Freedom of Speech? Or respect for Islam?

Wow both of you need to get off your soapbox and stop intentionally missing the point I was making.

 

But how is making a movie, made to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off, equally bad as killing people because you're pissed off because of a movie? people that have nothing or very little to do with that movie also.

 

Making a movie with the specific purpose of inciting violence is an equal cause of violence. Now that's not to say what happened here, but in general purposely inciting violence for political objectives is absolutely reprehensible.

 

But equally reprehensible as killing innocent people? no. I think it tells more about the people who are incited to kill: if they're so easily made to go beserk they really deserve to be mocked.

Look, muslims are not mindless monkeys, they can think for themselves. You are allowed to blame them for their own actions.

 

That is not exactly correct according to the timeline, as his "strong" defense of speech did not happen until later.

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts." (Obama) http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ut-from-the-attack-on-diplomats-in-libya?lite

As a "nation" we have never respected all faiths, like the Digambara at a little league game, or the Mormons with multiple little girl wives...

Without the Koran respecting that Jesus was made to "be," confirming the virgin birth, the implications of no virgin birth or God, under today's sensibilities makes him the insane bastard stepson of an equally insane pedophile carpenter.

Simple fact, believing there is a God and saying it, depending upon the persective of the observer, could be considered "straight up insulting people with propagandized nonsense," or as bishadi would say, "false witness." The opposite observation exists that saying there is no God, insults just about any so-called "Prophet" of a God as being insane or evil.

The federal system does make decisions as to what faiths or religions to respect, through the Constitution, the Senate, and the Supreme Court; just ask Warren Steed Jeffs, David Koresh, and a host of others who cannot do what any religion they make up wants to in the District either...

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of" commie cannibal brain eaters who believe in from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of" the "vast and cool and unsympathetic" Aliens who believe we are tasty snacks.

What Obama said was "straight up insulting people with propagandized nonsense." It shows a total lack of understanding of the totality of the history of religion, the possibilities of things to come, and a misunderstanding of our Constitution.

 

If your goal is to make innocent people die, then yes. Intent matters. Sure it says something about the people doing the killing: they're angry, but it also says something about the people trying to incite it: they're evil.

I believe everyone should be held responsible for their actions. Everyone.

 

And the US has also deployed terrorism to secure its power. Did you want Bush to include that when announcing the war on terror? What a stupid comment.

Contrary to your claim, Obama expressly defends the right to free expression and denounces the violence in total. His opinion that entirely hateful speech is an unproductive and stupid act is entirely correct. He never said you cant be as hateful as you like - he simply said to do so is silly. Good on him.

 

Not necessarily, I think they are doing us a favour by showing how seriously retarded these barbarians are. Note that I'm referring to the murderers, not all muslims.

And to hold that view you really must asuming that they are sub-human. I suppose the angry muslims that burns US flags doesn't justify the US comming down there and bombing lot's of innocent muslims? right? because you don't think americans are ***** that can't think for themselves. When the reverse happens.. blame the americans, because the muslims can't think to begin with?

Imho it's not people who are inciting others that is the problem, it's people that can be incited to begin with.

 

I agree.

 

Do you even read my posts or do you just repeat the same thing over and over again? Like I said, everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Muslims, non-Muslims, Americans, non-Americans, everyone.

 

It is not "an unproductive and stupid act" to have "entirely hateful speech" against Shaitan, genocide, racism, murder of the abomination of Homos...

It is kind of hard for one to express their views, to say what is right from wrong, without hate speech. Any religion could say destroy another, enshrine it in a so-called "holy" book, and then those for religious tolerance demand the city-state walls be opened and hate speech rejected by government Statecraft, the only remaining bulwork of liberty destroyed.

"Hypocrisy is the most hated of God." (cannot remember the author, but I read it in a Muslim's book)

"Religious tolerance" is a stupid phrase when applied within city-state walls when it deals with ANY speech and picks and chooses what to deplore and reject by tyranny; it is simply a Trojan Horse or a leaky condom (for the unwashed that can identify Tom Cruise but not Joe Biden).

Those who are for religous tolerance within walls simply prove they are hypocrites, when someone of their own religion hates, and the tolerant are not as tolerant of that hate speech as they are of this enshined hate speech of Obama's "HOly" Koran:

"[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

"[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing." "AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)"

"[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense."

Yeah, a wall and border patrol will protect us. {Sound of laughter}

******

"[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing."

"[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."

"Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated."

 

Yes, it is.

No, it isnt.

Could you repeat that with some more full stops. I didnt understand your point.

Sure but I'm not advocating that - nor are any political leaders of significance.

