Forum Thread

Texas shooting, "first amendent problem

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 28 1 2 Next
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Any thoughts on the shooting at an event regarding the drawing of the prophet . Is this event covered by the First Amendment or was is it an incendiary speech which should have been censored or at least screened beforehand..
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Those right wing bigots had every right to be as bigoted as they wanted to be.

    It's sad that two assholes decided to take matters into their own hands because now right wing conservatives will use this as an example to say that all Muslims are terrorists.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dean Obeidallah, Daily Beast, May 4, 2015: Muslims Defend Pam Geller’s Right to Hate

    The Muslim community is used to Pam Geller, the self appointed Bigot-in-Chief, making all kinds of inflammatory hate talk against Muslims, and they have learned to largely ignore her. Dean Obeidallah states,

    "Plus, to be blunt, we are used to Geller, a person who has been denounced by both the Anti-Defamation league and the Southern Poverty Law Center for her anti-Muslim hate. She’s been demonizing us Muslims for years and we fully get that her goal is to provoke and demonize in the hope of inspiring a response that attracts the media attention that she so desperately craves. Indeed, Geller is so over-the-top in her rabid hatred of Muslims that she has become a punchline in our community."

    Alia Salem, head of the Dallas chapter of the Council on Islamic Relations noted that "Geller’s goal is to incite our community and rile us up, and I do not want us to give her the satisfaction or the media attention she thrives on. Without our reaction she has no story at all and no draw for the media which is what keeps her going and allows her to get publicity.”

    It's too bad that two individuals didn't heed Salem's words. It's exactly what Geller wanted.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Dean Obeidallah, Daily Beast, May 4, 2015: Muslims Defend Pam Geller’s Right to Hate

    The Muslim community is used to Pam Geller, the self appointed Bigot-in-Chief, making all kinds of inflammatory hate talk against Muslims, and they have learned to largely ignore her. Dean Obeidallah states,

    "Plus, to be blunt, we are used to Geller, a person who has been denounced by both the Anti-Defamation league and the Southern Poverty Law Center for her anti-Muslim hate. She’s been demonizing us Muslims for years and we fully get that her goal is to provoke and demonize in the hope of inspiring a response that attracts the media attention that she so desperately craves. Indeed, Geller is so over-the-top in her rabid hatred of Muslims that she has become a punchline in our community."

    Alia Salem, head of the Dallas chapter of the Council on Islamic Relations noted that "Geller’s goal is to incite our community and rile us up, and I do not want us to give her the satisfaction or the media attention she thrives on. Without our reaction she has no story at all and no draw for the media which is what keeps her going and allows her to get publicity.”

    It's too bad that two individuals didn't heed Salem's words. It's exactly what Geller wanted.
    This meeting was also about cartoons depicting the preacher Mohammed; they invited a Dutch anti Muslim guy by the name of Wilders. He's been in trouble before in the Netherlands. Anyway why only Mohammed cartoons; why not any Jesus and Buddha cartoons? Up there "they" (high in the sky) like to laugh as well at this ridiculous religious circus.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote: Dean Obeidallah, Daily Beast, May 4, 2015: Muslims Defend Pam Geller’s Right to Hate

    The Muslim community is used to Pam Geller, the self appointed Bigot-in-Chief, making all kinds of inflammatory hate talk against Muslims, and they have learned to largely ignore her. Dean Obeidallah states,

    "Plus, to be blunt, we are used to Geller, a person who has been denounced by both the Anti-Defamation league and the Southern Poverty Law Center for her anti-Muslim hate. She’s been demonizing us Muslims for years and we fully get that her goal is to provoke and demonize in the hope of inspiring a response that attracts the media attention that she so desperately craves. Indeed, Geller is so over-the-top in her rabid hatred of Muslims that she has become a punchline in our community."

    Alia Salem, head of the Dallas chapter of the Council on Islamic Relations noted that "Geller’s goal is to incite our community and rile us up, and I do not want us to give her the satisfaction or the media attention she thrives on. Without our reaction she has no story at all and no draw for the media which is what keeps her going and allows her to get publicity.”

