.

      Delete
    4. RN: Exactly. If you don't like bacon, don't eat it. If you don't like cartoons, ignore them.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Perhaps, the person who did "Piss Christ" was (is) a slob as well. So what?

      Delete
  3. If you don't like his cartoons, ignore him. Slob that he may be. He would be purely blameless if he were attacked for this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure it would be a good idea to attend one of his picnics
    What some people will do to get attention, if he had something to say that was new, fine, but to mimic something that has been done for no apparent reason is foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me thinks his purpose is to incite violence...an illegal act.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If mocking a centuries dead historical figure is an illegal act, then stick a fork in us, we're done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that in America, with our seperation of church and state, with out first amendment, this man has the legal right to have the contest. There is no law, and here should be no law that prohibits political or religious speech and expression as long as it is peaceful.

    "Piss Christ" upset and angered many Christians yet no violence followed. Sure some Christians made noise, the usual indignities, but very the offensive work of so called "art" continued to be displayed.

    Muslim Sharia Law is not and should not be recognized in our secular nation of laws. Muslims have the right to be offended (as do Christians over "Piss Christ" yet they Hans NO right to prevent depictions of Allah or drawing contests of Allah. And, they sure as hell have no right to violence over it. Human life is sacrosanct, pictures are not.

    If we compromise the right of speech and expression to accommodate one then eventually we will end up having no legal rights to political and religious freedom of speech.

    To believe this should be treated as inciting violence Jerry is, IMO, a huge leap and is dangerous to our freedoms.

    Yes, it is tasteless, and yes, this guy is a tasteless slob as Jersey said. However, there is no law against tasteless or being a slob. Our focus should be, indeed must be, on preserving our rights to free political and religous speech and expression. Muslim, Christian Jewish, Morman, or any other religous objections aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not saying that it should be treated as inciting violence...at this time. If violence does occur because of his actions, then his motivations for doing this should be looked at. It goes back to why he is doing it, not the fact that he is doing it.

      Delete
    2. If I read you correctly on this comment Jerry I have no disagreement. For further clarification see my response to Dervish below.

      Delete
    3. I agree with your comment to Dervish.

      Delete
  8. Exactly, RN. Perfectly said.

    In many places, gay pride parades can be said to incite violence (see Montenegro for one example).. Should these mean that gay pride parades should be banned? Of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RN said: "Muslim Sharia Law is not and should not be recognized in our secular nation of laws"

    This is quite true. This is why I can't object to efforts to ban Sharia in the US. However, the exact same thing is true of Christian law (as you well know, of course)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Obviously, if anything happens, Mr. Delemus will not be "blameless" as he is attempting to incite. Whether or not this is illegal (as Jerry suggests) none of these idiots are going to be prosecuted (obviously).

    By the way, in regards to another such event that is to be held in Phoenix, Liban Yousuf, Arizona civil rights director with the CAIR, told the Arizona Republic, "we have to counter hate with love or the haters will win". So here we have one Muslim (a leader in a Muslim organization) who has not "embraced violence in their religion of peace". Religion of peace? It sounds like Mr. Yousuf views it as such.

    RN: To believe this should be treated as inciting violence Jerry is, IMO, a huge leap and is dangerous to our freedoms.

    Too many people are doing this, and I think the reason is not to stand up for our rights but because of hate for Muslims. Perhaps we should consider events like these attempts to incite violence and therefore illegal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I vehemently disagree Dervish. To clarify. I am neither Muslim or Christian. I believe religion is based in mysticism and not reality. Therefore it can be anything anyone wishes it to be. In so long as Muslims and Christians act in a peaceful and non threatening manor (and verse, art, music, etc. is non violent expression of one's beliefs) I have zero problem with It. Further, I believe it must be a protected right under U.S. secular law as defined in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.

      Violent activity by either Muslims or Christians on U.S. soil must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our secular laws.

      In my considered and strong view Dervish you are walking down the same road to tyranny tat so many before have traveled.

      There is nothing further you can say that will alter my viewpoint on this. It has been a 45 year path that has resulted in my views and I am NOT going to retrace the path I have taken on this one.

      God Day.

      Delete
  11. Exactly, RN. Drawing cartoons is not inciting violence, and to ever consider such illegal would be a grave step toward tyranny. Nor we should have the government harass and persecute innocent people in (as Jerry seems to suggest), any circumstance for "why" they make cartoons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drawing cartoons can be inciting violence just like writings and speeches can incite violence. Again, it all goes back to intent.

      Delete
    2. Jerry: Only if the cartoons say stuff like "go kill them". If they are just drawings of some dead guy, then.... no.

      Delete
  12. RN: In my considered and strong view Dervish you are walking down the same road to tyranny that so many before have traveled.

    In my view the economic policies supported by Libertarians and Conservatives constitute this road to tyranny. Supporting tolerance for other religions/ethnicities/sexual orientations is not a path to tyranny. And I am not attempting to alter your viewpoint. I'm just expressing my opinion on the matter the same as everyone else.

    Even if offended Muslims agree that violence is not the answer (and most do), I'm sure they're still offended, so WHY are these people seeking to offend? Although whether or not this should be illegal is not something I'm convinced of. I only said that maybe we should consider it. Because Jerry threw the idea out there. Frankly, I'd prefer that we restrict free speech as little as possible.

    dmarks is wrong when he says "drawing cartoons is not inciting violence". With Pam Geller I'm absolutely convinced it is. Geller CLEARLY hates Muslims. As for these copycats... I can't be positive that's why they're doing it. But it isn't wise whatever the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are entitled to your opinion, even when wrongheaded.

    I have nothing further to say to you on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am 100% correct on the cartoons.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As long as nobody copies my Chumley (Tennessee Tuxedo's sidekick for those of you who are too young to remember) as Mohammed idea, I'm good. And, yes, in free country in which tyrants don't win out, Ms. Geller is free to hate whoever she chooses and those who disagree with her (yes, even bed-wetters) are free to convince her otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am 200 percent correct about the cartoons and other drawings. The contest is to draw Muhammad and there is no rule that the drawing must be a cartoon. So dmarks' "100% correct" is knocked down right there. As for Geller, she is of course free to hate whoever she wants. She is not free to incite violence. What she is doing is at the very least morally wrong, if not legally wrong. I don't think anyone who might attempt to convince her otherwise would be successful. She's making too much money with her hate to give it up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm 1,000% about it all. So, Dervish, go lick your damaged ego.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am 2000% correct. A picture of someone is not an incitement to violence. Cartoon or not.

    Civil liberties here, people.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.