Free speech is an important right, but, ...
-
You are correct. I feel that way toward muslims because their bible tells them to kill people of other religions. Here are a few verses from the Koran. Sura 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.
Sura 9:123
O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Sura 4:101
When you travel, during war, you commit no error by shortening your Contact Prayers (Salat), if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you. Surely, the disbelievers are your ardent enemies.
This[^] Is an excellent article about the Koran.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
:yawn: The "kill all enemies" crap is in all religions originating from the middle east. Yes, including Judaism and Christianity. (Although, according to Christians, Jesus did try his best to talk some sense into people. In my opinion, it was a lost cause) --
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Why not? Is that not part of a rounded education? Why would you want to be home schooled? How will you ever get laid? Who teaches you and what do they teach?
I do my schoolwork on my own on the computer. You answer the questions on there, and it grades your work for you. What I meant by that was that I don't get the political slant of alot of teachers at school. I have been in public school here before, and some of the teachers did try to spread around their political beliefs.
Josh Gray wrote:
Then you can understand how a poorly educated Iraqi man who's family has been killed by American soldiers would see them as terrorists and want to kill them?
I guess I can understand that. I do think we mistaken to be occupying Iraq. By staying, we are creating a resistance movement there similar to the Viet Cong. If we do not pull out, it is possible that it will turn into another long, costly, pointless war like Vietnam, or the Russians' war in Chechnya.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I have been in public school here before, and some of the teachers did try to spread around their political beliefs.
I can sympathise with that. I had an English teacher at school who handed out an artlcle called "In the red corner... in the blue corner..." which was about the political parties during the run up to a general election squaring up to each other like boxers during a boxing match. Anyway, she asked a very loaded question - one which I didn't see coming and was stupid enough to answer. She was a vile enough teacher and she loved anyone to get on the wrong side of her to taking out her vengance on the whole class. She asked "Which party gives more freedom?" Now, it really depends on your political leanings how you answer that. I answered the "Conservative Party" because they are business friendly, set up a right-to-buy scheme for people living in government housing so they could be home owners (which is why the UK now has the highest rate of home ownership in Europe) and try to keep taxes as low as possible. In contract, the "Labour Party" would restrict businesses, impose higher rates of tax, and generally nanny everyone. She didn't agree. And it was hell for the rest of the lesson.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Dont you miss the social part of going to school? Why did your parents choose to make you do that? Do you think it will cause problems for you in the future? For example if I was an employer and had to choose between two similar people who had just finished school and one was homed schooled I would probably pick the one who was not home schooled.
I chose home schooling. My parents did not make me do it. It seems best for me because I am not a social type of person.
Josh Gray wrote:
Well its too late now. You are in a no win situation. If you walk away people will say that the US abandoned Iraq after you bommed all their infustructure.
You are right.
Josh Gray wrote:
What do you think of the majority of your fellow Americans that voted for Bush in his second term when he clearly broke the law to get his first term?
I think that they voted for him because John Kerry was an idiot. Nobody wants a president that has several different positions for each issue. But, Bush has one position, and it is bad, so it is a matter of the lesser of two evils. Perhaps Kerry would have been a better president because he would probably not do much of anything, as opposed to Bush who is busy getting us engaged in stupid pointless wars, and making more and more of the world turn against America.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Inteelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I think that they voted for him because John Kerry was an idiot. Nobody wants a president that has several different positions for each issue. But, Bush has one position, and it is bad, so it is a matter of the lesser of two evils.
Sounds more like "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know"
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
No. I disagree with the theory that you can effectively deal with primitivism and hate by limiting free speech! There are other ways to do it. For those who think European free speech laws are something civilized and that they are only used in clean cases, here's a controversial usage of "hate speech" laws from Sweden. 2004-JUN: Sweden: Pentecostal pastor convicted of hate speech: Sweden passed a constitutional amendment in 2002 which included sexual orientation in a list of groups protected from "unfavorable speech." The law protects heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Sometime in 2003, Pastor Ake Green delivered a sermon at his Pentecostal church in Borgholk, Sweden. He allegedly described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He described them as "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God." He was charged with inciting hatred against a group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Green was found guilty and sentenced to one month in prison. Public prosecutor Kjell Yngvesson is reported as saying: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." Christianity Today magazine reported: "In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect." Green's lawyer said that the law and conviction violated the pastor's religious freedom. Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (RFSL), said that religious freedom never justifies offending people. He said: "Therefore, I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion." Regards, Tomaž
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Christians strapping on bombs and blowing up people in the name of God.
