OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 06:36:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cartoons protester found guilty  (Read 4696 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« on: January 05, 2007, 03:04:44 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6235279.stm

A British Muslim has been found guilty of soliciting murder during a London rally against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
Umran Javed 27, of Birmingham, was also convicted of stirring up racial hatred by a jury at the Old Bailey.

Javed told a crowd of hundreds at the February 2006 protest: "Bomb, bomb Denmark, bomb, bomb USA."

He had claimed the chants against the two countries were "just slogans" and that he regretted saying them.

Remanding him in custody, Judge Brian Barker said he would not pass sentence until several other trials relating to the protest had concluded - expected to be in April.

The maximum penalty for soliciting murder is life in prison.


Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2007, 03:07:10 PM »

from his last name he sounds like a denizen from (Racist Slur Rermoved) thats the neighbor of India.
I find (Racist Slur Removed) to be particularly hardline Muslims.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2007, 06:48:32 PM by ozgeorge » Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2007, 03:50:34 PM »

Ah, a brand-new ethnic slur. Got tired of using Paki?
Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2007, 03:59:39 PM »

Ah, a brand-new ethnic slur. Got tired of using Paki?

Yes, twas verrrry tiring.
LOL

Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2007, 04:40:42 PM »

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for stringing up, or locking up as the case may be, moslems and moslem sympathizers, but in this context it seems to come dangerously close to infringing on freedom of assembly. Now I know the UK doesn't hold these sacred rights in the same esteem we on this side of the pond do...but still this seems to be going a bit far.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2007, 06:44:10 PM »

Quote
Dont get me wrong, I'm all for stringing up, or locking up as the case may be, moslems and moslem sympathizers, but in this context it seems to come dangerously close to infringing on freedom of assembly. Now I know the UK doesn't hold these sacred rights in the same esteem we on this side of the pond do...but still this seems to be going a bit far.

I don't think it goes any further than freedom of speech not covering the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  Given that large unrest among Muslim communities in Europe has led to violence in the past, someone that is calling for more violence can't be taken as an idle threat.  The protester could have called for Muslims in the UK to boycott Danish products, only read those publications which refused to print the cartoons and other non-violent options to support their cause.  If someone wants to move to and live in the West, they need to act like Westerners. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2007, 06:59:44 PM »

I don't think it goes any further than freedom of speech not covering the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  Given that large unrest among Muslim communities in Europe has led to violence in the past, someone that is calling for more violence can't be taken as an idle threat.  The protester could have called for Muslims in the UK to boycott Danish products, only read those publications which refused to print the cartoons and other non-violent options to support their cause.  If someone wants to move to and live in the West, they need to act like Westerners. 

It's not quite the same, though I even have difficulity accepting the reasoning behind why it should be illegal to yell fire when there is no fire...it essentially goes back to the idea that the mob can't think for itself and thus blame must be placed somewhere; which is true on many levels, but the mob, ultimately, should be held accountable. If they cause unrest fine, put down the unrest, preferably without mercy and with disproportionately high casualties, but to prosecute a citizen (at least I presume this guy is a citizen) for using the freedom of speech...I dont believe the slippery slope argument can be entirely dismissed in this instance. If we want to solve the problem...the Islamic Problem...let's get at the heart of the matter, the problem is Islam, let's legislate directly against that, let's eradicate Islam itself, not the freedom of speech. Granted, even doing that is damaging to our enlightenment ideals, but some problems are so great, it's acceptable to get your hands dirty inorder to solve them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2007, 07:18:04 PM »

it essentially goes back to the idea that the mob can't think for itself and thus blame must be placed somewhere;
But mobs can't think for themselves. If they could, then Christ would have been released instead of Barabbas.
but the mob, ultimately, should be held accountable.
What court can try a mob? Only individuals and corporations can be tried. A mob has no legal entity.
let's eradicate Islam itself, not the freedom of speech.
And what would be the point of freedom of speech in a world with no freedom of thought?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2007, 07:20:50 PM »

He encouraged, using a loudspeaker, the offences for which he was rightly found guilty. If calling for the killing of Americans and Danes is simply to fall under the 'right to freedom of expression', I wonder were that we stand on any indictment 'to incite an offence'?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2007, 08:30:46 PM »

But mobs can't think for themselves. If they could, then Christ would have been released instead of Barabbas. What court can try a mob? Only individuals and corporations can be tried. A mob has no legal entity.

