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 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
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.
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.
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? LoisI 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 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.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
For Everybody Draw Muhammed Day, I wanted to post a picture taken from an illustration in a manuscript by the great Muslim scholar of the 10th-11th century, Al Biruni. But alas, I can’t figure out how to post a picture here. That picture doesn’t do him justice, anyway. So check this out:
.
I know it is tiny and you can’t make out the details. And that it looks suspiciously like a period. But use your imagination. Picture a powerful yet exceedingly humble man, a man of extraordinary charisma and intelligence, a warrior-poet, a man capable of founding a new religion that would change the world…
Ok, it really is just a period. I just wanted to give the kind of Muslim who would issue an insane fatwa, in this regard, something to think about.
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.As a matter of fact, I did write after the quote on my response to Captn Jack. And I edited it to be sure my words followed the quote mark. But it came out wrong anyway. There was nothing else I could do.
I think I could draw his cat. I wouldn't try to draw him, though.I never suspected that he owned a cat... a dog, maybe. Oops, I looked it up. There are rumors that he had a cat and the rumored cat even has a name: Muezza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muezza Perhaps we should have an Everybody Draw Muezza Day. I'm fond of cats, and like the stories about him and Muezza. My understanding is the cat is honored in Islamic history and nations, while the dog is considered "unclean" in certain traditions.
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?Because there may be times where certain speech is harmful. Example, many European countries have made Holocaust denial speech a crime. The reason is because while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 As Thevillageatheist rightly puts it.
Briefly, it meant that any speech that presents a clear and present danger to the public is illegal.However, this raises an issue. What constitutes hate speech. While many people (such as myself) can see the logic in the anti-Holocaust Denials laws, others may not. So at the end of the day, where do we decide what limit is? That is the ultimate question
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. LoisTrue, my apologies for a bad over generalization.
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.I think you mean 'religious groups.' A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion. Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this) A famous Muslim comedia Baba Ali had documented this quite hilariously on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do_bBuTod1E (first 5 minutes only) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5er_9Uax-Q&list=SPC9E6296531083FB7&index=2 Or for those who like a more academics presentation see Hamza Yusuf's comment (he is advisor to Stanford University’s Program in Islamic Studies) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxiR27qmWw4 (time slice 2:00-3:00)
where do we decide what limit is? That is the ultimate questionIt can be an exceedingly complex and difficult question. In our society, we have the Supreme Court to help determine some of the finer distinctions. The Supreme Court Justices are supposedly bound to make their interpretations based on the Constitution. They are appointed in accordance with the system defined by the Constitution. It is not a perfect system, but it's pretty good.
I think you mean 'religious groups.' A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion. Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this)... )I do have some level of respect for people who behave in accordance with their own espoused belief system, because I respect integrity. But as you say, "A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion." Or, I would add, they act at odds with their own religious precepts. In a larger sense, I generally do not respect the lack of intellectual integrity, that seems to me to be present, in holding most religious belief systems.
I think you mean 'religious groups.' A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion. Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this)... )I do have some level of respect for people who behave in accordance with their own espoused belief system, because I respect integrity. But as you say, "A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion." Or, I would add, they act at odds with their own religious precepts. In a larger sense, I generally do not respect the lack of intellectual integrity, that seems to me to be present, in holding most religious belief systems. Indeed. Any belief system that says its members must believe in its tenets and never question them or suffer eternal damnation is not a religion to be respected--and all the Abrahamic religions do this. I, too, cannot respect a lack of intellectual integrity. It makes the followers look like ignorant sheep and, too often, they are led to engage in destructive, inhuman acts in the name of their religion. Lois