Religion is not the problem. Fear is the problem. Without fear people would be free to think and practice and say what they liked. Fear is the only real enemy. Fear is why people kill and fear is why others can't handle it when it happens. Be positive in your life despite what's going on in the world and the world will be that little bit better. Murder is always going to happen in this world the point here is to let murder be the problem of the fearful and not of the living. This is a reminder to all of us that life is fleeting and short and to make the most of us while we are here.
Actually religion is the problem. I'm nuanced enough to distinguish between the actions of a few extermists and those of the broader muslim faith. However the existence of moderate religion conveys a sense of legitimacy to the spectrum of thinking upon which fundamentalism resides. Moderate religion also serves up a convenient garden from which extremist groups pluck young, fertile minds primed for unquestioning, anti-intellectual thinking.
Religion simply clogs up the gears of society with at best meaningless pontification, and at worst the kinds of atrocities of human life.
The appropriate personal response is to commit ourselves to humanitarian secularism, which is the only common interface through which can will ever hope to solve many of the world's problems.
I'm afraid that your humanitarian secularism is just as much a religion as any other.
You are simply choosing to worship man rather than God.
Evil is no respecter of faith. There are plenty of atheist psychopaths and sociopaths who have carried out mass genocide, and there will be plenty more in the future who will have the same intent for as long as evil exists.
Writing from Sydney, Australia where we experienced our own 'Islamic Terrorism' a few weeks ago, it tends to be perpetrated by immigrant minorities who feel they have been marginalized by society. They then attach their crimes to an Islamic flag as some kind of justification for their actions.
How far should we tolerate evil? How should we react when our loved ones are murdered?
Put the murderer of a child in front of its mother, and she will probably claw his eyes out, because the provocation is too great.
So it was with the Muslim terrorists.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Tolerating evil, for me, means turning the other cheek. In practice, that means locking people up for grave sins, rather than responding in kind.
You can't fight hate with hate and fear with fear. It doesn't work. You lead by example.
Quote:
As such, it would be wise for France to instigate a law banning the portrayal of certain subjects in cartoons, with penalty of imprisonment. If that law had been in place a few days ago, those twelve lives would have been saved.
If people were afraid those twelve people would have been saved? Living in fear of persecution is not living at all. People should be free to believe what they like. And people should also be free to satirise what they like. Murder like this isn't going anywhere for a long time because it stems from inner fears people have. The reason these guys were offended to the point of murder was borne out of an insecurity about themselves. Otherwise the satire would have bounced off them. Disallowing the satire only punishes the free.
I am Charlie means tolerating evil. How far should we tolerate evil? How should we react when our loved ones are murdered? Put the murderer of a child in front of its mother, and she will probably claw his eyes out, because the provocation is too great. So it was with the Muslim terrorists. There is no such thing as free speech. Tolerating evil, for me, means turning the other cheek. In practice, that means locking people up for grave sins, rather than responding in kind.
You can't fight hate with hate and fear with fear. It doesn't work. You lead by example.
As such, it would be wise for France to instigate a law banning the portrayal of certain subjects in cartoons, with penalty of imprisonment. If that law had been in place a few days ago, those twelve lives would have been saved.
If people were afraid those twelve people would have been saved? Living in fear of persecution is not living at all. People should be free to believe what they like. And people should also be free to satirise what they like. Murder like this isn't going anywhere for a long time because it stems from inner fears people have. The reason these guys were offended to the point of murder was borne out of an insecurity about themselves. Otherwise the satire would have bounced off them. Disallowing the satire only punishes the free.
No need for fear; just common sense.
We are, indeed, free to believe what we like; we have free will.
We aren't free, however to make a public expression of what we believe, if that expression is grossly offensive. Try going up to a large man and quietly cursing them and mocking them. You may find that you provoke a response which stimulates your nerve endings.
Until you've lived under threat of death for not walking lock step, I don't think anyone can judge the Muslim masses for staying silent.
It's going to take uncommon bravery to change this situation.
I'm afraid, though, that there might not be enough time for change to occur through education and reform.
The one thing I can't help thinking... When people say that liberals are appeasers, it makes me wonder what they feel is the solution. Slaughter? If that is their answer then who becomes the fascists... the ugly beasts. This aint an easy fix.