    It's too bad that two individuals didn't heed Salem's words. It's exactly what Geller wanted.
    This meeting was also about cartoons depicting the preacher Mohammed; they invited a Dutch anti Muslim guy by the name of Wilders. He's been in trouble before in the Netherlands. Anyway why only Mohammed cartoons; why not any Jesus and Buddha cartoons? Up there "they" (high in the sky) like to laugh as well at this ridiculous religious circus.
    why not others? there is no answer to that question dutch. religion cannot be explained logically so we cannot look for logical answers regarding violent behavior that supposedly arises from religion.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem. To lonely bird's question of why not Christian symbols, there was a art show where the Mother of Christ,(Mary) was covered in feces and as well as the blood of Jesus Christ being depicted as urine, there were other displays as well regarding sanitary napkins as well, but no one was killed over the offense deemed just as blasphemous by the Christian community as drawing a carton of a prophet was to Muslims.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem.
    No JC. there is no solution; since the beginning of times people have been murdered because of religion; that will continue; it starts because "preachers" are self centered "egoists" who want to out do the others in "preaching" . About the First Amendment, ask Snowden why does it not apply to him; he did criticize our government rightfully. Censorship will not help either, because then we don't use or mouth or pen but throw bombs on any country we don't like because of communism, Muslims, Palestiniens (via Israel) or if we don't get it our way in the world. So what is worse cartoons or bombs?
    I like to add comments on the de-face of what you wrote about "Maria"; this I don't call art nor a cartoon and is wrong. If I would make a cartoon , it would be about Jesus; showing an underwater picture with bubbles coming from his mouth, with the statement: " I thought I could walk on water" or Mozes at the Hoover Dam showing he did prove he did split the river and lake water. etc. or Noah with a tipped Arc, because all the elephants wanted to see the dolphins on one side of the boat.. Here some more: A dinosaurus with a sign painted on its side stating "I'm only 6000 years old". A snake talking to Adam and giving suggestions on eating banana's instead of apples. Jesus on a rocket launching pad asking for a free ride. Etc.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem. To lonely bird's question of why not Christian symbols, there was a art show where the Mother of Christ,(Mary) was covered in feces and as well as the blood of Jesus Christ being depicted as urine, there were other displays as well regarding sanitary napkins as well, but no one was killed over the offense deemed just as blasphemous by the Christian community as drawing a carton of a prophet was to Muslims.
    Sorry, that answers nothing. What it does show us that secular law supersedes so-called religious law in the public space. That much more than anything is what the first amendment provides. Would you care to wager that there were some who would have gladly killed the so-called artist over those pieces of so-called art? I would make that bet. The difference is ingraining a cultural system that provides the protection of the first amendment. Religion killed enough people in Europe in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

    the murder of someone drawing a cartoon and labeling it Mohammed is no different than murdering an abortion provider. Both are violent political acts using the cover and cloak of religion to justify and rationalize the act.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem. To lonely bird's question of why not Christian symbols, there was a art show where the Mother of Christ,(Mary) was covered in feces and as well as the blood of Jesus Christ being depicted as urine, there were other displays as well regarding sanitary napkins as well, but no one was killed over the offense deemed just as blasphemous by the Christian community as drawing a carton of a prophet was to Muslims.
    Sorry, that answers nothing. What it does show us that secular law supersedes so-called religious law in the public space. That much more than anything is what the first amendment provides. Would you care to wager that there were some who would have gladly killed the so-called artist over those pieces of so-called art? I would make that bet. The difference is ingraining a cultural system that provides the protection of the first amendment. Religion killed enough people in Europe in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

