Freedom of Speech? Or respect for Islam?

there are endless movies loughing on the jews, and we never killed anyone

there are endless movies loughing on the christians, they never killed abyone

there is one movie loughing on the Islam, and they say:"lets go kill everyone!"

they are barbaric, its just a movie, the fact that they are reacting these way only shows us how unreasonable they are.

 

I would say it's legal to do, but why would one want to put our soldiers and embassy at risk?

freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from criticism no matter what Palin and their ilk tell you


.

 

I don't support any gun control measures that defy 'shall not be infringed'... Take from that what you will...

 

Both, especially when videos are intentionally made to provoke violence.

 

So you feel you can put making a movie and murdering people at the same level?

 

You're morally bankrupt tbh. because that's just wrong, wrong. imho of course.

 

Nor do I want a theocracy Christian or otherwise. I say that even though I am a Christian Zionist (non preaching) minister. R(radical) Islam is worst than most if not all religions that have been perverted and hijacked for political and ‘other’ reasons. The problem with radical Islam is they want and are making incredible headway for a ‘WORLDWIDE THEOCRACY‘. Think about it. A world wide theocracy would ensure total domination. Don’t want a rMullah telling you what color to crap? Convert to Islamic faith. Will not convert? See ya in the next world, here don't forget this...(your head)~

Well not yet, Lol...I have already switched the button from a three round burst to full rock and roll. Call it healthy paranoia .. eh? ~

Good for you and your ideas. I think this latest thing about the movie was really a test run by radical Islamic leaders to determine if they could force other countries be they secular Christian orientated or Hindu to obey Sharia law, and their ability to enforce it. Sadly it looks like a unmitigated success.

reva

 

Isnt that the same function of the Catholic Church? And didnt they do so with violent and brutal authority over the years? Sorry mate, Islam isnt an exception. If you know anything about Christian history, you'd know that much. Also, there are many forms of radical Islam - many do not want 'worldwide theocracy', or at least not in the foreseeable future of their lifetimes. Extremists on the other hand are another story.

Who are these 'rMuslims' you are referring to, specifically? You seem to be confused between radical Muslims and extremist Muslims.

Um... are you really that delusional/conspiracy orientated?

How so? It wasnt censored, was it?

 

I am going to try something new and just reply with a breif synopsis (sound byte) instead of a lengthy debate worthy answer. Well not really, lol, I haven’t much time and so my replies will not be very good quality. To answer your question YES! In a way. That is why the founding fathers came to this country running and screaming freedom to worship as we wish. Then our founding fathers were burned at the stake for being witches. But no they were not a theocracy.

Well yes Islam is different. We can not justify sins, for example; murder. We have no way to modify our scriptures interpretation so greatly that it resembles a fatawa. Islam is just a completely different structure than is Christianity. We have adapted and mellowed as the centuries passed Islam seems to be reverting back, de-evolving in a sense. Additionally while Christianity was just as violent as Islam in the year 1000, today we are nothing of the sort.

There are no clear cut defining line as to who are radical Muslims and who are extremist Muslims. Its a subjective call, toe determined on an individual basis UNLESS they are murdering or bombing etc.

Oh yassssssss...! I have many guns...lol...BTW remember Katrina? ...never mind you UK guys have emsuculated yourselves anyway.

So... do you have a crystal ball to see the future? You can not understand that your ideas can be wrong eh? Sorry the truth is you are often wrong and admit when you are. That is a mark of insecurity, so I am not insulted by your insult, but rather empathetic to your umm‘ problem …lol.

The protests accomplished forcing YOU to obey sharia law in a way. Or at least being effected by it. So who is laughing now?

reva

 

The puritans were the next best thing - an authoritarian commune. LOL Sorry dude, you are too black and white in your descriptions. Muslims were part of the founding fathers, btw. Although they were mostly slaves, as you know.

Its most likely the most diverse creed on the planet.

Doesnt mean you cant kill almost anyone deemed worthy of such punishment.

