Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?By granting the power of limiting speech to those that commit violent acts in reaction to words, you are granting the power over your free speech to the idiots and the insane.
Exactly.
Show of hands? Who thinks it 'normal'?All the major newspapers in the U.S. -- none of them will publish them out of fear of reprisals, although they claim it's to "avoid insluting the poor Muslims."
This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?
I dont know...how far are we willing to tolerate an internment camp civilization governed by mediocrity?
I could interpret that to mean just about anything at all, so I'll let it lie.
This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?
If there's a Dice Man present, all of the sudden Louis Black starts to look normal again. So maybe that's a good thing.
We don't all need to BE the Dice, but we all need him.
This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?If there's a Dice Man present, all of the sudden Louis Black starts to look normal again. So maybe that's a good thing.
We don't all need to BE the Dice, but we all need him.
I dunno on this one. I'm all for free speech, but there's the matter of good taste. I don't think we all need to become parodies to prove our points- after a while it becomes too surreal.
I dunno on this one. I'm all for free speech, but there's the matter of good taste. I don't think we all need to become parodies to prove our points- after a while it becomes too surreal.This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?If there's a Dice Man present, all of the sudden Louis Black starts to look normal again. So maybe that's a good thing.
We don't all need to BE the Dice, but we all need him.
Have you seen the "political" cartoons in most newspapers? Good taste?
|
This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?Show of hands? Who thinks it 'normal'?All the major newspapers in the U.S. -- none of them will publish them out of fear of reprisals, although they claim it's to "avoid insluting the poor Muslims."
You mean The Brain Smasher?
Perhaps the next time a News Paper is threatened by some bozo, they should put the cartoons on the Front Page.
Perhaps the next time a News Paper is threatened by some bozo, they should put the cartoons on the Front Page.
That's apparently what one of the Swedish papers did. And I admire them for it.
We don't all need to BE the Dice, but we all need him.
I don't think we all need to become parodies to prove our points- after a while it becomes too surreal.
What part of "all" isn't clear?
Have you seen the "political" cartoons in most newspapers? Good taste?I dunno on this one. I'm all for free speech, but there's the matter of good taste. I don't think we all need to become parodies to prove our points- after a while it becomes too surreal.This brings up an ugly question though- Should they publish it solely TO offend? Is intentional offense the only way to prove that you really aren't being offensive? Should we become a bizzarro version of the Andrew Dice Clay character?If there's a Dice Man present, all of the sudden Louis Black starts to look normal again. So maybe that's a good thing.
We don't all need to BE the Dice, but we all need him.
Dammit, I knew I should have called that one first...
Political cartoons have become a font of pure excrement of late.
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.You and I don't often agree, pres man, but this is spot on. Bravo.
+2
|
Please explain how this is going to "increase violence against troops"? Are you suggesting the people that the troops are fighting now are suddenly going to say, "Well were just going to kill a few of you, but now it is on, and we are stepping up a level?"
No, I'm suggesting that people who were/are on the fence are likely to side with the terrorists (becoming one themselves) whereas before they would probably have stayed on the fence.
As for recruiting more, again, are people really being so prejudiced against Muslims that they really believe that a rational Muslim is going to be turned to terrorism over a few burnt books?
Insinuating that I'm prejudiced, nice. Scraping the bottom of the argument barrel, are we?
Seriously, do you think that moderate, rational Muslims have such a weak grasp on their morals that a burnt book or ten is going to suddenly make them turn away from them.
No, I don't believe that moderate, rational Muslims are going to start blowing people/themselves up over this. What I do believe is that this event is going to be used as recruitment fodder for impressionable youth, on-the-fencers, etc.
Also, as Paul pointed out, this is no mere book to the faithful, it is the literal word of god. Did you know that when Coca-Cola first branched out into Saudi Arabia, they failed miserably? Care to hazard a guess as to why?
Frankly the claim that a few burnt books are going to increase the violence directed towards our troops is insulting to everyone.