You've got a hangup over religion being all about authority and control. That might be the case with some religions, but not Christianity, which is the only one true religion. Indeed, the central tenet of Christianity is based on conceding control where appropriate: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
You seem to agree that the followers of Christianity surrender their personal control to the authority of the texts they read, which are handed down by human beings wishing to control them. What you are calling God is an abstraction of controlling humans who invented the religion. The reason for the abstraction is there's no accountability. Religious people use this to absolve themselves of personal responsibility.
There are a few stories of religious people committing horrible acts of abuse and then moments after, praying to God or Allah because the faiths teach that a quick whisper to the person upstairs is enough to forgive them for their wrongdoing and that this unaccountable deity is the moral authority over any human system of law.
"Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others .... <>"
?This is, as Zappa would say, the "crux of the biscuit" : by your definition, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot exercise it.
The notion of "offense" is very vague. Charlie Hebdo was criticized for offending muslims, but they were equally offensive towards Christians and Jews. From self limitations to self limitations of your freedom, you end up with no freedom at all, and give up to your own values : this is submission .
(Note incidentally that "islam" means "submission" )
If people feel offended, in a democratic society, that have the right to raise the case to courts (according, as you pointed out, to local and ever changing legislations). Jews , Christians and muslims tried this again Charlie Hebdo (they mostly lost the cases).
As long as the local legislation is met, there is no place for a notion like "blasphemy" (and furthermore, a death penalty attached to it ...) in a democratic society.
Everybody draws a line somewhere though, it is never unlimited freedom:
"French Interior Minister Manuel Valls requests them to draw the attention of mayors, invested with the power to police public performances, to the guidelines banning ’’Le Mur’’(The Wall) by French humorist Dieudonné"
"The French comic Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, who has convictions for anti-Semitic hate speech, has dropped a controversial show after it was banned.
He told reporters in Paris he would no longer perform The Wall, after France's highest court upheld a ban on the opening night of his tour on Thursday."
Other cases are wikileaks and the nude celebrity photos. People don't have rights to publish that information. That's distinct from ideas that someone produces but it's not an issue of copyright, it's a matter of offense and security.
Freedom of speech explicitly does not mean freedom from offense.
People say that often and yet there are limits on what people are legally allowed to say. If you merely use words to incite racial hatred or incite violence, you will be arrested and charged for the use of your words:
"Two men who posted messages on Facebook inciting other people to riot in their home towns have both been sentenced to four years in prison by a judge at Chester crown court."
"A teenager who posted a death threat on Facebook, yesterday became the first person in Britain to be jailed for bullying on a social networking site."
The target of her written abuse committed suicide.
If you post or even possess an obscene pornographic image, you will be arrested and charged for it. No democratic society gives you the right to offend people without limit and they can't.
Whenever people talk about defending freedom of speech, they'll have in their minds speech that they agree with that others don't. Radical Islam is speech that people disagree with. Should it have been ok for publications to print death threats to Charlie Hebdo before they were killed? Publications create influence and with enough people, they'd result in physical violence. This happened with the Ferguson riots:
"Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, has been formally charged with inciting a riot after encouraging a horde of angry protesters to “Burn this b**** down!”."
He was just expressing himself but it resulted in violence and he was charged for it.
Freedom of speech and intolerance are seen way differently across the ocean and we as europeans see a lot of hypocrisy in the way americans feel about freedom of speech. Religious intolerance for instance. You may mock everything but not religion (even when it is at the heart of the latest pedophilia scandals). You may show everything but not a nipple or "worse" though the US are the world's greatest consumers of pornography.
#JeSuisCharlie means, literally, I am Charlie.
It goes way further than defending the freedom of speech. It means that we don't abide with intolerance. It means that we subscribe to Voltaire when he says "I may hate what you say but I'll fight to the death for having you the right to say it".
Apple is quite on the opposite of that school of thought. Which is their right. Which gives me the right to question them publishing #JeSuisCharlie. For they are not.
That's the quote I used but I used it to justify Apple's actions in that Apple clearly didn't like what Hebdo had to say but supports their right to say it. That might seem contradictory but someone can run a family business and defend a pornographer's rights to make pornography but not sell it in their store because it's not the appropriate channel.