Of course you do! Have you been living udner a rock? The Catholic Church issues interpretative doctrinal commentary on issues and scripture all the time. Theologians have been doing it for LONGER than Islamic theologians have been. Where do you think Christian 'just war theory' came from? It wasnt written in the Bible - it was derived from it and is perhaps still in development as no challenges arise and questions posed. This is EXACTLY the same with Islam, in fact the concept of just war theory through jihad has a similar history of development and is itself still in the works.

Well no. The history of their development is certainly different, but the principles of development remain essentially equal. Historically, the theological debates within each creed took different turns, particularly in the light of different social conditions and historical forces. The Muslims were extremely tolerant compared to other societies at the time of their rise because they integrated with other cultural and religious groups. Christianity struggled it is early days, but was lucky enough to have the Roman administrative structure to fall back on as Europe was converted. As the east and west developed, religious authorities responded differently to their particular opportunities and crises. Ultimately the differences today are extremely diverse and for a myriad of reasons. Your simply conclusion that " Islam reverted" is both entirely inaccurate and ignorant of history. Regardless, there is only one question that really concerns us, can Islam develop in its entirety to a more progressive state? The answer is a clear yes, and history is the best evidence for that conclusion.

Actually if you go to the right area, Christians perpetrate acts of violence, for religious and political ends. Did you know in Jamaica, a Christian country, there is a culture that essentially promotes the murder of known homosexuals? You should know about violence in Africa. Now its certainly a fact that Muslim societies host more violence than Christian societies, on the whole. However you again make the absurd and ignorant step of simply attributing all these details to Islam, which doesn't make sense, since that should mean the violence should be consistent throughout all Muslim societies, which it isnt. The overwhelming majority of extremist violence, especially terrorism, is political, not religious in nature. Religious is secondary - it serves to justify and aim, not create it.
Let me put it this way, would Luther accept the genocide of Jews? Nope, but his later antisemitic writings were used by Nazis to religiously justify their activities.

Again, you are wrong and reveal your shallow knowledge. There are some quite definitive differences we can use to distinguish them. Granted sometimes it can and be difficult, but that's a minority of cases.

Nope, its quite objective. I've explained the differences repeatedly.

Oh no, I could be wrong. Its just EXTREMELY unlikely. Of course you can show how I am wrong, but I doubt you have the ability or guts.

Like I said, you're quite delusional and insecure - your conspiratorial mindset is evidence of that.

How's that? How am I obeying sharia law? LOL Most retarded thing I've heard all week.

Affected by what shariah law?

Me, heartily.

 

Actually, if you knew anything about history other than the usual slogans you would know that the Catholic Church has never aimed for a theocracy (world-wide or otherwise).

The point, however, is that we are living in 2012 and that there is nothing comparable to jihadi terrorism in any other major religion. Again, this does not mean that all muslims are jihadi terrorists (obvioously the vast majority aren't). But it is equally simple-minded to try to deny this phenomenon and to try to portray it as something similar to other religious activism.

 

LOL Yeah it doesnt aim to be a theocracy - IT IS a theocracy. And it indeed has the intention of making itself a globally followed theocracy. As I said, historically it used to pursue this objective by brutal force.

But there is. You can find religious extremists in EVERY religion. Now, certainly, Islam leads in terms of numbers, but this is clearly due to a combination of factors - not just the fact they are Muslims. As a result it would entirely stupid to say Islam is the direct cause for their activities.

1. I never denied.
2. I never said there were equal numbers in other religious groups.
3. I have only ever said, and repeatedly, that to blame this activity entirely on Islam as people here are doing is extremely ignorant and plainly wrong.

 

Not only do you know nothing about history, you also have no idea what a theocracy is. And you are so ignorant about religion that you fail to see some of the fundamental differences between Christianity (where there is and always has been a deep and clear divide between religious law and secular law) and Islam (where religious law is secular law).

 

You are too stupid to see the difference between fundamentalist muslims (and indeed fundamentalists can be found in every religion) and jihadi terrorists (which are peculiar to Islam and can not be found in other religions). Both groups overlap, but are not synonymous.

 

the·oc·ra·cy
   /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1.
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2.
a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3.
a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

That is the organization of the RCC - as a theocracy.

