I hope I’m dead by the time these numbers change for the worse.
A new Rasmussen poll says:
The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly guard their right to free speech (88%). But, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just over half (53%) say the United States should refrain from banning so-called “hate speech.”
Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, which is loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories. Nearly one in five voters (19%) are undecided on whether such a ban is necessary.
…Opponents of hate speech legislation argue that it violates Americans’ freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions.
Most recently, they cite an ongoing case in Canada in which Maclean’s magazine is being prosecuted for publishing an article by an author who contends the rise of Islam is a threat to Western values. The article prompted a complaint from the Canadian Islamic Congress which, according to the New York Times, argues that the magazine should be forbidden from publishing such things, forced to rebut the original article and compensate Muslims for hurting their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.” A ruling from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is expected soon.
In a similar case, actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was recently fined $23,000 in a French court for “provoking racial hatred” because she criticized the manner in which sheep were killed in a Muslim religious ceremony.
You can read all about that Canadian case on Kathy Shaidle’s blog. It’s scary and I don’t mean that lightly or sarcastically. It’s fuckin’ SCARY.
Anyway. The very first paragraph of the article is what proves the problem to me: 88% “guard” free speech but only 53% have any sort of a clue as to what that means. Since it would be silly to imagine that as time goes on, more people will get the clue, I’m guessing that in another few decades, we’ll have laws just like France and Canada. Awesome.
Speaking of, are the French literally mentally challenged? Bardot “incited racial hatred” by commenting upon sheep sacrifice? Really? Have these clowns read the Koran? They totally should because it would give them a whole new understanding of “inciting racial hatred.”
Sura 8:12 “Remember your Lord inspired the angels with the message: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
Sura 9:5,29,41 “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!
Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage”
Just saying. Fuck ‘em if their “feelings” get “hurt.” They want you and me to DIE. So really: fuck ‘em.
We’re in deep trouble! Already, many businesses are capitulating to demands for special treatment of Muslim employees (makes as much sense as a vegetarian Hindu taking a job in a poultry processing plant and then demanding to be exempt from touching meat!).
How long will it be before we have a situation here that mirrors that of the Canadian bloggers, or the Danish cartoonists?
Can’t let that happen! (I was going to link to this on the Demotivators thread, but it seems to fit better riiiiiight here!)
June 16th, 2008 at 11:48 amESTThat’s always been like that. Ever since the concept of “hate speech” was invented by the Victim-du-Jour Club. “Hate speech” implies that persecution can be heaped on anyone who insults another, and the ranks of the offended are growing daily. Hmmm…… reminds me of….. hmmmm…..
Rachel, can you think of ANYONE who would fit that mold? LOL!!
June 16th, 2008 at 11:56 amESTA young lady I know has this bumper sticker on her car: “Freedom of Speech means Freedom to be offended” So right, that is…
June 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pmESTHate actions? TOTALLY wrong.
“Hate” speech? TOTALLY protected.
As much as I hate the KKK, they have as much right to spew their bullshit as the Pope does to say “make merry.” There is a line between hate speech and hateful actions/violence that can’t be crossed. The problem with today’s society is that people are too stupid to do the thinking required to figure out where aforementioned line is - hell, if hate speech was eliminated, we’d have no news - presidential or otherwise.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pmESTYou know there’s something wrong with your religion when it wants you to kill people who dont think/believe the way people ’should’.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pmESTI wonder how many of the 47% have said things that would be considered hate speech? My guess would be almost all of them. And then I wonder how many realize that they have said something that could be considered hate speech? My guess is almost none of them.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pmESTTiny ray of hope: my most liberalest relative* recently woke up to the Islamic threat and is pissed. She’s one of those people who organizes things and is sort of the hub of a network, so maybe she can have some kind of impact, at least in her neck of the woods.
*and by liberal I mean birkenstock-wearing, Unitarian going, Ivy league educated, Move-on party throwing, bumpersticker-plastering, committee-leading, lived in Europe and loved it, liberal.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pmESTOh, come on now. You’re too smart to be quoting the holy book of another religion and using those quotes as basis for establishing the intent of an entire religion. All nine hundred million Muslims want us dead? Do all billion and a half Christians favor abortion via sword, and infanticide via big rocks? (That’d be news to my Catholic family.)
Whenever someone quotes the not-so-nice parts of the Bible with the same kind of intent, the God brigade jumps up and down and says, “You’re taking that out of context!” or “You lack the spiritual insight to interpret Scripture!” Why do you think it’s different when you do it with the Koran?
ANd yes, the Bible has its share of similar doozies. If I were to judge Christianity by the nasty parts of the Good Book, I’d have a pretty negative view of its believers.
“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever.”