So the increased violence after the danish cartoon was released was just imaginary? You remember that whole learning from history and repeating it saying? Yeah, brush up on that.
|
So the increased violence after the danish cartoon was released was just imaginary? You remember that whole learning from history and repeating it saying? Yeah, brush up on that.
I don't think Koran burning is a good idea, personally. But I also think that self censorship in response to threats of violence is weak and wrong. I will not submit to those kinds of threats.
I wouldn't burn the Koran because I wouldn't want someone to burn a Bible out of hatred for Christianity. While in Japan I was visiting a Buddhist temple with a native Japanese friend. There was a statue in a yard of a reclining figure (I cannot remember who she was, anymore), and the Japanese friend encouraged me with a laugh to get upon the statue and lie on the figure for a funny picture. I was unsure of the exact significance of the figure, but it was on temple grounds, and I would be offended if a foreign visitor came into my church and danced a jig on the communion table - so I said I wouldn't climb on the statue. I would refrain from burning the Koran in the same way.
BUT it is legal to do so, and while I would be upset by a Bible burning that set out to offend, I would not think this in any way granted me the right or responsibility to do anything more violent than yell angrily at the person burning it.
Submitting in fear to those that do react to such displays with violence or threats only encourages further and more extreme violence to smaller "offenses".
I am saddened that the burning may encourage some radical Muslims to take violent action. But the responsibility for that violence lies with THEM. Not with someone that offended them. American soldiers will continue to pay a price for the promotion of American interests abroad. You can blame those who send them to fight or who determine what American interests are. You can blame those who commit the acts of violence. Blaming those whose speech may have offended someone who later commits violence over the offense is a mentatlity that is incompatible with freedom of expression.
Edit: To maybe sum up my thoughts more succinctly: I don't think burning the Koran is a good idea because it shows disrespect to a symbol in some else's religion that I wouldn't want shown to the analogous symbol in my own. BUT if my only reason for not buring the Koran was fear of reprisal, I would be ashamed of my submission to violent threats - and that submission's invitation for more threats and violence intended to cow me into further submission.
Insinuating that I'm prejudiced, nice. Scraping the bottom of the argument barrel, are we?
And yet you continue to suggest that these people aren't capable of forming their opinions in a rational manner.
What I do believe is that this event is going to be used as recruitment fodder for impressionable youth, on-the-fencers, etc.
On the fence sitters? Seriously? Who the hell is that? "Gee, I don't know, I kind of want to blow up a bunch of people not even remotely related to the guy that upset me, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe I'll do it. Or maybe I won't." Sorry, if there is such a person, they are a nutjob already for even seriously contemplating it.
Rational people are not going to become psychos from a book getting burnt. I don't care where they are from or what religion they believe. You believe otherwise.
So the increased violence after the danish cartoon was released was just imaginary?
Yes, it was imaginary, it didn't increase anything but it was just changed from the focus it was in another area. I'm not saying crazies won't decide to target their hateful actions based on someone else's actions. But the other person's action didn't create the crazy person's desire to do something destructive. They already had that and were just looking for a target to fire it at. If it had not been some Danish folks, it would have been some unveiled women or any number of other convenient targets. So, yes the cartoon put a target on the danish guys. No, it didn't increase violence overall, it just redirected it.
EDIT: So the crazy is thinking, "I want to kill that danish guy and that unveiled woman. Who do I kill first? Oh, the guy drew a picture of the prophet. He gets killed first. If I have time after, I'll then kill the woman." Same thought process with our troops. The people that are going to be "inflamed" by this burning are already planning to kill our troops for numerous other reasons. This might move the troops up a little higher in the priority listing but they are still on that list and still are just in as much danger as they have ever been.
I was unsure of the exact significance of the figure, but it was on temple grounds, and I would be offended if a foreign visitor came into my church and danced a jig on the communion table - so I said I wouldn't climb on the statue.
Great. Now I can't get that image out of my head.
|
|
I was unsure of the exact significance of the figure, but it was on temple grounds, and I would be offended if a foreign visitor came into my church and danced a jig on the communion table - so I said I wouldn't climb on the statue.Great. Now I can't get that image out of my head.
Don't do it! You'll offend me!
