2 of 4
2
3rd Annual - Everybody Draw Muhhammed Day
Posted: 17 May 2013 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2698
Joined  2011-04-24

Wikipedia has a link to some descriptions of Mohammed’s appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Appearance


I find the “Draw Mohammed” day thing to be childish and unfunny. It’s understandable if Muslims are challenging a non - Muslim on their own (non-Muslim) turf, but to do it simply to cause annoyance is immature.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 17 May 2013 11:21 PM

I will be the first to defend anyone’s right to hold their own religious beliefs, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered while Americans have valued and respected religious freedom.

I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of ‘‘freedom of speech’‘.
That is a slightly debated topic even in the US (or at least made controversial thanks to the history channel).
So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech.  Most people I know use the 10 ammendments from the US constitution as their reference.
They are secular and interesting clauses to study.  So I am curious to know if you agree with this or not. Whats your view on using the constituion as a reference?

I’ve been a number of places around the world, and I have encountered a number of views. You could sort of say I have a mashed collection from each place.

I am really curious to know what everyone here thinks.

 

 

BTW: I do NOT use the history channel as a source reference, I’ve come to realize that it is trustworthy in virtually everything EXCEPT history.

What makes you think we think there should be any limit on free speech except for the old canard about not shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? All political speech should be completely free. That’s what the writers of the US Constitution meant when they wrote the First Amendment. They wanted all citizens to be able to criticize the government, unlike the situation in England and its posessions at the time when it was against the law to criticize a king.

If you want anyone to accept your opinion about the History Channel, or any history, you’ll have to make a specific criticism of the history as it’s presented, and support it with documented facts. Such a broad, unsupported accusation makes you look completely ignorant.

I suspect you just don’t like what they have to say.  That doesn’t mean they’re wrong.  You have to show some evidence.

......

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3204
Joined  2011-08-15

IDK, most of the Jesus’s in that Icon gallery looked white.

Gee Mike, I wonder why?  wink


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 02:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3189
Joined  2011-11-04
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 17 May 2013 11:21 PM

...So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech…

When we consider limits, we are necessarily considering extreme instances.

Here are 1) an extreme example of outrageous speech that is constitutionally protected, and
2) an extreme example of outrageous speech that is not constitutionally protected : 

1) In the U.S., if a group of folks, such as those from the Westboro Baptist Church are on a public sidewalk, but standing purposefully near, a funeral ceremony for a serviceman who was a homosexual, carry signs that say “God Hates Fags”, with the obvious intent of inflicting emotional distress on others so as to draw attention to their view that homosexuality is wrong…

I, personally think that this is an outrageous use of the right of free speech, but it is protected speech since it is a demonstration on a public sidewalk and involves a public issue.

2)  If I were present at such an event, with a group who were not supportive of the Westboro views, and I intentionally spoke to my group in such a way as to incite them to, very likely, immediately physically attack those Westboro religious nut-bags, then my speech, that I used to incite my cohorts, would not be protected speech.

[ Edited: 18 May 2013 03:44 AM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 02:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3204
Joined  2011-08-15

[I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of ‘‘freedom of speech’‘.
That is a slightly debated topic even in the US (or at least made controversial thanks to the history channel).
So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech.  Most people I know use the 10 ammendments from the US constitution as their reference.
They are secular and interesting clauses to study.  So I am curious to know if you agree with this or not. Whats your view on using the constituion as a reference?/quote]

I believe that question was answered by Supreme Court Justuce Oliver Wendall Holmes. He, as you may recall is the justice who used the analogy of shouting fire in a croweded theater. Briefly, it meant that any speech that presents a clear and present danger to the public is illegal. The Constitution makes no refence to the abridgment of religion, any religion for that matter, as long as the dogma does NOT seek to limit the rights of any U.S. citizen. BTW, the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from any future excess of power by our own government. And they are secular for a reason I.e. the founders wanted no particular religious sect to unduly influence the passage of future laws as some states still had religious requirements and had, in the past persecuted other xtian groups and limited their right to govern by denying them right to vote or hold office e.g. The Quakers in Mass. As to Islam, the mosques will remain open and all muslims are allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here. I was being facetious in my earlier post about drawing a picture of Mohammad. I really don’t care what he looks like; it doesn’t concern me at all. I’m not a Muslim; it’s not my cultural background so I have absolutely no emotional connection to it as I would have to the secular laws here. I’m an atheist and a secular humanist. I don’t know you but if we were neighbors I would personally respect your right to privacy and to practice your belief system as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right not to. In fact my neighbors are fundamentalist xtians and we get along as neighbors and friends. Because… ?


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Another irony is that Muslims don’t know their own dogma.

A lot of Christians don’t either. Not really surprising. I suspect that if a lot of people knew what their religion was really all about, they would drop it like a hot rock, and kick all the priests, rabbies, shamans, imams, mullahs, pastors, and witch doctors to the curb.

Or at least they would until another cult came along which appealed to them.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3189
Joined  2011-11-04
mid atlantic - 17 May 2013 11:23 PM

Wikipedia has a link to some descriptions of Mohammed’s appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Appearance


I find the “Draw Mohammed” day thing to be childish and unfunny. It’s understandable if Muslims are challenging a non - Muslim on their own (non-Muslim) turf, but to do it simply to cause annoyance is immature.

May 20th, Everybody Draw Muhhamed Day initially got started because of death threats by some Muslim/s against a couple of American cartoonists who had depicted Muhammed in one of their TV cartoon episodes.  (I don’t think Comedy Central ever even allowed that episode to be aired.)  For more details, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

I, personally loathe the idea that religious zealots could have the power to censor any American’s freedom of expression by threatening to murder them.  I think that sentiment is shared by many, and is probably why the “movement” took off.

Is it childish and only marginally funny? Yeah. Is it crass, annoying to some, deeply emotionally distressful to others?  Apparently.  Is it a legitimate counter-response to those who would seek to control other’s expression by threats of murder?  I think so.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 10:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 18 May 2013 02:58 AM

[I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of ‘‘freedom of speech’‘.
That is a slightly debated topic even in the US (or at least made controversial thanks to the history channel).
So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech.  Most people I know use the 10 ammendments from the US constitution as their reference.
They are secular and interesting clauses to study.  So I am curious to know if you agree with this or not. Whats your view on using the constituion as a reference?/quote]

I believe that question was answered by Supreme Court Justuce Oliver Wendall Holmes. He, as you may recall is the justice who used the analogy of shouting fire in a croweded theater. Briefly, it meant that any speech that presents a clear and present danger to the public is illegal. The Constitution makes no refence to the abridgment of religion, any religion for that matter, as long as the dogma does NOT seek to limit the rights of any U.S. citizen. BTW, the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from any future excess of power by our own government. And they are secular for a reason I.e. the founders wanted no particular religious sect to unduly influence the passage of future laws as some states still had religious requirements and had, in the past persecuted other xtian groups and limited their right to govern by denying them right to vote or hold office e.g. The Quakers in Mass. As to Islam, the mosques will remain open and all muslims are allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here. I was being facetious in my earlier post about drawing a picture of Mohammad. I really don’t care what he looks like; it doesn’t concern me at all. I’m not a Muslim; it’s not my cultural background so I have absolutely no emotional connection to it as I would have to the secular laws here. I’m an atheist and a secular humanist. I don’t know you but if we were neighbors I would personally respect your right to privacy and to practice your belief system as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right not to. In fact my neighbors are fundamentalist xtians and we get along as neighbors and friends. Because… ?


Cap’t Jack


You wrote: “As to Islam, the mosques will remain open and all muslims are allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here.”

Why do you think it doesn’t work like that when it comes to Christians?

Lois

[ Edited: 20 May 2013 12:25 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3189
Joined  2011-11-04
Lois - 18 May 2013 10:59 PM

You wrote: “As to Islam, the mosques will remain open and all muslims are allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here.”

Why do you think it doesn’t work like that when it comes to Christians?

Lois

Generally speaking, it does.  To the extent that it doesn’t, it is probably due to Christians making up the vast majority of citizens here.  Trust me, things would be much worse for us, if Muslims were the vast majority.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 19 May 2013 10:38 AM
Lois - 18 May 2013 10:59 PM

You wrote: “As to Islam, the mosques will remain open and all muslims are allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here.”

Why do you think it doesn’t work like that when it comes to Christians?

Lois

Generally speaking, it does.  To the extent that it doesn’t, it is probably due to Christians making up the vast majority of citizens here.  Trust me, things would be much worse for us, if Muslims were the vast majority.

Yes, I know.  It’s just that Christians have never backed away from making rules for others that they would never impose upon themselves. 

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3189
Joined  2011-11-04

I would be hard pressed to say which religion would take the prize for hypocrisy (within their own theology).  In terms of sheer amount, the Christians would probably take the cake.  In terms of extremity of hypocritical behavior (in today’s world) Muslims might have a shot at the prize.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3189
Joined  2011-11-04

Also, Lois, when you reply to quotes, please be careful with the quotation references, so that in your reply, it doesn’t come out looking like you said something that I said, or vice versa.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3204
Joined  2011-08-15

Why do you think it doesn’t work like that when it comes to Christians?


What exactly do you mean Lois? Here or in the Middle East?

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 08:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 19 May 2013 12:12 PM

Also, Lois, when you reply to quotes, please be careful with the quotation references, so that in your reply, it doesn’t come out looking like you said something that I said, or vice versa.

I know.  I try to do it right every time but I sometimes get it wrong.  This is the hardest discussion group to respond to correctly. Others are not nearly so difficult. I’m pretty computer literate but this one defeats me.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 19 May 2013 06:21 PM

Why do you think it doesn’t work like that when it comes to Christians?


What exactly do you mean Lois? Here or in the Middle East?

 

Cap’t Jack

I mean here. Christians seldom see themselves as being “allowed to practice their belief so long as it doesn’t in any way interfere with the rights of any other citizen here.” They apparently want to impose that restriction on other religions, especially Muslims. Christians impose their religion everywhere, it seems to me, and they seldom see it as interfering with the rights of other citizens. Just as one instance, they erect gigantic crosses on war memorials on public land as if all of the people who die in war are Christians.  Check out the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego, California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

There have been many other similar instances.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
‹‹ Japanese Mayor Controversy      Cuba is gay ››