Originally Posted by Aramea

Get another buzz phrase. I am sick of people justifying hateful nonsense via free speech; just admit you are a bigot and be done with it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, so why can you deliberately provoke an entire region knowing that lives can and will be lost? "Oh, noes, we don't want to be politically correct, he haz freedom of speech." This was the national security version of yelling "fire" in that theatre. He knew what was likely to happen.

Do you apply this standard to the American left's constant attacks on Christians and Christianity? Do you acknowledge that they are "hateful nonsense" and expressions of bigotry? Or does it only apply when the religion is question compels its followers to kill you in response?

If not, I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize this complete contradiction in your views.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Do you apply this standard to the American left's constant attacks on Christians and Christianity? Do you acknowledge that they are expressions of bigotry? Or does it only apply when the religion is question compels its followers to kill you in response?

There is no constant attack on Christianity from the left, and certainly not from me. I have been a born-again Christian since 1987.

ETA: Yes, if I saw such an attack it would be bigotry.

Originally Posted by Weave

It may be bad form to mock a religion but people should be allowed free speech. Other religions are routinely bashed without its member going on killing sprees or issuing death warrants etc. The response in the Muslim world over some movie or a cartoon or a book is completely uncalled for and outragious. We should not have our freedom of speech and expression curtailed out of political correctness.

I also love how cultural misunderstanding is fueling this conversation. The Middle East is still largely bound by a culture of honor and as such:

Various sociologists and anthropologists have contrasted cultures of honour with cultures of law. In a culture of law there is a body of laws which must be obeyed by all, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law incorporates an unwritten social contract: members of society agree to give up some aspects of their freedom to defend themselves and retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that transgressors will be apprehended and punished by society.


From the viewpoint of anthropologists, cultures of honour typically appear among nomadic peoples and herdsmen who carry their most valuable property with them and risk having it stolen, without having recourse to law enforcement or government. In this situation, inspiring fear forms a better strategy than promoting friendship; and cultivating a reputation for swift and disproportionate revenge increases the safety of one's person and property. Thinkers ranging from Montesquieu to Steven Pinker have remarked upon the mindset needed for a culture of honour.

Add religious beliefs into the mix and you get a pot boiler.

We used to be too, until we ended the Nomadic herdsman lifestyle and began viewing cowboys as a bygone idea. Now we just see it as either a nostalgic Romantic part of a bygone era, part of an old way of life from an Old World, something for a laugh, or a little bit of everything.

Do I think that it's right the Libyans killed our ambassador? No. Do I think we're trying to approach their culture horribly? Yes. How do we "solve" this problem? It's not something we can solve overnight as its Egyptian society that has to change and evolve, because short of responding with more vengeance killing, there wouldn't be any recourse of action that would garner as much attention... well maybe there's Athena's way, but I'm not so sure how that would work...

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Aramea

There is no constant attack on Christianity from the left,

Uh...I guess you don't get out much. Or read anything on the internet. Including this forum.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...I guess you don't get out much. Or read anything on the internet. Including this forum.

Everything I have seen are isolated incidents and not a concerted effort from the left. My husband and I have quite a few arguments regarding his trash-talk of Christianity, so this is a bit funny in a not-funny kind of way. Yes, it is the same thing coming from my own family.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Get another buzz phrase. I am sick of people justifying hateful nonsense via free speech; just admit you are a bigot and be done with it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, so why can you deliberately provoke an entire region knowing that lives can and will be lost? "Oh, noes, we don't want to be politically correct, he haz freedom of speech." This was the national security version of yelling "fire" in that theatre. He knew what was likely to happen.

First I never bashed Islam. second, by your logic, if other religions attacked thier critics it would be just hunky dory as the "criticizer" had it coming....yours and others blind obedience to political correctness is a threat to freedom of speech. If its ok to produce other kinds of offensive materials and speech etc. criticizing Islam should be ok too....

Your hypocrisy is astounding....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All of these points carry the unstated backdrop lie that the Obama administration in any way, shape or form condoned the attack on the embassy, which OF COURSE it did not. No presidential administration would EVER condone that.

A man is walking on the street. An interracial couple (black man, white woman) walks by.

The man calls the white woman a "n----r-loving b---h c--ksucker whore."

Her partner pulls a gun out and shoots the trash talker.

The shooter is clearly in the wrong.

Is the trash talker blameless?

I would say that shooting that racist and sexist asshole was over kill. Beating him within an inch of his life...that would be perfectly moral.

Originally Posted by Weave

First I never bashed Islam. second, by your logic, if other religions attacked thier critics it would be just hunky dory as the "criticizer" had it coming....yours and others blind obedience to political correctness is a threat to freedom of speech. If its ok to produce other kinds of offensive materials and speech etc. criticizing Islam whould be ok too....

Your hypocrisy is astounding....

I am not hypocritical on this. It is just as bigoted aimed at other religions. If your speech incites riots, doesn't it cease to be "free speech"?

