Is this freedom of speech or inciting violence?

LoAmmi · Jun 10, 2013

pure water said:
I really hope nobody would mock with one another on any subject including religion. But if you think they can do that if they please, then we have different opinion which I have to disagree.

Well, the problem is what line do we draw? Some among the Muslims would be offended if I said Muhammad wasn't a prophet and not someone to be followed. Or if it was said that he was a fraud and a liar.

Should those statements not be accepted in society because they mock?

What about holy books that mock? The NT and the Quran both basically say my religion is wrong and the Jews are bad and such. What if I'm offended by those? Should they be removed?

pure water · Jun 10, 2013

LoAmmi said:
Well, the problem is what line do we draw? Some among the Muslims would be offended if I said Muhammad wasn't a prophet and not someone to be followed. Or if it was said that he was a fraud and a liar.

Should those statements not be accepted in society because they mock?

What about holy books that mock? The NT and the Quran both basically say my religion is wrong and the Jews are bad and such. What if I'm offended by those? Should they be removed?

Mocking and stating one's belief is very different.
Mocking is when one's stating their belief in a way that I believe we all know how mockery is and it's done in intention to make fun of other's. If it's unintentionally, then there's no reason not to forgive and forget.

But doing repetitively after saying sorry, then one will question his/her sincerity.

ViaCrucis · Jun 10, 2013

I absolutely loath the hate-filled rhetoric of hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and other Christian Identity/White Supremacist groups and I will always voice my opposition against their hate; but I will defend their right to speak, even if I hate everything they say and everything they represent.

That said, if my words are intended to incite and influence active violence against someone, then I should be held accountable to my words. I'm free to espouse my hate, I'm not free to participate in active violence against somebody else. It's a fine line, yes, which is why we should be very, very careful that we don't tread upon Free Speech. It should be demonstrable that one's words are responsible.

But if I call upon others to do my dirty work for me, I should be held accountable, I shouldn't get a free pass.

-CryptoLutheran

simplegifts · Jun 23, 2013

Just ran across an interesting article:

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100606-27673.html
Religious Muslim boys more violent, study says
A study that shows boys growing up in religious Muslim families are more likely to be violent seems set to reignite the debate over religion and integration, a media report said on Sunday.
Published: 6 Jun 10 11:48 CET
The study, which involved intensive questioning of 45,000 teenagers from 61 towns and regions across the country, was conducted by Christian Pfeiffer of the criminal research institute of Lower Saxony.

Pfeiffer said he was dismayed by the results, and told the Süddeutsche Zeitung he was a strong critic of political campaigns which painted foreigners as criminals – such as those led by Roland Koch and Thilo Sarrazin.

Pfeiffer’s work took into account the level of education and standard of living in the families of the children – aged between 14 and 16 – who were questioned. He also asked them how religious they considered themselves, and how integrated they felt in Germany.

Pfeiffer said that even when other social factors were taken into account, there remained a significant correlation between religiosity and readiness to use violence. There were some positive correlations too he said, noting that young religious Muslims were much less likely than their non-Muslim counterparts to drink alcohol – or to steal from shops.

The increased likelihood to use violence was restricted to Muslim boys Pfeiffer said – Muslim girls were just as likely to be violent as non-Muslim girls.

This led him to conclude that there was not a direct link between Islamic belief and violence – but an indirect one. He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time.

His researchers asked the teenagers a range of questions about their ideas of manliness, for example whether they thought a man was justified in hitting his wife if she had been unfaithful. They also asked about what media and computer game violence they were exposed to, as well as whether their friends were involved in crime or violence.

The results showed that Muslim boys from immigrant families were more than twice as likely to agree with macho statements than boys from Christian immigrant families. The rate was highest among those considered as very religious, Pfeiffer said. They were also more likely to be using violent computer games and have criminal friends.

Added to that, the more religious Muslim boys felt the least integrated into German society, with only 14.5 percent of the very religious Turkish boys (the largest group of Muslims in the study) saying they felt German, although 88.5 percent had been born here.

