Did George Tiller MD "provoke" his own assassination by performing abortions?

[Nye Bevan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller

Did anyone here ask that question in the wake of his murder?

Is asking whether a satirical newspaper "provoked" the mass murder of its workers any less offensive a question?

[lame54]

1. depends - what was he wearing?

[Warpy]

30. Perfect answer

You win the net

[YoungDemCA]

2. Of course he didn't

And just to be clear: I am one of those "naive Western liberals" who thinks that the vast majority of Muslims around the world are no more violent than the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, non-religious people....you get the idea.

That doesn't mean, however, that murdering people in cold blood because they offended your religion is remotely justified. Or provoked.

[randys1]

27. Some will disagree, not me but some will, maybe even some on this site

[on point]

3. Christian fundie terrorism no different than Islam fundie terrorism. Both can't handle dissent

The killing of George Tiller was local terrorism, but same root cause of people pushing their faith on others.

[The2ndWheel]

4. No more than the mouse provoking the owl to eat it

It's just something that happens, and whichever side is able to enforce what they think is right at any given time, will be the side who's rules everyone has to follow at any given time.

[Coventina]

10. I don't think that's a good analogy

The biological needs of survival are not analogous to what people choose to do based on their interpretations of religion.

[dembotoz]

18. yep

[The2ndWheel]

21. Maybe not a perfect one

It was more about that things are going to happen when two different sides exist in the same space. If the mouse gets away, the rules are then he gets to continue to live. If the owl catches the mouse, the rules are that the owl gets to eat. They're bound to meet up with each other at some point to see what happens though.

The beliefs of any organized effort, of which religion is just one of many, are it's biological needs. No organization is going to survive and grow very long if more people don't adhere to its message. Different organized efforts are going to meet up with each other at some point to see what happens.

[Coventina]

25. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point:

So, the killers needed to slaughter magazine workers in order for Islam to survive as a belief system?

If that is not what you mean, please elaborate.

[The2ndWheel]

31. They feel the cartoon is an attack on their version of belief

They feel if mocked, it loses it's credibility. Slaughtering cartoonists may cause the same, or a greater, loss of credibility. Evolution doesn't have a direction, so, some things work, some things don't. You never know what doesn't work until it doesn't exist.

All organizations want a monopoly. Every institution wants to create the world in its own image. Whether that's some radical form of Islam, or free speech for all. Both sides have killed in the name of their image. Violence, or the threat of it, is the way things get figured out unfortunately.

[Coventina]

32. I still disagree. These killers said they were avenging the Prophet.

Please tell me an example of a killer or group of killers who said they were avenging free speech.

[uppityperson]

19. Fundamentalists murdering people just "happens", like owls eating food to survive?

Whoever has the power makes the rules like whether or not murdering others is OK? Wtf? Please clarify as I can not believe you really meant that.

[The2ndWheel]

26. How else are rules made up?

Those who can enforce what they think is right, are the rules we live by. America doesn't exist without that being the case.

Might makes right, and it always has. That's why the US government can bombs whoever it wants, and nothing happens to us. If a few innocent people are killed, oops. If the kids of those innocent people grow up and attack the US in some way, they're terrorists, and we drone them to death.

It's all subjective. Depending on who you are, or what side you're on, or how you do it, it can be self defense, murder, justified, senseless, horrible, honorable, whatever words we wish to use.

[SidDithers]

5. Nailed it...

Sid

[uppityperson]

6. Fundies are assholes, looking for excuses to hurt others.

[Quantess]

7. That you find either of these questions offensive

shows your cultural bias.

One question is legitimate in social conservative culture. The other question is legitimate in muslim cultures.

Neither question is inherently offensive.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Am I biased if I find *both* questions offensive? (nt)

[Quantess]

11. Of course you are.

Just see what kind of answers you get when you present question #1 to social conservatives, and question #2 to muslims.

I would predict a much higher percentage of "yes" responses.

[chrisa]

9. I find the concept of caving to murderers offensive.

I find the concept of needing to check with Al Qaeda first before we publish anything offensive.

[Quantess]

12. How ethnocentric of you. (No text)

[chrisa]

17. I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

I don't care what offends someone who will go and murder innocent people for drawing a cartoon any more than I care about what offended Elliot Rodger. If something offends you enough to go and commit mass murder, you're not worth listening to in the first place.

If believing that Al Qaeda should have no say in what the Western media publishes by threatening violence makes me "ethnocentric" by your definition, then I'm fine with being "ethnocentric."

[onenote]

22. Is it okay to condemn religious extremists who stone gays?

Or am I just being ethnocentric?

[Dr. Strange]

24. Is that satire/sarcasm? Or are you being serious?

I honestly can't tell.

[randome]

29. I think it's pretty clear.

In some parts of the world, it IS necessary to check before printing satire. To think that our way of mocking anything and everything should be how everyone thinks is, indeed, ethnocentric.

I think mockery should be allowed, even promoted, but that's not what a good part of the 'other' world thinks.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Algernon Moncrieff]

14. Remember Solmon Rushdie?

Write a book that offends a cleric? Expect a Fatwa ordering your death.

[Quantess]

20. Those murderous freaks came from a culture

that openly encouraged his assasination. It was not a lone wolf nutcase after Rushdie. Very, very many muslim fundamentalists supported his attempted assassination, even if they themselves would never murder someone.

Chalk it up to cultural differences.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

13. No - it doesn't work that way.

There is religious intolerance, and that is a concept that applies equally to Christian and Islamic culture.

Both questions (one obviously asked satirically) show a bias toward victim-blaming, and (as such) both are highly offensive.

[Quantess]

16. These questions are offensive to you, me, and most DUers

And an overwhelming majority of Americans.

What to do about the fact that some cultures have different points of view?
I wonder how many moderate muslims around the globe are thinking that the Hebdo staff got what they asked for?
There were quite a few socially conservative christians who thought (or said aloud) that Dr Tiller got what he deserved.

[LanternWaste]

23. I'd like to meet the non-existent human who neither contains, nor illustrates their cultural biases.

I'd like to meet the non-existent human who neither contains, nor illustrates their cultural biases...

[whatchamacallit]

15. A lot of agenda and propaganda on the board right now

Your catapult is working overtime...

[Ykcutnek]

28. A vast majority of people around the world will be disgusted with the right people.

Let the insignificant minority who blame freedom of expression flail about all they want.

They will have no effect on the backlash that will follow. They never have much of an effect on anyone or anything. You'd think they tire of it eventually.