NationStates Jolt Archive

will the "western" world surrender freedom of speech everytime a group of muslims protest over certain comments.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

The pope has apologized after being urged to do so. all over one comment and thousands of muslims get pissed. will the world cave in to the muslim world everytime they protest something? will we live our lifes tip toeing around trying not to piss off the muslims?

No, we won't.

If an Islamic cleric was to slander Jesus (which they are unlikely to do since Jesus is seen in a positive light in the Holy Koran) I'd imagine the reverse would be occuring. They'd be ardent christians who would rightfully demand Musluims respect their faith, and they'd be marching on the streets with placards and burning effigies of whoever said it.

well if we do surrender freedom of speach it is very unlikely it will be over muslims. personally im still looking forward to the last crusade:p (altho the symbolism of the cross is outdated)

If an Islamic cleric was to slander Jesus (which they are unlikely to do since Jesus is seen in a positive light in the Holy Koran) I'd imagine the reverse would be occuring. They'd be ardent christians who would rightfully demand Musluims respect their faith, and they'd be marching on the streets with placards and burning effigies of whoever said it.

you think so?

there are already many of people/ groups that slander jesus. has there been a huge uprising of christians? have any of these christians attacked places of these people that have said something?

the pope is christian, the muslim people honestly cant expect him to agree with their religion.

you think so?

there are already many of people/ groups that slander jesus. has there been a huge uprising of christians? have any of these christians attacked places of these people that have said something?

the pope is christian, the muslim people honestly cant expect him to agree with their religion.

Hundreds of abortion clinics.

Thats pretty close to religious terrorism.

If an Islamic cleric was to slander Jesus (which they are unlikely to do since Jesus is seen in a positive light in the Holy Koran) I'd imagine the reverse would be occuring. They'd be ardent christians who would rightfully demand Musluims respect their faith, and they'd be marching on the streets with placards and burning effigies of whoever said it.
There would be some marching on the streets, but they wouldn't be very numerous. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't burn anything though.

Hundreds of abortion clinics.

Thats pretty close to religious terrorism.
Christians mostly don't agree with abortionists, but they're not viewed as terrorists.

there are already many of people/ groups that slander jesus. has there been a huge uprising of christians?


Yep, thosands gathered at the BBC when they showed Jerry Springer The Opera.

there are already many of people/ groups that slander jesus. has there been a huge uprising of christians?


Yep, thosands gathered at the BBC when they showed Jerry Springer The Opera.

Hundreds of abortion clinics.

Thats pretty close to religious terrorism.

dont have to be a christian to be against abortion, abortion clinics also dont apply within the arguement (see above) as they dont slander jesus. They just commit an act certain people dislike and beleive is agaisnt gods will.

have any of these christians attacked places of these people that have said something?



Unfortunately, yes. I direct your attention to the KKK. Also the attacks on abortion clinics/workers because it is "an affront to God". Then there is the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda which is about as effed up as they come. Then there is the National Liberation Front of Tripura and God's Army in Myanmar.

Yes. The West is doomed.

Yep, thosands gathered at the BBC when they showed Jerry Springer The Opera.
Well, it was more like hundreds, and they didn't burn anything.

Unfortunately, yes. I direct your attention to the KKK. Also the attacks on abortion clinics/workers because it is "an affront to God". Then there is the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda which is about as effed up as they come. Then there is the National Liberation Front of Tripura and God's Army in Myanmar.
That's all Christian terrorism. But terrorism isn't the topic of discussion here so I don't see why you're talking about it.

There would be some marching on the streets, but they wouldn't be very numerous. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't burn anything though.


Christians mostly don't agree with abortionists, but they're not viewed as terrorists.

Youre missing the correlation.

I was responding to the comment that Christians generally dont attack those they disagree with.

This isnt true.

Abortion clinics all over the world get attacked all to often.
Many of them have armed guards, or even police security, out of necessity.
The only reason less of a stink is made out of it, is becuase this country is predominantly christian, and no one is going to start using the appropriate term for what kind of actions these are....domestic terrorism.

Its not just them crazy muslims....

That's all Christian terrorism. But terrorism isn't the topic of discussion here so I don't see why you're talking about it.

See post number five.

Well, it was more like hundreds, and they didn't burn anything.



So? Whats the big deal about burning flags or effegies? Its just a manner of protest.

will the "western" world surrender freedom of speech everytime a group of muslims protest over certain comments.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

The pope has apologized after being urged to do so. all over one comment and thousands of muslims get pissed. will the world cave in to the muslim world everytime they protest something? will we live our lifes tip toeing around trying not to piss off the muslims?

You seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "common courtesy".

If the pope had apologised to any other group for an insulting comment he made, say gays or women, would you even have considered it in any way connected with freedom of speech?

You seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "common courtesy".

If the pope had apologised to any other group for an insulting comment he made, say gays or women, would you even have considered it in any way connected with freedom of speech?

yes i would, for a reason that because he had to apologise to that group, that in a way makes him have to watch what he says about that group for now on in fear that they will get pissed and the whole deal starting again, he is not able to freely speak about a certain topic/group like he should be able to.

i for one am not catholic but my opinions on the pope is that he is not a politician. politicians go for appeasing the masses. the pope has a duty of his own.

So? Whats the big deal about burning flags or effegies? Its just a manner of protest.

Meanwhile, Palestinian security sources said a church in Tulkarem was attacked with Molotov cocktails on Sunday, and there was an attempted attack on a church in Tubas, near Jenin.

Authorities were also investigating Molotov cocktail attacks on three churches in Nablus on Saturday, as well as an attack on a church in Gaza.

just burning flags?

he is not a politician. politicians go for appeasing the masses. the pope has a duty of his own.

He really is. He has one billion constituents, who, if they get increasingly unhappy about what he says .... leave the church. It would be in his interest to be less of a fuckwit when it comes to sensitive issues.

I was responding to the comment that Christians generally dont attack those they disagree with.
Most Christians don't attack people they disagree with, and neither do most Muslims. It's only a few extremists in both groups.

The difference is that I think a somewhat smaller number of Christians in the west would be bothered to protest in the streets every day about a comment made by some foreign religious leader.

So? Whats the big deal about burning flags or effegies? Its just a manner of protest.
It's a public safety hazard, and shouldn't be allowed. It's also quite symbolically violent.

See post number five.
No mention of terrorism there.

Remember people, virulent religious protesting is not terrorism. But so far a few terrorist acts have been committed over the Pope's statement. I don't think that would happen in a mirror situation.

Mainly because the people of Europe are simply not religious enough to react.

yes i would, for a reason that because he had to apologise to that group, that in a way makes him have to watch what he says about that group for now on in fear that they will get pissed and the whole deal starting again, he is not able to freely speak about a certain topic/group like he should be able to.

i for one am not catholic but my opinions on the pope is that he is not a politician. politicians go for appeasing the masses. the pope has a duty of his own.

Has anybody ever told you that every freedom will bring responsibility?
Or do you regularly go around abusing everybody you don't like? Did you never apologise for something you said because it was hurtful to someone?

He has the freedom to say what he likes. But he will have to live with the consequences of whatever he said. And if it wasn't his intention to offend, it's up to him to apologise.

