Beheading in France

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
You will all be submitting to Sharia law within a few more decades.

Dream on Nostradamus dream on!
The chief danger from the insane actions of these Islamic radical nut-jobs is that they will engender a further growth of the more extremist right-wing political parties.
Even before this latest atrocity it was already happening in Sweden, France and Germany to name just a few.
Rock and hard place time!

n7axw wrote:This also can be taken as a free speech matter. I would fight for your right to be rude to me. But there are also certain things you don't do. For example you don't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's illegal even here in America where we binge out on free speech.

-

Actually, that ISN'T illegal in the US. Many people falsely believe it to be so, but it isn't true.

zyffyr wrote:

n7axw wrote:This also can be taken as a free speech matter. I would fight for your right to be rude to me. But there are also certain things you don't do. For example you don't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's illegal even here in America where we binge out on free speech.

-

Actually, that ISN'T illegal in the US. Many people falsely believe it to be so, but it isn't true.

Thanks for the comment... But specify; on a state level, a federal level or both? You would be right to say that I was assuming...

Don

n7axw wrote:Thanks for the comment... But specify; on a state level, a federal level or both? You would be right to say that I was assuming...

Don

The idea that it is illegal originates in a 1919 Supreme Court case, which contains a comment that it would be illegal to "falsely yell fire in a theater" in order to create a panic.

A few years later, the author of that decision indicated that he was wrong on both the result of the case and that line specifically. Had he not retired from the bench he would have been happy to vote to overturn it.

In 1969, the Supreme Court heard another 1st amendment case where it severely limited the 1919 ruling in such a way that the fire in a theater thing wouldn't be consistent with the new ruling.

Since this is a 1st Amendment issue, and the Incorporation doctrine holds that such any limits imposed by the bill of right also apply at the state level, it is both a Federal and State thing.

Now, there was a time where it WAS true, but only in cases where the fire claim was false and done in a context where it was likely to cause a problem. If, as an example, the theater was hosting live act that interacted with the audience, and the shout of Fire was a part of that interaction then it wouldn't be a problem.

In regard to the Sharia law matter. A few years back I flew from London to Dubai, and strangely was sat in a row with two Moslem females in full hijabs. The full black, look out through a tiny slit works. Obviously mother and daughter. The daughter was listening to western hard rock on her headphones, and I could see through the slit was fully made up. That one will rebel.
I dislike all religions, Islam more than most, and loathe the hard core fundamentalist version, however can see that apart from a hard core we will seduce their young into our lifestyle over time.
Sure there will always be a few terrorist incidents, but overall they don't threaten our societies.

Daryl wrote:In regard to the Sharia law matter. A few years back I flew from London to Dubai, and strangely was sat in a row with two Moslem females in full hijabs. The full black, look out through a tiny slit works. Obviously mother and daughter. The daughter was listening to western hard rock on her headphones, and I could see through the slit was fully made up. That one will rebel.
I dislike all religions, Islam more than most, and loathe the hard core fundamentalist version, however can see that apart from a hard core we will seduce their young into our lifestyle over time.
Sure there will always be a few terrorist incidents, but overall they don't threaten our societies.

The hard core fundamentalist version of any religion can incite to violence although one must remember that fundamentalist does not equal extremist.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I suppose my post could have been taken as blaming the victim, although I wasn't thinking of it that way. The teacher certainly didn't deserve to die over the matter.

This also can be taken as a free speech matter. I would fight for your right to be rude to me. But there are also certain things you don't do. For example you don't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's illegal even here in America where we binge out on free speech. That's basically what the teacher did. I completely fail to see the "educational value" in a picture of Muhammad naked, especially in front of a group of kids whose native culture had conditioned them to see that as blasphemy worthy of death. I'm sorry Dilandu, but that doesn't make any sense. There can be a difference between being simply controversial and being outright offensive. I might have the right to be offensive, but is it wise?

I completely agree with your emphatic statement on the value of life and am glad to see it. There we can come together.

Don
-

I want to apologize for my rudeness, but what you said really triggered me.

When it comes to educating students, you tell them everything in an informed way so they can form their own opinions - you don't sugarcoat it. Avoiding a subject is pure revisionism and caters to those with an authoritarian bent. The educational value that you fail to see, is that he was showing the art from Charlie Hebdon. You reasoning is the same as the those who knocked the junk off every male statue they found or hid paintings from the public because a female nipple was seen, since, gosh darnit, it will lure the common man into depravity and someone could be offended. And if we look back at the history of Christianity, how many people was killed because they did something that was perceived as blasphemous or offended the church? Luckily, Christianity at large has grown past that.

