The right to break Islamic law

[Quantum Windbag]

The last few days have seen a resurgence of the idea that, because Muslims are violent, we shouldn't offend them.

Some are arguing that, if the intent of speech is to offend, it shouldn't be a0llowed.

There are others that argue that, if you know someone will react negatively to something, you are responsible for their actions.

I firmly believe that the intent of, and the reaction to, speech is irrelevant.

Canada, like most countries, disagrees with me. They actually drug in the guy that published the Mohammad cartoons to ask him about his intent. I think his response when asked what his intent was should be taught to every child in the world.

“Why is that a relevant question? We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying that’s an acceptable answer? My answer to your question is as follows. We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think. I’ve probably given 200 interviews to people other than the state where I’d give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent, but the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is that it’s my bloody right to do so. … My answer to these two fascists, the one trained in Saudi Arabia and the other one piling on, is that I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish those cartoons to do every offensive thing that they claim is in my heart.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g]What was your intent? - YouTube[/ame]

Sharia law makes offending the prophet illegal, some people are saying that we, even though we live in non Muslim countries, should voluntarily follow Sharia law. We do not have Sharia law for a reason. We are faced with a choice right now, extremists have come up to us, stuck a gun in our face, and demanded that we take them someplace. Every security and safety expert has the exact same advice for people who find themselves in that situation, refuse to cooperate. You are better off having the confrontation at the primary crime scene than allowing them to take you to a secondary crime scene where they can kill you without attracting attention.

If we get into the car of Sharia law now, we are under there control, and they will be able to take us wherever they want. We will move from the primary crime scene where we have a chance to the secondary crime scene. We have no idea where that will be, but we know we will have already lost control of the situation.

We need to draw the line now, not later.

 

[Ancient lion]

Try to learn Self Control.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEm6gkUN0Zg&feature=player_embedded]Innocence of Muslims - Real Version - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try to learn self control
Innocence of Muslims - Real Version - YouTube

Self control? I am not the one storming embassies, killing people, rioting, or screaming about how offensive it is that people say bad things about a guy that died 1600 years ago.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is precisely self control that must be learned by all who think their internal states, such as religious beliefs, can and should be externalized.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Muslims are not ‘violent.’ There are individuals who commit criminal acts who happen to be Muslim, but their religion is incidental and irrelevant, also irrelevant is their claim that simply because their religion was ‘insulted’ their criminal acts are somehow justified.

The United States is unique in the world with regard to its treatment of free expression and how that expression might impact individuals or society as a whole.

According to current Constitutional case law, speech can be restricted only if that speech results imminent lawless action.

As for Sharia ‘law,’ this is a non-issue; per Brandenberg and R.A.V., Americans will always be free to be as offensive, ugly, and hateful toward any religion they with impunity.

 

[Sunni Man]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

 

[there4eyeM]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

If you really want a serious war, proceed with that program.

 

[Sunni Man]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

If you really want a serious war, proceed with that program.

We are using the courts and legal advocates to further our agenda to make defamation of the Prophet a punishable crime in this country.

 

[there4eyeM]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

If you really want a serious war, proceed with that program.

We are using the courts and legal advocates to further our agenda to make defamation of the Prophet a punishable crime in this country.

You will lose.

 

[Ravi]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

If you really want a serious war, proceed with that program.

We are using the courts and legal advocates to further our agenda to make defamation of the Prophet a punishable crime in this country.

It's not going to happen, nor should it.

 

[Sunni Man]

If you really want a serious war, proceed with that program.

We are using the courts and legal advocates to further our agenda to make defamation of the Prophet a punishable crime in this country.

You will lose.

History is on our side.

Just saying................

 

[there4eyeM]

Is is not clear how one could think history sides with such an effort.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is is not clear how one could think history sides with such an effort.

Of course it is absolutely clear. Egypt used to be a Christian country. So did Lebanon. Iran was a Zororastian believing country. Between violence and manipulation of the governmental process these countries became islamic. Saying history is on the side of muslims looks in this direction. It just doesn't look in the direction of Europe and how the muslims were driven out by the Crusades. Why do you think muslims so despise the Crusades? Because they lost and it still chafes them. That really is the only answer though. Clearly if you look at history, there is only two ways to go. Eliminate them from the region, or become fully islamic.

 

[there4eyeM]

We are not disagreeing. I was merely focusing on the more recent part of history. Yes, Islam expanded greatly early-on. Genghis Kahn put a big stop on the movement and Europe turned it out as well. Briefly, Islam fostered education and science. Since then, it has only occasionally made minor inroads in fringe areas, while western society has virtually conquered the world. Economics, time-keeping, abolition, much of modern science and physics, industry and many other standards and measures come from non-Islamic cultures.
The tide of history would thus not seem to favor the long-term prospects for this ideology.

 

[Katzndogz]

Every so often, muslims have to be beaten back into their holes.

 

[there4eyeM]

Every so often, muslims have to be beaten back into their holes.

Here is a statement that by all appearances is meant to be at least somewhat provocative. I am not personally provoked. In fact, being provoked requires at least one choice and more probably a whole series. They pass so quickly and unnoticed that we forget they ever exist.

The provocation must come from a source for whose authority I have some regard (choice) and I must choose to react in a certain way or another.

We say someone or something made us angry, but that projects an interior, perceptual event out into reality. We are essentially saying that an external force enters us and takes control, 'making ' the person do something such as become angry instead of laughing, ignoring, etc.

When do we allow ourselves to be provoked?

 

[Sunni Man]

Every so often, muslims have to be beaten back into their holes.

In this post colonial world those days are long gone.

Welcome to the new reality of unfettered Islamic expansion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Muslims are not ‘violent.’ There are individuals who commit criminal acts who happen to be Muslim, but their religion is incidental and irrelevant, also irrelevant is their claim that simply because their religion was ‘insulted’ their criminal acts are somehow justified.

Muslims aren't violent, yet we have to appease those of them that are by not "abusing" our freedom of speech.

The United States is unique in the world with regard to its treatment of free expression and how that expression might impact individuals or society as a whole.

Actually, we aren't. A lot of people like to pretend like we are, but the truth is a lot more complicated than simple.

According to current Constitutional case law, speech can be restricted only if that speech results imminent lawless action.

This is why you should stop pretending you understand constitutional case law. Freedom of speech cannot be restricted, period, however freedom of speech is not equivalent to speech. If your speech is slanderous or defamatory it is not protected. Additionally, commercial advertising, which is clearly speech, can be restricted in many different ways, even if there is no danger of lawless action.

As for Sharia ‘law,’ this is a non-issue; per Brandenberg and R.A.V., Americans will always be free to be as offensive, ugly, and hateful toward any religion they with impunity.

With impunity? Why was Nakoula hauled out of his bed at midnight and arrested? Why are the of Westboro Baptist Church routinely arrested for their speech?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The last few days have seen a resurgence of the idea that, because Muslims are violent, we shouldn't offend them. .

Please prove that Muslims are violent.
Not a few Muslims, many Muslims, or the extremist Muslims.

You said, "Muslims" so prove ALL Muslims are violent or admit you lied.

First, I did not say Muslims are violent, I am arguing that some people think that, because Muslims are violent, we should comply with their demand to not insult the prophet. Take your issues up with the people who think that, personally I think we should go out of our way to insult all of them, especially the violent ones.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ban Ki Moon, the secretary general of the United Nations has proposed a universal ban on insult to islam. So he's one of those tho think the world should comply with islamic demands not to insult the prophet. Actually, all it would take is obama signing the agreement with the UN to effectively repeal the First Amendment by fiat.