Most Christians don't attack people they disagree with, and neither do most Muslims. It's only a few extremists in both groups.
Correct!
The difference is that I think a somewhat smaller number of Christians in the west would be bothered to protest in the streets every day about a comment made by some foreign religious leader.
That's utter crap.

It just gets reported less because FOX and CNN etc. want to show that it's 'only' Muslims who are reactionarily violent.

Let's say that tommorow, the Ayatollah says "Christians are a bunch of murderors, rapists and thieves" and it gets reported all around the world.

Do you not think that a lot of Christians would be in a kind of "let's have some property damage" kind of mood, and would kick in Mosque windows etc.

And to be honest, I was pretty pissed off about the Pope's remarks, and I'm an atheist, it was astonishingly rude.
It's a public safety hazard, and shouldn't be allowed. It's also quite symbolically violent.
Oh no! Violent Symbolism!
Remember people, virulent religious protesting is not terrorism. But so far a few terrorist acts have been committed over the Pope's statement. I don't think that would happen in a mirror situation.
Some Muslims I knew got their windows bricked in after the July 7th attacks in the UK - even though they were nothing to do with it.

If one of their leaders then came out and said "Christians are gimps" or whatever, then people would be getting their houses burnt down, multiculturalism would be branded "a failure" and Blair would probably put all Muslims in Asylum centres...
Mainly because the people of Europe are simply not religious enough to react.
This is a GOOD thing.

Let's say that tommorow, the Ayatollah says "Christians are a bunch of murderors, rapists and thieves" and it gets reported all around the world.

Do you not think that a lot of Christians would be in a kind of "let's have some property damage" kind of mood, and would kick in Mosque windows etc.



As an american soldier I have to let you know...we'd be in Iran doing the property damge thing at the drop of a hat should the Ayatollah make such a comment. Or even something as feeble as "Christians are mean" or "Christians are not nice people".

it's the EU's fault.

it's the EU's fault.

The EU made to pope insult Muslims worldwide, and made him apologise afterwards?

Oh, I can't wait to hear that one explained. Please, go ahead.

As an american soldier I have to let you know...we'd be in Iran doing the property damge thing at the drop of a hat should the Ayatollah make such a comment. Or even something as feeble as "Christians are mean" or "Christians are not nice people".
As a British citizen I knew that already, that's why I said it.



And Swatalia - No... it is nothing to do with the EU.

The EU made to pope insult Muslims worldwide, and made him apologise afterwards?

Oh, I can't wait to hear that one explained. Please, go ahead.

no. its because of the EU that free speach is being lost.

no. its because of the EU that free speach is being lost.

Even better.

Ok, how? And how does that link into the Pope?

As a British citizen I knew that already, that's why I said it.



And Swatalia - No... it is nothing to do with the EU.

really? brussels sided with the muslims during the whole muhammed comics thing. since the EU is against free speach, so it's their fault we are losing it.

no. its because of the EU that free speach is being lost.
No, it isn't, it's due to people being more polite in general.

Even better.

Ok, how? And how does that link into the Pope?

no way whatsever. yet.

really? brussels sided with the muslims during the whole muhammed comics thing. si the EU is against free speach, so i't their fault we are long it.

Okay, I'm not trying to be an ass and I don't mean to be flaming, but can you please fix this. I think I got the gist of it but I'm not sure.

If an Islamic cleric was to slander Jesus (which they are unlikely to do since Jesus is seen in a positive light in the Holy Koran) I'd imagine the reverse would be occuring. They'd be ardent christians who would rightfully demand Musluims respect their faith, and they'd be marching on the streets with placards and burning effigies of whoever said it.

That is absolute bullshit. Of the highest kind.

Theres videos of people pissing on Baby Jesus, or with Jesus smoking pot or things like that all over the place. Even films released in cinema, or pictures in prestigious art galleries which are extremely offensive to Christians.

Infact just read 50% of the comments on NSG.

Youre missing the correlation.

I was responding to the comment that Christians generally dont attack those they disagree with.

This isnt true.

Abortion clinics all over the world get attacked all to often.
Many of them have armed guards, or even police security, out of necessity.
The only reason less of a stink is made out of it, is becuase this country is predominantly christian, and no one is going to start using the appropriate term for what kind of actions these are....domestic terrorism.

Its not just them crazy muslims....

Actually, instances like that are incredibly rare. Compared to the things that go on in the middle east every day.

He really is. He has one billion constituents, who, if they get increasingly unhappy about what he says .... leave the church. It would be in his interest to be less of a fuckwit when it comes to sensitive issues.

Best. Insult. EVER. :D

On a serious note, now: People raised Hell when Ahmadinejad (I'll have a cookie if I spelled this fuckwit's (thanks, PM) name right) denied the Holocaust. And there were scare attacks and property damage right after every terrorist attack, towards muslims that had nothing to do with it. The Pope is free to say what he pleases, but so are the muslims free to peacefully react with outrage. Especially considering that this one pope is against any form of dialogue between religions. As for attacking churches, it should be illegal to BOTH sides, and it IS. So much so that christians get arrested for blowing up abortion clinics in the name of their God and Muslims get arrested for attacking churches in the name of their God as well. Their actions - murder, property damage - are not seen as reasonable by either country's authority, nor by the Bible, nor by the Kuran. However, the point remains that, if the pope has the right to open his sculex and say whatever he pleases, so do the muslims. However, we're talking about a pope here that's much more conservative than most muslims, and that, unlike most muslims, would call for a witch hunt - aimed towards muslims, homosexuals, occultists, and, basically, anything that disagrees with his insanity - if it was politically and legally viable. He's free to say what he wants, but so are the muslims. Both have consequences to face when they do so, though: The pope in the form of backlash when he tries to, say, make the Canadian congress allow the Church to put its paws on it, and the muslims in the form of backlash when Ahmadinejad (which most muslims rightly despise, and that's not a perfect analogy because Mahmoud isn't the leader of Islam) when he claims the Holocaust didn't happen. Only, in this case, the muslims have to face a backlash for an action they didn't undertake. Unfair? Yes, but it's unfair to the Catholics too, because their religion ALSO loses face whenever herr Ratzlinger opens his sculex.

So far, I fail to see any difference between Christians and Muslims: Both have radical nutcase members that are failing to follow the actual doctrine on account of bloodlust; Both have high-profile fuckwits (Again, thanks, PM) that screw over their reputations in their ranks; Both face backlash for something they don't necessarily say or agree with; Both see that backlash as their right, and both have some fundie fuckwits (I'll never get tired of saying that) that will go a bit further on their actions and cause property damage when their idea of God is not appeased.

That is absolute bullshit. Of the highest kind.

Theres videos of people pissing on Baby Jesus, or with Jesus smoking pot or things like that all over the place. Even films released in cinema, or pictures in prestigious art galleries which are extremely offensive to Christians.

Infact just read 50% of the comments on NSG.

Because the moviemakers and the posters are high-profile and claim to represent a billion people? Again, Ahmadinejad created lots and lots of polemics when he (wrongly) denied the Holocaust.

Actually, instances like that are incredibly rare. Compared to the things that go on in the middle east every day.