Another interesting hole I've observed in the comprehension of a certain subset of the right (this applies only to religious conservatives) involves a failure to understand what the First Amendment really says in regard to its protection of free speech and of the free exercise of religion. There is no protection against criticism there, only against government action to suppress speech or religion. Thus, the following actions are all perfectly compatible with the 1A:

1) The film that Muslim fanatics found so offensive.
2) Condemnation of said film by a U.S. embassy (or anyone else, provided the condemnation was only verbal).
3) Criticism of Christianity, no matter how vitriolic.
4) Criticism of said criticism, again no matter how vitriolic.

There is also an apparent failure to understand the meaning of the word "persecution," but that's an old subject.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Another interesting hole I've observed in the comprehension of a certain subset of the right (this applies only to religious conservatives) involves a failure to understand what the First Amendment really says in regard to its protection of free speech and of the free exercise of religion. There is no protection against criticism there, only against government action to suppress speech or religion. Thus, the following actions are all perfectly compatible with the 1A:

1) The film that Muslim fanatics found so offensive.
2) Condemnation of said film by a U.S. embassy (or anyone else, provided the condemnation was only verbal).
3) Criticism of Christianity, no matter how vitriolic.
4) Criticism of said criticism, again no matter how vitriolic.

There is also an apparent failure to understand the meaning of the word "persecution," but that's an old subject.

I agree with 1-4, but I think that once you have a region boiling over, it is fair to question the motives of the producer and promoter of the film. If they did it to provoke violence in the Middle East, there could be a national security issue.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I am not hypocritical on this. It is just as bigoted aimed at other religions. If your speech incites riots, doesn't it cease to be "free speech"?

No it absolutely does not. The rioters are responsible for their own violent acts. I am quite happy that American religious fanatics by-and-large just whine about how "persecuted" they are, rather than going off on killing sprees when they are criticized.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I agree with 1-4, but I think that once you have a region boiling over, it is fair to question the motives of the producer and promoter of the film. If they did it to provoke violence in the Middle East, there could be a national security issue.

Even if it is a national security issue the freedom of said speech is absolute. If we started saying that things are not protected on national security grounds where would we stop? Its a slippery slope argument I know.

And this isn't to be taken to mean that all speech should be protected. For example shouting fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire is not protected speech. But when it comes to religious or even anti-religious speech and political speech the first amendment's protections need to be absolute.

Free speech is not to protect those with popular views, but those with unpopular views.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

No it absolutely does not. The rioters are responsible for their own violent acts. I am quite happy that American religious fanatics by-and-large just whine about how "persecuted" they are, rather than going off on killing sprees when they are criticized.

I just did a Google search. Inciting a riot is a felony in many jurisdictions. This video may not count, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds poke around a bit. The death of an American ambassador won't be taken lightly and there will be a concern about copycats.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I just did a Google search. Inciting a riot is a felony in many jurisdictions. This video may not count, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds poke around a bit. The death of an American ambassador won't be taken lightly and there will be a concern about copycats.

That film could not be considered inciting a riot because it was not aimed at provoking the action that occurred. If it provoked a riot by Christians aimed at mosque-burning and Muslim-lynching, that would be different.

I have no problem with our embassy condemning the film as insensitive and stupid and consider Romney a cheap putz for trying to make political fodder out of it, but when you start talking about government action to suppress free speech that's where the line should be drawn. We can't sacrifice our rights, especially not that one, just so foreign nut jobs won't be upset with us.

Now, you want to talk about ceasing to bomb the crap out of them and support tyrants over them so they won't be upset with us, that's a different story.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That film could not be considered inciting a riot because it was not aimed at provoking the action that occurred. If it provoked a riot by Christians aimed at mosque-burning and Muslim-lynching, that would be different.

I have no problem with our embassy condemning the film as insensitive and stupid and consider Romney a cheap putz for trying to make political fodder out of it, but when you start talking about government action to suppress free speech that's where the line should be drawn. We can't sacrifice our rights, especially not that one, just so foreign nut jobs won't be upset with us.

Now, you want to talk about ceasing to bomb the crap out of them and support tyrants over them so they won't be upset with us, that's a different story.

I generally don't support squelching free speech, but free speech is not as absolute as people are saying in this thread. An embassy is American soil. It may come to nothing, but I think that officials should at least be able to inquire as to the intent of the film. They harrassed Ted Nugent, they can at least go ask this DB what his motives were.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I generally don't support squelching free speech, but free speech is not as absolute as people are saying in this thread. An embassy is American soil. It may come to nothing, but I think that officials should at least be able to inquire as to the intent of the film. They harrassed Ted Nugent, they can at least go ask this DB what his motives were.

They shouldn't have harassed Nugent, either. And why ask? It's obvious that his motives were to cast aspersions on the competition. Islam has a lot of potential appeal for Christians, because it's

1) In the same family of religions;
2) A religion that honors Jesus (so Christians would only have to give up a theological point that doesn't matter much to most of them anyway); and
3) Simpler and less cluttered.

With more Muslims coming to America and Islam having a higher profile these days and more public visibility, you're going to start seeing a certain number of converts and the majority of those converts will convert from Christianity because that's the most natural connection. (I would not be interested in Islam, for example; the conflicts between Islam and Neopaganism are fundamental. But the similarities between Islam and Christianity are quite strong and the conflicts in practice fairly trivial.)