Pfeiffer said he thought the responsibility for the macho culture lay with Imams in Germany, who he said usually come from abroad and often cannot speak German or have much understanding of the culture.

"We have to prevent attempts at integration from being destroyed by Imams who preach Turkish provincial stories and a reactionary male image," said Pfeiffer.

He also called for Germans to reconsider how they treat Muslims, saying that since the September 11 attacks in 2001, there had been a damaging loss of trust.

"Exclusion starts already when the Muslim child is not invited to a birthday party," he said.
-----

This led him to conclude that there was not a direct link between Islamic belief and violence – but an indirect one. He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time.

male dominance of society? Absolutely! Christian teachings which justified domestic violence ? Where!?

simplegifts · Jun 25, 2013

Is this a joke?

https://www.facebook.com/Muhammadmyideal
Behead Those Who Disrespect Our Prophet P.B.U.H

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

WoodrowLi said:
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

What is cited before is more than offensive and inflammatory speech, it is citing violence.

or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam.

Again, the above constitutes more than criticism.

While threats directed at individuals or small groups can lead to punishment

Really? And just how small does the group have to be to be protected from terroristic threats?

The mainstream media has taken little notice, but at rallies in America and Europe this week protesting Israels actions in Gaza, protesters have more than once declared how happy they would be if the Jews were simply wiped out once and for all.

You can't put America and Europe together here. Europeans don't have a Bill of Rights and there are more controls on hate speech than they are here.

Los Angeles: Muslim demonstrators in front of the Israeli Consulate chanted, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" a vision that can only be realized by the total destruction of Israel.

You do realize that Christian Palestinians share the same sentiments? They both want their country back. Can you really blame them?

They waved the flag of the jihad terrorist group Hizballah.

That's odd. Israel's action against Gaza was aimed at Hamas not the Hizbullah.

To cheers from other demonstrators, some shouted, "Long live Hitler! Put Jews in ovens! Jews are fossil fuel!"
Fort Lauderdale: Leftist and Muslim demonstrators chanted, "Nuke, nuke Israel!" One yelled: "Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven, thats what you need!"

There is a distinction between calling for the destruction of Israel and promoting the genocide of Jews. I remember Senator McCain making jokes about bombing Iran in 2008 which would be the equivalent to what the demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale were doing. Praising the Holocaust, is an entirely different thing.

While not everyone at these rallies expressed genocidal sentiments, it is noteworthy that there is no record of anyone who said these things being rebuked by his fellow demonstrators

In my experience Muslims rebuke this behavior all the time, but the media never records it.

Ugly demonstrations have been an unfortunate but recurring feature of public life in America for decades, but open calls for genocide are something new.

Apparently you never heard of the KKK. Right now there is someone on Theology Web who claims to be Christian who promotes the genocide of black people. Nothing is done to stop this person.

If American and European officials dont react quickly now, the next round of demonstrations by the friends and allies of the global Islamic jihad will only be worse.

The US is unlikely to abandon the First Amendment any time soon. Europe has more flexibility in this regard.

LoAmmi · Jun 25, 2013

smaneck said:
You do realize that Christian Palestinians share the same sentiments? They both want their country back. Can you really blame them?

Well, I can see why they'd want their land back, which is why the area is disputed territory, but I have no idea why they would want England to return to ruling the region.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

LoAmmi said:
Well, I can see why they'd want their land back, which is why the area is disputed territory, but I have no idea why they would want England to return to ruling the region.

Shouldn't you be suggesting they return it to the Turks? The British were given a temporary mandate to ready the area for self-rule.

But I agree, in the end the mess in the Middle East is the Brits fault.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

WoodrowLi said:
Pfeiffer said that even when other social factors were taken into account, there remained a significant correlation between religiosity and readiness to use violence.