Insinuating that I'm prejudiced, nice. Scraping the bottom of the argument barrel, are we?And yet you continue to suggest that these people aren't capable of forming their opinions in a rational manner.
What I do believe is that this event is going to be used as recruitment fodder for impressionable youth, on-the-fencers, etc.On the fence sitters? Seriously? Who the hell is that? "Gee, I don't know, I kind of want to blow up a bunch of people not even remotely related to the guy that upset me, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe I'll do it. Or maybe I won't." Sorry, if there is such a person, they are a nutjob already for even seriously contemplating it.
Rational people are not going to become psychos from a book getting burnt. I don't care where they are from or what religion they believe. You believe otherwise.
So the increased violence after the danish cartoon was released was just imaginary?Yes, it was imaginary, it didn't increase anything but it was just changed from the focus it was in another area. I'm not saying crazies won't decide to target their hateful actions based on someone else's actions. But the other person's action didn't create the crazy person's desire to do something destructive. They already had that and were just looking for a target to fire it at. If it had not been some Danish folks, it would have been some unveiled women or any number of other convenient targets. So, yes the cartoon put a target on the danish guys. No, it didn't increase violence overall, it just redirected it.
Re: Fence sitters- Although it is a work of fiction, the movie Traitor really got into the psychology of the people that you describe. Most are converts, apostates(I think I"m using the right word), or just plain desperate- eager to prove themselves, get some revenge, and go to heaven in one fell swoop. To be honest, I don't think religious reverence has anything to do with their acts.
Great. Now I can't get that image out of my head.Don't do it! You'll offend me!
He has to do it. Otherwise he is just appeasing you.
Don't do it! You'll offend me!I was unsure of the exact significance of the figure, but it was on temple grounds, and I would be offended if a foreign visitor came into my church and danced a jig on the communion table - so I said I wouldn't climb on the statue.Great. Now I can't get that image out of my head.
NOW, I can't get the image of someone doing a jig on the communion table out of my head while my old pastor does a classic B-movie "WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!" in the background.
apostates (I think I"m using the right word)
"Apostates" in Islam is most often used to describe people who convert from Islam to some other religion (or to atheism). Although the Quran itself says they'll get theirs in the afterlife, other sources imply that men should give it to 'em up front. For example, in the hadith (4:52:260), Ikrima says, "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view seems to be that "a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed."
I can't find a live newslink yet, but looks like the Quran buring is now off and the NY mosque/cultural center will be built elsewhere.
I can't find a live newslink yet, but looks like the Quran buring is now off and the NY mosque/cultural center will be built elsewhere.I heard on radio news while at lunch today that the imam in charge of building the mosque said if he moved it elsewhere it would provoke violence from Muslims.
It was just announced on a live news/press conference. Apparently, Mr. Quran-burner will meet with the NY iman next week.
Edit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/09/jones-cance ls-plan-to-burn-qurans/1
Edit 2: Imam, not Iman. Imam is a Muslim spiritual leader. Iman is married to the Sovereign.
Apparently the crazy preacher's web host decided the risk of violent reprisal was too great to continue hosting his church's web site: Rackspace Pulls Plug on Koran-Burning Church.
apostates (I think I"m using the right word)"Apostates" in Islam is most often used to describe people who convert from Islam to some other religion (or to atheism). Although the Quran itself says they'll get theirs in the afterlife, other sources imply that men should give it to 'em up front. For example, in the hadith (4:52:260), Ikrima says, "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view seems to be that "a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed."
There was an aside about that in the movie I mentioned earlier. Stars Don Cheadle. Good stuff. Much better than Iron Man 2.
There was an aside about that in the movie I mentioned earlier. Stars Don Cheadle. Good stuff. Much better than Iron Man 2.
Cool! That movie's on my Netflix queue. Ahead of "Iron Man," in fact.
I can't find a live newslink yet, but looks like the Quran buring is now off and the NY mosque/cultural center will be built elsewhere.I heard on radio news while at lunch today that the imam in charge of building the mosque said if he moved it elsewhere it would provoke violence from Muslims.It was just announced on a live news/press conference. Apparently, Mr. Quran-burner will meet with the NY iman next week.