Another false claim. Christianity has never become secular. Christian societies only became secular through bloody religious conflict, and the rise of humanistic values of the enlightenment. The history of secularism with Islam is essentially the reverse. Islam wasnt secular to begin with, but it certainly had secular philosophy within its initial legal systems. This eroded away however as historical forces pushed government's into taking particular, authoritarian, steps. Today, Muslim societies are increasingly secular, like their Christian counterparts, however the latter is certainly more so.

 

My, my ... Even reading seems to be too much of a challenge. Tell me what it is about the difference between a civil ruler and the ruler of a church that you don't understand?

 

A bit difficult to debate if you don't even grasp what "secular" means.

 

Um no, jihadi terrorists are what one would broadly defien as a religious extremist, which can be found in all religions. Do you know where the term zealot comes from? Look up the sicarii.

Didnt say they were. I said religious extremists, not just jihadi terrorists.

 

You don't even understand what you write yourself. Pretty pathetic.

 

The Catholic Church would want no difference and as I said, during its history, it has none. The Pope was the governmental head of rome for a long period of time, whilst there were changes in the structure, stature and power of the church, the Pope's sovereignty only ended in the 19th century with the rise of Italian nationalism. The internal structure of the church is entirely theocratic, this is undeniable.

 

For your information it essentially means irreligious governance. Look to the first amendment for a good example.

 

Freedom of Speech!

Bad:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

Better:

"We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so." (Obama, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 2012)

Depending upon belief, or knowledge, just as bad as the former:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied." (ibid)

Translation:

The future must not belong to atheists or science.

Freedom of speech has to defend the "slander" that the religious are nuts, or out to create a religion that orders conquered men to pray perfectly to be seen of men for judgment of languidity of belief, for inquisition, for slaying them.

The Christ:

"5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=KJV

"[5.47] And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors."

The Satanic orders:

Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
"He said, 'Do the noble or the poor follow him?' I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.' He said, 'Are they increasing or decreasing (day by day)?' I replied,' They are increasing.' He said, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his (the Prophet's) Religion become displeased and then discard his Religion?'. I replied, 'No. 'He said, 'Does he break his promises? I replied, 'No, but we are now at truce with him and we are afraid that he may betray us." Abu Sufyan added, "Other than the last sentence, I could not say anything against him. Caesar then asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?' I replied, 'Yes.' He said, 'What was the outcome of your battles with him?' I replied, 'The result was unstable; sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.' He said, 'What does he order you to do?' I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah alone, and not to worship others along with Him, and to leave all that our fore-fathers used to worship. He orders us to pray, give in charity, be chaste, keep promises and return what is entrusted to us.'"

The Satanic judgment:

“Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little;” 4.142

Those that saw it was Satan:

"[5.58] And when you call to prayer they make it a mockery and a joke; this is because they are a people who do not understand." http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kora...V0&byte=158021

The Satanic threat of murder:

"[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Why Satan is against freedom of speech:

"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."

 

So basically, Obama never said freedom of speech was bad just that being a dick to people isnt a nice thing, which is completely right.

btw, I just watched the video, its so funny I'm still not certain if its supposed to be taken as a joke. I honestly thought it was trying to bag anti-Muslim folk. Seriously, its so shoddy its hilarious. You can find better story telling in a porno - better quality production as well.

 

It is kind of hard not to be a dick, in relative terms, when your belief in other ways or science is adverse to orders.

Blackening the orders of others makes one a dick in relative terms.

In one stage of human development there is a little ball that first forms a hole that is attached to the future brain, that is how we get rid of waste.

If one judges a man by the content of his character, and not the color of his prayer, all things being relative, the judged might see the other as a dick. Especially if they reject the other verses that tell them the other way, and put a seal on the lips of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, so as to have only one final prophet with a little "p."

*******

"[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

"[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion."

"Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated."

 

What I mean is, its all well and good to criticize religion (I personally encourage it), but just straight up insulting people with propagandized nonsense is not productive to that end.

Now, as I said, Obama never said people cannot be as harsh as they want in their criticism - he just said its a stupid thing to be an ass to others, and he's right. He never said they cannot do it - he said they ought not to.