But when a mob acts out in violence, there is a remedy, we call it war. Once that mob crosses the line from speech and thought to violence it becomes a revolution, and when it becomes a revolution they all become traitors. Then you can go in with maximum force, shoot the ones that fight and hang the ones that don't.

Quote
And what would be the point of freedom of speech in a world with no freedom of thought?

I have already admited that such an action would infringe upon the rights we hold most dear, but if we do not infringe upon them temporarily in order that we may solve the Islamic Problem, they may be lost to humanity forever.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2007, 09:04:59 PM »

and when it becomes a revolution they all become traitors.
"Revolutionaries" does not logically equal "Traitors" even when they employ violence. It's a matter of perspective- i.e. Freedom of Thought. If it were a logical equation, then your nation would be a nation of traitors to the British. Defensive war is fine, but we can't logically conclude from this that "might make right", because if it did, then Islam has been right and the Great Church has been wrong for 500 years in Asia Minor.

I have already admited that such an action would infringe upon the rights we hold most dear, but if we do not infringe upon them temporarily in order that we may solve the Islamic Problem, they may be lost to humanity forever.
And if you do infringe upon them temporarily, you will turn them into real martyrs. What you are suggesting is the same thing Nero, Diocletian et al suggested to manage the "Christian Problem" in their Empire. Like you are suggesting, it involved the demonization/dehumanisation of the followers of Christ (cannibals, traitors etc.) in order to permit any sort of violence against them. I don't think their tactic was very successful, do you? And in the process, the persecutors lost their own humanity.
Any attempt to curb freedom of though (temporaily or otherwise) is doomed to fail and backfire. The problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a secular society, but one which bans people on the basis of their beliefs- a complete contradiction. You can ban those who actively try to destroy your society, but as long as there are practicing Muslims who are not trying to do that, but who contribute to the building of your society, it makes no sense to ban Islam. So if you want to eradicate Islam, your only choice is to permanently curb freedom of thought in your society....and what kind of society would that leave you with GiC? Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2007, 09:52:50 PM »

"Revolutionaries" does not logically equal "Traitors" even when they employ violence. It's a matter of perspective- i.e. Freedom of Thought. If it were a logical equation, then your nation would be a nation of traitors to the
British.

We were traitors, and the british had every right to execute those who played a role in the revolution. Of course, there were many good reasons that, while they did execute many for treason, they avoided attacking the general population and prisoners of war...the latter were not killed because that would mean death for captured British soldiers, and the former were not attacked because of the importance of public opinion in the conflict. Of course, we did our fair share of hanging as well for those who were traitors to our cause...but that's just how wars go.

Quote
Defensive war is fine, but we can't logically conclude from this that "might make right", because if it did, then Islam has been right and the Great Church has been wrong for 500 years in Asia Minor.

They won, and they imposed their will upon the conquered population, surely they can't object too loudly if we decide to repay them in accordingly.

Quote
And if you do infringe upon them temporarily, you will turn them into real martyrs. What you are suggesting is the same thing Nero, Diocletian et al suggested to manage the "Christian Problem" in their Empire. Like you are suggesting, it involved the demonization/dehumanisation of the followers of Christ (cannibals, traitors etc.) in order to permit any sort of violence against them. I don't think their tactic was very successful, do you? And in the process, the persecutors lost their own humanity.

Christianity was a revolutionary movement and a threat to the Empire...ultimately,m Christianity won the revolution but we cannot condemn those who fought to preserve the integrity of their government. As I've said before, I don't think Diocletian can be condemned for his persecution of the Christians, he acted in a responsible manner in and accordance with his office...his only fault was that he did not convert himself. Nero was just generally insane...it's not only the Christians who had issues with him.