    the murder of someone drawing a cartoon and labeling it Mohammed is no different than murdering an abortion provider. Both are violent political acts using the cover and cloak of religion to justify and rationalize the act.
    You must also include all of those killed by the secular part of society, those non and the unbelievers also contributed to quite a few murders in the name of their movement whatever it was called, Maoism (Red Guard), communinism, socialism, or any other ism you can think of. Murder was not born from religion or of a particular faith, murder is man made ,and it fills a need in some to express their hatred for someone or something, and again murder is not relegated to the religious masses but to anyone with hatred in their heart. The classification of murder, 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree, are legal terms, murder is murder, so whatever the reason whether it was for a drawing or a bad piece of art, if there was malice and intent , then it is murder.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem. To lonely bird's question of why not Christian symbols, there was a art show where the Mother of Christ,(Mary) was covered in feces and as well as the blood of Jesus Christ being depicted as urine, there were other displays as well regarding sanitary napkins as well, but no one was killed over the offense deemed just as blasphemous by the Christian community as drawing a carton of a prophet was to Muslims.
    Sorry, that answers nothing. What it does show us that secular law supersedes so-called religious law in the public space. That much more than anything is what the first amendment provides. Would you care to wager that there were some who would have gladly killed the so-called artist over those pieces of so-called art? I would make that bet. The difference is ingraining a cultural system that provides the protection of the first amendment. Religion killed enough people in Europe in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

    the murder of someone drawing a cartoon and labeling it Mohammed is no different than murdering an abortion provider. Both are violent political acts using the cover and cloak of religion to justify and rationalize the act.
    You must also include all of those killed by the secular part of society, those non and the unbelievers also contributed to quite a few murders in the name of their movement whatever it was called, Maoism (Red Guard), communinism, socialism, or any other ism you can think of. Murder was not born from religion or of a particular faith, murder is man made ,and it fills a need in some to express their hatred for someone or something, and again murder is not relegated to the religious masses but to anyone with hatred in their heart. The classification of murder, 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree, are legal terms, murder is murder, so whatever the reason whether it was for a drawing or a bad piece of art, if there was malice and intent , then it is murder.
    really? Leviticus is loaded with the death penalty for particular "sins." of course the sins aren't against God. Why should he care if you eat shellfish or wear clothing made of two different fabrics and so on for 600+ laws. No, the sins were created by the priests as a means of control and social cohesion and superiority over other tribes.

    As for murder being man-made, everything is man-made from the standpoint of building a city or planting crops or creating a religion. And man wields these things for the benefit of those who can wield them.

    killing is unacceptable. The commandment "thou shall not commit murder" is written that way because the priests realized that israel's enemies must be portrayed as sub-human and thus killing them doesn't meet the definition of murder. Only humans can be murdered. Sub-humans are simply irradicated like roaches.

    thus under the cloak of religion murder becomes acceptable and even required. Under the guise of the state it is patriotism that is used to justify murder or justice in the case of executions.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The First Amendment is a double edged sword and although it protects our right to criticize our government without fear of reprisal, it also allows for hate speech ,which can and does provoke those who hold even more extreme views then their antagonists to act out on their anger (hatred). Is there a solution other than censorship, I don't know, but there has to be a common sense solution to this problem. To lonely bird's question of why not Christian symbols, there was a art show where the Mother of Christ,(Mary) was covered in feces and as well as the blood of Jesus Christ being depicted as urine, there were other displays as well regarding sanitary napkins as well, but no one was killed over the offense deemed just as blasphemous by the Christian community as drawing a carton of a prophet was to Muslims.
    Sorry, that answers nothing. What it does show us that secular law supersedes so-called religious law in the public space. That much more than anything is what the first amendment provides. Would you care to wager that there were some who would have gladly killed the so-called artist over those pieces of so-called art? I would make that bet. The difference is ingraining a cultural system that provides the protection of the first amendment. Religion killed enough people in Europe in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics.

    the murder of someone drawing a cartoon and labeling it Mohammed is no different than murdering an abortion provider. Both are violent political acts using the cover and cloak of religion to justify and rationalize the act.
    You must also include all of those killed by the secular part of society, those non and the unbelievers also contributed to quite a few murders in the name of their movement whatever it was called, Maoism (Red Guard), communinism, socialism, or any other ism you can think of. Murder was not born from religion or of a particular faith, murder is man made ,and it fills a need in some to express their hatred for someone or something, and again murder is not relegated to the religious masses but to anyone with hatred in their heart. The classification of murder, 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree, are legal terms, murder is murder, so whatever the reason whether it was for a drawing or a bad piece of art, if there was malice and intent , then it is murder.
    really? Leviticus is loaded with the death penalty for particular "sins." of course the sins aren't against God. Why should he care if you eat shellfish or wear clothing made of two different fabrics and so on for 600+ laws. No, the sins were created by the priests as a means of control and social cohesion and superiority over other tribes.