Comparing what happened to yelling fire in a crowded theater is a false equivalence since the latter is done by someone who want to get a fix of shit and giggles because there is no other reason for doing it.

What you are advocating for, is that people should shut their mouth and be trod on because they may upset some religious nut-job that will kill them. In what world is that the better option?

Finally, it's my firm belief that parents who drag their kids into a religion are bad parents that stunts their kids growth. The decision to adopt a religious belief is something only an informed adult can make, all else is indoctrination.

Daryl wrote:In regard to the Sharia law matter. A few years back I flew from London to Dubai, and strangely was sat in a row with two Moslem females in full hijabs. The full black, look out through a tiny slit works. Obviously mother and daughter. The daughter was listening to western hard rock on her headphones, and I could see through the slit was fully made up. That one will rebel.
I dislike all religions, Islam more than most, and loathe the hard core fundamentalist version, however can see that apart from a hard core we will seduce their young into our lifestyle over time.
Sure there will always be a few terrorist incidents, but overall they don't threaten our societies.

Just a little heads up, just because a woman wears a hijab in public it doesn't mean she also wears it in private. And wearing something nice, including makeup under the hijab is not uncommon in many of the more well off Islamic countries.

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:I suppose my post could have been taken as blaming the victim, although I wasn't thinking of it that way. The teacher certainly didn't deserve to die over the matter.

This also can be taken as a free speech matter. I would fight for your right to be rude to me. But there are also certain things you don't do. For example you don't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's illegal even here in America where we binge out on free speech. That's basically what the teacher did. I completely fail to see the "educational value" in a picture of Muhammad naked, especially in front of a group of kids whose native culture had conditioned them to see that as blasphemy worthy of death. I'm sorry Dilandu, but that doesn't make any sense. There can be a difference between being simply controversial and being outright offensive. I might have the right to be offensive, but is it wise?

I completely agree with your emphatic statement on the value of life and am glad to see it. There we can come together.

Don
-

I want to apologize for my rudeness, but what you said really triggered me.

When it comes to educating students, you tell them everything in an informed way so they can form their own opinions - you don't sugarcoat it. Avoiding a subject is pure revisionism and caters to those with an authoritarian bent. The educational value that you fail to see, is that he was showing the art from Charlie Hebdon. You reasoning is the same as the those who knocked the junk off every male statue they found or hid paintings from the public because a female nipple was seen, since, gosh darnit, it will lure the common man into depravity and someone could be offended. And if we look back at the history of Christianity, how many people was killed because they did something that was perceived as blasphemous or offended the church? Luckily, Christianity at large has grown past that.

Comparing what happened to yelling fire in a crowded theater is a false equivalence since the latter is done by someone who want to get a fix of shit and giggles because there is no other reason for doing it.

What you are advocating for, is that people should shut their mouth and be trod on because they may upset some religious nut-job that will kill them. In what world is that the better option?

Finally, it's my firm belief that parents who drag their kids into a religion are bad parents that stunts their kids growth. The decision to adopt a religious belief is something only an informed adult can make, all else is indoctrination.

I was baptized as an infant, told the stories of Jesus on mom's lap while being read to. I did the Sunday School and confirmation bit and attended Lutheran college and seminary. Then I spent 40 years in the ministry of the church. I am grateful for all of it. I've had a good life surrounded by loving people who encouraged me to care about others and be open to and curious about the world around me.

I think that where the trouble can come is where people don't mature or if they wind up in a group that is authoritarian in perspective.

Don't worry about the rudeness. Dilandu was worse than you. But what both of you were doing was expressing yourselves emphaticly about something you cared deeply about.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I was baptized as an infant, told the stories of Jesus on mom's lap while being read to. I did the Sunday School and confirmation bit and attended Lutheran college and seminary. Then I spent 40 years in the ministry of the church. I am grateful for all of it. I've had a good life surrounded by loving people who encouraged me to care about others and be open to and curious about the world around me.

My point still stands, you weren't given a choice.

If someone came dragging an adult into a church, and there where no way for you to communicate with that person, would you baptize that person even if you don't know his or hers wishes?

Now replace the word adult with infant.