Gunmen open fire on guard at controversial Muhammad exhibit; Vatican newspaper weighs in [CWN]

[Persecuted]

I’m toeing the line of other western conservative governments like Britain and Australia where there is no specific legislation that enshrines freedom of expression in law. It is a right that is appreciated within limits for the sake of civil justice and public order etc. There is little inclination in these countries to defend it ‘on principle’ by tolerating extremism and all the colateral damage associated with extremism. Groups like the American Freedom Defense Initiative by their nature, are considered an extremist group whose ideologies incite people to prejudice. Language like the ‘Islamisation of America’ has a sociological impact in the direction of division based on the premise that radical, extreme Islam is one and the same is moderate Islam instead of the ideal which would be the union of moderate, reasonable human beings against extremism in any form.

Building bridges with moderates is the way to go but it seems that goal goes to the wayside sacrificed for the enshrined almost divine principle that is ‘freedom of speech’.

Hi again LongingSoul,

Let me apologise before I speak as what I say may sound harsh but I mean no offence and will say it in the gentlest way I can.

I find your justification of you toeing the line of governments to be quite disturbing, I’m Australian too by the way. This is how tyranny is allowed to develop.

Firstly, David Cameron’s government is conservative by name only and not much else, although he has recently come out swinging after his election victory: ibtimes.co.uk/david-cameron-announce-tough-new-powers-planned-crack-down-islamist-radicalisation-1501010

Cameron has been shown to be not very conservative at all on a number of issues but I think he is pulling back from his left-leaning stances on account of UKIP’s popularity.

Also, I know for a fact that Tony Abbott is very much in favour of American style free speech and is well aware of the dangers Islamic immigration poses to the West. How do I know all this? Because when Mark Steyn steynonline.com/ came out to Australia he, Tony Abbott, John Howard, and some others went out for a night on the town, so to speak. Steyn has been just as critical of Islam as Geller and Spencer have and even wrote a book (America Alone, I highly recommend it) about how we’re all done for because of Islamic immigration and Western weakness.

I challenged you to produce a single statement from Geller or Spencer that was hateful, I still leave that challenge open to you.

Your analysis of their language and its sociological impact is full of assumptions that I would say are unfounded, most probably false. You draw a false dichotomy between radical Islam and moderate Islam. The PM of Turkey said there is no such thing as radical or moderate Islam, there is just Islam.

My position, as well as Spencer’s and Geller’s, among others, is that true, historical, authentic Islam is what we see represented today by groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Iran etc… to varying degrees.

You are saying that this opinion should be illegal, if you reply to anything of mine I just want you to reply to this one question; what if that opinion is true? Does that matter at all with regards to our expression of that opinion?

If you had your way, truth would be suppressed and we could be exposing ourselves to all sorts of danger simply for the sake of protecting people’s feelings. That is ridiculous.

One more assumption you make, you assume that Muslims and conservatives, are like wild dogs who simply cannot control their actions when they hear certain things. This is very insulting and it is not at all in line with the theological belief that all people are created in God’s image and capable of reason, a belief to which you are bound.

Finally, I would like you to provide some leading, authoritative Islamic figures who promote moderate Islam. Anyone before the 21st century would be particularly useful.

 

[Persecuted]

I must say, it seems that a lot of groups today seem perfectly happy to go down the road of totalitarianism, the left, Islamic groups, neo-Nazis in Greece etc…

If we’re heading towards that direction anyway perhaps the Catholic Church should take another look at getting back into the theocracy business itself

If we’re going to have a regime rule over us it might as well be run by us Catholics!

Did I say that out loud…?

 

[JoeT777]

No ones here suggesting that the shooters should not have been dealt with as they were. Nobody gets to be above the law.

Then your argument should end here. If the shooters were responsible, then why turn on the victim?

They are fully legally responsible for their actions. But that shouldn’t result in giving tacit license to extremists to publically mock a religious figure head of others faith.

In the Untied States one has an inalienable right to express himself in audible speech, in written speech, and/or in a type of speech using cartoons or other mediums. Inalienable means it can’t be taken away, removed or muffled. You can however, as those in Europe have apparently done, surrendered the right to speak out.

JoeT

 

[Ender]

Seems as if you might be speaking about Australia but this story is about Texas which is in the USA and “free speech” is an inalienable right.