……….Leviticus 25:45-46
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
……….Numbers 31:17 (Moses)
“The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces.”
……….2 Chronicles 25:12
“Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”
……….Psalms 137:9
“Samar’ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”
……….Hosea 13:16
“For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
……….Exodus 20:5
“…Men’ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and ripped up all the women in it who were with child.”
……….2 Kings 15:16
“(Elisha) went up from there to Bethal; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, ‘Go up, you baldhead! Go up you baldhead!’ And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.”
……….2 Kings 2:23
“Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger…Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.”
……….Isaiah 13:9, 13:15
“Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers…I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken.”
……….Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17
“‘Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women…’”
……….Ezekiel 9:5
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
……….1 Samuel 15:3
“For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does…”
……….1 Corinthians 7:4
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
……….1 Corinthians 14:34
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
……….Timothy 2:11
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
……….Romans 13:1
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother- in-law….”
……….Matthew 10:34
“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
……….Luke 14:26
Want to tell me why those Bible verses don’t accurately reflect current Christian theology? (And I’m pretty sure they don’t, unless I missed a whole chunk of material in Sunday school.)
June 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pmESTMarko,
Few people here judge either Christianity or Islam based solely on their scriptures.
I, and most of us here, judge these religions mostly by the actions of their followers. Up until at least the Protestant Reformation, I would have judged Christianity as harshly as I judge Islam today.
[I am a non-believer.]
June 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmESTI second Mr. Carson…..
June 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pmESTJim,
Islam has almost a billion adherents. The whackjobs we’re fighting are a radical offshoot of a minority splinter group of a sub-sect of Islam. Judging the entire religion by the actions of its most radical 0.1% is like judging the entirety of Christianity by the words of Fred Phelps and the actions of Eric Rudolph.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pmESTNice cut and paste job there, marko.
Rachel isn’t using quotes from the kuran “as basis for establishing the intent of an entire religion”, she’s using it to point out their hypocracy in complaining about hate speech when they utter it all the time.
Rachel’s point was clear; you just chose to ignore it. Typical troll.
Personally, I don’t use quotes from the kuran to justify my intense dislike of islam, I use the behavior of Muslims. I don’t care what they believe, I care what they do.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pmEST“They want you and me to DIE. So really: fuck ‘em.”
Unless my reading glasses are seriously bent, it sure reads like Rachel is using Quran quotes to establish that “they” want us to die.
Bad Penny,
I am fully aware of the point Rachel’s making. For the record, I’m in agreement with her on the subject of hate speech. I just think she’s too smart to drag out holy books to establish *why* the other side is wrong, because all holy books have inconvenient and morally reprehensible parts.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pmESTMarko,
More than half of those billion adherents subscribe to various notions of female subjugation. The vast majority believe this is proper because of their own ignorance. But ignorance is no damned excuse.
Islam today is a hateful, harmful belief system.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pmESTMarko… and yet we keep seeing these “hate speech” rulings in Canada and France which have thus far only been applied to Christians and atheists. There’s a much greater anti-Christian, anti-Atheist minority of Muslims than there is of anti-Muslim Christians or atheists. And, you might notice, most of the “hate speech” by Bardot and others is not actually aimed at the supposed billion non-radical Muslims, but at the Muslims who specifically threaten to kill people based on their religion or based on what they say about the Prophet Muhammad.
As I said the last time this came up, it’s time to fight fire with fire and DEMAND equal enforcement of these laws, while we continue to call for their entire repeal. When Muslims are also targeted for “hate speech” for simply quoting from their holy book, then we’ll finally see THEM demanding free speech for all.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pmESTTo Marko:
Simply put, because you’re interpreting them wrong. Those versus from the Koran are being interpreted, correctly, by (literally) millions of Muslims - who say that violence against kufir is justified, often saying that it’s justified by their existence.
Find the Bible verse where Jesus says, “Go kill the unbelievers.”
Find the Bible verse where Jesus says, “Behead infidels.”
What happened when the disciples were rejected from a town, and kicked out? They asked, “Will you call down fire on this town and destroy it?” And Jesus told them that they didn’t know what they were talking about, and when people reject you, dust the dirt off your shoes and be on your way.
Juxtapose that against the haditha specifying death for apostates.
Another thing you should remember is that Christians do not treat the Bible the same way Muslims treat the Koran. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect word of God, given by an Angel to the perfect man, who wrote it in the perfect language of Arabic while in the perfect land of the Levant. There is no give and take on the interpretations of this book like there is the Bible. There’s no King James, New International, Youngs Literal, etc, translations. It is written in the perfect language, so why should it ever be translated? It contains no error, why should it ever be changed? Contrast that with some Bibles having demarcated sections saying, “This part can’t be verified historically.”