Nope, just blowing up places in Ireland a while back, shooting a few people here and there in the USA, or raping women on native american land. Blowing up a building in Oklahoma, a doctors office here or or there, maybe a black church or three here or or there. Providing an exception for what you choose NOT to see, does not make it go away. Crime exists everywhere and in every group. You can choose to see it, or ignore it. Most people choose to ignore it as long is it could anyway relate to themselves. There is that fear, if joe normal down the street decided to shoot up a school, perhaps someone else I know would. So we forget. We forget the violence that makes news every single day every single state and pick any group other than ourselves to blame it on. Now you truly understand that group you pointed out. Rather than look at problems generally, they pick a group of their own and exempt them. "we're all innocent, they are all guilty" and blame all the problems of the world on that group. It's an easy way out, it feels great to relax and make believe that if we just kill everyone in that "other" group all the problems will go away. Except it has been tried a hundred or more times in a 10,000 years and it never has made the problems go away. But we still try it anyway. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Crime exists everywhere and in every group. You can choose to see it, or ignore it. Most people choose to ignore it as long is it could anyway relate to themselves.
How the hell can people continue to make such stupid comments? If you will pull your head out of your fat ass for long enough to actually read a few newspapers you will discover that every single instance you mentioned was punished to the full extent of the law. How does that represent ignoring anything? In our society 'Joe Normal" does'nt ignore anything, he demands fanatics be punished, he doesn't make heroes out of them. These continueing attempts to draw moral equivalency between western society and Islam is growing increasingly irksome. You, and your ilk, hate your own society for not being the Marxist utopia you wish it to be, so you try to establish false parallels between our society and others where no such parallels exist. Either that or you are a complete frigging idiot. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I have been in public school here before, and some of the teachers did try to spread around their political beliefs.
I can sympathise with that. I had an English teacher at school who handed out an artlcle called "In the red corner... in the blue corner..." which was about the political parties during the run up to a general election squaring up to each other like boxers during a boxing match. Anyway, she asked a very loaded question - one which I didn't see coming and was stupid enough to answer. She was a vile enough teacher and she loved anyone to get on the wrong side of her to taking out her vengance on the whole class. She asked "Which party gives more freedom?" Now, it really depends on your political leanings how you answer that. I answered the "Conservative Party" because they are business friendly, set up a right-to-buy scheme for people living in government housing so they could be home owners (which is why the UK now has the highest rate of home ownership in Europe) and try to keep taxes as low as possible. In contract, the "Labour Party" would restrict businesses, impose higher rates of tax, and generally nanny everyone. She didn't agree. And it was hell for the rest of the lesson.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
She asked "Which party gives more freedom?"
The answer would depend on your definition of freedom. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Well it's a negative sounding law, but congress does have the prerogative to protect freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has taken the lead on interpreting it too. They've done it before in the past, so that we could all burn flags when we got the need.
JWood wrote:
The Supreme Court has taken the lead on interpreting it too. They've done it before in the past, so that we could all burn flags when we got the need.
The question, however, is where did the Supreme Court acquire the authority to do that? If the Congress can 'make no law' regarding free speech, than what 'law' was the supreme court interpreting to make that decision? Through out American history, it was understood that the first amendment was written specifically to prohibit the federal government from interferring in state and local interpretations of free speech. It was meant to limit federal power, not to increase it. Carefully defining the limits of federal power was what the 'Bill of Rights' was all about. It was an 'anti-federalist' document. The courts had always concluded that the 10th amendment covered a community's right to, for example, ban flag burning. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Good point, but I am not classifying people according to their race, the people on my list are there because of what they do, and their beliefs. Also, I am not taking on the beliefs of someone who started a world war trying dominate all of Europe, and kill off an entire race of people.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, apparently. I'm a Christian, FWIW, but I can find Old Testament verses that taken in isolation would infer exactly what these verses seem to imply.
Well, yes, like when the Israelites were to kill the Cannanites when they entered the promised land. But, you don't see Christians strapping on bombs and blowing up people in the name of God.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
No, Christians extremists don't strap on bomb, but they also blow people in the name of God: for instance Paul Hill, Ray Killen or "The Crusaders of Intolerance" who blew up a theater in Paris showing Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Temptation of Christ".
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
She asked "Which party gives more freedom?"
The answer would depend on your definition of freedom. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
The answer would depend on your definition of freedom.
Exactly. Which is why I said "it really depends on your political leanings how you answer that." It was a stupid answer to a loaded question. She knew there were enough people in the class that didn't agree with her and was waiting for someone to pick on for the rest of the lesson. In hindsight, I now realise that teacher was nothing more than a bully. Not the kind that would dump your head in the toilet pan, but the more dangerous psycological kind.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Nope. The British Nationalist Party has recently been invited on the Today programme and other serious UK political programs. They were, unsurprisingly, royaly buggered by the interviewers and opposing parties (In live debate). Not that most of their illiterate constituency listen to the programmes.. Their views should be publicly and loudly challenged and exposed for the idiocy that they are, not swept under the carpet to fester. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 18:43 Saturday 19th November, 2005
Is the BNP similar to the Nazis? Do they ask for genocide for instance? :confused:
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not that most of their illiterate constituency listen to the programmes
Don't they progress anyway, getting more and more votes? :~
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
You're not old enough to have a political or religious affiliation because you don't have enough life experience to form an educated opinion. When you *are* old enough to hate something more important than selected vegetables, we'll let you know. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Not at all. I don't know if you're an American or not, but freedom of speech is our most cherished right. Votaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." That sums up the American attitude towards freedom of speech better than anything I've ever read. Free speech zones suck. Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American.
