Zombie Mohammad attacked by Muslim

It's not a lie, and if you're interested, you'll find the thread...

Have a nice life....

LadyJazzer wrote: It's not a lie, and if you're interested, you'll find the thread...

Have a nice life....

I wouldn't give two-sh**s if PrintSmith suggested that someone shoots the Pope... this thread is about someone who may have assaulted someone else simply because they didn't like the religious parody and a judge who may or may not of been bias in his decision. The thread is not about Printsmith, the thread is not about a reporter, the thread is not about the Tea Party and most of all... this thread is not about YOU.

Nice try on the deflection, but most people here have seen your tired and haggard song and dance enough times and are not fooled by your constant irrelevant posts. It's no wonder you play pretty good... you only know one song!

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, just the other day you guys were suggesting that it was okay for someone to stalk an editorial writer on a campus, confirm their identity, and then assault them for writing an article that suggested that teabaggers were bigots... All of a sudden "You just can't assault another person for any reason other than to protect someone else or yourself..period."....

I'm having trouble keeping up with what the Right thinks is justification for assault from one day to the next....

rofllol You are quite delusional if you think we endorsed violence against the writer.

It shows poor taste and bad judgement (could get you killed playing Mohammed.), but I don't think it should be illegal and the assault victim should be able to press charges.

The Supremes does say certain words or expressions count as "fighting words".
Where you would be justified in punching someone, but I don't think this qualifys.

Islam forbids pictures of Mohammed, because they don't want to encourage idolatry, but if someone is ridiculing the man, is it really idolatry? And since there are no pictures of Mohammed, how do we know if it is an image of the man?
Sidenote: Hollywood once made a movie about Mohammed without putting images of him in it. Would be a interesting movie to watch.

LadyJazzer wrote: It's not a lie, and if you're interested, you'll find the thread...

Have a nice life....

I have no idea what the title of the thread is..but it's very convenient that you have such a great memory when it comes to quoting others, yet you can't seem to remember where you supposedly read them.

And my life isn't all that nice right now, but I'm glad I don't have yours.

So, am I... I can assure you that mine is nicer at the moment, and I wouldn't want you to have that much fun.

It seems "attacked" may be stretching the truth of the matter a little bit, and trying to indicate the judge demonstrated some improper religious bias is most likely nothing more than hype.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20120225/

Seems blown out of proportion to me.

plaidvillain wrote: It seems "attacked" may be stretching the truth of the matter a little bit, and trying to indicate the judge demonstrated some improper religious bias is most likely nothing more than hype.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20120225/

Seems blown out of proportion to me.

"I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;"

Well... this is a totally different story... the judge was actually giving the Zombie Muhammad (Ernest Perce V) permission to mock Muhammad, as long as he was mocking Muhammad factually. That's good to know... Halloween is just 8 months away... got to get my costume ready. Maybe I'll go as Zombie Muhammad and get my 9 year old daughter to dress as my Zombie Virgin Wife.

Do it up. You have the same right to dress up however you like. Nothing makes a Halloween party more fun than the jerk who puts his young daughter in a "virgin wife" costume. Maybe she'll win "best costume" at school, huh? I'd bet she'd rather be a princess. Haven't I seen you go off about people using kids for their politics before?

plaidvillain wrote: It seems "attacked" may be stretching the truth of the matter a little bit, and trying to indicate the judge demonstrated some improper religious bias is most likely nothing more than hype.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20120225/

Seems blown out of proportion to me.

Did you watch the video I posted? I'm not sure what other term I could of used for it. I didn't say "Assault" because that would of been too harsh and so I just said "attacked" in the title. Should I of just said improper touching? It seems clear the guy was at least touched. I thought I was fair. No, the idiot atheist didn't have his life threatened, but he was "attacked" in some way (and I have nothing against atheists). What is your policically correct word for it? The article I posted covered most of your points.

The judge did bring up his religious beliefs in his ruling. If that's OK by you, then I'll assume you'd accept other religious beliefs from judges in their rulings including those you don't agree with?

And there was no hype by me. I just created a poll and offered no opinion on my part.

To tell you the truth, I just posted this because I thought it was unique and humorous in it's own way. And I thought it would create some discussion here. I'm not outraged. The zombie Mohammed was as much of an idiot as the judge was, IMO.

So who are you outraged with by saying it is blown out of proportion?

pineinthegrass wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: It seems "attacked" may be stretching the truth of the matter a little bit, and trying to indicate the judge demonstrated some improper religious bias is most likely nothing more than hype.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20120225/

Seems blown out of proportion to me.

Did you watch the video I posted? I'm not sure what other term I could of used for it. I didn't say "Assault" because that would of been too harsh and so I just said "attacked" in the title. Should I of just said improper touching? It seems clear the guy was at least touched. I thought I was fair. No, the idiot atheist didn't have his life threatened, but he was "attacked" in some way (and I have nothing against atheists). What is your policically correct word for it? The article I posted covered most of your points.

The judge did bring up his religious beliefs in his ruling. If that's OK by you, then I'll assume you'd accept other religious beliefs from judges in their rulings including those you don't agree with?

And there was no hype by me. I just created a poll and offered no opinion on my part.

To tell you the truth, I just posted this because I thought it was unique and humorous in it's own way. And I thought it would create some discussion here. I'm not outraged. The zombie Mohammed was as much of an idiot as the judge was, IMO.

So who are you outraged with by saying it is blown out of proportion?

You're dealing with ideologically-brain-fogged-"Islam good, western religion bad"-utopian-leftists here. The left, by not recognizing the underlying clash of ideological purposes between SOME Muslim's and the West, will simply wind up hurting the very people they are trying to "protect", namely your everyday-run-of-the-mill- peaceful Muslims. But that is typical of the left. Take an ideological stance that is so intellectually corrupt that they can't see the forest for the trees, and heaven be damned if our intended target gets run over while we are "feeling" good about ourselves (IE: see my "PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care" thread).