Trust me, it’s easy to think of Islam is “just like” Christianity, with “its kooks” but that’s a fallacy that is just not supported by facts.
Do you know why?
You insult Islam you get in trouble for “provoking racial hatred” - guess what?
Nobody considers Christianity a race.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pmESTNice moral equivalence from Marko. Tell you what: I’ll start worrying about Christians when the extreme members start blowing themselves up in gay bars in San Francisco or in NFL stadiums because people should be resting on Sundays, and the moderate members sit on their collective ass and do nothing about it.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pmESTpffft — Hoo boy!
The thing is, though: sure, “it’s always been like that,” but to have it legislated — that’s the nightmare scenario! Considering their response to the ‘inappropriate’ use of a certain expression, just think how those ‘offended’ you’re referring to might carry on if there were the American equivalent of the Human Rights Commission: Satirical pieces like this series would be actionable offenses!
And in seeking such a forum for the redress of perceived wrongs, the PC crowd have unwittingly provided a powerful instrument for the subjugation of Western culture. That sounds so “I-need-a-tinfoil-hat,’ but one doesn’t even have to look across the pond anymore to see it in action, one need only look north — and not even over the border! *hops up and down, flapping arms and shaking tiny fists in impotent rage!*
June 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pmESTAs a longtime Christian, I have to agree with Marko here. The Koran is a sideshow, a nonissue. The Islamic theat has nothing to do with their ancient text, and everything to do with their presently stated intentions.
The generalization of the Islamic threat is all about the community’s failure, en mass, to affirmatively denounce the medieval barbarism of its most radical subsets.
It’s this difference in reaction by the larger community, and not the holy books, that separates Christianity and Islam.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pmESTMarko,
If you can find anything on the entire Internet showing that I ever have or ever would defend the Bible or any quotes therein, I’ll give you a million dollars.
Note how I didn’t say anything about Christianity in this post. That’s because I’m not a Christian. Your much-too-long quote bomb has absolutely no effect on me. And by the way, really, I am going to have to make a rule out such long comments that contain nothing but quotes.
In any case, this post and the articles it is based on have nothing to do with Christians, so far as I can tell. It’s about “hate speech” supposedly directed at Muslims, who I posit are generally way too sensitive about this stuff, considering their Holy Book.
Are any governments out there hearing lawsuits and making new legislation to protect “hate speech” against Christians? Because there is plenty of it. I’ve said some of it myself, in fact. Christians seem to be able to handle it, that’s all. They’ll argue back and they might even get seriously pissed off, but you don’t see them holding kangaroo courts to prosecute anyone who hurts their feelings.
And THAT is what this is about. It’s about governments telling people that they can’t say shit about other religions. That is scary. Because if that was how it was here, what you just did would be hate speech. I hope you can see what’s wrong with that.
Trust me. If Christians were trying to have the First Amendment gutted because they were tired of hearing others speak or write critically about their faith because it “hurts their feelings”, I’d be on their asses, too. And I’d probably even quote the Bible critically while I was at it.
Seriously, do people even read my blog before they try to “bust” me on this religion stuff? I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmESTHundreds of Muslims marched in London to protest the Muhammed cartoons. The overriding theme of their
protestprotected hate speech was: “Kill those who insult Islam”. These are modern-day Muslims living in a First World nation, not a helpless fringe of a fringe living in a cave somewhere. The mythical “moderate Muslim” - or apostates as they are known by devout Muslims - don’t speak up much, and thus the hateful ideology is allowed to spread prolifically.“Slay those who insult Islam.”
“Behead those who insult Islam.”
“Butcher those who mock Islam.”
“Exterminate those who slander Islam.”
“Europe you will pay. Extermination is on its way.”
“Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way.”
And the most ironic of Muslim idiocies:
“Freedom go to hell.”
Obviously, most of the above is a “clear incitement to murder” and an obvious and specific threat.
Meanwhile, the FBI estimates that over 80% of mosques inside America are radicalized, and we already know that the Muslim Brotherhood (on almost all major campuses) and CAIR are connected to terrorism. And of course, one only needs to look at Iran and Saudi Arabia to understand what is justified - nay, DEMANDED - by Muslims according to their own holy book.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pmESTI don’t know about others, but I haven’t seen a lot of Christian “suicide” bombers - but there seem to have been an awful lot of muslims doing that. I don’t recall a lot of Christians calling for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews (not only in Israel, but worldwide) - but I do hear a lot of that from muslims. I don’t see a lot of Christians stabbing, shooting, beating or burning to death their daughters and sisters because they spoke to a man they weren’t related to - but I do see a lot of so-called “honor killings” by muslims. I don’t find anywhere in the Christian Bible that one should beat one’s wife if she disagrees with one - but I do find that in the koran. Niether do I find directions on molesting girl children and sex with animals in the Christian Bible - but they are there in the koran. Nor do very many Christians carve the clitoris out of their women - but a great many muslims (not necessarily radical)do so with enthusiasm. And on and on.