Would agree then to defend the right for an Al-Qeada member to speak in the US, or for a TV channel to glorify 9/11, in the name of the Freedom of Speech?
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American.
I am glad to see you consider McCarthy and his followers are anti-americans :)
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Votaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
And the same Voltaire said also "A witty saying proves nothing" ;-P
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
-
Is the BNP similar to the Nazis? Do they ask for genocide for instance? :confused:
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not that most of their illiterate constituency listen to the programmes
Don't they progress anyway, getting more and more votes? :~
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Is the BNP similar to the Nazis?
Politically they are economically left wing, as their primary constituency is the poorer end of the white working class. They are racist and authoritarian however. I assume this is probably similar to Jean-Marie Le Penn's lot (though the BNP don't come second in general elections..)
K(arl) wrote:
Do they ask for genocide for instance
Not in public, but neither did the Nazis.
K(arl) wrote:
Don't they progress anyway, getting more and more votes?
Nope, at least not significantly, this isn't France :P. They have a few council seats in economically deprived ex mill towns with large populations of recent (1970's) immigrants. One vote is one too many though. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
You have a good point. I guess 60 years seems so long because I am young.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Think more of what happened barly 10 years ago in the old Yugoslavia. Exactly the same mindset. Attempted genoside. This is what can happen to any country at any time if we dont see the signs and stop it. Jon
-
K(arl) wrote:
Is the BNP similar to the Nazis?
Politically they are economically left wing, as their primary constituency is the poorer end of the white working class. They are racist and authoritarian however. I assume this is probably similar to Jean-Marie Le Penn's lot (though the BNP don't come second in general elections..)
K(arl) wrote:
Do they ask for genocide for instance
Not in public, but neither did the Nazis.
K(arl) wrote:
Don't they progress anyway, getting more and more votes?
Nope, at least not significantly, this isn't France :P. They have a few council seats in economically deprived ex mill towns with large populations of recent (1970's) immigrants. One vote is one too many though. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I assume this is probably similar to Jean-Marie Le Penn's lot
I wouldn't compare the Front National with Nazism, I would rather compare with Mussolini's fascism. Nazism has this particularity to be racist and bases its policy on ethnic ground.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not in public, but neither did the Nazis
It was pretty close. From the Nazi program: "Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race." "We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race." And in "Mein Kampf": "These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to be"
Ryan Roberts wrote:
though the BNP don't come second in general elections
And sometimes Le Pen's party even comes first :doh::doh::doh:
Ryan Roberts wrote:
this isn't France
Shame on us :sigh:
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Talking about freedom of speech, this[^] Napster add apparently isn't allowed in the US, but is in the UK (though I have yet to see it on TV). Might be worth 30 seconds of your time... :)
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Crime exists everywhere and in every group. You can choose to see it, or ignore it. Most people choose to ignore it as long is it could anyway relate to themselves.
How the hell can people continue to make such stupid comments? If you will pull your head out of your fat ass for long enough to actually read a few newspapers you will discover that every single instance you mentioned was punished to the full extent of the law. How does that represent ignoring anything? In our society 'Joe Normal" does'nt ignore anything, he demands fanatics be punished, he doesn't make heroes out of them. These continueing attempts to draw moral equivalency between western society and Islam is growing increasingly irksome. You, and your ilk, hate your own society for not being the Marxist utopia you wish it to be, so you try to establish false parallels between our society and others where no such parallels exist. Either that or you are a complete frigging idiot. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Jeff Brickley's comment was way off because he missed the whole point that it's religion that provides the reason for the Muslims that strap bombs to their backs, whereas most if not all of the things Jeff talked about did not have anything directly to do with religion (I think :-O) But much of so-called Christianity has given us things like The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and they even bless wars in modern times. Okay, but the same religion blesses the forces on both sides. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, apparently. I'm a Christian, FWIW, but I can find Old Testament verses that taken in isolation would infer exactly what these verses seem to imply.
Well, yes, like when the Israelites were to kill the Cannanites when they entered the promised land. But, you don't see Christians strapping on bombs and blowing up people in the name of God.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Strange that there doesn't appear to be any archaeological evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, and the cities which they are reported to have burnt to the ground when they returned have no layers of ash at the correct depth beneath them. Hmmm...makes you wonder if they ever left in the first place, or is the OT just making things up?