Quote
Any attempt to curb freedom of though (temporaily or otherwise) is doomed to fail and backfire. The problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a secular society, but one which bans people on the basis of their beliefs- a complete contradiction. You can ban those who actively try to destroy your society, but as long as there are practicing Muslims who are not trying to do that, but who contribute to the building of your society, it makes no sense to ban Islam. So if you want to eradicate Islam, your only choice is to permanently curb freedom of thought in your society....and what kind of society would that leave you with GiC? Wink

I don't believe history supports your assertions, the entire Mediterranean was Christian at one point, but how many Christians remain in North Africa, the Near East, and Asia minor...a few, but an ultimately insignificant minority. The Zoroastrians faired even worse. So it would seem that a religion can be eliminated by force and reduced to an irrelevant minority.

Of course, with that said, our Islamic Problem isn't so much an internal one, sure we have a few in this country but not too many, stopping Islamic immigration, prohibiting money transfers between external and internal Islamic groups, and a creative use of zoning codes to prevent mosques from being built might be enough to get the problem under control. Thus giving, the US at least, the luxury of solving the problem outside the borders of our state, unfettered by constitutional, legal, moral, and philosophical issues.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2007, 10:20:03 PM »

but that's just how wars go.
Exactly what I am saying. That's just the way it goes: Winners and losers; one nation's fortunes rise, another nation's falls...or as the Founder of Our Faith said: "Kingdom will rise against Kingdom, nation against nation...." 
 
but we cannot condemn those who fought to preserve the integrity of their government.
And no one is condeming those who wish to eradicate Islam on the basis that it threatens their society. All I am saying is that we have to be honest about it, and not fool ourselves into thinking that in doing so, we are "preseving" our society's values of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Thought". These two "freedoms" are nonsense, and if they were ever carried out, will lead to the destruction of any society in which they exist. Freedom of thought and Speech need to be eradicated in order to preseve any society.
Case in point:
So it would seem that a religion can be eliminated by force and reduced to an irrelevant minority.

Of course, with that said, our Islamic Problem isn't so much an internal one, sure we have a few in this country but not too many, stopping Islamic immigration, prohibiting money transfers between external and internal Islamic groups, and a creative use of zoning codes to prevent mosques from being built might be enough to get the problem under control. Thus giving, the US at least, the luxury of solving the problem outside the borders of our state, unfettered by constitutional, legal, moral, and philosophical issues.
Exactly what I am saying. Eliminate freedom of thought, speech and assembly, and the problem is solved.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2007, 10:43:09 PM »

Case in point:Exactly what I am saying. Eliminate freedom of thought, speech and assembly, and the problem is solved.

Yes, that is one solution...though I dont know if any would like the society with which we would end up. The open and free flow of ideas has created the society we now enjoy and has lead to an environment conducive to the development of the technology which is the basis of our high standard of living. It is something worth preserving, something that should not be destroyed, thus the problem of an enlightened society facing a threat to it's ideals and existance, how do we destroy the threat without ourselves becomming a threat. I'm not suggesting it's an easy issue, though you, at least, seem to have found an easy solution. Thus the idea of isolating the local community by waging a war against the international community is attractive, it's far easier to have one set of rules for you and your allies and another set of rules for the enemy than to have two separate sets of rules for citizens of your state.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2007, 11:16:30 PM »

I'm not suggesting it's an easy issue
That's all I wanted to get you to say.
I guess one can manipulate behaviour without limiting freedom of thought (like I just did); and the greatest testament to an enlightened people is to be able to do the same with those who seek to destroy them. Wink
« Last Edit: January 05, 2007, 11:17:26 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2007, 12:23:50 AM »

That's all I wanted to get you to say.

Not the most difficult of goals, seeing how I've said so several times already on this forum Wink

Quote
I guess one can manipulate behaviour without limiting freedom of thought (like I just did); and the greatest testament to an enlightened people is to be able to do the same with those who seek to destroy them. Wink

You can, quite easily actually...it simpy requires state control (directly or indirectly) of the media. Give me control of the US media for a month, and I'd have moslems hanging from lamp posts in every major city. But this requires a measure of control of the media by the state and an aggressive approach to 'journalism.' Perhaps this would be a viable approach though I have reservations about such a policy, for once one gains this level of power it's unlikely they'll want to give it up. The more open approach I previously suggested may be the safer route...though the media still has a propaganda responsibility to keep the American people supportive of the war effort, but that can be done by simply downplaying significant events and casualities, nothing more agressive than the American media campaign waged during WWII...not quite the same as the German media campaign.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2007, 02:03:52 AM »