I’m just sayin’, marko.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pmESTMy comment was most assuredly not “nothing but quotes”, and I did mention that I, personally, do not judge Christianity by those quotes. I’m not trying to “bust you on that religion stuff”, and I don’t even disagree with your main point.
But whatever…have your little party, and sorry for chiming in. It won’t happen again.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pmESTI don’t think Marko’s point and Rachel’s point (both of which I agree with) are mutually exclusive at all. Correct me if I’m wrong here:
Rachel: the Muslim push to criminalize even the most vanilla criticisms of Islam as hatespeech is assanine.
Marko: verses from the Koran are not the best exhibits to prove that point.
Where’s the argument? The best examples of Muslim hypocrisy vis a vis hatespeech is the neverending stream of apocalyptic threats coming from the Muslim world … And the deafening silence from the “Muslim majority” (so we’re told) failing to denounce the medieval mindset that thinks riots and bloodshed are a warranted response to some cartoons.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pmESTPlease read “House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill” http://www.hr1955.info/
And here.
As far as I know, this is still in the Senate.
On a “radical” note, I have also seen that the argument espousing the inferiority of Islamic values is precisely the same argument that radical Islamists make about Western values. Just saying.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pmESTI think a lot of you are getting off-track in this thread. The current affair here in Canada happens to be about Muslims filing a grievance with the Human Rights Commission, however many other “marginalized” folk have done the same thing and are continuing to do so.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pmESTGays filed and won against the Knights of Colombus
because they wouldn’t rent their hall out to them for a gay wedding. Gays, Lesbians, Blacks, Jews and a host of others considered to be vulnerable to hate are covered by this law. White males are not.
It is not so much the so-called law that is the worst of it though. It is the process where the respondent is deemed guilty until proven innocent.
The defendant must pay for all his expenses indefending himself while the complainant’s are paid for by the government. It’s a friggin’ mess and I for one will not sit idly by and see it continue.
Lance,
The argument, as I’m hearing it, is that Marko objects to Rachel’s use of Koran verses as examples of ‘inciting hatred,’ and uses Bible quotes as a counter-argument.
His argument, in my opinion, is very weak because the Koran is currently very effective at inciting hatred, and the Bible is not.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pmESTThat’s a little emo.
But going back to Rachel’s post, I wonder if polling would change radically if they asked, “Do you agree that people should be arrested over insults to Islam?”
My bet is that they’d get 90% “No.” So I think if it actually came down to the Maclean’s case happening in America, people would drop a brick over it.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pmESTIt’s a shame this important thread got derailed by this Christian business. Or Islam, for that matter - I would be against “hate” speech or “hate” crime legislation regardless of what form it took.
Unfortunately, this is going to happen during our lifetime, Rachel.
Aldous Huxley was right - our rights will not be stripped away forcefully, we will willingly trade them for the pease-porridge of infantile, sensual life.
Was it someone here that quoted George Carlin? He said that the average person is pretty fracking stupid. But the scary part is that half the world is even dumber than that.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pmESTAlso, if I may interject a bit of factual reference for Marko
and Lance…I apologize in advance for the copy-and-paste, but the numbers are fascinating!
First of all…
Read this.
This essay is an excellent rebuttal of the idiocy “Christianity is as bad as Islam” (by an avowed non-religious author). Pay special attention to the section Religions and Moral Equivalence Arguments - that’s for you.
In the essay, you will note a scientific study (by the Pew Research Center) polling actual Muslims in Arab/Muslim states (that so-called minuscule fringe you were talking about, Marko). The results directly contradict the point you were attempting to make:
SUICIDE BOMBING IN DEFENSE OF ISLAM Is It Ever Justifiable?
____________Yes……….No……….DK/Refused
Lebanon______82……….12………..6
Ivory Coast____73……….27………..0
Nigeria________66……….26………..8
Bangladesh___58……….23……….19
Jordan_______65……….26………..8
Pakistan_____38……….38……….23
Mali_________54……….35……….11
Ghana________44……….43……….12
Uganda_______40……….52………..8
Senegal______47……….50………..3
Indonesia____43……….54………..3
Turkey_______20……….64……….14
Sam Harris: “These are hideous numbers. If all Muslims had responded as Turkey did (where a mere 4 percent think suicide bombings are ‘often’ justified, 9 percent ‘sometimes,’ and 7 percent ‘rarely’), we would still have a problem worth worrying about; we would, after all, be talking about more than 200 million avowed supporters of terrorism. But Turkey is an island of ambassadorial goodwill compared with the rest of the Muslim world.”