Although one would hope the outcome would be the same in any state one cannot but think that Texas was a particularly bad venue for the gunmen to have made this attempt at mass murder. The two Islamic terrorists were outfitted with body armor and assault rifles. Unfortunately they encountered an off duty Garland policeman armed with his department issued Glock handgun. Unfortunate for them that is, not so much for everybody else.

dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150512-mark-davis-a-heartfelt-thanks-to-an-anonymous-garland-officer.ece

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Then your argument should end here. If the shooters were responsible, then why turn on the victim?

In the Untied States one has an inalienable right to express himself in audible speech, in written speech, and/or in a type of speech using cartoons or other mediums. Inalienable means it can’t be taken away, removed or muffled. You can however, as those in Europe have apparently done, surrendered the right to speak out.

JoeT

Would you be comfortable with an artist desecrating the Eucharist as an expression of free speech? I’m not saying that you would be justified to kill the artist, but would you be so vocal to defend that expression of art with the conviction 'I don’t like what you say but I defend your right to say it?

 

[JonNC]

Would you be comfortable with an artist desecrating the Eucharist as an expression of free speech? I’m not saying that you would be justified to kill the artist, but would you be so vocal to defend that expression of art with the conviction 'I don’t like what you say but I defend your right to say it?

There was a so-called “artist” who placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art. Now as obnoxious, immature, and provacative that is, it’s protected speech.

Jon

 

[LongingSoul]

There was a so-called “artist” who placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art. Now as obnoxious, immature, and provacative that is, it’s protected speech.

Jon

My question though is that considering that the consecrated host is something so much more sacred to a Catholic than other artifacts of our faith… would you accept a public act of desecration in the name of art without trying to find a legal recourse to prevent such an act?

 

[JoeT777]

Would you be comfortable with an artist desecrating the Eucharist as an expression of free speech? I’m not saying that you would be justified to kill the artist, but would you be so vocal to defend that expression of art with the conviction 'I don’t like what you say but I defend your right to say it?

Ok, lets turn the tables. What good would it do me to attack the rights of a naysayer? If I managed to find a way to silence him, is he not still misguided? Obviously somebody who disagrees with me need education, wouldn’t you think? I mean take this conversation for an example. Obviously, there is something wrong with your logic, my goal shouldn’t be to silence you, but to show you, as it were, the error of your ways. Not only that, but the longer the erroneous naysayer talks, the more he advertises his ignorance to others - or not. If not, then even I might learn something.

The weakness of your argument is displayed when you attempt to silence your adversaries. The terrorist’s argument is so he needs to kill to silence his adversaries.

JoeT

 

[LongingSoul]

Ok, lets turn the tables. What good would it do me to attack the rights of a naysayer? If I managed to find a way to silence him, is he not still misguided? Obviously somebody who disagrees with me need education, wouldn’t you think? I mean take this conversation for an example. Obviously, there is something wrong with your logic, my goal shouldn’t be to silence you, but to show you, as it were, the error of your ways. Not only that, but the longer the erroneous naysayer talks, the more he advertises his ignorance to others - or not. If not, then even I might learn something.

The weakness of your argument is displayed when you attempt to silence your adversaries. The terrorist’s argument is so he needs to kill to silence his adversaries.

JoeT

If as part of my argument about the unconditional right of an American to free speech, I demonstrate that by burning your flag and using a copy of your constitution for toilet paper… would you still believe that to be a fair use of the right of free speech?

 

[JoeT777]

If as part of my argument about the unconditional right of an American to free speech, I demonstrate that by burning your flag and using a copy of your constitution for toilet paper… would you still believe that to be a fair use of the right of free speech?

I would be very angry indeed. But, you’ve gone beyond speech, now haven’t you? You are now performing acts of aggression. But, even in these acts you continue to demonstrate error as well as ignorance.

JoeT

 

[LongingSoul]

I would be very angry indeed. But, you’ve gone beyond speech, now haven’t you? You are now performing acts of aggression. But, even in these acts you continue to demonstrate error as well as ignorance.

JoeT

Why is it an ‘act of aggression’? It’s just a piece of material with colours on it and a piece of paper with ink on it?