That obviously creates the dilemma that Hydrogen pointed out, which is that if nobody volunteers their own distribution channel then it effectively extinguishes free speech. If you take that to the extreme though, it means every store has to sell the most hardcore pornography and most vitriolic imagery and text because if they don't then they don't truly support their rights to express it. That's obviously not feasible.
The liberal ideology of multiculturalism has failed.
You can't lump all cultures in together. Multiculturalism is why you can choose from a variety of restaurants when you go out to eat and listen to a huge variety of music. It's the reason why some of the most attractive people in the world exist. With multiple races come multiple cultural heritages, some bad, some good.
it would be wise for France to instigate a law banning the portrayal of certain subjects in cartoons, with penalty of imprisonment.
Is there ANY sense left to ANY Britons, or are you all puppets of the police state now?
Originally Posted by Marvin
People say that often and yet there are limits on what people are legally allowed to say. If you merely use words to incite racial hatred or incite violence, you will be arrested and charged for the use of your words:
Yes, the use in incitation to violence; not the words themselves.
You can march the streets screaming that you want all cops killed. AND NOTHING HAPPENS. Because nothing SHOULD happen. If you actively go out and kill cops, however...
If you post or even possess an obscene pornographic image, you will be arrested and charged for it.
… They’re all obscene… And that’s obviously not true.
No democratic society gives you the right to offend people without limit and they can't.
Of course they can. What kind of nonsense is that? It’s not the fault or responsibility of the speaker that the listener is offended.
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS, and you can’t make me be. It’s an exceedingly dark and dangerous path that would claim this.
Clearly not, the above play was anti-semitic, mocking the jewish religion and banned in France.
So that’s one place it was banned, showing France doesn’t care about freedom of speech. Elsewhere…
That obviously creates the dilemma that Hydrogen pointed out, which is that if nobody volunteers their own distribution channel then it effectively extinguishes free speech.
I actually don’t see a dilemma here. Nobody is volunteering because none have to. Private businesses cannot be forced to sell or distribute things they don’t choose. If no one wants to carry my magazine, “Poop Eaters Monthly”, that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to advocate for eating feces. It just means that I can’t infringe upon their rights not to carry what they don’t want to carry.
I can make my own newsstand and sell it if I want.
Freedom of speech MEANS ACTUAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It does not mean 1. you have to listen to what I say, 2. you have to provide a platform for me to say it, 3. you have to agree with what I say.
You can't lump all cultures in together. Multiculturalism is why you can choose from a variety of restaurants when you go out to eat and listen to a huge variety of music.
That’s diversity. “Multiculturalism” as a concept is evil. You’re saying that yourself; you can’t lump all cultures together. The VARIETY of food and music is diversity. Trying to combine them creates inedible mush, unlistenable noise, etc.
@Marvin "Clearly not, the above play was anti-semitic, mocking the jewish religion and banned in France."
?As I said before, anti-Semitism laws in France result from the fifty million deaths of WW2. The existing laws forbids incitement to racial hate (against Jews in the case of Dieudonné, but it could be applied to any kind of other racist ideas). There is no French law against mockery , or blasphemy. Therefore, it is important to make the distinction, in a way this is the heart of the problem.
Of course Dieudonné tried to use the excuse of mockery or humor, but he was condemned. Radical islamists (Christians, too) have also tried to get Charlie Hebdo condemned (many times) by virtue of the same laws. They were always unsuccessful, because justice considered it was mockery, not incitement to racial hate. I defend unlimited right to mockery, not to racial hate. Words have a meaning, it is important !
?And again, tolerance of US society to any kind of extreme violence, as well as expression of racist ideas, is something very strange to us, compared with the way this society (and therefore Apple , Google or Facebook, through their publishing policies ) react , horrified by a single word of slang, or a tiny portion of feminine breast !
But I think I am losing my time, Charlie Hebdo sense of mockery seems to be something which only French people can appreciate ....
And the solution? Remove the immigrants most likely to be terrorists—ie those who profess to be Muslims. It would mean that most of the Muslim immigrants who have no intention of terrorising anyone would also have to leave, but that is the dilemma facing France, England and the rest of Europe: either allow immigrants to roam freely and accept that terrorists will murder your citizens, or put very strict controls on immigration, far stricter than is the case today, which will reduce the chance of terrorist murder substantially and lead to a better, more Christian society.