Edit: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/09/jones-cance ls-plan-to-burn-qurans/1
Edit 2: Imam, not Iman. Imam is a Muslim spiritual leader. Iman is married to the Sovereign.
The 5:16 update to the link explains everything. The Florida congregation is a Westboro Baptist satellite church:
Update at 5:16 p.m. ET: Westboro Baptist Church, the fringe anti-gay Kansas church that pickets funerals of American soldiers, has said it would hold its own Quran-burning if Jones canceled his."WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week, the Gainesville Sun writes.
Dove World congregants have joined Westboro members at funerals across the country. They say God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals.
The 5:16 update to the link explains everything. The Florida congregation is a Westboro Baptist satellite church:
Update at 5:16 p.m. ET: Westboro Baptist Church, the fringe anti-gay Kansas church that pickets funerals of American soldiers, has said it would hold its own Quran-burning if Jones canceled his."WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week, the Gainesville Sun writes.
Dove World congregants have joined Westboro members at funerals across the country. They say God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals.
Wait, where did it say Dove was a satellite of Westboro?! Dove was supposedly non-denominational and independent. Just because some of their members were at the same protests doesn't mean they are linked.
It makes perfect sense to me. This pastor got his name, his church, his faith in the news and youre all talking about it.
We, the Media, The Politicians have all been trolled by a Christian Extremist.
Hook, Line and Sinker.
It makes perfect sense to me. This pastor got his name, his church, his faith in the news and youre all talking about it.
We, the Media, The Politicians have all been trolled by a Christian Extremist.
Hook, Line and Sinker.
Can I blame Ashton Kutcher for this?
BTW, you posted, so you're officially talking about it too. Pull up a chair. :)
It makes perfect sense to me. This pastor got his name, his church, his faith in the news and youre all talking about it.
We, the Media, The Politicians have all been trolled by a Christian Extremist.
Hook, Line and Sinker.
Can I blame Ashton Kutcher for this?
BTW, you posted, so you're officially talking about it too. Pull up a chair. :)
When a troll trolls a troll, trolls troll forever.
Fla. imam: No deal to move NYC mosque
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
Antonio Gonzalez, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida imam says that no deal has been reached to move the site of a mosque at the site of ground zero in exchange for a Florida minister to call off plans to burn Qurans.
Imam Muhammad Musri tells The Associated Press that what he offered was a meeting among the Rev. Terry Jones, the New York imam planning the Islamic center and himself to talk about the mosque location.
Musri is president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida. He says he told Jones that he does not believe the mosque should not be there and would do everything in his power to make sure it is moved.
Jones says he believes a deal was reached to move the mosque and would fly to New York Saturday to discuss it.
Wow, there are some very odious groups of Christian nutters in the US. First its my right of free speech to call them odious Christians, in fact they are scum sucking bottom feeders (free speech again). If I had the time and oportunity I would go deficate on the steps of their church (free speech again).
People who stand out the front of funerals and tell the widows/widowers, parents and children that their loved one died because America tolerates gay people deserves to be pilloried and socialy ostracised. Yet I see no protests or counter demonstrations from the other churches. I do not see the Republicans or Democrats organising their vast resources to drown out in counter speech the drivel and sputum of Westbro.
So by Kirths argument the rest of Christian America and the supporters of the Republicans and Democrats are supporting Westbro through their tolerance and inaction. So Kirth argument is its fine for American citizens to further traumatise the families that lost loved ones in Service of their country.
Do you like my strawman Kirth it looks like yours? Usually I agree with some of the things you say but not today.
So by Kirths argument the rest of Christian America and the supporters of the Republicans and Democrats are supporting Westbro through their tolerance and inaction.
I actually made that exact argument on another thread. Someone was kind enough to post a link to the organized counter-demonstrations made by churches opposed to Westboro, fulfilling the call I made for "moderates" to take visible action against extremists.
Give me some minimal credit for consistency and for logic -- even if you don't see it at first, I usually try to make sure it's there, if you do your homework before sniping.