The author, Sam Harris, further points out, “If you do not find these numbers sufficiently disturbing, consider that places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories were not included in the survey. Had they been, it is safe to say, the Lebanese would have lost their place at the top of the list several times over. Suicide bombing also entails suicide , of course, which most Muslims believe is expressly forbidden by God. Consequently, had the question been ‘Is it ever justified to target civilians in defense of Islam,’ we could expect even greater Muslim support for terrorism.”
I think your ideology needs a paradigm shift, Marko
June 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pmESTand Lance. You’re not living in the real world.Call a gay person faggot = hate speech
June 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pmESTCall a black person nigger = hate speech
Call an oriental person a chink = hate speech
Call an Islamic extremist a terrorist = hate speech
On the other hand
Call a white person honky = that’s cool
And the Liberals can’t understand why their pc bullshit is despised.
Hmmm — too bad Marko’s bugging out! I missed my chance to actually help him out a tiny bit — not a lot, just a tiny bit!
I think there’s probably a protection somewhere, even in those heathen European countries, regarding ‘free practice of religion’ that not only allows both the koran and bible to be exempt from scrutiny, but permits Imams to spew hate from the pulpit, while their followers cry victimhood from hate speech by non-muslims. So in that one sense, you have a point, Marko, in that freedom of religion should be applied equally to Muslims as to Christians where their respective scriptures are concerned.
Oddly, though, those protections don’t seem to apply equally — just ask Ake Green (if you speak Swedish).
Which brings us back to Rachel’s original point: unless something changes — even though most people claim to value their free speech rights — because of PC, we’re in serious danger of losing them!
June 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pmESTRedhead Infidel
On a side note, that’s why Islamists refer to it as “martyrdom” and not “suicide bombing”
June 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pmESTOf course they don’t, the “mainstream” Muslims would kill them.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pmESTBob, you’re right. Change the semantics a bit and the response to the Pew poll would be near 100% in favor of violence in the name of Islam.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pmESTRedhead:
Perhaps Marko has before or was now making the “Christianity is as bad as Islam” argument. I, however, was not. That would be a curious position, indeed, since I began by identifying myself as a Christian.
Let my yet again, lest you and others continue to miss my point (not easy by BlackBerry, I might add):
I couldn’t agree more with Rachel and everybody else who thinks:
1) that Islam is a very real threat to civilization as we in the West know it;
2) that this notion of criminalizing thought and speech that hurts the feelings of others, regardless of why, is infantile.
So please consider me both educated and in agreement as to “the facts.”
Jim Carson:
I see your point, but I think the Koran itself is still a sideshow. The best evidence of Muslim hatespeech hypocrisy (Rachel’s point, as I understood it) is still the combination of -
1) the actual threats issued by modern Muslims and
2) and the failure of the community at large to denounce them.
Redhead: I used sarcasm referring to the “moderate majority” precisely because of the realities expressed in the studies you quoted. Those numbers merely explain the lack of a communal voice denouncing the radical’s threats - because so many agree with them on some level.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:54 pmESTBTW, Rachel et al, if none of you have The Time Traveler, by sci-fi author Dan Simmons, I highly recommend it. You’ll get chills. It’s one of my favorite short-stories and ranks in my personal Top Five, along with Bill Whittle’s Tribes essay. Yes, it’s that good.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pmESTAh, Lance. I understand. Point taken. Sorry I lumped you in with Marko.
I do happen to believe that the cancer of Islam is in direct correlation to the violence demanded and glorified in its holy books. I’ve read the Koran twice and most of the Sura and Hadith once. The holy books of Islam are nothing like the Bible and they most clearly advocate and incite hatred and violence then as they do today.
PS: I edited my comment above to clarify.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pmESTThat goes double for me, Rachel.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTSooo … I researched some hate speech legislation currently pending in the Senate, and posted those links … but I think my post disappeared into the ether … but I won’t repost until I see if it got caught in the spam-bin.
So that leaves me with only one thing to say:
POLO!
June 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pmESTRHI:
Np. Thanks for the concession. I also agree with you about the degrees of difference between the two books. However, I think the difference of the present day communities as a whole is on orders of magnatude even greater … And, therefore the better for pointmaking.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pmESTPiss off. We’ll compensate you for your “dignity, feelings, and self-respect” when you compensate us for 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, the London underground bombings, and the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Fair is fair.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pmESTPeople, you’re over thinking this shit.
Mo recognized the “People of the Book” and Jesus as a prophet.