The liberal ideology of multiculturalism has failed.
That's a huge problem in Europe. You can see the huge growing anti-Muslim sentiment all over Europe. As it stands now, the liberal leaders in Europe are forcing the people to tolerate the intolerable. It's time for strict controls on immigration in Europe.
Roll your eyes all you want, but you need to read what I wrote again. I never implied nothing has happened since 9/11.
Oh, I know what you wrote and I know you qualified your comment with the word serious so you could argue anything I mention as not being serious from your warped PoV. I get it, only Muslims can be terrorists¡ :rolleyes:
That's a huge problem in Europe. You can see the huge growing anti-Muslim sentiment all over Europe. As it stands now, the liberal leaders in Europe are forcing the people to tolerate the intolerable. It's time for strict controls on immigration in Europe.
For your information, the three guys who killed 17 people recently in France were French.
For your information, the three guys who killed 17 people recently in France were French.
For your information, the brothers are French-Algerians. Their parents are immigrants from Algeria. The third guy was born in France to parents of immigrants from Senegal. Stricter immigration controls are needed like I said in my previous post.
Oh, I know what you wrote and I know you qualified your comment with the word serious so you could argue anything I mention as not being serious from your warped PoV. I get it, only Muslims can be terrorists¡
I'm not trying to take anything away from the other attacks. All of them were awful.
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences.
1. Banning contraceptives is part of the beliefs. They also include abstinence, monogamy.
2. Saying someone is going to hell is not the same as murder.
3. Freedom of speech is just that. That's the speech that has to be protected. You can't please everyone and someone will always be offended. Of course there are some limits but that's because it could affect safety of others.
For instance, your anti-religion sentiment offends me but I will fight for your right to express it (no matter how wrong you are). .
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences.
1. Banning contraceptives is part of the beliefs. They also include abstinence, monogamy.
2. Saying someone is going to hell is not the same as murder.
3. Freedom of speech is just that. That's the speech that has to be protected. You can't please everyone and someone will always be offended. Of course there are some limits but that's because it could affect safety of others.
For instance, your anti-religion sentiment offends me but I will fight for your right to express it (no matter how wrong you are). .
Comments
I'm afraid that your humanitarian secularism is just as much a religion as any other.
You are simply choosing to worship man rather than God.
Evil is no respecter of faith. There are plenty of atheist psychopaths and sociopaths who have carried out mass genocide, and there will be plenty more in the future who will have the same intent for as long as evil exists.
Bingo.
I am Charlie means tolerating evil.
How far should we tolerate evil? How should we react when our loved ones are murdered?
Put the murderer of a child in front of its mother, and she will probably claw his eyes out, because the provocation is too great.
So it was with the Muslim terrorists.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Tolerating evil, for me, means turning the other cheek. In practice, that means locking people up for grave sins, rather than responding in kind.
You can't fight hate with hate and fear with fear. It doesn't work. You lead by example.
If people were afraid those twelve people would have been saved? Living in fear of persecution is not living at all. People should be free to believe what they like. And people should also be free to satirise what they like. Murder like this isn't going anywhere for a long time because it stems from inner fears people have. The reason these guys were offended to the point of murder was borne out of an insecurity about themselves. Otherwise the satire would have bounced off them. Disallowing the satire only punishes the free.
No need for fear; just common sense.
We are, indeed, free to believe what we like; we have free will.
We aren't free, however to make a public expression of what we believe, if that expression is grossly offensive. Try going up to a large man and quietly cursing them and mocking them. You may find that you provoke a response which stimulates your nerve endings.
There is a middle ground: imprisonment.
I was referring to the Torah only.
LOL
Amazon's profits are no laughing matter.
You seem to agree that the followers of Christianity surrender their personal control to the authority of the texts they read, which are handed down by human beings wishing to control them. What you are calling God is an abstraction of controlling humans who invented the religion. The reason for the abstraction is there's no accountability. Religious people use this to absolve themselves of personal responsibility.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-worship-leader-raped-boy-at-mosque-2182791.html
There are a few stories of religious people committing horrible acts of abuse and then moments after, praying to God or Allah because the faiths teach that a quick whisper to the person upstairs is enough to forgive them for their wrongdoing and that this unaccountable deity is the moral authority over any human system of law.
