Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Islam4UK
NYT: British Prime Minister 'Appall
A radical Islamic group planning a protest march through the streets of a town that has achieved iconic status in Britain for honoring the passing hearses of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan ran into a stiff rebuff from the British government on Monday.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a statement saying he was "personally appalled" by the group's plan ....
"Wootton Bassett has a special significance for us all at this time, as it has been the scene of the repatriation of many members of our armed forces who have tragically fallen," Mr. Brown said. "Any attempt to use this location to cause further distress and suffering to those who have lost loved ones would be abhorrent and offensive."
Plans for staging the march were laid out in an open letter to the families of the 246 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001 that was posted by Anjem Choudary, leader of a group called Islam4UK, on the group's Web site.
The organization describes itself as a "platform" for promoting the views of an extremist Islamic group, Al Muhajiroun, which praised the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States as heroes, but disbanded in 2005 in response to a British government order banning it.
In today's NYT, there is an article about an Islamic group on England.
The group wants to march through a town that is on the route caskets of returning military take from a military air base.
Islam4UK
NYT: British Prime Minister 'Appall
A radical Islamic group planning a protest march through the streets of a town that has achieved iconic status in Britain for honoring the passing hearses of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan ran into a stiff rebuff from the British government on Monday.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a statement saying he was "personally appalled" by the group's plan ....
"Wootton Bassett has a special significance for us all at this time, as it has been the scene of the repatriation of many members of our armed forces who have tragically fallen," Mr. Brown said. "Any attempt to use this location to cause further distress and suffering to those who have lost loved ones would be abhorrent and offensive."
Plans for staging the march were laid out in an open letter to the families of the 246 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001 that was posted by Anjem Choudary, leader of a group called Islam4UK, on the group's Web site.
The organization describes itself as a "platform" for promoting the views of an extremist Islamic group, Al Muhajiroun, which praised the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States as heroes, but disbanded in 2005 in response to a British government order banning it.
I voted yes. As a non profit if they engage in politics from the pulpit they should lose their tax exempt status. Of course that is not curtailing free speech just not making the rest of us subsidize it.
and of course if they are talking trason and inciting rebellion, etc they should be treated as any other speaker.
maybe you need to be clearer? who are fundie christians? fred phelps?
otherwise, what is there to compare?
I voted yes. As a non profit if they engage in politics from the pulpit they should lose their tax exempt status. Of course that is not curtailing free speech just not making the rest of us subsidize it.
and of course if they are talking trason and inciting rebellion, etc they should be treated as any other speaker.
I voted yes. As a non profit if they engage in politics from the pulpit they should lose their tax exempt status. Of course that is not curtailing free speech just not making the rest of us subsidize it.
and of course if they are talking trason and inciting rebellion, etc they should be treated as any other speaker.
if they don't make a profit, they are nonprofit.... what money is made is put back in to the cause....there are no profits....and if there are no profits as with any business, there are no taxes to pay.
there is no law specifically for churches, that would have been unconstitutional....there are laws for nonprofit entities, of which they are a part of....is my understanding???
IF it is their ''right'' to free speech, then absolutely not.
In today's NYT, there is an article about an Islamic group on England.
The group wants to march through a town that is on the route caskets of returning military take from a military air base.
Islam4UK
NYT: British Prime Minister 'Appall
A radical Islamic group planning a protest march through the streets of a town that has achieved iconic status in Britain for honoring the passing hearses of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan ran into a stiff rebuff from the British government on Monday.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a statement saying he was "personally appalled" by the group's plan ....
"Wootton Bassett has a special significance for us all at this time, as it has been the scene of the repatriation of many members of our armed forces who have tragically fallen," Mr. Brown said. "Any attempt to use this location to cause further distress and suffering to those who have lost loved ones would be abhorrent and offensive."
Plans for staging the march were laid out in an open letter to the families of the 246 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001 that was posted by Anjem Choudary, leader of a group called Islam4UK, on the group's Web site.
The organization describes itself as a "platform" for promoting the views of an extremist Islamic group, Al Muhajiroun, which praised the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States as heroes, but disbanded in 2005 in response to a British government order banning it.
Is the speech and actions of the Fundie Islamists any different than that of the Fundie Christians, and if so, in what ways?
Would you suppport banning or curtailing the speech and actions of one group and not the other, or would you be against doing so to either, or would you be for taking action against both?
What principles are involved, and what do we as a society value?
From what I gather, the group is protesting the slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan. Why is this controversial?
the above group is Islam4UKThe organization describes itself as a "platform" for promoting the views of an extremist Islamic group, Al Muhajiroun, which praised the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States as heroes, but disbanded in 2005 in response to a British government order banning it.
Which question?I think that is the wrong question.
Are you sure? Or will you qualify it later, to fit not going after some while going after others?Look at this radical group. It is all about hate, and killing. When the free speech promotes violence, it needs to be identified and possibly stopped.
I said nothing about mainstream....there you are qualifying...An honest assessment (something that some people cannot do) of mainstream Christianity
would identify love and faith, and a promotion of high moral living.
as a nonbeliever, I can so.That, of course, based on the Bible. You cannot compare the two.
What percentage of Muslims support 911 type attacks, and what percentage of Christians support killing abortion providers? And does the percentage make one more acceptable or less threatening?While you might be able to find some radical people who call themselves Christians who would fall into that violent mentality as well. They also would need to be halted.
Radical is supporting and/or advocating violence and death to others in the name of faith and beliefs and a higher good. Pretty simple.We do not necessarily all define radical in the same way, so that would have to be addressed as well.
IF it is their ''right'' to free speech, then absolutely not.
So you think a group like Islam4UK, if it were in the US, should be free to do what they do? Phelps? Phelps, does not advocate anyone go out and harm others as some anti-abortion groups do. anti-abortion groups that back what teh extremists do are no better.
who has the right to say that a god has spoken to them and then speak of how we all need to harm or kill others in the name of god?
Al Muhajiroun
Sweatshirt Sparks School Controversy - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit
DEARBORN, Mich. -- About 15 Arab-American students at Edsel Ford High School are in trouble over a class sweatshirt they had made over the holiday break.
The class of 2011 sweatshirt has the number 11 made to look like the World Trade Center Towers. The school's mascot, a Thunderbird, is seen flying toward the number.
You are confused. The right to free speech is a right in and of itself. Limits on speech are matters that good people can disagree over.IF it is their ''right'' to free speech, then absolutely not.
So you think a group like Islam4UK, if it were in the US, should be free to do what they do? Phelps? Phelps, does not advocate anyone go out and harm others as some anti-abortion groups do. anti-abortion groups that back what teh extremists do are no better.
who has the right to say that a god has spoken to them and then speak of how we all need to harm or kill others in the name of god?
excuse me, but you said RIGHT to free speech.... calling for the death of someone IS NOT A RIGHT, calling fire in a theater when there isn't one is not a RIGHT to free speech.,,,
and there are people who think that right should not extend to this particular type of speech.the KKK has been allowed to march in this country, is that any worse? sure it is disgusting to the many opposed to them, but free speech covered by the Right.,,,none the less...