Oh, really? I direct your attention to the Irish, Who may or may not have invented the carbomb. They've been blowing eachother up over religion for what, fourty years now?

Oh, really? I direct your attention to the Irish, Who may or may not have invented the carbomb. They've been blowing eachother up over religion for what, fourty years now?

They did not invent the car bomb. They may be catholic, but they fight for independance not for Catholocism. Anyway, the number of people who die in 30 years of IRA bombing is probably equal to 1 year in the Middle East.

Oh, really? I direct your attention to the Irish, Who may or may not have invented the carbomb. They've been blowing eachother up over religion for what, fourty years now?

Er, just to get you up to date here, they've stopped doing that a couple of years ago. The IRA doesn't exist any more.

They did not invent the car bomb. They may be catholic, but they fight for independance not for Catholocism. Anyway, the number of people who die in 30 years of IRA bombing is probably equal to 1 year in the Middle East.

So... SOME Irish CLAIM TO fight for boundaries (something that's an illusion of control) while SOME Arabs CLAIM TO fight for their god (which is an illusion of control).

Riiiiiight...

Er, just to get you up to date here, they've stopped doing that a couple of years ago. The IRA doesn't exist any more.

I wondered why I stopped hearing about that. So, in a nutshell, what happened?

So... SOME Irish CLAIM TO fight for boundaries (something that's an illusion of control) while SOME Arabs CLAIM TO fight for their god (which is an illusion of control).

Riiiiiight...

What? What does this have to do with Christianity?

What? What does this have to do with Christianity?

My understading was that catholic Irish and protestants from Northern Ireland were terrorizing eachother. But I'm just a dumb american who had second-or third-hand information.

I wondered why I stopped hearing about that. So, in a nutshell, what happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#End_of_the_armed_campaign

The switched guns for politics.

They did not invent the car bomb. They may be catholic, but they fight for independance not for Catholocism. Anyway, the number of people who die in 30 years of IRA bombing is probably equal to 1 year in the Middle East.

That's what I've been saying since the dawn of time.

What? What does this have to do with Christianity?

Boundaries don't exist. The air doesn't change between Germany and France, nor does the soil. They can't be touched.

A personal god doesn't exist. The universe is way too vast for one to focus his attention on X or Y. God can't be touched.

Both fight for concepts, for ideas that can't be proved.

My understading was that catholic Irish and protestants from Northern Ireland were terrorizing eachother. But I'm just a dumb american who had second-or third-hand information.

AFAIK, it was essentially "We need to be free of these British pigs! And we're also Catholic!"

The religion was just a small tacked on part of the greater struggle for independence.

Boundaries don't exist. The air doesn't change between Germany and France, nor does the soil. They can't be touched.

A personal god doesn't exist. The universe is way too vast for one to focus his attention on X or Y. God can't be touched.

Both fight for concepts, for ideas that can't be proved.

No, you are completely mistaken.

The IRA DO NOT, i repeat DO NOT fight for catholocism. Boundries have nothign to do with independence, they don't what the northern part of their country being controlled by England. They want to have the whole of Ireland under their own power and not external power.

No, you are completely mistaken.

The IRA DO NOT, i repeat DO NOT fight for catholocism. Boundries have nothign to do with independence, they don't what the northern part of their country being controlled by England. They want to have the whole of Ireland under their own power and not external power.

Again, I didn't claim they fight for catholicism. I claimed they fight for an illusion of control and for an ideology - which is not at all fundamentally different from what Bin Laden does - not entering the merit of the ideology itself.

Boundaries don't exist. The air doesn't change between Germany and France, nor does the soil. They can't be touched.

Sure they can. Border guards.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg/250px-WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg

Some German troops touching the Polish border.

Again, I didn't claim they fight for catholicism. I claimed they fight for an illusion of control and for an ideology - which is not at all fundamentally different from what Bin Laden does - not entering the merit of the ideology itself.

Fair enough. The thing is power does exist, and so do boundries, weather you like it or not.

Fair enough. The thing is power does exist, and so do boundries, weather you like it or not.

Really? Can you give me some power and some boundaries, then, please? The legs of my dining table are uneven...

See my point?

Really? Can you give me some power and some boundaries, then, please? The legs of my dining table are uneven...

See my point?

No.

I think the pope is an asshole but this... this is bullshit. As much as I hate "siding" with the pope, he should not have apologised for just quoting a Byzantine emperor who said things (I'd even say he shouldn't have apologised if he'd expressed similar sentiments off his own crooked back.)

If the pope says something against gays or pagans or atheists or whatever, no one expects him to apologise or even cares that much, let alone going out and rioting in the street and demanding it. He's a Catholic and presumably the SLI GeForce 7800 of devout Catholics, considering his position. He's going to have some crappy opinions and he's going to express them.

I say fuck them. If they want to riot in the streets and lather themselves into a rabid frenzy over the head of another religion disagreeing with their religion, let them. The rottweiler should have stuck to his guns.

snip

Agreed. Although I'm less anti-Pope.

If an Islamic cleric was to slander Jesus (which they are unlikely to do since Jesus is seen in a positive light in the Holy Koran) I'd imagine the reverse would be occuring. They'd be ardent christians who would rightfully demand Musluims respect their faith, and they'd be marching on the streets with placards and burning effigies of whoever said it.
Not really. The media is all for political correctness, and it pretty much controls everyone's viewpoint unless they are conservative.
So, you've got the Pope slandering muslims. Big riots happen in all Arab nations, that is to be expected.
If you had a Muslim teacher saying similar things about Christians, the media would be like, "He has the right to do that! We should not offend Islam in any way possible! Freedom of Speech!" But not with Christians offending Muslims.
FOX News is the exception.
By the inoffensive lifestyle of the media, the Christians are the most offended.

If the pope says something against gays...no one expects him to apologise

Um, I would.

I wondered why I stopped hearing about that. So, in a nutshell, what happened?

Peace talks, and an agreement. Resulting in an end of terrorist attacks. In a nutshell.

Um, I would.

You expect the head of the Catholic church to apologise for that?

You're going to waiting a long time, my friend. :p

No, you are completely mistaken.

The IRA DO NOT, i repeat DO NOT fight for catholocism. Boundries have nothign to do with independence, they don't what the northern part of their country being controlled by England. They want to have the whole of Ireland under their own power and not external power.

The IRA do not fight any more at all.
And their fight had in fact a lot to do with religion, and historical struggles because of religion.

I think the pope is an asshole but this... this is bullshit. As much as I hate "siding" with the pope, he should not have apologised for just quoting a Byzantine emperor who said things (I'd even say he shouldn't have apologised if he'd expressed similar sentiments off his own crooked back.)

If the pope says something against gays or pagans or atheists or whatever, no one expects him to apologise or even cares that much, let alone going out and rioting in the street and demanding it. He's a Catholic and presumably the SLI GeForce 7800 of devout Catholics, considering his position. He's going to have some crappy opinions and he's going to express them.

I would expect him to apologise. It's not a realistic expectation, but I'm naive enough to believe that the pope wouldn't willfully hurt and insult people. Very naive, considering this pope right now, but still.


