American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

I'd love to hear a christian fundamentalist explain why what Catz said in this post was incorrect and to address her question.

In general, I would say that while most Christians probably couldn't be provoked to fight, using religious fighting words (for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their overwhelming dominance in this country), I am fairly certain that most Christians COULD be provoked to fight using other sorts of fighting words....racial slurs, gender slurs, implications of negative behavior, etc. And that's what the fighting words exception to free speech is about...The are some words that provoke an emotional response in people and may lead to violence. That's why those words were excluded by the Supreme Court from free speech protections in the 1940s.

A person who attempts to start a confrontation with another person that turns into violence is often seen to be equally responsible for that confrontation in the eyes of the law.

Well they had a plan, here's what it was.

Bring cameras, do everything they can to provoke the muslims, film them reacting to their provocations, then play the victim card and garner sympathy from other muslim-hating christian fundamentalists.

As we see in this thread, goal achieved.

Both groups involved in the discussion are idiots. The small group of hate filled christians in the video, and the small group idiot muslims who gave the christian group exactly what they wanted.

Notice the Muslims are the ones who attacked with violence, yet the Christians are "hate-filled" and the muslims are just "idiots".
 
I will admit, seeing and hearing this gives you a much different perspective! These guys were passive protestors, they were aggitators saying some vile things. You can understand the reaction.

I think that when people (of any shape, stripe, or religion) attempt to incite others to fight or to provoke a confrontation, I tend to have very little sympathy when they get exactly what they've asked for.

So you condone throwing rocks and things at people who are speaking freely and not breaking any laws if you don't like their speech?
 
I will admit, seeing and hearing this gives you a much different perspective! These guys were passive protestors, they were aggitators saying some vile things. You can understand the reaction.

I think that when people (of any shape, stripe, or religion) attempt to incite others to fight or to provoke a confrontation, I tend to have very little sympathy when they get exactly what they've asked for.

So you condone throwing rocks and things at people who are speaking freely and not breaking any laws if you don't like their speech?

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

Why don't you? Feel free to spell out your disagreements with that unanimous court decision, in detail.
 
Last edited:
I think that when people (of any shape, stripe, or religion) attempt to incite others to fight or to provoke a confrontation, I tend to have very little sympathy when they get exactly what they've asked for.

So you condone throwing rocks and things at people who are speaking freely and not breaking any laws if you don't like their speech?

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

Hope that helps to clarify.

Give me a link if you want me to read it.
 
In general, I would say that while most Christians probably couldn't be provoked to fight, using religious fighting words (for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their overwhelming dominance in this country), I am fairly certain that most Christians COULD be provoked to fight using other sorts of fighting words....racial slurs, gender slurs, implications of negative behavior, etc. And that's what the fighting words exception to free speech is about...The are some words that provoke an emotional response in people and may lead to violence. That's why those words were excluded by the Supreme Court from free speech protections in the 1940s.

A person who attempts to start a confrontation with another person that turns into violence is often seen to be equally responsible for that confrontation in the eyes of the law.

Well they had a plan, here's what it was.

Bring cameras, do everything they can to provoke the muslims, film them reacting to their provocations, then play the victim card and garner sympathy from other muslim-hating christian fundamentalists.

As we see in this thread, goal achieved.

Both groups involved in the discussion are idiots. The small group of hate filled christians in the video, and the small group idiot muslims who gave the christian group exactly what they wanted.

Notice the Muslims are the ones who attacked with violence, yet the Christians are "hate-filled" and the muslims are just "idiots".

The hate of these christians caused them to do this whole act.

If there's a video of muslims going to christan festival and doing something similar, it's because they're hate filled.

I'm a hell bound heathen according to both religions, so I have no desire to apologize or make excuses for either of their attention seeking fundamentalists.
 
In my opinion, this is an example of why we need limits on Free Speech in this country.

In general, I am not in favor of limits on free speech. However, I do agree with fighting words doctrine, and it should be considered in a civil or criminal trial.

So if I am on the street and walk by you and say..."Fuck you", you can legally sock me in the nose?

I would certainly urge my defense attorney to use it in my defense in court.
 
I'd love to hear a christian fundamentalist explain why what Catz said in this post was incorrect and to address her question.