Momo also made a big deal about being the last prophet.
Well the last prophet to be mentioned in “The Book” is the false prophet.
So help the little children get to heavan by spreading the word, “Followers of a false prophet must convert or die.”
June 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pmESTI didn’t go through hell to come back here and put up wit dis SHIT!
WHERE MY DOGZ AT!!!
June 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pmESTHi, felicity!!!
That was actually my point. Ever since this push to have legislated “hate speech” and increased punishments because of it, I’ve seen an increase of perceived slights. It’s noxious! All of a sudden we have entire new classes of “victims” stepping forward to push persecution for thought.
I’m not sure this is necessarily limited to subjugation of Western culture per se. It’s subjugation of anything that is considered a non “minority.” Everyone wants to be a minority nowadays, which in today’s PC environment translates to “victim.” As long as you’re a “minority” you can claim offense and abuse. Why should my widdle piddly offended feewings receive less consideration than someone who may be gay/black/muslim/retarded/cross-eyed/bow-legged/having an overabundance of nose hair? Differences are no longer celebrated as unique and individual. Instead they’re used as clubs to beat those perceived to be more “privileged” over the head to gain societal ground.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pmESTMy family lived in the Middle East once when I was a kid and sometimes I still talk about it with my dad. What I get from out conversations: You can’t compare Christianity’s connection to the Bible with Islam’s connection with the Koran. Apples and oranges.
As was mentioned above, Christians are more than willing to take criticism of the Bible, though some might get a big huffy about it. That’s a big difference from masses of Muslims rioting in the streets over a false story about a Koran being flushed down the toilet. I don’t know one Christian who would riot so violently that somebody gets killed if the same thing happened to a Bible. Jeez, in Salt Lake City during the bi-annual LDS church conference you see people out near Temple Square all the time doing things that are far more offensive to things that Mormons hold sacred but you’d be hard pressed to find an assault charge even with the thousands of Mormons walking through there at those times (and I’m not exaggerating).
I really don’t care if people want to say I’m participating in hate speech: Islam is a whack-job’s wet dream of a religion. Make fun of a Mormon and they’ll bake you a casserole; make fun of a Muslim and - if he’s a so-called “moderate” - he might get his buddy to cut your head off.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pmESTChrist on a cookie, just reading your name made me laugh. That’s awesome (this coming from a Christian who should probably be appalled and will most likely go to Hell).
June 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pmESTHell’s comin’ with me!
It’s A-ll my turf.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pmESTBought and paid for!
Actually I’d rather tell you why they NEVER reflected Christian ideology (there’s a little thing called the “New Covenant” you might want to look into sometime).
Now, want to tell me why these passages don’t accurately reflect past or current Muslim theology?
And before you object, the context for those passages is right there in the link I provided. So no whining about “pulling things out of context”.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pmESTTwenty years ago, a religious coworker of mine asked why she had to be careful to avoid offending someone but they were fully free to offend her.
Perhaps someone in Canada should file charges for being offended by something the Canadian Islamic Congress has said or published. It shouldn’t be hard to find something (restricting freedom of speech for one thing). They opened the door to this - use the hate speech laws against them the way they’re using it against others. Flood the system and bring it to its knees.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pmESTSo the “New Covenant” negates Old Testament? Could you explain that to me, in the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version : ) I’m not being deliberately obtuse, I honestly don’t get it (sucks to be me).
Thanks.
Here’s the Catholic definition, of which I have been passingly apprised:
June 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pmESTThe New Covenant negates the Old Testament because the OT was meant as a lead-up to the New Covenant, which was Jesus. I could be completely wrong, but I swear I remember a Sunday School lesson that said something along the lines that the Jews weren’t ready for the New Covenant so they had to be given a harsher law (the OT), but when Jesus showed up the doctrine he gave superseded the old laws. Kind of like kids needing tougher rules when they’re growing up and then finally getting a different set of rules when they’ve finally grown up.
At least that’s my understanding of it.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pmESTIn a manner of speaking.
Specifically, what I’m talking about is called “supersessionism”. Supersessionism is the belief that the New Covenant replaces the “Mosaic Law” (that is, the laws handed down to the Hebrews via Moses, commonly referred to as the Torah).
June 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pmESTThanks hM and mighty.
Hey Catholics — (or anyone in the know, feel free to punt this about) did I miss something? Sure, I napped a LOT, but is this mostly a specifically-Christian belief? If so, how would that be relevant to today’s Catholicism? Am I then offending Christians by quoting Old Testament, and if so, does that make me an extremist for clinging to the old school dogma? Does that make an OT passage any less applicable, and thus superseded by NT teachings?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pmESTOf course Rachel can logically use the violence inherent in the Koran to explain the violent behavior of Muslims.
The real kicker is, how can Marko use the violence inherent in the Bible to explain the peaceful behavior of Christians?
Cause and effect. Cause and no effect?
What Marko has done is simply pointed out that Christians (and even more so, Jews, IMHO) have been able to contextualize the violent passages within the greater message of goodwill contained in their sacred texts. For some reason, Muslims have not.
Thanks, Marko.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pmESTSo 88% want free speech, but 28% favor banning ‘hate speech’. Seems to be a large percentage of the same people who want free speech saying except this , that and the other free speech. I guess some other group would have to decide what constitutes this , that , and the other, since many of the 88% can’t seem to decide what they want or don’t want.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pmESTThis is why (besides the obvious reasons) I don’t pay a lot of attention to polls, because 90% of the people taking them are complete ‘effin imeciles.
You know my first thought was “I’m with you there” But my second thought was “what about my girls”. I have two beautiful, intelligent, and opinionated daughters and it absolutely kills me to think that they may have to live in an America where they are no longer free to speak their minds. I can’t sit idly by and let it happen but I don’t really know how to fight it either.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pmESTAnd now, for your viewing (and blaspheming) enjoyment:
Christ on a Cookie
As if the Holy Sacrament wasn’t creepy enough for the kiddies.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pmESTI’ve got a one-way ticket on that helltrain, too!
Now that right there is saying something, ladies and gentlemen!
June 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pmEST14,564+change,
If I had been drinking anything right then my computer would be spitting sparks right now. Did you make that?
June 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pmESTYou give him too much credit. Marko blatantly lied about what the Bible says by pulling those quotes out of context.
For instance:
This is a historical description of a Biblical war, not a command to commit violence. It also completely disregards the earlier passage where a prophet denounces Amaziah’s war, and the later passage where God punishes Amaziah by forcing him off his throne.
The rest of the passages he cited are much the same. In context, their meaning is COMPLETELY different from the way he portrays them.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pmESTAlla this PC bullshit and jus’ plain INSANITY is
WAYYY beyond scary. WE gotta put an end ta this
shit, one way or another.
I think of the ol’ Merle Haggard song:
I wish a buck was still silver and it was back when the country was strong.
Back before Elvis and before the Vietnam war came along.
Before the Beatles and yesterday when a man could still work and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good ?
Are we rollin’ downhill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the flag or the liberty bell?
I wish a Ford or a Chevy would still last ten years like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?
I wish Coke was still cola and a joint was a bad place to be.
It was back before Nixon lied to us all on TV.
Before Microwave ovens when a girl could still cook, and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good ?
Are we rollin’ downhill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the flag or the liberty bell?
I wish a Ford or a Chevy would still last ten years like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?
Stop rollin’ downhill like a snowball headed for hell.
Stand up for the flag, and let’s all ring the liberty bell.
Let’s make a Ford and a Chevy that’ll still last ten years like they should…
The best of the free life is still yet to come and the good times ain’t really over for good.
Yeah, I’m still a pessimistic optimist. Barely…
June 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pmESTIt won’t take long for free speech to go away in this country. It will be gone before the end of the first Hussein term as president.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:13 pmESTThey think thou dost protest too much, methinks.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pmESTmightysamurai Says:
.
I was being sarcastic. Marko didn’t know what the heck he was doing.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pmESTHi Nicki Fellenzer,
Thanks for responding :)!
I figured we were on the same page as far as the PC crowd, although you had me spooked (Oh, God! ’spooked’ Can I use that word????), sounding so offhand about it in your first comment.
Where we differ, if we differ at all, is that I’m extrapolating to where this might take us in terms of Islamicisation? I don’t disagree at all that the ‘victimization’ crowd are a general threat to free speech, I’m just more frightened by the way ‘hate speech’ legislation has opened the door in other countries to insidious, creeping Sharia. (So I probably should have said “the subjugation of Western culture to Islamic law.”)
Ewwww, the Creeping Sharia! There’s got to be something we can take for that, isnt there?
Actually:
That sounds like a good start — for Canada — but what about here?
June 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pmESTDon’t I wish. Nah, us lapsed Catholics are amazing at rooting out and exposing blasphemy, for the enjoyment of all!
June 16th, 2008 at 10:08 pmEST14,564+change Says:
Forgive my Protestant ignorance — do Catholics still follow the doctrine of transubstantiation?
I got trapped in the ‘kid-had-a-lesson-an-hour-away-and-since-we’re-in-town-we’d-better-do-errands’ time warp today — sigh! The OT/NT side of this amazing, parallel thread universe was spiffy!