And there are still no staw men in sight.
So by Kirths argument the rest of Christian America and the supporters of the Republicans and Democrats are supporting Westbro through their tolerance and inaction.I actually made that exact argument on another thread.
Dammit :-)
Link please....
I wasn't sniping you don't see a good sniper.
I understand that your argument is that all Muslims are complicit in extremism because they weren't vocal in the protesting against 9/11, Spain, Bali, Dutch movie makers, Dutch Cartoonists and so on.
I can counter argue that all Americans were complicit in supporting Terrorism in Europe by turning a blind eye to funds being sent to the IRA by US citizens and so on.
Most people only have the time and resources to put out so many fires. I think you will find that the average Muslim (and there are a lot of them)wants to live a happy life and don't care what the rest of the world does as long as the rest of the world is not trying to blow them up, convert them to another religion or take their land or resources with out paying for it. Gee that sounds just like me except I am not a muslim.
I think this whole issue about free speech can be summed up like this.
In this country, we enjoy the Right of Free Speech. That doesnt mean its wise to employ it like an idiot.
So by Kirths argument the rest of Christian America and the supporters of the Republicans and Democrats are supporting Westbro through their tolerance and inaction.I actually made that exact argument on another thread. Someone was kind enough to post a link to the organized counter-demonstrations made by churches opposed to Westboro, fulfilling the call I made for "moderates" to take visible action against extremists.
Give me some minimal credit for consistency and for logic -- even if you don't see it at first, I usually try to make sure it's there, if you do your homework before sniping.
And there are still no staw men in sight.
As I said, my boyhood home was Topeka, KS. Lots of churches in town had counter-messages to Phelp's clan. My best friend from school, him and his brother, were once called "diabolical cretins" by one of the Phelpers, I want to say it was Fred but it was a long time to ago. When he told me the story, I had to laugh. "Diabolical cretins? What is this guy from the Batman TV show?"
Wow, there are some very odious groups of Christian nutters in the US. First its my right of free speech to call them odious Christians,
yep
in fact they are scum sucking bottom feeders (free speech again).
yep
If I had the time and oportunity I would go deficate on the steps of their church (free speech again).
Nope. Defecation on their steps violates other laws and their rights. You do not have the Right to violate their Rights.
|
The thing is, people who want to kill other people will kill other people, irregardless of any actual reason. They will make up something on the spot as a convenient excuse for their actions. What the church is doing is stupid, but it isn't going to make them murder people. They are simply going to murder people and use the book burnings as an excuse.
If there was no book burnings, they'd still be murdering people, is what I'm saying. That church is not responsible for other peoples actions. Murdering people over a book is a huge overreaction. F*@$ them, I say.
The thing is, people who want to kill other people will kill other people, irregardless of any actual reason. They will make up something on the spot as a convenient excuse for their actions. What the church is doing is stupid, but it isn't going to make them murder people. They are simply going to murder people and use the book burnings as an excuse.
If there was no book burnings, they'd still be murdering people, is what I'm saying. That church is not responsible for other peoples actions. Murdering people over a book is a huge overreaction. f&!~ them, I say.
Religion, Church, God, etc are the excuses of Man to exhibit his barbarisms. If those issues werent available, Man would create other excuses.
Wow, there are some very odious groups of Christian nutters in the US. First its my right of free speech to call them odious Christians,
If I had the time and oportunity I would go deficate on the steps of their church (free speech again).
Nope. Defecation on their steps violates other laws and their rights. You do not have the Right to violate their Rights.
I dont see how it violates their rights, Indecent exposure yeh, (so I poo in a plastic bag and drop it off), maybe its hazardous waste you got me there.
I dont see how it violates their rights, Indecent exposure yeh, (so I poo in a plastic bag and drop it off), maybe its hazardous waste you got me there.
Yes, it is considered hazardous waste, and vandalism.
Again, when you consider your Rights paramount to others, youre no different then they are.
I could say,
well, your views are trash so I will dump all my trash in your yard. WOOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH BAYBEE
Could you stand out front with a pic of poo, yes. Anything you do to their property, nope....