In general, I would say that while most Christians probably couldn't be provoked to fight, using religious fighting words (for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their overwhelming dominance in this country), I am fairly certain that most Christians COULD be provoked to fight using other sorts of fighting words....racial slurs, gender slurs, implications of negative behavior, etc. And that's what the fighting words exception to free speech is about...The are some words that provoke an emotional response in people and may lead to violence. That's why those words were excluded by the Supreme Court from free speech protections in the 1940s.

A person who attempts to start a confrontation with another person that turns into violence is often seen to be equally responsible for that confrontation in the eyes of the law.

Well they had a plan, here's what it was.

Bring cameras, do everything they can to provoke the muslims, film them reacting to their provocations, then play the victim card and garner sympathy from other muslim-hating christian fundamentalists.

As we see in this thread, goal achieved.

Both groups involved in the discussion are idiots. The small group of hate filled christians in the video, and the small group idiot muslims who gave the christian group exactly what they wanted.
Bingo. But I would be more apt to excuse the teens simply because they are easily riled as a group (meaning as teens, not muslims). The adults belonging to the "christians" are total fucktards.
 
Well they had a plan, here's what it was.

Bring cameras, do everything they can to provoke the muslims, film them reacting to their provocations, then play the victim card and garner sympathy from other muslim-hating christian fundamentalists.

As we see in this thread, goal achieved.

Both groups involved in the discussion are idiots. The small group of hate filled christians in the video, and the small group idiot muslims who gave the christian group exactly what they wanted.

Notice the Muslims are the ones who attacked with violence, yet the Christians are "hate-filled" and the muslims are just "idiots".

The hate of these christians caused them to do this whole act.

If there's a video of muslims going to christan festival and doing something similar, it's because they're hate filled.

I'm a hell bound heathen according to both religions, so I have no desire to apologize or make excuses for either of their attention seeking fundamentalists.

Can you make your case that the Christians are "hate-filled"? Go for it.
 
This is exactly what sunni_man wants to happen ALL OVER AMERICA. This is what he wants.

Do you think THEN it will make a difference?

Liberals see muslims, expecially muslims like this, as allies in a greater war against Christianity.

And I can't understand that either, when homos are the love of liberals lives, and muslims would rather stone to death or saw the heads off homos.

You'd think liberals would utterly despise muslims.

Yep... Obama shakes hands with Muslim Brotherhood while telling gays he supports their right to marry.

He really knows how to be a leader :cuckoo:
 
Notice the Muslims are the ones who attacked with violence, yet the Christians are "hate-filled" and the muslims are just "idiots".

The hate of these christians caused them to do this whole act.

If there's a video of muslims going to christan festival and doing something similar, it's because they're hate filled.

I'm a hell bound heathen according to both religions, so I have no desire to apologize or make excuses for either of their attention seeking fundamentalists.

Can you make your case that the Christians are "hate-filled"? Go for it.

I'll assume you didn't watch the video.

If you think that was a case of christians lovingly trying to show muslims the light, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
 
So you condone throwing rocks and things at people who are speaking freely and not breaking any laws if you don't like their speech?
Jesus taught his followers to spread the Gospel all over the world with peace and love.

So is screaming at people and holding pigs heads the new type of evangelizing?

Do you support this modern method of spreading the Gospel?
 
Last edited:
So the Christians don't have the right to free speech? Gotcha. We can plainly see on the tape they don't have the right to self defense to these people.

Are you familiar with the term "fighting words" or Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire?

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy wrote, in the majority decision that:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

In other words, fighting words fall outside of constitutional protections on free speech.

In my opinion, the Christian group was using fighting words to provoke a confrontation with the Muslim crowd, in hopes of filming something that could be used as propaganda to further their agenda.

What are your thoughts on the subject of fighting words, Fitz?
So holding a sign with Bible quotations is 'fighting words'?

I see bumperstickers with verses from the Quran. Should those be fighting words too? Do I have a right to throw garbage and stones at their car?

Sorry, no comparison at a PUBLIC festival.
 

I am among those who do not accept wiki as a primary source. Do you have any other secure source that can't be edited?

I can tell that you're quite the deep-thinker/serious scholar type.

Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica.

If he read what Wikipedia said, disputed it, then read their provided list of references and disputed those, he'd have a case.
 

Forum List

Back
Top