Everybody draws a line somewhere though, it is never unlimited freedom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
In France, the following play has been banned for being anti-semitic:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article181734.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25700225
"French Interior Minister Manuel Valls requests them to draw the attention of mayors, invested with the power to police public performances, to the guidelines banning ’’Le Mur’’(The Wall) by French humorist Dieudonné"
"The French comic Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, who has convictions for anti-Semitic hate speech, has dropped a controversial show after it was banned.
He told reporters in Paris he would no longer perform The Wall, after France's highest court upheld a ban on the opening night of his tour on Thursday."
http://airshipdaily.com/blog/01212014-11-books-banned-today
Other cases are wikileaks and the nude celebrity photos. People don't have rights to publish that information. That's distinct from ideas that someone produces but it's not an issue of copyright, it's a matter of offense and security.
People say that often and yet there are limits on what people are legally allowed to say. If you merely use words to incite racial hatred or incite violence, you will be arrested and charged for the use of your words:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed
"Two men who posted messages on Facebook inciting other people to riot in their home towns have both been sentenced to four years in prison by a judge at Chester crown court."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
"A teenager who posted a death threat on Facebook, yesterday became the first person in Britain to be jailed for bullying on a social networking site."
The target of her written abuse committed suicide.
If you post or even possess an obscene pornographic image, you will be arrested and charged for it. No democratic society gives you the right to offend people without limit and they can't.
Whenever people talk about defending freedom of speech, they'll have in their minds speech that they agree with that others don't. Radical Islam is speech that people disagree with. Should it have been ok for publications to print death threats to Charlie Hebdo before they were killed? Publications create influence and with enough people, they'd result in physical violence. This happened with the Ferguson riots:
http://nationalreport.net/mike-browns-stepfather-arrested-charged-inciting-riot-commanding-protesters-burn-this-b-down/
"Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, has been formally charged with inciting a riot after encouraging a horde of angry protesters to “Burn this b**** down!”."
He was just expressing himself but it resulted in violence and he was charged for it.
See the above cases from the UK and France.
See the above case where Facebook posts resulted in a suicide.
Clearly not, the above play was anti-semitic, mocking the jewish religion and banned in France.
Those are not particularly offensive things to do and it's not just religious people who have reservations about vaccinations.
That's the quote I used but I used it to justify Apple's actions in that Apple clearly didn't like what Hebdo had to say but supports their right to say it. That might seem contradictory but someone can run a family business and defend a pornographer's rights to make pornography but not sell it in their store because it's not the appropriate channel.
That obviously creates the dilemma that Hydrogen pointed out, which is that if nobody volunteers their own distribution channel then it effectively extinguishes free speech. If you take that to the extreme though, it means every store has to sell the most hardcore pornography and most vitriolic imagery and text because if they don't then they don't truly support their rights to express it. That's obviously not feasible.
You can't lump all cultures in together. Multiculturalism is why you can choose from a variety of restaurants when you go out to eat and listen to a huge variety of music. It's the reason why some of the most attractive people in the world exist. With multiple races come multiple cultural heritages, some bad, some good.
Is there ANY sense left to ANY Britons, or are you all puppets of the police state now?
Yes, the use in incitation to violence; not the words themselves.
You can march the streets screaming that you want all cops killed. AND NOTHING HAPPENS. Because nothing SHOULD happen. If you actively go out and kill cops, however...
… They’re all obscene… And that’s obviously not true.
Of course they can. What kind of nonsense is that? It’s not the fault or responsibility of the speaker that the listener is offended.
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS, and you can’t make me be. It’s an exceedingly dark and dangerous path that would claim this.
So that’s one place it was banned, showing France doesn’t care about freedom of speech. Elsewhere…
I actually don’t see a dilemma here. Nobody is volunteering because none have to. Private businesses cannot be forced to sell or distribute things they don’t choose. If no one wants to carry my magazine, “Poop Eaters Monthly”, that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to advocate for eating feces. It just means that I can’t infringe upon their rights not to carry what they don’t want to carry.
I can make my own newsstand and sell it if I want.
Freedom of speech MEANS ACTUAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It does not mean 1. you have to listen to what I say, 2. you have to provide a platform for me to say it, 3. you have to agree with what I say.
That’s diversity. “Multiculturalism” as a concept is evil. You’re saying that yourself; you can’t lump all cultures together. The VARIETY of food and music is diversity. Trying to combine them creates inedible mush, unlistenable noise, etc.
@Marvin "Clearly not, the above play was anti-semitic, mocking the jewish religion and banned in France."
?As I said before, anti-Semitism laws in France result from the fifty million deaths of WW2. The existing laws forbids incitement to racial hate (against Jews in the case of Dieudonné, but it could be applied to any kind of other racist ideas). There is no French law against mockery , or blasphemy. Therefore, it is important to make the distinction, in a way this is the heart of the problem.
Of course Dieudonné tried to use the excuse of mockery or humor, but he was condemned. Radical islamists (Christians, too) have also tried to get Charlie Hebdo condemned (many times) by virtue of the same laws. They were always unsuccessful, because justice considered it was mockery, not incitement to racial hate. I defend unlimited right to mockery, not to racial hate. Words have a meaning, it is important !
?And again, tolerance of US society to any kind of extreme violence, as well as expression of racist ideas, is something very strange to us, compared with the way this society (and therefore Apple , Google or Facebook, through their publishing policies ) react , horrified by a single word of slang, or a tiny portion of feminine breast !
But I think I am losing my time, Charlie Hebdo sense of mockery seems to be something which only French people can appreciate ....
It's all been hunky dory.
Roll your eyes all you want, but you need to read what I wrote again. I never implied nothing has happened since 9/11.
Indeed,
And the solution? Remove the immigrants most likely to be terrorists—ie those who profess to be Muslims. It would mean that most of the Muslim immigrants who have no intention of terrorising anyone would also have to leave, but that is the dilemma facing France, England and the rest of Europe: either allow immigrants to roam freely and accept that terrorists will murder your citizens, or put very strict controls on immigration, far stricter than is the case today, which will reduce the chance of terrorist murder substantially and lead to a better, more Christian society.
The liberal ideology of multiculturalism has failed.
That's a huge problem in Europe. You can see the huge growing anti-Muslim sentiment all over Europe. As it stands now, the liberal leaders in Europe are forcing the people to tolerate the intolerable. It's time for strict controls on immigration in Europe.
Oh, I know what you wrote and I know you qualified your comment with the word serious so you could argue anything I mention as not being serious from your warped PoV. I get it, only Muslims can be terrorists¡ :rolleyes:
That's a huge problem in Europe. You can see the huge growing anti-Muslim sentiment all over Europe. As it stands now, the liberal leaders in Europe are forcing the people to tolerate the intolerable. It's time for strict controls on immigration in Europe.
For your information, the three guys who killed 17 people recently in France were French.
For your information, the three guys who killed 17 people recently in France were French.
For your information, the brothers are French-Algerians. Their parents are immigrants from Algeria. The third guy was born in France to parents of immigrants from Senegal. Stricter immigration controls are needed like I said in my previous post.
Oh, I know what you wrote and I know you qualified your comment with the word serious so you could argue anything I mention as not being serious from your warped PoV. I get it, only Muslims can be terrorists¡
I'm not trying to take anything away from the other attacks. All of them were awful.
At least we can agree on that.
1. Banning contraceptives is part of the beliefs. They also include abstinence, monogamy.
2. Saying someone is going to hell is not the same as murder.
3. Freedom of speech is just that. That's the speech that has to be protected. You can't please everyone and someone will always be offended. Of course there are some limits but that's because it could affect safety of others.
For instance, your anti-religion sentiment offends me but I will fight for your right to express it (no matter how wrong you are).
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences.
1. Banning contraceptives is part of the beliefs. They also include abstinence, monogamy.
2. Saying someone is going to hell is not the same as murder.
3. Freedom of speech is just that. That's the speech that has to be protected. You can't please everyone and someone will always be offended. Of course there are some limits but that's because it could affect safety of others.
For instance, your anti-religion sentiment offends me but I will fight for your right to express it (no matter how wrong you are).
Well said.