I say fuck them. If they want to riot in the streets and lather themselves into a rabid frenzy over the head of another religion disagreeing with their religion, let them. The rottweiler should have stuck to his guns.


I didn't see anybody taking to the street or damaging anything over the pope's remarks. Did I miss something or do you just have no point?

I would expect him to apologise. It's not a realistic expectation, but I'm naive enough to believe that the pope wouldn't willfully hurt and insult people. Very naive, considering this pope right now, but still.

That's naive to believe that of anyone, unfortunately.


I didn't see anybody taking to the street or damaging anything over the pope's remarks. Did I miss something or do you just have no point?

Unless the news programmes here have file footage of people rioting and burning effigees of Ratzinger and screaming out demands for an apology... Which is eminently possible, I admit.

That's naive to believe that of anyone, unfortunately.

Well, if someone is the leader of an institution that claims not only moral superiority by calling itself holy, but also promotes a message of non-violence, peace and love, such a person might be expected to behave in accordance with these claims.

Yes, I'm naive.


Unless the news programmes here have file footage of people rioting and burning effigees of Ratzinger and screaming out demands for an apology... Which is eminently possible, I admit.

No, I honestly haven't seen that so far.

Has anybody ever told you that every freedom will bring responsibility?
Or do you regularly go around abusing everybody you don't like? Did you never apologise for something you said because it was hurtful to someone?

He has the freedom to say what he likes. But he will have to live with the consequences of whatever he said. And if it wasn't his intention to offend, it's up to him to apologise.
Well said.

That's utter crap.

It just gets reported less because FOX and CNN etc. want to show that it's 'only' Muslims who are reactionarily violent.
Feel free to show me a news source that reports numerous Christian riots. It doesn't really happen.

Let's say that tommorow, the Ayatollah says "Christians are a bunch of murderors, rapists and thieves" and it gets reported all around the world.

Do you not think that a lot of Christians would be in a kind of "let's have some property damage" kind of mood, and would kick in Mosque windows etc.
No, I don't think many Christians would do that, for the following reasons
1. There are very few fervently religious/fundamentalist Christians.
2. There are few Christians that like to resort to violence, especially considering that the religion opposes violence.
3. Such people would rightly be vilified as the criminal lunatics that they are.

And to be honest, I was pretty pissed off about the Pope's remarks, and I'm an atheist, it was astonishingly rude.
Are you not of the opinion that spreading religion by violence is wrong?

Oh no! Violent Symbolism!
Reveals violent thoughts. Are you not of the opinion that spreading religion by violence is wrong?

Some Muslims I knew got their windows bricked in after the July 7th attacks in the UK - even though they were nothing to do with it.

If one of their leaders then came out and said "Christians are gimps" or whatever, then people would be getting their houses burnt down, multiculturalism would be branded "a failure" and Blair would probably put all Muslims in Asylum centres...
This is paranoid. Maybe I'm living in the wrong place, but people like you and Gauthier seem to think that the pitchfork-waving masses of the West are on the brink of launching a holocaust of Muslims.

This is a GOOD thing.
If religion inevitably leads to violence then that's true. If it leads to charity then it doesn't. If we were more religious maybe Europe wouldn't get so Americanised.

By the way, I'm of the opinion that Ben shouldn't have said that at all, but I think it's unfair that people are using it as an opportunity to show that Christians are a bunch of uncivilised brutes lusting to kick Muslims.

Well, if someone is the leader of an institution that claims not only moral superiority by calling itself holy, but also promotes a message of non-violence, peace and love, such a person might be expected to behave in accordance with these claims.

Yes, I'm naive.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Catholic "morality", "love" and "peace" is notoriously unpleasant.


No, I honestly haven't seen that so far.

It was all over the news here tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742859.htm


A hardline cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill the pope, while an armed Iraqi group has threatened to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

A third day of attacks on Christian places of worship in the Palestinian territories has seen unknown assailants throw Molotov cocktails and a burning tire at two Catholic churches in the northern West Bank

There's more stories floating around from US and European sources too, I'm sure.

Though it does seem they have limited themselves mostly to violent rhetoric and burning effigees so far rather than full scale "rioting", so I was wrong there. Hopefully that will be it, but considering that the apology has been condemed as "inadequate"... who knows?

I don't get the whole "apology=trampling the 1st amendment" thing; politicians and other world leaders have to apologize all the time, like that governor and his "macaca" slur. Its called respect folks, freedom of speech doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you say. If you say something offensive to a group of people, and they get angry they have a right to demand an apology, just because this group of people happens to be muslims doesn't make it a special case although a lot of people here think it does.

This is paranoid. Maybe I'm living in the wrong place, but people like you and Gauthier seem to think that the pitchfork-waving masses of the West are on the brink of launching a holocaust of Muslims.


76 percent of germans believe islam is comprised mostly of terrorists

56 percent believe the building of mosques should be banned

40 percent believe the practice of islam should be made illegal in germany

not going to be a holocaust, no

but a situation like the japanese in america during WWII, highly possible.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=30134

As an american soldier I have to let you know...we'd be in Iran doing the property damge thing at the drop of a hat should the Ayatollah make such a comment. Or even something as feeble as "Christians are mean" or "Christians are not nice people".
No you wouldn't. Be realistic. Bush won't go to war over religion, or anything that isn't tied to making money.

The Pope is free to say what he pleases, but so are the muslims free to peacefully react with outrage.
Peacefully being the operative word.

However, we're talking about a pope here that's much more conservative than most muslims, and that, unlike most muslims, would call for a witch hunt - aimed towards muslims, homosexuals, occultists, and, basically, anything that disagrees with his insanity - if it was politically and legally viable.
No, he wouldn't because although he's crazily conservative, he's against violence. Remember, this isn't the US Christian Right you're talking a bout.

Because the moviemakers and the posters are high-profile and claim to represent a billion people? Again, Ahmadinejad created lots and lots of polemics when he (wrongly) denied the Holocaust.
Nobody, not even Jewish groups got out onto the street and started burning effigies of Ahmadinejad and vandalising Shia Mosques.

So... SOME Irish CLAIM TO fight for boundaries (something that's an illusion of control) while SOME Arabs CLAIM TO fight for their god (which is an illusion of control).

Political struggles are not the same as religious struggles. The American Revolution wasn't a religious struggle.

Boundaries don't exist. The air doesn't change between Germany and France, nor does the soil. They can't be touched.

This is getting very ideological!

Boundaries are imaginary lines, but different laws are supposedly enforced on either side. In the NI case, the people of the north would stop paying taxes to London and start paying them to Dublin. University education would become free.

There are a few differences entailed by a change of border.

Still, Political struggle =/= religious struggle

Again, I didn't claim they fight for catholicism. I claimed they fight for an illusion of control and for an ideology - which is not at all fundamentally different from what Bin Laden does - not entering the merit of the ideology itself.
Cool, so we agree that the situation in Ireland (where I live, so I do know a thing or two) is political and not religious.

76 percent of germans believe islam is comprised mostly of terrorists

56 percent believe the building of mosques should be banned

40 percent believe the practice of islam should be made illegal in germany

not going to be a holocaust, no

but a situation like the japanese in america during WWII, highly possible.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=30134
There are polls that will tell you that half of British Muslims think that Osama bin Laden is a good guy.

I don't believe them and I don't believe this.

The Pope quoted from a medieval text. He did not say this was his personal view.

The Pope has said he is sorry that the Muslim people are offended. He has not said he is sorry he said it.

There is a difference between saying you're sorry that something you said offended someone, and saying you're sorry you said it.

The government can pry my freedom to speak from my cold dead fingers.

There is a difference between saying you're sorry that something you said offended someone, and saying you're sorry you said it.

Good. He shouldn't apologise.

yes i would, for a reason that because he had to apologise to that group, that in a way makes him have to watch what he says about that group for now on in fear that they will get pissed and the whole deal starting again, he is not able to freely speak about a certain topic/group like he should be able to.

had to? Oh no twinkles, I think you are misunderstanding what "freedom of speech" means.

Freedom of speech means one thing, and one thing only, that you can not be criminally prosecuted for speaking. Which is to say that the government will not by force of law prevent you from speaking.

It is NOT however some magic wand that suddenly makes consequences go away. Go down to Harlem, yell some racial slurs, and then cry "freedom of speech" and see if that suddenly creates a magic shield that will save your ass from the beating you'd get.

Actions have consequences, nobody is going to make, by force of law, the pope to do anything, he can talk about ANYTHING he wants to talk about, but his great freedom of speech will not absolve him of the consequences of those actions.

Good. He shouldn't apologise.

Yeah, and neither should Ahmadinejad for calling the Holocaust a myth, right?

Oh, wait, you only allow coherence in slandering MUSLIMS. Sorry, my bad.

Will you people read the popes speech. If you had then you may have realised that the pope was not trying to insult Islam but was trying to say that violence should never be used by religion.

The quote that has caused all this anger has been taken completely out of context.

Will you people read the popes speech. If you had then you may have realised that the pope was not trying to insult Islam but was trying to say that violence should never be used by religion.

The quote that has caused all this anger has been taken completely out of context.

The quote was a conversation between a christian and a persian in which the christian tells the persian that his religion is faulty since it converts by force, and that the only thing muhammad brough to the world was violence.

To say "OMG read context" is missing the point, if the pope wanted to to simply say that violence should never be used by any religion he could have done so WITHOUT picking a particular passage from a particular book that says that Islam (and JUST islam) has brought only violence.

If it was not meant to be targetting islam (which is curious considering it was quoting a conversation that was...well...targetting islam) then he should have gone about it in a better way, one that didn't mention specifically one religion, and call it fundamentally violent.

Will you people read the popes speech. If you had then you may have realised that the pope was not trying to insult Islam but was trying to say that violence should never be used by religion.

The quote that has caused all this anger has been taken completely out of context.

So was emperor Wilhelm II's quote about the huns. Britain and America have been referring to Germans as "the huns" ever since.

Doesn't it strike anyone odd that everytime some shmuck rattles the sabre by calling the Muslim faith violent, Muslim extremists go out and PROVE THEM RIGHT...?

Must be in TOPSY-TURVY world eh?

There are polls that will tell you that half of British Muslims think that Osama bin Laden is a good guy.

I don't believe them and I don't believe this.

fair enough, I still believe(from personal experience) that with a few more terrorist attacks on either US or european soil that there could be some major human rights violations, hell they already are imprisoning people in GITMO against geneva.

Yeah, and neither should Ahmadinejad for calling the Holocaust a myth, right?

Oh, wait, you only allow coherence in slandering MUSLIMS. Sorry, my bad.

But the Holocaust ISN'T a myth. It's like saying the sky isn't blue.

So was emperor Wilhelm II's quote about the huns. Britain and America have been referring to Germans as "the huns" ever since.

They could have at least called us Goths. That's closer than Huns.

But the Holocaust ISN'T a myth. It's like saying the sky isn't blue.

So, freedom of speech, unless you're saying the sky is blue. In which case you're evil.

They could have at least called us Goths. That's closer than Huns.

They're not referring to Australians, only to Germans.

But the Holocaust ISN'T a myth. It's like saying the sky isn't blue.

Both are ridiculous statements, but everyone's free to make a fool of himself I think.

Yeah, and neither should Ahmadinejad for calling the Holocaust a myth, right?
I don't think he should feel constrained. Let Ahmadinejad show himself for the nutjob he is.

fair enough, I still believe(from personal experience) that with a few more terrorist attacks on either US or european soil that there could be some major human rights violations, hell they already are imprisoning people in GITMO against geneva.
Well, that's America, it's not targetting muslims in general (not openly, at least), and everyone I have ever met considers Guantanamo to be an abomination.

I think I've come across about two people who think Muslims are evil. About the same number I've found that thinks Jews are evil (there was some overlap, unsurprisingly).

Europeans are proud of their tolerance, we won't change that because of a few extremists (who will, more than likely be foreign).

Yes, because the West, and even the American people have lost thier will to fight for thier rights. So proves the current administration. Stupid Hicks.

Well, that's America, it's not targetting muslims in general (not openly, at least), and everyone I have ever met considers Guantanamo to be an abomination.

I think I've come across about two people who think Muslims are evil. About the same number I've found that thinks Jews are evil (there was some overlap, unsurprisingly).

Europeans are proud of their tolerance, we won't change that because of a few extremists (who will, more than likely be foreign).

good, I hope europe doesn't destroy its civil liberties over the recent terrorism surge. Over here, I think I've heard about 20 people say islam is evil, all of them because:
A.) it supports terrorism
B.) brutalizes women(one even said rape is condoned in the qur'an)
c.)is intolerant of other religions
d.) is a moon-worshipping pagan religion
about 5 said islam should remain legal, because of the 1st amendment, 10 said it should be illegal and muslims should be deported, and 5 said we should destroy all mosques and qur'ans and imprison/kill all muslims in america

will the "western" world surrender freedom of speech everytime a group of muslims protest over certain comments.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

The pope has apologized after being urged to do so. all over one comment and thousands of muslims get pissed. will the world cave in to the muslim world everytime they protest something? will we live our lifes tip toeing around trying not to piss off the muslims?No, he didn't.

good, I hope europe doesn't destroy its civil liberties over the recent terrorism surge. Over here, I think I've heard about 20 people say islam is evil, all of them because:
A.) it supports terrorism
B.) brutalizes women(one even said rape is condoned in the qur'an)
c.)is intolerant of other religions
d.) is a moon-worshipping pagan religion
about 5 said islam should remain legal, because of the 1st amendment, 10 said it should be illegal and muslims should be deported, and 5 said we should destroy all mosques and qur'ans and imprison/kill all muslims in america
Holy shite.

Youre missing the correlation.

I was responding to the comment that Christians generally dont attack those they disagree with.

This isnt true.

Abortion clinics all over the world get attacked all to often.
Many of them have armed guards, or even police security, out of necessity.
The only reason less of a stink is made out of it, is becuase this country is predominantly christian, and no one is going to start using the appropriate term for what kind of actions these are....domestic terrorism.

Its not just them crazy muslims....

But is that the same?

There is a difference between we think you are "killing babies" and you said something bad about our Religion so you must apologise and you will die for saying that.

Would Theo Van Gogh been murdered if he had made a movie about Christians?

You seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "common courtesy".

If the pope had apologised to any other group for an insulting comment he made, say gays or women, would you even have considered it in any way connected with freedom of speech?


Common Courtesy is defining proper speech.

That is not Freedom of Speech.

As an american soldier I have to let you know...we'd be in Iran doing the property damge thing at the drop of a hat should the Ayatollah make such a comment. Or even something as feeble as "Christians are mean" or "Christians are not nice people".

Good thing we have a command structure that makes decisions for you.

There wouldn't be any attacks for such comments.

So, freedom of speech, unless you're saying the sky is blue. In which case you're evil.

He's free to say it; he's just wrong, and a jerk.

Common Courtesy is defining proper speech.

That is not Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of speech is liberties granted by lawful authority for individuals to express themselves.

So you are saying a lawful authority obstructed the Pope?

No, it isn't, it's due to people being more polite in general.

Polite speech is not free speech.

They're not referring to Australians, only to Germans.

Oh shut up. You can't deny that I have German blood running through my veins.

Common Courtesy is defining proper speech.

That is not Freedom of Speech.

If you offend someone unintetionally, it's common courtesy to apologise.
It's up to you of course to choose to be polite or offensive.

Oh shut up. You can't deny that I have German blood running through my veins.

*lol
I'm denying that there is such a thing as German blood.

Polite speech is not free speech.

Impolite speech is free speech?

Polite speech is not free speech.

Forcing somebody to be impolite would be free speech?

Okay, I'm not trying to be an ass and I don't mean to be flaming, but can you please fix this. I think I got the gist of it but I'm not sure.

fixed. my keyboard never recognizes when i press a key, so entire strings of letters can be missing from my posts.

*lol
I'm denying that there is such a thing as German blood.

Hmm. Typical leftist view.

Hmm. Typical leftist view.

No. Basic biological and historical knowledge.

Hmm. Typical leftist view.

lol. yup, every liberal out there is waging a private war against the german gene-pool

No. Basic biological and historical knowledge.

I'm assuming you also think there is no difference between black and white blood?

lol. yup, every liberal out there is waging a private war against the german gene-pool

No, that's more of a right-wing thing.

I'm assuming you also think there is no difference between black and white blood?

uh yea, except possibly a few genes, and not necesarily confined to racial differences either.

I'm assuming you also think there is no difference between black and white blood?

If you take a really close look, you'll find the blood is red. A bit daker in the veins than in the arteries, due to the different content of oxygen.

uh yea, except possibly a few genes, and not necesarily confined to racial differences either.

Despite the fact that black people are black and white people are white?

Despite the fact that black people are black and white people are white?

The skin colour is not determined by the blood, but by the level of melatonin in the skin.

So was emperor Wilhelm II's quote about the huns. Britain and America have been referring to Germans as "the huns" ever since.

Read the speech.

Despite the fact that black people are black and white people are white?

decided by genes, which are in every cell nucleus, there is no major difference between a black mans blood or a white mans blood. You can transfer blood from a black man to a white man, if they are the same blood type or one of them is type O

Read the speech.

The one by emperor Willhelm? I did, in 10th grade.

report card on the thread:
after 100 posts..

We are still unable to clarly define:

"Free Speech"
"The West"
"German Blood"

.. Ill come back with a follow-up report after.. lets say.. another 50 posts :D

Both are ridiculous statements, but everyone's free to make a fool of himself I think.

Bingo!

The skin colour is not determined by the blood, but by the level of melatonin in the skin.

White people begot white people. Good enough for me.

The quote was a conversation between a christian and a persian in which the christian tells the persian that his religion is faulty since it converts by force, and that the only thing muhammad brough to the world was violence.

To say "OMG read context" is missing the point, if the pope wanted to to simply say that violence should never be used by any religion he could have done so WITHOUT picking a particular passage from a particular book that says that Islam (and JUST islam) has brought only violence.

If it was not meant to be targetting islam (which is curious considering it was quoting a conversation that was...well...targetting islam) then he should have gone about it in a better way, one that didn't mention specifically one religion, and call it fundamentally violent.

Yes and that emperor at the time believed islam was converting by the sword (could be due to the Turks, who were predomently muslim, were invading his empire at the time so his is view is understandable) and went on to explain after saying the quote in question why he believed conversion by violence was bad. What the pope was trying to get at was the reasoning and explanation of why violence should not be used in the name of religion and the quote was probably used by the pope to give background to why an emperor of the time would be talking about violence and religion together.

And to say context is beside the point is wrong, this whole situation has grown way out of proportion exactly because the quote was taken out of context. Part of his speech was talking about debates between different faiths and how they had been successful in the past at the university he was giving a speech at. The reason why he was talking about that particular book was because it is one of the oldest recordings of a debate between two of the major faiths.

I do agree with your last part that he could have gone about in a better way with hindsight, he could even have still used part of that conversation he was quoting.

I also wish to apologise for my previous post as I have read it and it was more forceful than I wanted it to be, I was not in a good mood at the time due to something else.

White people begot white people. Good enough for me.

Is your subconscious talking again? Try informing yourself for a change... you might even enjoy it.

report cart on the thread:
after 100 posts..

We are still unable to clarly define:

"Free Speech"
"The West"
"German Blood"

.. Ill come back with a follow-up report after.. lets say.. another 50 posts ;D

free speech: able to say anything without gov't interference

The West: europe, N.america, S. america

German blood: the blood of a man from germany

free speech: able to say anything without gov't interference

The West: europe, N.america, S. america

German blood: the blood of a man from germany

Women don't have blood in your reckoning?

Is your subconscious talking again? Try informing yourself for a change... you might even enjoy it.

I inform nothing!

If you offend someone unintetionally, it's common courtesy to apologise.
It's up to you of course to choose to be polite or offensive.

If that someone seeks to block anything they feel is negative do you have to apologise?

free speech: able to say anything without gov't interference

The West: europe, N.america, S. america

German blood: the blood of a man from germanywhen I say "we".. I am talking about a concensus.

I inform nothing!

I know you don't. And if you go on like that, you never will.

Oh shut up. You can't deny that I have German blood running through my veins.Since when do blood cells get awarded citizenship?

Impolite speech is free speech?

Yes. To declare you subscribe to the principle of free speech; you have to have the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

When people start declaring proper speech, you no longer have it.

when I say "we".. I am talking about a concensus.

i know, Does everyone agree with me on that?

Yes. To declare you subscribe to the principle of free speech; you have to have the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

When people start declaring proper speech, you no longer have it.

Unless proper speech is enforced by law, it doesn't restrict speech. It simply sets boundaries that an individual can choose to ignore in favor of expressing something impolite.

If that someone seeks to block anything they feel is negative do you have to apologise?

Did anybody force the pope? I don't really think anyone's in a position to do so. His apology was his decision.

Freedom of speech is liberties granted by lawful authority for individuals to express themselves.

So you are saying a lawful authority obstructed the Pope?

Since we are here bitching about it; he wasn't obstructed. ;)

I know you don't. And if you go on like that, you never will.

Good.

i know, Does everyone agree with me on that?after reading the thread.. I must aswer "most dont"

Did anybody force the pope? I don't really think anyone's in a position to do so. His apology was his decision.

