Violence vs free speech

**Devil** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 3:32pm

When politicians weigh the risk of being labeled a bigot by acknowledging religious based threats against the risk of losing innocent life, option A scares them more than option B.

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 3:34pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

You might be angry, but you need to calm down. You are making less sense as you continue to type.

No, he's making more sense.

**erezb** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 3:42pm

The problem is the unholy coupling of Muslims with left wing bleeding hearts, which is beyond me, the same people that are pro humanism and liberalism will demonstrate side by side with Muslims against profiling or anything resembling anti-Muslim all the while ignoring the fact those people they help are cynically calling those ideas of pluralism and freedom of speech as infidel ideas. Fucking observed.

**Styygens** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 3:45pm

It sounds to me like DevGru can count on job security for a little while longer...

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:04pm

Originally Posted by Bodhi108

No, he's making more sense.

No, he's making less sense.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:06pm

Originally Posted by mike321

"endowed by their Creator" is what I am sure you are referring to. I don't think we can avoid historical religious elements of where individual rights philosophy originated. This was a response to "divine right of kings" but it also is relevant to this modern issue. The opposing view is the Creator does not endow rights and we have no right to blaspheme. There is also secular philosophical approaches to the bill of rights but that does not eliminate the conflict. My intention was to not avoid the inherent conflict not to editorialize on religion also. Secular beliefs should also be protected under our 1st amendment even if it offends the people who would attack our embassies.

Right. So, if someone wants to blame religion the 1st amendment allows the conversation to go in that direction. If you use it to say "all religions should be defended" then someone else can use that argument to say " all religion is dumb."

**daishi** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:20pm

You guys know they are now suggesting this was planned prior to release of the infamous Youtube video? I don't think its proven yet, but its being suggested.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:21pm

Originally Posted by daishi

You guys know they are now suggesting this was planned prior to release of the infamous Youtube video? I don't think its proven yet, but its being suggested.

I didn't until you said it earlier.

**mike321** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:36pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Right. So, if someone wants to blame religion the 1st amendment allows the conversation to go in that direction. If you use it to say "all religions should be defended" then someone else can use that argument to say " all religion is dumb."

The context of this was a response to "all religion is dumb" type argument as a way to "sum it all up". I am saying it does not sum the whole issue up at all. That it is actually a side issue about the US government not taking a strong stand for the values we share as put forth in the bill of rights. If someone wants to frame this as a "religion is dumb" issue or "they have the wrong religion" or "there is crazies everywhere" that is their right. I just disagree. I reject violent action against our embassy for blasphemy and I am amazed that the US government does not use very clear terms that they reject it too. The key here is not to even entertain the "I know it was offensive but..." discussion. I think diplomatically we will lose if we try to make concessions to the idea of blasphemy. We will also have to address apostasy laws and other religious discrimination issues if we want to deal with long term peace.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 9/12/2012 4:47pm

Originally Posted by mike321

The context of this was a response to "all religion is dumb" type argument as a way to "sum it all up". I am saying it does not sum the whole issue up at all. That it is actually a side issue about the US government not taking a strong stand for the values we share as put forth in the bill of rights.

I know, but some of your mistakes confused what you said hence "calm down."

If someone wants to frame this as a "religion is dumb" issue or "they have the wrong religion" or "there is crazies everywhere" that is their right. I just disagree.

Yes, but you didn't add this and it read like "OMG religion generalization STFU."

I reject violent action against our embassy for blasphemy and I am amazed that the US government does not use very clear terms that they reject it too.

I'm not surprised because the US is way too PC. Thank the Gore's for that **** IMO. No, I'm not going there, but we goose step too much.

The key here is not to even entertain the "I know it was offensive but..." discussion

You need to move out of the eighties and into 2012. I remember those days and IMO things were diplomatically better. I also know it was long gone BEFORE Obama took office. It just became worse which didn't surprise me at all.

I think diplomatically we will lose if we try to make concessions to the idea of blasphemy.

The US has been doing this for years diplomatically, governmental and in the media for a good decade.