Let the Islamist rant and rave all they want about how they want to bomb this or that. What they don't know is that just under the surface of the civil modern westerner is a slowly building seething hatred against these religious zealots. When the next 9/11 occurs and all chaos breaks loose (just a matter of time), it will no longer be platitudes and messages of tolerance. The media and politicians who have allowed an enemy to roam within the gates will not be able to control the uprising and fury that will occur. When the next terror attack occurs, the hate coming from the islamist will be paid back many times over. The 'peaceful' muslim may also have nowhere to hide since they never lifted a finger to silence the extremist. Just a small example of what could 'potentially' happen down the road is what took place in Australia not too long ago. So, let the Islamist make all the public threats they want, most of us are taking an account of their misdeeds and waiting for the opportune time.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,565



« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2007, 02:16:34 AM »

Quote
So, let the Islamist make all the public threats they want, most of us are taking an account of their misdeeds and waiting for the opportune time.

If and when America decides to be more aggressive, it will be because someone has whipped the mob into a frenzy, not because people were carefully paying attention all along and biding their time. Of course, I would take the willful, bliss-seeking ignorance of the masses over the hate of Michael Savage any day.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2007, 04:05:17 AM »

Quote
let's get at the heart of the matter, the problem is Islam, let's legislate directly against that, let's eradicate Islam itself, not the freedom of speech. Granted, even doing that is damaging to our enlightenment ideals, but some problems are so great, it's acceptable to get your hands dirty inorder to solve them.

One should be free to worship as they please, denying anyone that right would undermine our entire system.  Instead democratising forces need to be introduced to diapsora Islam.  After a few generations of culture shock and integration with their Western host nations, such practices of a free press, free spreech and not settling conflicts with violence may spread back to Islamic lands.  Most likely far less people will die of violence caused by radical Muslims during that time period than if an all out war on Islam were to be declared - then we'd suddenly see every single Muslim become a jihadist. 
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2007, 07:33:05 AM »

You can, quite easily actually...it simpy requires state control (directly or indirectly) of the media. Give me control of the US media for a month, and I'd have moslems hanging from lamp posts in every major city. But this requires a measure of control of the media by the state and an aggressive approach to 'journalism.' Perhaps this would be a viable approach though I have reservations about such a policy, for once one gains this level of power it's unlikely they'll want to give it up. The more open approach I previously suggested may be the safer route...though the media still has a propaganda responsibility to keep the American people supportive of the war effort, but that can be done by simply downplaying significant events and casualities, nothing more agressive than the American media campaign waged during WWII...not quite the same as the German media campaign.
Sorry, but you would fail the mission if you did that. The mission is to manipulate behaviour without limiting freedom of thought. What you are proposing is manipulating the behaviour of one part of society in order to restrict the freedom of thought of another part of it. You've gone for a soft target (the hoi polloi) because you can't do mental battle with the harder target (the Islamic members of your society). Perhaps because they are more mentally agile than you? Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2007, 10:46:11 AM »

Sorry, but you would fail the mission if you did that. The mission is to manipulate behaviour without limiting freedom of thought. What you are proposing is manipulating the behaviour of one part of society in order to restrict the freedom of thought of another part of it. You've gone for a soft target (the hoi polloi) because you can't do mental battle with the harder target (the Islamic members of your society). Perhaps because they are more mentally agile than you? Wink

Hey, I only have a month Wink ...however, with that said, there are some people that you simply can't convert via propaganda alone, perhaps a large number could be converted to your thinking with good propaganda but there will always remain a die-hard core that stands against you. Take the Communists in 1930's Germany, while Goebbels was able to control most the population through use of media there were always a few who would resist no matter what: for those hard-core communists a more, shall we say persuasive, approach was needed. The masses can be swayed with a silver tongue, through shame, through pride, through an inherent human desire to conform...but there are extremists of any ideology who will simply refuse to conform, if for no other reason they they desire to rebel against conformity...trust me, I know this from first hand experience Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2007, 06:42:36 PM »

trust me, I know this from first hand experience Grin
I know! Some people just behave as though they have minds of their own! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2007, 02:45:47 AM »

Quote
If and when America decides to be more aggressive, it will be because someone has whipped the mob into a frenzy, not because people were carefully paying attention all along and biding their time. Of course, I would take the willful, bliss-seeking ignorance of the masses over the hate of Michael Savage any day.