Originally Posted by Aramea

Everything I have seen are isolated incidents and not a concerted effort from the left.

The film that sparked this had nothing to do with the U.S. government, or anyone else besides the people who made it. What the attack therefore presumably signified was outrage that the U.S. government does not ban criticism of Islam.

As for the left...if you consider it not a concerted effort, you really aren't paying attention.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They shouldn't have harassed Nugent, either. And why ask? It's obvious that his motives were to cast aspersions on the competition. Islam has a lot of potential appeal for Christians, because it's

1) In the same family of religions;
2) A religion that honors Jesus (so Christians would only have to give up a theological point that doesn't matter much to most of them anyway); and
3) Simpler and less cluttered.

With more Muslims coming to America and Islam having a higher profile these days and more public visibility, you're going to start seeing a certain number of converts and the majority of those converts will convert from Christianity because that's the most natural connection. (I would not be interested in Islam, for example; the conflicts between Islam and Neopaganism are fundamental. But the similarities between Islam and Christianity are quite strong and the conflicts in practice fairly trivial.)

Actually, I agree, but the fact is, they did harass him for LESS than what we are talking about here. If that video was produced with inciting muslims in mind, he has incited a riot of monumental proportions. Perhaps it wasn't, but the pastor knew from prior incidents (the Koran burning) that muslims were touchy. They should at least ask, IMO.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The film that sparked this had nothing to do with the U.S. government, or anyone else besides the people who made it. What the attack therefore presumably signified was outrage that the U.S. government does not ban criticism of Islam.

Probably, but one must separate "are the attackers on the embassy justified?" and "is this film a piece of crap?" as two different questions whose answers are entirely independent of one another.

As for the left...if you consider it not a concerted effort, you really aren't paying attention.

Either that, or she IS paying attention but is missing the gene (or whatever) for Christian paranoia.

JPT doesn't understand that what is "in the middle" is about more than just current politics in the USA; it is also about what was moderate in the past, and in other countries. Opinions overall can shift. What's more, what label you use can be irrelevant.

It is correct to say that Democrats are moderates and Republicans are extreme conservatives. Even if you ask Democrats what they are, polls show they say they are moderates more often than liberals. JPT wishes to over-ride the polls, and define other people's politics for them.

Aramea:

Inciting a riot does not work that way. The connection between the film and the riot has to be direct, not oppositional. I already gave one hypothetical example. It's an anti-Muslim film, so if it's trying to incite violence it's trying to incite violence AGAINST Muslims, not BY Muslims. If it were released and an anti-Muslim riot developed and it could be shown that the rioters were incited by the film and that that was deliberate on the part of the filmmaker, then that would be incitement to riot.

If you agree that Nugent shouldn't have been harassed, then doesn't it follow that this filmmaker shouldn't be either (except by his critics of course)?

Originally Posted by Aramea

Actually, I agree, but the fact is, they did harass him for LESS than what we are talking about here. If that video was produced with inciting muslims in mind, he has incited a riot of monumental proportions. Perhaps it wasn't, but the pastor knew from prior incidents (the Koran burning) that muslims were touchy. They should at least ask, IMO.

It's not really clear what the origin of the video is. There may be an Egyptian Coptic Christian involved, and/or an Israeli:

Questions swirl around anti-Islam film blamed for Egypt riot, attack in Libya

Not that it matters. The U.S. government and the embassies and people attacked and killed had nothing to do with it.

I just read a bit more on the film. Here's an article on it: http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...sam_bacile%22/

Sounds like there's some very fishy stuff here.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I just did a Google search. Inciting a riot is a felony in many jurisdictions. This video may not count, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds poke around a bit. The death of an American ambassador won't be taken lightly and there will be a concern about copycats.

Making a film that offends others is not inciting a riot. If I ever travel to other countries I would and should honor their customs and beliefs or at least not try to provoke actions that offend them. Thats just basic decency and respect. HOWEVER, what Americans do, while expressing their free speech rights here is totally different. Frankly, people in other countires really should butt out of what private citizents here are doing, its really none of their business.

I will not, nor I believe the majority of the American people submit to political correctness imposed on me either by other Americans and ESPECIALLY by ANYONE overseas.

Sorry but your rights do not extend to "not be offended"....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Aramea:

Inciting a riot does not work that way. The connection between the film and the riot has to be direct, not oppositional. I already gave one hypothetical example. It's an anti-Muslim film, so if it's trying to incite violence it's trying to incite violence AGAINST Muslims, not BY Muslims. If it were released and an anti-Muslim riot developed and it could be shown that the rioters were incited by the film and that that was deliberate on the part of the filmmaker, then that would be incitement to riot.

If you agree that Nugent shouldn't have been harassed, then doesn't it follow that this filmmaker shouldn't be either (except by his critics of course)?

Perhaps. For the most part, I have a choice between adjusting my view on Nugent or this pastor to be consistent. Instances of inciting a riot were pretty whack, if you want to know the truth. If this was inciting a riot, anything involving violence could be:

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/kids-f...ighting/nJhmR/