CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

by diamondblue1974 34 Replies latest social current

• 

  DannyHaszard

  Truth gets flushed with faulty news

  ... Administration as safe to flush down the toilet is one of those pamphlets that the Jehovah's Witnesses send your way ...

  Truth gets flushed with faulty news Adam Kaney Click Here for more articles by Adam Kaney By Adam Kaney DAILY BRUIN CONTRIBUTOR [email protected] As we are living in an uncertain, tumultuous time when the volatile situations in the Middle East have the potential to affect us all and change the course of history, I know you all have asked yourselves the controversial question: How do you spell Koran? I'll get to that in a moment, but I should mention that this comes up because recently Newsweek ran a story involving the holy book in question and a toilet. For those of you who don't follow anything outside of "American Idol," there was recently a big fuss made over this Newsweek story, where it was alleged that the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were desecrating the Qu'ran in order to get the detainees there to talk. Apparently many of them have confessed to, among other things, terrorism, suicide bombings, attending a mosque, knowing people who have attended mosques, wearing white after Labor Day and the Kennedy assassination. Now while it may be difficult to believe that prisoners being held in the war on terror may have been abused, the real controversy went down when Newsweek's story was accused of being slightly inaccurate, in the sense that it wasn't true. Newsweek later boldly retracted the story. Apparently, Newsweek got all their information from either an untruthful government official, or a misinformed fish swimming in Guantanamo Bay. Since the concept of an untruthful government official is beyond the scope of most of our imaginations, I'm leaning more toward the misinformed fish story. Now I knew that the story of people flushing the Quraan down the toilet wasn't true when I first read it, based on the fact that the Qu'ran is a pretty good-sized book and there's no way in hell that it's going to fit down a toilet. As far as I know, the only religious literature that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as safe to flush down the toilet is one of those pamphlets that the Jehovah's Witnesses send your way.

  { I didn't want to start a new thread with this news item Danny Haszard }
• 

  sf

  safe to flush down the toilet is one of those pamphlets that the Jehovah's Witnesses send your way.

  Thanks for keeping us up to date with current news.

  Now I would say that this mans (this gorgeous mans) statement, obviously based on his exposure to the jws, no matter in what capacity, is actually his own opinion.

  Critical statement, meant to incite? I say no. Critical, as in STAT!, opinion, meant to tell HIS truth (exposure)? I say absolutely. Moreover, my opinion is in line with his. I can see what he can see, and thusly.

  Any one care to correct me in my thinking, feel free.

  sKally
• 

  donkey

  Ab,

  Hatred should be allowed and protected under the law. Violence should not.

  Inciting someone to hatred is not a crime, it is an emotional shifting. If the person being incited commits violence then they need to bear the consequences of their crimes, but it is very not difficult to state the difference between soneone saying "I wish those muslims across the street were dead" vs "Go kill those muslims across the street" and that line is clear but will now become a case of "one and the same".
• 

  Abaddon

  donkey

  If the person being incited commits violence then they need to bear the consequences of their crimes, but it is very not difficult to state the difference between soneone saying "I wish those muslims across the street were dead" vs "Go kill those muslims across the street" and that line is clear but will now become a case of "one and the same".

  There's two problems with allowing hate speech.

  One is, unlike other incitement to crime, is that hate speech applies to a plurality of people. It's not 'let's rob and beat Mr Blue', it is 'let's rob and beat people who are blue'. Thus to give the same protection under law as applied to the incitement to steal your VCR, a seperate law is needed.

  It you want 'let's go hurt black people' to be protected speech and 'let's go steal that guys VCR' to be a crime, then I can't endorse the logic of your stance, as there isn't any.

  Also, sliding slope arguements are neither clever nor accurate; "that line is clear but will now become a case of "one and the same". Current legislation has not lead to abuse or malicious legislation.

  The second is the one that no one objecting to this legislation has even engaged with;

  How can a freedom be a 'protected' freedom if its exercise infinges on the freedoms of another?

  As far as I can see the victim or innocent party is being shafted if one allows such speech. They lose their freedom to go about their lawful business without fear of assault, for example. That's a tangible infringement of their freedoms.

  How can the 'right' of people to incite crime be held to be more important than the right of people to live without fear?

  Now, you can disagree with me, fine, but so far no one has bothered answering this question, and to me it is central to the discussion.
• 

  donkey

  Ab,

  You did not understand what I wrote...