I can haz fifth wheel moment? My take is not that the OT is no longer valid, but that our reading of it is now to be informed by the NT — Jesus quoted OT all the time (he knew it so well — as if he’d written it or something — oh, wait . . .)– so OT should be viewed through the lens of NT. Does that make sense to anyone but me?
June 16th, 2008 at 10:29 pmESTfelicity,
June 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pmESTMost definitely. On a weekly basis.
That’s what creeps me out so much, and part of why I had to let the ritualism go.
My hubby and children, on the other hand, fully handle and understand that ritual of faith.
It is my understanding that certain Protestant faiths also proscribe to this ritual, yes?
I can’t remember exactly where I saw this, but I remember seeing something within the last week that said that about 70% of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. I just wonder why those same people continue to take Communion.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pmESThi_desertgirl,
June 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pmESTI think it depends upon where you are, geographically and spiritually. My family and our parish fully embrace this belief. It’s hard to explain a phenomena to my children which I don’t fully embrace, but fortunately my in-laws are fully versed, having been indoctrinated from birth in this faith and thus able to explain to R&B using biblical references.
(Did I just use the phrase “fortunately my in-laws”? Ack and hurl … BLEAHHH : )
So Rachel posts “X,” and Marko disagrees.
Rachel responds, and Marko says, “Hey, I’m not here to discuss or debate. I’m here to tell you the truth, and you don’t get to diss me by responding. I’m taking my cookies & leaving.”
That about sum up the intellectual bona fides of Marko?
June 17th, 2008 at 8:26 amESThi_desertgirl Says:
My take is that the ‘outward and visible sign’ of the ‘inward and spiritual grace’ can still happen, even if it’s done strictly as a ‘remembrance.’ So the “This is . . .” is taken as a metaphor, rather than literally — the justification being Jesus’ frequent use of metaphor — e.g. “I am the vine” — in so much of his teaching?
Just my take — and I’m deeply and firmly ensconced in the ‘to each his own’ camp where such things are concerned!
14k,
June 17th, 2008 at 9:16 amESTI think the ‘High Church’ Anglicans still ring the bell. I’m on the ‘what happens in your heart’ side of the fence :).
Is it hate speech if I go up to Al Gore and tell him that I hate him? Nancy Pelosi? John Murtha?
If you wish to hate someone…just come right out and tell them you hate them. In person. You get away with “hate” speech, without all the consequences.
We still have the freedom to hate. It’s just that we don’t have the freedom to express that hate, unless it’s against Jews or white people.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:24 amESTHere is my recommendation for reading the bible.
Read the last book first, then read the first book,
and then for GODSAKE STOP!
Then get back to me
June 17th, 2008 at 9:38 amESTChrist on a Cookie,
LOVED your pic! I’m so glad I had already swallowed, ’cause I’m sure that macaroni salad with chunks of crispy celery would hurt a lot more that liquid coming out of my nose! :o) (Gotta look for that cookie cutter for next Christmas.)
June 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pmESTIt is quite simple for other groups in Canada to find so-called hate speech on Muslim websites. A perfect example is the Canadian Islamic Congress’
June 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pmESTwebsite at http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com
Daily hate rants against the Jews and Israel abound.
The reason people do not file complaints is because they believe it would legitimasize these Human Rights Commissions. The thrust here in Canada at the present is to “denormalize” these HRC’s with the goal of having them eliminated altogether.
MargeinMI:
It’s only available as part of a nativity set.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pmESTGerry Atric Says:
I wasn’t sure what you meant by “denormalize,” but I checked with Ezra Levant’s site: now I see!
I sure hope it works — it looks like a battle for which side can convince the most people. Linked from Levant’s site again, I saw these publications from the Alberta commission — they’re swelling the ranks of the whining class as fast as possible!
We’ll be rooting for you!
June 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pmESTWOW!WOW!WOW!
June 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pmESTViva the Revolution
I’ll keep this short, ok? I’m no scholar by any means, but this is what I figured out. Revelation, the last book of the Bible, is not written for Christians. That book is for anyone who wants to achieve salvation during the Tribulation Period when Satan is given free reign over the earth for seven years. The Old Testament of the Bible was written for the Jews, and included many prophecies about the Messiah to come. It also included so many laws there was no way they could abide by all of them. That was the point. No one could without the Messiah. The New Testament tells his story, with the first four books showing his life from four different viewpoints. He even says he has come to fulfill the laws. He also says the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is to love one another as you would love yourself. Not really so tricky now, is it? Paul, Peter, Timothy, John, etc., write letters to other churches helping them with problems they may be having, and those same problems we deal with today, so they can help us as well. But the old testament for Christians is a series of stories to acquaint you with God and some of the great people who follow him through the ages. Hope that helps.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:46 amEST