American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

[Buford]

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.

The Christians were non-violent and the muslims were violent. Care to address that?

 

[Si modo]

Give me a link if you want me to read it.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

Well, you could just go to the citations and see for yourself if the wiki entry is accurate.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Text of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is available from: Justia · Findlaw

"First Amendment Library entry on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire".

I did. It is.

And I am a very lazy person.

 

[Gideonprime]

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.

The Christians were non-violent and the muslims were violent. Care to address that?

SO the whole reading about "fighting words" was too much for you?

Asked and answered bubba

 

[High_Gravity]

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

Have to admit thats quite a situation there, you couldn't even get the Muslim Brotherhood and American gays in the same room with each other.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

The Christians were non-violent and the muslims were violent. Care to address that?

I see.

I'm sure if a group of muslims called Mary a whore, mocked Jesus and spit on christianity to a larger group of christians at a christian festival, you'd be livid with the christians if they threw water bottles and pop cans at these muslim assholes.

I'm certain that'd be your reaction, you most def wouldn't be applauding them for their actions.

The muslims who were violent should've been arrested, is that addressed enough?

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Im just wondering if those who are saying "both sides are retards" would be saying that same thing if it were Muslims walking thru a christian festival with Islamic signs, and the christians were hurling rocks.

Wonder if the cops would have walked away?

After all... christians do not have special interest groups, such as CAIR, defending them.


The 1st Ammendment was not put there for a reason... and it was not to protect the speech we all like... it was put there for offensive speech.

Those particular "American" muslims need to get that thru their thick skulls.... that is if they are even being taught that at the Dearborn schools.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

Im just wondering if those who are saying "both sides are retards" would be saying that same thing if it were Muslims walking thru a christian festival with Islamic signs, and the christians were hurling rocks.

Wonder if the cops would have walked away?

After all... christians do not have special interest groups, such as CAIR, defending them.


The 1st Ammendment was not put there for a reason... and it was not to protect the speech we all like... it was put there for offensive speech.

Those particular "American" muslims need to get that thru their thick skulls.... that is if they are even being taught that at the Dearborn schools.

I have to agree with this, if the roles were reversed and the Christians were throwing rocks, they would have got their asses locked up, no doubt.

 

[Sunni Man]

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?

Still waiting for your response Buford............

 

[High_Gravity]

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?

Still waiting for your response Buford............

Well I don't think those Christians were there to "spread the word", to be fair those guys were there to hurt and offend Muslims.

 

[The Infidel]

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

Have to admit thats quite a situation there, you couldn't even get the Muslim Brotherhood and American gays in the same room with each other.

Yep...


The gays would be in grave danger... whats that say for the religion of peace, and our two faced leader?



Sorry HG, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I cant beleive liberals are so vapid of clear thought that they cant see this

 

[High_Gravity]

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

He really knows how to be a leader

Have to admit thats quite a situation there, you couldn't even get the Muslim Brotherhood and American gays in the same room with each other.

Yep...


The gays would be in grave danger... whats that say for the religion of peace, and our two faced leader?



Sorry HG, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I cant beleive liberals are so vapid of clear thought that they cant see this

They don't want to hear it and I don't bother bringing it up anymore, anytime someone mentions how homosexuals are killed and imprisoned in Muslim countries all we hear in response is well Christians bomb abortion clinics.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Im just wondering if those who are saying "both sides are retards" would be saying that same thing if it were Muslims walking thru a christian festival with Islamic signs, and the christians were hurling rocks.

Wonder if the cops would have walked away?

After all... christians do not have special interest groups, such as CAIR, defending them.


The 1st Ammendment was not put there for a reason... and it was not to protect the speech we all like... it was put there for offensive speech.

Those particular "American" muslims need to get that thru their thick skulls.... that is if they are even being taught that at the Dearborn schools.

They do not want to intigrate. They want to colonize and change their areas into little Palestinian Authorites and regress back to the 5th century socially.

AFAIK, this was not a religious festival, it was public. If Muslims wanted to peaceably assemble and walk down the street preaching their faith, and respected my right to walk away from them or ignore them, I have no problems. It's when they won't I have a severe problem.

The first amendment is never more important than when it is defending speech we DON'T agree with.

 

[Ravi]

Have to admit thats quite a situation there, you couldn't even get the Muslim Brotherhood and American gays in the same room with each other.

Yep...


The gays would be in grave danger... whats that say for the religion of peace, and our two faced leader?



Sorry HG, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I cant beleive liberals are so vapid of clear thought that they cant see this

They don't want to hear it and I don't bother bringing it up anymore, anytime someone mentions how homosexuals are killed and imprisoned in Muslim countries all we hear in response is well Christians bomb abortion clinics.

Americans are expected to act like Americans, no matter what their beliefs are....most of the comments you read on these forums from liberals are Americans standing up for the rights of other Americans.

 

[Gideonprime]

There are a whole host of problem with the religion of Islam - Honor killings, KIlling Homosexuals, Treatment of women in many cases just to name the most obvious.

I don't know that anyone here who is naysaying the Christians actions are Pro- any of the above.

However, these "peaceful" christian protests were certainly looking for a fight.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Im just wondering if those who are saying "both sides are retards" would be saying that same thing if it were Muslims walking thru a christian festival with Islamic signs, and the christians were hurling rocks.

Wonder if the cops would have walked away?

After all... christians do not have special interest groups, such as CAIR, defending them.


The 1st Ammendment was not put there for a reason... and it was not to protect the speech we all like... it was put there for offensive speech.

Those particular "American" muslims need to get that thru their thick skulls.... that is if they are even being taught that at the Dearborn schools.

As the one who said both sides are retards, yes, I would say the same thing.

I'm not a big fan of the "fighting words" ruling, so I'm not going to go there. I am more a fan of simple incitement rulings.

The xtians didn't incite a thing. They certainly were insulting and just plain nasty, so I defend their free speech rights to be obnoxious. I have to believe, if you watched the video of them, that you agree that their speech was obnoxious.

But, folks have an absolute right to be obnoxious and the thin skinned have to respect that right.

So, my reason for calling the xtians retards is, if they didn't expect some sort of reaction from the Muslims, then they are retards. As I am pretty sure that such a reaction is EXACTLY what they expected and intended, based on their communications with the cops, then they are retards for thinking I and others will buy their story that they had no part in the resulting reaction.

On the other hand, the Muslims were retards for reacting to them. They were fucking retards for giving the xtians exactly what they wanted - to make themselves look bad. And, no words justify a violent reaction.

Flip the players, and my view remains the same.

 

[The Infidel]

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?

Still waiting for your response Buford............

Dont recall seeing pigs heads

If so... thats low brow for sure, but does not warrant violence.


This is America, not some third world sand box

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Im just wondering if those who are saying "both sides are retards" would be saying that same thing if it were Muslims walking thru a christian festival with Islamic signs, and the christians were hurling rocks.

Wonder if the cops would have walked away?

After all... christians do not have special interest groups, such as CAIR, defending them.


The 1st Ammendment was not put there for a reason... and it was not to protect the speech we all like... it was put there for offensive speech.

Those particular "American" muslims need to get that thru their thick skulls.... that is if they are even being taught that at the Dearborn schools.

Yes, I would

It is not like I favor muslims over christians or christians over muslims.
I think both are crazy cultist that will quickly resort to violence if they are not thinking.

Most humans will. But seeing a trash talking fool get the crap knocked out of him--I find that priceless!!

 

[catzmeow]

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'm guessing you didn't watch the video I posted. Why don't you scroll up the thread and look for it?

 

[The Infidel]

Yep...


The gays would be in grave danger... whats that say for the religion of peace, and our two faced leader?



Sorry HG, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I cant beleive liberals are so vapid of clear thought that they cant see this

They don't want to hear it and I don't bother bringing it up anymore, anytime someone mentions how homosexuals are killed and imprisoned in Muslim countries all we hear in response is well Christians bomb abortion clinics.

Americans are expected to act like Americans, no matter what their beliefs are....most of the comments you read on these forums from liberals are Americans standing up for the rights of other Americans.

 

[Ravi]

They don't want to hear it and I don't bother bringing it up anymore, anytime someone mentions how homosexuals are killed and imprisoned in Muslim countries all we hear in response is well Christians bomb abortion clinics.

Americans are expected to act like Americans, no matter what their beliefs are....most of the comments you read on these forums from liberals are Americans standing up for the rights of other Americans.

You've just proven by your comment that you didn't know about the pig head that you suffer terribly from confirmation bias. In other words, someone posts a half-truth on the internet and you believe it like gospel simply because you want to.