 

[Ignatius]

The critics of our free speech event in Garland, Texas should take careful note of this. The Qur’an says that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified (4:157). Wearing the cross is offensive to Muslims as a falsehood and an implicit claim Is false and is a humiliation to Muslims. . So she must have provoked the Muslim boy by wearing it, right?

jihadwatch.org/2015/05/italy-muslim-schoolboy-violently-punches-12-year-old-female-classmate-for-wearing-crucifix

 

[JoeT777]

Why is it an ‘act of aggression’? It’s just a piece of material with colors on it and a piece of paper with ink on it?

In the past an attack on the flag was viewed as an act of war. Many who serve their country still view it that way. If you use the constitution for toilet paper it means you broke into the national archives, you’re a criminal.

You see an act implies a lot more than speech.

JoeT

 

[estesbob]

If as part of my argument about the unconditional right of an American to free speech, I demonstrate that by burning your flag and using a copy of your constitution for toilet paper… would you still believe that to be a fair use of the right of free speech?

Yes

 

[LongingSoul]

In the past an attack on the flag was viewed as an act of war. Many who serve their country still view it that way.

But it’s just a piece of colourful material. Are you suggesting that it embodies the *spirit *of national identity and has sacred meaning to your people in that way? Are you suggesting that others who don’t find any sacred meaning in a thing, should still respect that thing as sacred to someone?

If you use the constitution for toilet paper it means you broke into the national archives, you’re a criminal.

You see an act implies a lot more than speech.

JoeT

I was saying I’d use a ‘copy’ of the constitution as a symbolic slap in the face to you. Not steal the original document. (Not that I would dream of doing either).

 

[JonNC]

My question though is that considering that the consecrated host is something so much more sacred to a Catholic than other artifacts of our faith… would you accept a public act of desecration in the name of art without trying to find a legal recourse to prevent such an act?

Catholics are not alone in this view of Christ’s true body, but short of theft, or trespassing in order to obtain the host, what legal recourse can there be? Prayers for the soul of a person who would do this seems a good recourse.

Jon

 

[LongingSoul]

Catholics are not alone in this view of Christ’s true body, but short of theft, or trespassing in order to obtain the host, what legal recourse can there be? Prayers for the soul of a person who would do this seems a good recourse.

Jon

Last year in Oklahoma a group of Satanists obtained a consecrated host ‘legitimately’ to have a black mass (and prove a point). The Bishops repeatedly asked civil leaders to cancel the event and raised a law suit in order to get the host and stop it being used in the event. The Satanists, defeated, handed the host over to the Bishop surrendering their right to religious freedom. Thank goodness for common sense. Rights don’t trump respect for others religious sensibilities.

 

[JonNC]

If as part of my argument about the unconditional right of an American to free speech, I demonstrate that by burning your flag and using a copy of your constitution for toilet paper… would you still believe that to be a fair use of the right of free speech?

There are demonstrators who burn the American flag in protest on occasion. It’s protected speech. Ironically, it is usually progressives that do this sort of thing in Anerica, and they are ones most often involved in trying to limit speech - on college campuses and the like.
Am I offended? Sure, but if I ever would decide to burn the ISIS flag, or refer to Mohammed as a false prophet, I want the freedom to do so.

Jon

 

[Ignatius]

Why is it an ‘act of aggression’? It’s just a piece of material with colours on it and a piece of paper with ink on it?

You are apparently not aware of the “artwork” are Andres Serrano, whose “work”, an icon of Jesus Christ in a jar of the “artists” urine, was commissioned and paid for by the national endowment for the arts, an agency of the federal government. A lawsuit was brought to prohibit this “work”, but it was found to be protected free speech. How is this different from the cartoon contest other than that opponents of the cartoons didn’t abide by the law?

If as part of my argument about the unconditional right of an American to free speech, I demonstrate that by burning your flag and using a copy of your constitution for toilet paper… would you still believe that to be a fair use of the right of free speech?

The critics of our free speech event in Garland, Texas should take careful note of this. The Qur’an says that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified (4:157). Wearing the cross is offensive to Muslims as a falsehood and an implicit claim Is false and is a humiliation to Muslims. . So she must have provoked the Muslim boy by wearing it, right?

jihadwatch.org/2015/05/italy-muslim-schoolboy-violently-punches-12-year-old-female-classmate-for-wearing-crucifix

In answer to the constitutional protection of fair use see this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12979613&postcount=59