I think such a correlation would be found in the US if one were to look at Evangelical Christians.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

football5680 said:
We should be able to say whatever we want. Muslims are not a special group of people. They should not get what they want just because they will become violent.

We are talking about a facebook picture inciting violence *against* Muslims.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

MagicSabbath said:
Muslims can't even find peace in the faith with one another.

Gee, sounds just like historical Christianity.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

TangoSprite said:
I'm familiar with the court case that someone posted in this thread. I think the U.S. attorney that's seeking to rewrite the Constitution in the name of Islam should be investigated for their poor grasp of Constitutional law.

So far I haven't seen he was trying to do anything but stop terroristic threats which the First Amendment has never protected.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

TangoSprite said:
No, you seem to enjoy bashing people who speak contrary to what you approve.
That is quite in keeping with the OP's description of the Islam agenda.

You do realize she is a Jew?

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

pure water said:
As part of the society (well, I'm not an American but I do live in a multi-religious country i.e: Malaysia), I support any action to ban offensive and inflammatory speech not just about Islam, but also about any faith, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc and etc.

This has been the case in nearly all the countries that were formerly part of the British Empire. It would have been impossible for them to keep peace between the various religious communities any other way. However, the US has been so zealous in their defense of the First Amendment that they have allowed things like the Neo-Nazis and the KKK to hold demonstrations in Skokie, Ill where many Holocaust survivors were still living. That's why Muslims should keep their cool when they hear about things like Qur'an burnings, etc. being done in the US. Under our Constitution this sort of thing is literally impossible to prevent. If they deface a mosque, however, this is a different problem and unfortunately in Tennessee, which is what this OP is about, there has been a lot of that.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

pure water said:
Yes I understand that. But even so, why can't we express it in the way that is not offensive? I believe there's a wide line between respectful and mockery.

There isn't a nice way to accuse Muhammad of being a pedophile. Of course, one might as well accuse Abraham of incest (because he married his sister.)

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

LoAmmi said:
Well, the problem is what line do we draw? Some among the Muslims would be offended if I said Muhammad wasn't a prophet and not someone to be followed. Or if it was said that he was a fraud and a liar.

Should those statements not be accepted in society because they mock?

I think we have to make a distinction between what is 'acceptable' in society and what is legal. The N-word is not acceptable in our society but you can't make it illegal under the First Amendment.

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
That said, if my words are intended to incite and influence active violence against someone, then I should be held accountable to my words.

So the question then is whether a Facebook picture showing someone aiming a gun and saying 'wink at a Muslim' is not crossing the line into inciting violence?

Lovely Jar · Jun 25, 2013

This isn't really all that surprising that someone would think one group requires special protection that others don't receive.

Maybe it's because the fear Terrorism exacts is having an effect. Like, Stockholm syndrome, only with Islam it's: Don't tick off the radicals!

LoAmmi said:
So what? If a thread makes it a special point to single out one group, it doesn't mean it can't be brought up that the reason they don't get special protection is because nobody gets special attention. Yes, I get that a lot of people love the Islam bashing, but I don't.

No religion gets special treatment. That is the way it should be.

What you're clearly not understanding is that Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee wants to give special protection to one group.

Lovely Jar · Jun 25, 2013

smaneck said:
There isn't a nice way to accuse Muhammad of being a pedophile. Of course, one might as well accuse Abraham of incest (because he married his sister.)

It's not an accusation when it's a fact. It doesn't matter if it was 2000 years ago or yesterday. Some man marries his sister, it's incest. Some guy marries a 6 to 9 year old, as Aisha's age is disputed but she was no more than 10, it's pedophilia.

What do we think life after the flood with only Noah's immediate family to repopulate the earth was?

smaneck · Jun 25, 2013

Lovely Jar said:
What you're clearly not understanding is that Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee wants to give special protection to one group.

And your evidence that he would deny this protection to others is?

Is this freedom of speech or inciting violence?

Dispassionate

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Newbie

Baha'i

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Pray Out Loud

Pray Out Loud

Baha'i

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency