Islam and Free Speech: Principle vs. Privilege

reply to post by skalla

I have an issue with bigotry and the use of propaganda to reinforce prejudice which i see as a way to purposefully further division rather than to increase shared understanding and the ability to live in peace.

Which is exactly what this is about - propaganda. Every single time someone posts 'the truth' as they see it they move one step closer to accomplishing their goal. This campaign against Muslims is transparent - and ultimately it brings about the very things they claim to be fighting

I see no difference between this anti-Islamic bigotry we hear and see today and the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Nazi Germany

It's despicable

The only thing we can do is call it as we see it - they are what they are

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101


Please do not try to act moronic.

It's not an act!

Every nation has its own constitution and rules of law, even in dictatorships.

True. But other nations laws and edicts should hold no sway onto other countries laws.

If it is punishable by death to insult a religious figure in a country, then that's all well and good.

But that country has no right to impose itself, when another country has laws that provides the freedom to insult.

Originally posted by beezzer

But that country has no right to impose itself, when another country has laws

Your sentence made sense Beez, after I removed the Babble at the End.
Coming from you a Military Man , Beez , That dserves a Hands up.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
This campaign against Muslims is transparent - and ultimately it brings about the very things they claim to be fighting

I see no difference between this anti-Islamic bigotry we hear and see today and the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Nazi Germany

It's despicable

The only thing we can do is call it as we see it - they are what they are

agreed, sometimes i am left thinking that there are posters here who appear to me too intelligent to be racist or blindly prejudiced, but are anyway. maybe my mistake is assuming that a certain level of eloquence equates to the use of reason and the possession of fair-mindedness.

why else use the methods and sources presented?

reply to post by skalla

why else use the methods and sources presented?

Because they're not interested in trying to win over you or me skalla -

It's like cold calling - it's a numbers game. There will always be a certain amount of people that hadn't really thought about the subject before - and those people might think they're mkaing a good argument. With enough numbers you arrive at consensus - which requires even less thinking from the individual

I imagine that there were many in other situations throughout history that were swayed this way and that because it was easier than questioning. Data looks like authentic hard work to anyone that doesn't want to bother to question how they got that data - news links look like true stories to people that don't think about the source

What I've never understood is this need to destroy. It's obvious this is what they're after - they hide it in a search for 'truth' and need for defense and protection. People who profess love for their brothers and sisters while plotting their demise...

While i don't agree with an attack on Americans freedom of speech. He does have a point that i would like to see implemented in our government and media. They should not be able to tell lies to further a political agenda. The fact is that our media has turned into a political power base for the Liberal agenda. The people no longer get to choose our elected officials due to media bias and blatant lies from politicians. If this is not stopped we will become a third world nation and will be ruled by a dictatorship. Civil War will become a reality if this problem is not reigned in. It is inevitable.

Originally posted by skalla

it does not surprise me, i am simply disappointed that you present information from a discredited polling organisation, via a reknowned fundamentalist christian rag as being reputable.

Wenzel Strategies is not a discredited polling organization.

Rather Wenzel Strategies ran an Obama birther-related poll that showed that 41.5% of respondents agreed "Obama should release all records, including long-form birth certificate".

This has resulted in a weak attack on Wenzel Strategies by a contributor on the Huffington Post's blog.

Huffington Post: The Blog

The blogger is upset at the above 41.5% figure. The blogger doesn't allege that 41.5% is wrong in any way, he just object to a further 5 questions being asked ("I am not concerned," "questions not valid," "Obama has met requirements," "Obama has answered all questions" and "requirements outdated -- should be ignored.") rather than only one further question that asks "Obama shouldn't release all records, including long-form birth certificate".

It is a very weak and blatantly politically motivated attack.

I am quite disappointed that you have taken such blatant political partisanism by a blogger seriously.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
If he refuses to listen, shows no remorse, then and only then should the FULL weight of the law be hurled upon him, in a court for justice to be served if others were hurt and harmed by either such intentional outburst, or those whom sought to use violence FIRST to shut up the ignorant and the quick of tongue.

Scary stuff. Freedom of speech according to you is no freedom of speech at all.

Harris Zafar, National Spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA took a similar tack. Yes you are free to say anything you want unless it offends Muslims.

reply to post by ollncasino


It's funny how some will hide behind the 1st Amendment to deny others their 1st Amendment rights.