I totally disagree. Your average everyday American will finally run out of patience and will turn against the calls for 'tolerance' by the media and politicians. That's not feeding into a mob mentality, but Americans exercising their judgment at a grassroots level. Americans will come to realize one day after a few more 9/11's happen that it may not be beneficial for Muslims to live amongst us westerners who hold a much different world view. It took almost 200 years in this country for northern Europeans such as the English, Irish, and Italians to get over their differences, and these are groups of people that by and large share similar cultural values. Why is it in the best interest of our country to allow Muslims to immigrate to America, many who despise the way we live and laws we hold? Why do we need an 'open door' immigration policy, and don't we already have enough people here anyway?  Roll Eyes Do the greedy capitalist and lefty PC'rs really want to go down that road that will change our demographics and rejoice over the balkanization of America? The politicians and their greedy interest are to blame for putting us in this situation, even when the majority of the public disagrees.  It's too bad men can longer be men, a sad truth that infects the body politic in most modern western countries like America.
 
As for Savage, he's doesn't have one of the top radio shows and 5 straight best selling books for no reason. When it comes to issues like illegal immigration & the islamo-facist, he's tapped into how the majority of Americans feel. I don't agree with everything he says and I tend to be much more liberal on some social/economic issues that would probably get me branded as a 'socialist' if I were ever to call in and debate him on certain matters.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2007, 02:03:00 PM »

GiC,

Yah, how do you feel about the article that grants freedom of religion?  Especially since you so strongly believe in iradicating Islam?  How do those two things work out for you?   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2007, 07:05:02 PM »

Perhaps we just need to stop looking at Islam as a religion and treat it as a dissident and militant political revolutionary movement. I mean, the Branch Davidians claimed to be a religious movement, but we didn't really buy that...so why accept Islam's claim to be a religion as defined by the First Amendment?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2007, 01:16:04 AM »

That's an interesting question.  Why is it that locked up gangsters can create their own churches and be released from jail through that same clause? 

How is it that Branch Dividian didn't get "religion" status?  Also, shouldn't they be "allowed" to "create" their own religion (Islam) (assuming that we take away their religious status)?  If they are allowed to then create their own religion, what's to stop them from making a case for it? 

Also, if we're going to deny them religious status, what's the next step? 

I mean, I understand.  The Gov't has the right to allow certain religions and disalow b/c of craziness and etc.  but where is the line drawn? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2007, 01:23:25 AM »

Well, if we can't forbid Islam, I dont see how we could forbid any religious practice...the sacrificing of children seen in ancient pagan religions may be more distasteful to us, but it's practice would hardly be a greater threat than Islam. The fact of the matter is that Islam does seek to destory our society, some through bombs and guns, others through propaganda waged against our enlightenment-based society, both attacks are equally dangerous but on account of the former Islam should be labeled as a terrorist group and dealt with accordingly.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2007, 01:38:42 AM »

Then so should a lot of other religions.  no?  I believe at this point you would argue that they do not pose a sociological threat?  Or perhaps a "national" threat? 

Are you saying that if a religion plans on bombing us, we should just take it out? 

Just trying to figure out what you're saying...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2007, 01:40:39 AM »

What I'm saying is that we need to take the threat Islam poses more seriously...beyond that I'm just throwing out suggestions for discussion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2007, 01:44:42 AM »

I gotcha then, thanks for the clarification. 