World wide protests and his burning in effige had no impact on him?

You can control speech by other motivational means.

If the Pope decides to stop quoting history, has not the desired affect been achieved?

Did anybody force the pope? I don't really think anyone's in a position to do so. His apology was his decision.He didn't apologize. He stated regret that his statements were misinterpreted as insulting to muslims.

The one by emperor Willhelm? I did, in 10th grade.

No the Popes speech.

Since we are here bitching about it; he wasn't obstructed. ;)

So, this isn't a matter of freedom of speech then.

World wide protests and his burning in effige had no impact on him?

You can control speech by other motivational means.

If the Pope decides to stop quoting history, has not the desired affect been achieved?

Yet, he is still free to quote history in the face of protest. Freedom of speech still exists, even in the face of social pressure to restrict himself.

Yet, he is still free to quote history in the face of protest. Freedom of speech still exists, even in the face of social pressure to restrict himself.

I never said it didn't. I am just arguing Free speech against those the seek "Polite" speech.

Do people have the right to not be offended?

So, this isn't a matter of freedom of speech then.

Actually it is is. They feel anything that puts the Prophet in a bad light shouldn't be uttered.

If the Pople continues his quotes, how long before violence happens?

when I say "we".. I am talking about a concensus.
Free speech is the ability to say what you want without interference by the government. The right also entitles one to protection from people who try to forcefully silence one.

The West means Europe and North America.

So, this isn't a matter of freedom of speech then.of course not.

the Titles
#1 "its raining in Brazil"
#2 "Free Speech in the West"

are both equally apropriate for this content.

Actually it is is. They feel anything that puts the Prophet in a bad light shouldn't be uttered.

Free speech isn't about what some people "feel." First you agreed on what freedom of speech was, and now you're flip flopping.

If the Pople continues his quotes, how long before violence happens?

That's a good point, if he knowingly and willfully incites violence, does that fall under the category of freedom of speech? No, it doesn't. ;)

Actually it is is. They feel anything that puts the Prophet in a bad light shouldn't be uttered.

If the Pople continues his quotes, how long before violence happens?

I think it already is happening, a couple of churches have been fire-bombed.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Serious. Two very different cultures are in conflict with each other, in islamic culture the prophets of god, muhammed in this case are held in the utmost respect, when referring to muhammed or any other prophet it is customary to say "peace be upon him" after saying his name. In the secular western tradition god himself is many times not held in high regard, "oh my god" "jesus im hungry", to us the whole reason the muslims are angry is alien and confusing. This whole conflict stems from a lack of understanding

Free speech isn't about what some people "feel." First you agreed on what freedom of speech was, and now you're flip flopping.

People's feelings aren't an issue?

Then there shouldn't be any reason to prevent people from printing things that offend people. TV for that matter requires morality police.

Flip flopping? You went back to being a conservative?


That's a good point, if he knowingly and willfully incites violence, does that fall under the category of freedom of speech? No, it doesn't. ;)

If he controls what he says out of fear of volence, is he freedom of speech controlled?

If he controls what he says out of fear of volence, is he freedom of speech controlled?

I think he was referring to the shouting "fire" in a theater thing, you cannot say something that could cause people to come to bodily harm...

People's feelings aren't an issue?

Not when it comes to the right to freedom of speech.

Then there shouldn't be any reason to prevent people from printing things that offend people. TV for that matter requires morality police.

With regards to legality, no. There is no lawful reason to prevent printing things from offending people... in general. But this isn't about law, because no law made the Pope apologize.


If he controls what he says out of fear of volence, is he freedom of speech controlled?

yes... by himself. He controls his own speech. Hard to believe, I know.

The West means Europe and North America.

Everyone forgets Australia.

yes... by himself. He controls his own speech. Hard to believe, I know.

No actually he did not. He was forced over fears of violence.

Thus freedom of speech is controlled.

Everyone forgets Australia.

What's an "australia"? Is it a kind of crustacean?







:D

No actually he did not. He was forced over fears of violence.

So, he not in control of his own faculties? Is that what you're saying?

Thus freedom of speech is controlled.

My ass. Please re-read the definition of freedom of speech which you've already agreed with.

So, he not in control of his own faculties? Is that what you're saying?

If he controls his facility and yet edits his own comments out of fear, then he still has freedom of speech?

What's an "australia"? Is it a kind of crustacean?


More of a global "rear-end" parasite. One of our PM's once called this country "the arse end of the world."

He was right.

as I said before, free speech is defined as the government not limiting what you say.

Does the government allow you to walk around yelling racial slurs in the ghetto? yes. Would you do it? No.

Why not? because you don't want your ass beat. But it doesn't mean you don't have the RIGHT to do it, but there are consequences for it. You can't expect that just because you have the RIGHT to do something that this right acts as shield to prevent consequences for the actions.

If he controls his facility and yet edits his own comments out of fear, then he still has freedom of speech?

Yes, because no government is forcing him, as a matter of law, to not say it. He chooses to act on whatever motivates him to do so.

Ahh tangent time yet again.

If he controls his facility and yet edits his own comments out of fear, then he still has freedom of speech?

It's not a tangent. Unless someone (i.e, a lawful authority) is literally forcing him to not say things, he has freedom of speech. You seem intent on making this an issue of freedom of speech.. when the real issue is that the Pope is being (marignally) politically correct.

Seems you take umbrage at what the Pope said, but want to blame someone other than the Pope.

as I said before, free speech is defined as the government not limiting what you say.

Does the government allow you to walk around yelling racial slurs in the ghetto? yes. Would you do it? No.

Why not? because you don't want your ass beat. But it doesn't mean you don't have the RIGHT to do it, but there are consequences for it. You can't expect that just because you have the RIGHT to do something that this right acts as shield to prevent consequences for the actions.

The Pope didn't say the Prophet was a child raping pig eating son of whore(which I think is the equivilent of yelling ****** in Harlem).

Which I would agree would be taking a chance on the consequences.

Questioning wheter or not Religion was spreed by the sword(which is kind of a hypocrital comment considering the source but lets not create a tangent) is a valid comment.

But I am strange I guess.

I also defended the Last Temptation of Christ.....

The Pope didn't say the Prophet was a child raping pig eating son of whore(which I think is the equivilent of yelling ****** in Harlem).

Which I would agree would be taking a chance on the consequences.

Aha, but you could say that. He could too. The freedom to do so exists.

The Pope didn't say the Prophet was a child raping pig eating son of whore(which I think is the equivilent of yelling ****** in Harlem).

Which I would agree would be taking a chance on the consequences.

Questioning wheter or not Religion was spreed by the sword(which is kind of a hypocrital comment considering the source but lets not create a tangent) is a valid comment.

But I am strange I guess.

I also defended the Last Temptation of Christ.....

What's your point? I will ask again, what GOVERNMENT CREATED LAW stopped him from saying it? If you want to say that the muslim world perhaps OVER REACTED to the comment...ok, fine. But that still doesn't create a lack of free speech.

will the "western" world surrender freedom of speech everytime a group of muslims protest over certain comments.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

The pope has apologized after being urged to do so. all over one comment and thousands of muslims get pissed. will the world cave in to the muslim world everytime they protest something? will we live our lifes tip toeing around trying not to piss off the muslims?