Like it or not, there are people and ideologies in the world who deserve to be insulted sometimes. Personaly, I feel that to ban insults is in itself insulting. To not be allowed to express themselves freely degrades human beings far more than any insult could.

reply to post by Maslo


We've gone a few bouts on different threads. I may disagree with you, but I would never endorse shutting you up.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
This campaign against Muslims is transparent - and ultimately it brings about the very things they claim to be fighting

Telling the truth and exposing that some Muslims do not want freedom of speech for others, while at the same time demanding freedom of speech for themselves, is not a 'campaign against muslims'. It's just stating the truth of the matter. And no .. it' isn't 'my truth' ... it's just truth.

I'd rather that everyone have freedom of speech and have people say things I disagree with, then have everyone subjected to some silly anti-free-speech religious rules that at least 5/6 of the planet doesn't agree with.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

I see no difference between this anti-Islamic bigotry we hear and see today and the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Nazi Germany.

It's despicable.

Godwin's law

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility

Link

If you are comparing discussing polls showing American and British Muslims opposing free speech with the Nazi persecution of Jews, then that isn't despicable. It's disgusting.

The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and you try to trivalise it by equating people debating a couple of polls to the Holocaust?

What is wrong with you?

reply to post by ollncasino

I'm all for freedom of speech. The National Spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the USA is only for free speech as long as Islam doesn't find it insulting and as long as it doesn't prevent us all from unifying under a single banner of peace. I don't want to be unified under the single banner of Islam.

I've never been entirely sure whether you're American, English - or other ollncasino
From your link:

Rather than falsely accusing Islam of censorship, let us understand the beauty of giving higher consideration to mankind over our own personal privileges. And let us listen to the wisdom of the Khalifa of Islam, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who said, "Let it not be that in the name of freedom of speech, the peace of the entire world be destroyed."

However you want to view what he said in this piece - that's up to you. But it's an opinion piece - he's not calling for anything other than a greater understanding of where Islam stands on - freedom of speech. If he disagrees with our approach - so what?

Nobody is trying to 'unify' you under Islam. You live - as do I - in a country where our laws are established and (mostly) protected. Freedom of speech needs to be defended - but the real threats come from within - not without

Rather than show respect for another individuals right to speak his mind, you've chosen to use it as a tool to cast aspersions and vilify - once again

Are you really so afraid of what Mr. Zafar has to say?

What's your plan - Stan?

:-)

reply to post by FlyersFan


And yet you are ever speaking out against the Muslims FlyersFan

I wonder why

reply to post by ollncasino

The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and you try to trivalise it by equating people debating a couple of polls to the Holocaust?

I equate it to a systematic and continuing campaign

And yes - I'll say it again. The politicians and ordinary citizens in Germany in those years before the Holocaust were talking the same talk and walking the same walk. I see no difference. No doubt they all thought they had their reasons - they could all agree on certain things - the Jews became the problem

They came to see and believe the same truth

This forum and this site comes with a large audience ollncasino - I make no mistake - you are preaching

And you are recruiting

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Rather than show respect for another individuals right to speak his mind, you've chosen to use it as a tool to cast aspersions and vilify - once again

So I should respect a Muslim arguing to remove my freedom of speech, on the basis of freedom of speech, but you object to me arguing against it?

Your logic is very, very special.

Originally posted by ollncasino

I am quite disappointed that you have taken such blatant political partisanism by a blogger seriously.

well we are disappointed in each other, i'm sure neither of us are surprised by this. i also find this refernce to sources from you somewhat rich considering your heavy use of grubby sources in many threads and posts - unsurprisingly/disappointingly i will of course reference WND and areligionofpeace which you have used ad nauseam

i did however state that simply examining the poll in WND would reveal this, i've picked apart that particular poll and WND's reporting/editorial of it previously and as it was ignored by you in the thread where this was done previously, it would clearly be a waste of time me doing so again.
it still leaves the question of why a non christian would use a fundamentalist christian source (high in overt bias) to present a balanced picture, and my question as to why you would do this - unless you seek to present an unbalanced picture, and the reasons as to why you would do this

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I equate it to a systematic and continuing campaign

And yes - I'll say it again. The politicians and ordinary citizens in Germany in those years before the holocaust were talking the same talk and walking the same walk. I see no difference. No doubt they all thought they had their reasons - they could all agree on certain things - the Jews became the problem

They came to see and believe the same truth

The truth is, many Muslims holds views that are incompatible with freedom of speech. Why you think being a Muslim gives them immunity from criticism is beyond me.

reply to post by ollncasino


I have a problem with weaponized-speech

And I'll use my freedom to speak to speak out against it every single chance I get

It really is quite special

And we are fortunate - you and I - that we can have this kind of conversation

:-)