I personaly agree with you.  I however, do not 100% understand all of these "freedoms" in America, and I definately don't understand them in the way that you do.  I mean, freedom of speach is great, but you have said often that no one's freedom of speach can be obstructed.  I'm not sure that I agree with that.  But anyway, I was wondering how you felt about the Religion clause, since you took the other part so seriously...that's it..lol. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2007, 01:53:14 AM »

Well, to answer that question directly, I think it is very important as it gets closer to insisting on freedom of thought than any other element of the First Amendment. However, it must be understood in the context of the 9th Amendment, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' Does Islam's freedom of Religion cross that line of denying or disparaging other rights retained by the people? It's close, in most cases probably not quite yet, but on September 11th it surely did.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2007, 02:00:16 AM »

So what you're saying is that the Constitution is protective, until someone does something which is going to "dispair" the people? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2007, 02:44:42 AM »

GiC is just following the precedent of his hero, the great and honorable President Abraham Lincoln - sometimes the constitution must be temporarily suspended in order to protect it. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2007, 09:22:05 AM »

GiC is just following the precedent of his hero, the great and honorable President Abraham Lincoln - sometimes the constitution must be temporarily suspended in order to protect it. 

Lincoln got us into this mess, without the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments the issue would be easy to solve, it would be a states rights issue and each state could deal with the islamic problem without federal interference. So perhaps we can just repeal these Amendments and let the system work like it was originally intended...before the federal government made their power grab which is the source of all our woes.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2007, 02:37:09 PM »

Yah but then each state becomes its own source of power, and can become almost like its own country.  So why not have a state of.....every state, instead of the United States....when they're not united by anything except for name. 

Just curious as to how you think that would work out....?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,565



« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2007, 02:43:03 PM »

I was under the impression that Americans figured out rather early on (a couple generations before Lincoln) that the weak federal powers originally given to the U.S. government just wouldn't cut it in a ruthless world. Wasn't Lincoln more the heir of a changing system, rather than the primary architect?
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,339


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2007, 02:59:47 PM »

And if the powers of the US gov't weren't enough, then what else was Lincoln suppost to do? 

Could he let the country go under just because a few states wanted to flex their muscles, etc. ?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2007, 05:46:12 PM »

Yah but then each state becomes its own source of power, and can become almost like its own country.  So why not have a state of.....every state, instead of the United States....when they're not united by anything except for name. 

Just curious as to how you think that would work out....?

I think it would work better...I am quite fond of the Articles of Confederation; however, I do not believe the Constitution as originally intended was a bad compromise with the federalists.

I was under the impression that Americans figured out rather early on (a couple generations before Lincoln) that the weak federal powers originally given to the U.S. government just wouldn't cut it in a ruthless world. Wasn't Lincoln more the heir of a changing system, rather than the primary architect?

Not really, there were certain political elements that wanted a stronger central government, but not the majority of the people in the Country. The centralization of power was really a result of the 14th Amendment, which fundamentally altered our system of Government...this was added to later by the allowing of extreme abuses of the commerce clause by our courts. Had the framers known what we would do that that clause, they would have probably placed heavy restrictions on it, and I believe it would be prudent for us to amend the constitution now, severly restricting congress' powers in matters of interstate commerce.

And if the powers of the US gov't weren't enough, then what else was Lincoln suppost to do? 

Could he let the country go under just because a few states wanted to flex their muscles, etc. ?

Let the states who do not wish to be part of the Union go in peace. The foundation of our republic is the right to self-government, not American nationalism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2007, 06:01:38 PM »

Quote
Wasn't Lincoln more the heir of a changing system, rather than the primary architect?

I think so.  Even Jefferson grabbed power that he probably didn't have (i.e the Lousiana purchase).  But, I never would miss a chance to praise the great defender of the unity of our Republic, Abraham Lincoln, in front of GiC. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2007, 06:31:32 PM »

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,565



« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2007, 07:32:06 PM »

Inter arma enim silent leges - something you yourself have quoted. Wink
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 07:32:23 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2007, 08:30:58 PM »

Oh, that I have...and while I once believed that the south was noble and honourable for the manner in which they conducted the war, I have now come to the conclusion that it was a childish foolishness that in the end lead to their defeat by incompetent, though ruthless, generals (see JFC Fuller's Grant & Lee: a study in personality and generalship)

Of course, the fact that I acknowledge the legal reality of war hardly means I support the despotic politics of yankeedom.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 08:31:39 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags: Islam 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.122 seconds with 69 queries.