We already have. :mad:

Free speech must NEVER be compromised.

If Muslims don't like it, tough.

If they whine and bitch and rampage every time they are subjected to justified criticism, let them.

If they attack, respond with massive, overwhelmingly disproportionate force. :mp5:

It's not a tangent. Unless someone (i.e, a lawful authority) is literally forcing him to not say things, he has freedom of speech. You seem intent on making this an issue of freedom of speech.. when the real issue is that the Pope is being (marignally) politically correct.

Seems you take umbrage at what the Pope said, but want to blame someone other than the Pope.

Sorry the tangent comment was left over from a different thought to which I changed.

So you are saying unless there is a law controlling freedom of speech and expression, it is never controlled?

Goverment is supposed to keep speech free by not restricting it itself or allow others to restrict it.

If I am arguing for the Popes right to say what he said, how am I taking umbrage with what he said?

Aha, but you could say that. He could too. The freedom to do so exists.

You won't find the Muslim world protesting if I said it. ;)

Free speech must NEVER be compromised.

If Muslims don't like it, tough.

If they whine and bitch and rampage every time they are subjected to justified criticism, let them.

If they attack, respond with massive, overwhelmingly disproportionate force. :mp5:We do this to Bill O'Reilly too?

What's your point? I will ask again, what GOVERNMENT CREATED LAW stopped him from saying it? If you want to say that the muslim world perhaps OVER REACTED to the comment...ok, fine. But that still doesn't create a lack of free speech.

The government didn't have laws preventing blacks from voting(speaking of recent times) and yet people preventing them.

Since there was no law; their voting rights weren't controlled right?

So you are saying unless there is a law controlling freedom of speech and expression, it is never controlled?

Unless you mean freedom of speech in a different way than it means here in the US. Yes.

Goverment is supposed to keep speech free by not restricting it itself or allow others to restrict it.

Governments have little legal power outside of their country. You seem like you are arguing not for freedom of speech, but for total autonomous freedom from any consequences that may be potentially negative. Sorry, no such right exists outside of Utopia... all actions have consequences.

If I am arguing for the Popes right to say what he said, how am I taking umbrage with what he said?

If you are arguing for the right to say what he said, why do you claim he was "controlled" when he said an apology?

Unless you mean freedom of speech in a different way than it means here in the US. Yes.

Governments have little legal power outside of their country. You seem like you are arguing not for freedom of speech, but for total autonomous freedom from any consequences that may be potentially negative. Sorry, no such right exists outside of Utopia... all actions have consequences.


Obviously US laws mean next to nothing in Vatican city.

Actions do have consequences and that is why we create laws to protect people from consequecences that are wrong. Was it right to murder theo van gogh for his movie? After all that was the consequence of his actions.

Liberterian are we?

We do this to Bill O'Reilly too?

Yep, next time Bill O'Reilly burns churches, blows up restaurants or commits other terrorist acts after someone criticizes him, go right ahead use overwhelmingly disproportionate force against him too. :rolleyes:

Were you born with the ability to ask stupid questions, or did you have to work at it?

Everyone forgets Australia.
And Sydney forgets west Australia!

Yep, next time Bill O'Reilly burns churches, blows up restaurants or commits other terrorist acts after someone criticizes him, go right ahead use overwhelmingly disproportionate force against him too. :rolleyes: How about if he gets his titties in a twist over some cartoons printed in a college newspaper?
Were you born with the ability to ask stupid questions, or did you have to work at it?I thought I was good. You have taught me humilty :( =)

How is apologizing surrendering the freedom of speech?

I see nothing wrong with apologizing for offending a large group of people.

How is apologizing surrendering the freedom of speech?

I see nothing wrong with apologizing for offending a large group of people.

I don't know... And me neither.

He says "A". They say "You've offended us by saying A!" He says "I didn't mean it like that, I was just quoting a guy. Sorry to offend you." They say "Oh, alright then. But be more careful next time!"

This is how freedom of speech should work, and is working at least in some places. :)

I don't know... And me neither.

He says "A". They say "You've offended us by saying A!" He says "I didn't mean it like that, I was just quoting a guy. Sorry to offend you." They say "Oh, alright then. But be more careful next time!"

This is how freedom of speech should work, and is working at least in some places. :)
Yeah, I thought that that was just how polite society functioned. If you said something and someone was offended by what you said, you apologize for offending them and you move on with your lives.

Yeah, I thought that that was just how polite society functioned. If you said something and someone was offended by what you said, you apologize for offending them and you move on with your lives.

and freedom of speech is a shield against gov't interference of what an individual says, seeing how the pope is the gov't it doesn't really apply to him

and freedom of speech is a shield against gov't interference of what an individual says, seeing how the pope is the gov't it doesn't really apply to him

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

Wait...


Wait.

I FIGURED OUT WHY ARE PEOPLE SO OUTRAGED!

You see, freedom of speech is not having the government of where you live interfere in what you say...

So, since the Pope IS the government of where he lives, he's curtailing freedom of speech when he takes back something he said, since he is the government and he's curtailing his speech!

THAT is why so many people see it as a freedom of speech issue, the Pope, which is the Government of Vatican, is interfering in the Pope's free speech, since this is a case of a government (the Pope) deciding what a citizen (the Pope) can or cannot say!

See? I figured it out! :D

Obviously US laws mean next to nothing in Vatican city.

Actions do have consequences and that is why we create laws to protect people from consequecences that are wrong.

And you think there should be a law that forces the Pope not to make apologies, even if that's his own damned choice? Or you feel that US laws should extend to the Vatican? Vice versa? Not sure what you're getting at here.

Was it right to murder theo van gogh for his movie? After all that was the consequence of his actions.

Now it's you who's going off on a tangent. I say nothing of whether anything is "right." I am only correcting your mistaken belief that the Pope no longer has freedom of speech.

Liberterian are we?

On many issues. Why, is this relevant? Didn't think so.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

Wait...


Wait.

I FIGURED OUT WHY ARE PEOPLE SO OUTRAGED!

You see, freedom of speech is not having the government of where you live interfere in what you say...

So, since the Pope IS the government of where he lives, he's curtailing freedom of speech when he takes back something he said, since he is the government and he's curtailing his speech!

THAT is why so many people see it as a freedom of speech issue, the Pope, which is the Government of Vatican, is interfering in the Pope's free speech, since this is a case of a government (the Pope) deciding what a citizen (the Pope) can or cannot say!

See? I figured it out! :D

*head explodes*

*head explodes*

Funny, I get that effect a lot. o_o

And you think there should be a law that forces the Pope not to make apologies, even if that's his own damned choice? Or you feel that US laws should extend to the Vatican? Vice versa? Not sure what you're getting at here.

Wow. You sure read in many issues that are not there.


Now it's you who's going off on a tangent. I say nothing of whether anything is "right." I am only correcting your mistaken belief that the Pope no longer has freedom of speech.


You are the one that spoke of consequences for ones actions.


On many issues. Why, is this relevant? Didn't think so.

Sure it's relevant. It explains your whole aruging style.

Have a good one.