You seem to be conflating facts and misapplying words. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. Respect does not mean silence. Criticism is a healthy asset to tolerance and respect - and no one is saying Islam or any other religion cannot be criticized. All that I and folks like Obama are saying is that, it is simply pointless and stupid to spew hate out on others. Hate speech is not healthy criticism. That being said no one is saying such activity cannot take place. You have the right to be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag and be to hateful - its just a good point to make that one ought to avoid such activities for obvious, negative, reasons.

 

Just that you didn't make it clear that you had changed your position that the two are equally bad, so I assumed that you were referring to the movie makers being responsible for anything.

 

There is no evidence of intent by the film maker and no evidence of effect for that matter. Intelligence already indicated that the riots were not a reaction to the film. This whole discussion becomes moot. If expressing controversy results in violence because someone will take offense, why not outlaw abortion and feminism? Doesn't that incite violence against women and abortion clinics?

 

Something else is occurring to me. Could it not be said that the history of Islamic inspired violence against the innocent incited anti-Islamic sentiment among many people including the film maker? Why do we attempt to reverse cause and effect in order to justify condemning the film?

 

Well said. "I was incited" isnt a defence.

 

It isn't a defense for anything but film making and insulting a religion needs no defense since it is harmless and perfectly legal.

 

Some want us to be less than entirely hateful of our loss of freedom; that defines the apathetic libertarian.

You can say, "this is right," and get nowhere because they only have their press, your words simply get nowhere, and yours only gets noticed when you do "entirely hateful speech," that then requires their press to react, and if they do not want WAR, it has to include a better press.

Tolerance does mean acceptance and respect does mean silence, when "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

You can say till blue something is right, but without saying what is hateful their hate goes unchallenged and unblacked.

You can say entirely good speech, you can do "healthy" criticism, and until there is Hate Speech there is no model by which to act or test one's good speech.

******

Any religion could say destroy another, enshrine it in a so-called "holy" book, and there is no "conflating facts and misapplying words" here buddy, it is fracking HATE SPEECH, murder for mouth saying:

"[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

And then those for religious tolerance demand the city-state walls be opened and hate speech rejected by government Statecraft, then there is peace, until the critical mass is reached and one spark of hate speech, then the only remaining bulwark of liberty is destroyed in an instant of appeasement and quisling cowardice.

******

Obama was tested, he flinched, and his pure first thought of Statecraft rejected all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of Satanic genocidal murderers.

It is healthy "To Serve Man" as the Kanamits know. Until the limits are exposed, one does not know what the teacher is teaching.

 

I completely agree.

 

What loss of freedom mate? Seriously you guys keep whining about how the world's caving it back you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your cries. All I hear atm is "wolf - wolf!"

What are you talking about?

No, it doesnt mean that at all. Once again "reject" does not mean "outlaw."

You can say entirely good speech, you can do "healthy" criticism, and until there is Hate Speech there is no model by which to act or test one's good speech.
Nonsense.

Obama didnt reject ANY freedom of speech. He simply, and correctly, condemned hate filled speech.

Note, when a political leader condemns something, that does not mean he has made it illegal. Especially in the US, you should realize the president doesnt make and pass laws where he pleases.

 

Yes (without criminal charges for the content of the man's speech) he did.

"we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

"ALL" means all except maybe in a leaky condom covered "liberal" dictionary.

 

So most of Hollywood is evil according to you?

And by the way, the demonstraters weren't motivated by anger but by blind hate.

 

So where did he say " Freedom of speech is limited to respect of religious beliefs" or any other restrictions? Rejecting foolishness IS NOT the same as rejecting a RIGHT TO BE FOOLISH.

See above. You clearly dont understand the difference between a general opinion and a legal ruling.

 

When he used the word "We," to tell a lie, instead of "I," in statecraft he did say, "Freedom of speech is limited to respect of religious beliefs."

The numbers of the lie are telling: See Eric Robert Rudolph, Warren Jeffs, JB Stoner, and a host of Southern slavers...

"Stoner ran for governor of Georgia in 1970. During this campaign, where he called himself the 'candidate of love', he described Hitler as 'too moderate,' black people as an extension of the ape family, and Jews as 'vipers of hell.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Stoner

We all hail the Obamanation, lover of JB Stoner's religion of slavers, the candidate of love:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [JB Stoner]." (Obama)

"What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of 'We,' the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame." (Ayn Rand) http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Ayn_Rand/Anthem/Part_Eleven_p2.html

There is no need for a general opinion or legal ruling that the "all efforts" includes those opposed to false Prophet MoHamMad's slavers of Islam..., his "all" applies to the "we." We the People have an amendment to the Constitution that denigrates the religious beliefs of the slavers, including the false Prophet MoHamMad, of all such religions of slavers, because the "I's" have power to denigrate the kingly lie of the Obamanation's "we."

 

Depends on what you describe as evil. Cristianity could be the root as well as judism. Both are at conflict. You do the math.