    As for murder being man-made, everything is man-made from the standpoint of building a city or planting crops or creating a religion. And man wields these things for the benefit of those who can wield them.

    killing is unacceptable. The commandment "thou shall not commit murder" is written that way because the priests realized that israel's enemies must be portrayed as sub-human and thus killing them doesn't meet the definition of murder. Only humans can be murdered. Sub-humans are simply irradicated like roaches.

    thus under the cloak of religion murder becomes acceptable and even required. Under the guise of the state it is patriotism that is used to justify murder or justice in the case of executions.
    Lonely well formulated; compliments; yes I fully agree.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lonely , you continue to think that religion is the sole cause of most if not all killings, you particularly seem to single out the Christian faith, which did it's fair share of killing, but certaintly not the most, , why the extreme dislike of religions? If they all went away do you really think this world would become a Utopia. There is no need to highlight biblical passages to make your point, why not use passages from the Koran or the Torah, , or is your bias showing ? This thread is about the First Amendment and not about who killed the most, I mentioned that the 1st Amendment is a double edged sword, it cuts both ways, and if there is a way to diminish the downside , then I like to hear about it, other than censorship of course,
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Lonely , you continue to think that religion is the sole cause of most if not all killings, you particularly seem to single out the Christian faith, which did it's fair share of killing, but certaintly not the most,
    This is not true. Christianity is directly responsible for more deaths than any other religion. Actually, Christianity is directly responsible for more deaths than any other religion combined. Christians love killing in the name of their God.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is not any actual numbers of deaths due to Christianity only guess-estimates , although so many were counted as war dead because their deaths were seen as a by product of war such as Disease, Famine, the resultant lawlessness that ensued when local governments fell. The Crusades are a perfect example of the objective being lost in the fog of war, the mission was to capture or re-capture Jeruselum, depending on which historical account you read, but the wars dragged on for years with several Crusades being fought, both sides suffered heavy causalities . The numbers differ because there was no accurate counting going on, so much was inflated and at times the numbers were dumbed down , imagine for morale reasons. There was an obscure war fought in China, when someone assumed himself to be Divine (another Christ?) and attempted to oust the Emperor, that war was said to have lasted for 3 decades and the total death drought about is in the neighborhood of 20 million, was this a true accounting or propaganda, now prior to Christians , the Hebrews warred with every desert tribe to carve out a kingdom for themselves , again no accurate reporting, before them, there were several religions that human sacrifice was a must, even the Azetec's practiced human sacrifice, so to say that there are accurate figures as to who can claim the dubious distinction of having the most killed in the name of God is borderline surreal
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Lonely , you continue to think that religion is the sole cause of most if not all killings, you particularly seem to single out the Christian faith, which did it's fair share of killing, but certaintly not the most, , why the extreme dislike of religions? If they all went away do you really think this world would become a Utopia. There is no need to highlight biblical passages to make your point, why not use passages from the Koran or the Torah, , or is your bias showing ? This thread is about the First Amendment and not about who killed the most, I mentioned that the 1st Amendment is a double edged sword, it cuts both ways, and if there is a way to diminish the downside , then I like to hear about it, other than censorship of course,
    you fail continuously but as a religionist that is not surprising. Religion, period, is used as a cloak for violence. I have said this.

    And as for the first amendment you wheedled religion into the picture as you generally do.

    i don't expect religion to go away as man is not wired in that manner. I don't expect utopia as man is not wired that way. What i do expect is that religion does not inform secular law. When religion does do so beyond simply saying "don't kill, don't steal" outside the context of a particular religious viewpoint based upon tribalism then I have a problem.