I dont see how it violates their rights, Indecent exposure yeh, (so I poo in a plastic bag and drop it off), maybe its hazardous waste you got me there.Yes, it is considered hazardous waste, and vandalism.
Again, when you consider your Rights paramount to others, youre no different then they are.
I could say,
well, your views are trash so I will dump all my trash in your yard. WOOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH BAYBEE
Could you stand out front with a pic of poo, yes. Anything you do to their property, nope....
The entrance to any building is public property... That is why reporters can stand at your front door.
Again, when you consider your Rights paramount to others, youre no different then they are.
Bingo and thats what I am trying to say...
The entrance to any building is public property... That is why reporters can stand at your front door.I dont see how it violates their rights, Indecent exposure yeh, (so I poo in a plastic bag and drop it off), maybe its hazardous waste you got me there.Yes, it is considered hazardous waste, and vandalism.
Again, when you consider your Rights paramount to others, youre no different then they are.
I could say,
well, your views are trash so I will dump all my trash in your yard. WOOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH BAYBEE
Could you stand out front with a pic of poo, yes. Anything you do to their property, nope....
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that. A sidewalk in front of a building is public property (though the owner of the property must still maintain it, yet it isn't their property, but *head explodes*). If you walk up on to my porch and knock on my door, I perfectly within my rights to demand you to get off of my property. If you did not remove yourself to the sidewalk out front, I could call the cops and have you arrest for trespassing.
It is why you see a reporter walk up, knock on the door and be told to get off the property, and in the next shot they are out by the curb. Because they have no legal right to stand on someone else's porch. That is not public space.
However, you ignored to comment on the other links. You are being highly selective in what you want to put across Kirth.
Not true -- I had a whole post on the HuffPo article as of 6 hrs 23 min ago, reproduced here:
BTW, I've read that one, and it's exactly what I'm NOT looking for more of. The whole argument is that "I claim to support freedom of speech, but not when it offends Islam!" I'm looking for one example of the opposite: "I actively support freedom of speech even when it's offensive to Islam."
Scroll back to page 4 -- it's there in black and white.
That church is not responsible for other peoples actions. Murdering people over a book is a huge overreaction. f#&* them, I say.
Its amazing how religious people can be so selective, oh those people that killed people because aren't proper members of the faith.. Bulldust they identify with the faith, their supporters identify with the faith, and if you deny their faith you deny yours. You are dodging responsibility and complicit because you fail to act in opposition.
One one hand you say my "Holy books don't kill people people kill people".... Then you have the hide to argue that other peoples Holy books tell people to kill people HYPOCRISY in the extreme.
I can counter argue that all Americans were complicit in supporting Terrorism in Europe by turning a blind eye to funds being sent to the IRA by US citizens and so on.
If I self-identified as Irish-American, or had family in Ireland, you can be damn sure I would have acted one way or the other.
I'm asking self-identifying Muslims to act on what they claim Islam is about -- is that so unreasonable? So far I've found some who do -- a small group in Arizona -- and a lot more who don't. And not so amazingly, the guys I found who are acting on it see the exact same problem I do.
|
I'm looking for one example of the opposite: "I actively support freedom of speech even when it's offensive to Islam."
You may have to understand Kirth that I do not see it as my role on this thread to seek answers for you. I think you're being unrealistic that you will find a website with that as its specific focus. May be YOU need to read between the lines a bit and not demand something so black and white.
Really, at the end of the day Kirth, all you're saying is that you want a Muslim to stand apart and speak out. Now I am sure we all know Muslims that have condemned the actions of fanatics that plague our world, and that is enough for me.
I am not going to ask any one Muslim to be the flag-bearer, when I myself have not gone as far as creating a website or writing an article on "I actively support freedom of speech even when it's offensive to [insert religion's name here]."
The big hole in your argument is that you want someone to satisify your specific demand. It may well never happen. It does happen, yet it may not happen in a public forum that caters to your needs.
May be you should start a thread titled "I actively support freedom of speech even when it's offensive to Islam" to get some satisfaction. You may even have a member of the Islamic faith contribute to your thread?