First Amendment Right

[firstdown]

I find the responses here from the left interesting. They kind of say they understand why the guy attacked the guy and how he was provoked. If this was a guy mocking god and was attacked the left would call the attacker a right wing extremist nut job that needs to be in jail.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I find the responses here from the left interesting. They kind of say they understand why the guy attacked the guy and how he was provoked. If this was a guy mocking god and was attacked the left would call the attacker a right wing extremist nut job that needs to be in jail.

Yes, there seems to be a double standard. Everyone knows desecrating the Bible and demeaning Jesus is fair game in America. Why just last week I saw someone doing some awful things to a miniature statue of Jesus...when was the last time you've seen something of that nature?

[RedskinRat]

Ok, it's been a few weeks since you posted your question, saden1, so I'll take it that a) nobody has seen it happen, or b) nobody cares.

What do you consider 'desecration'? I ask because I'm sure there's a sliding scale.

Most christians that I know would be able to ignore an obvious insult as an attempt to provoke.

[mlmpetert]

NYT: Anti-Catholic ads are OK, but anti-Islam ads put our troops in danger « Hot Air

[RedskinRat]

We all know that not all religions are treated equally.

I saw this an 'Hmmmm'ed

Dutch catholic church accused of castrating boys

But, yeah, what about all the good the church does?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

We all know that not all religions are treated equally.

I saw this an 'Hmmmm'ed

Dutch catholic church accused of castrating boys

But, yeah, what about all the good the church does?

Isnt this a major part of the reason you started this thread? Sure i know youre an atheist and all, but isnt atheism just as much an ideology as Christianity or Islamism? So why is it that that its okay to offend one and not the other. Sure its a pretty shitty situation that people actually want to offend people who are believers, non-believers, or believe differently, but we should all have the right to voice our opinion even if it is offensive.

The whole problem is that different ideologies are being able to behave differently. And worst of all its because of positive reinforcement of bad and irrational behavior.

What does the horrible acts of the Dutch Catholic church have to do with people having the right to offend Muslims or Christians?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Isnt this a major part of the reason you started this thread?

No.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Sure i know youre an atheist and all, but isnt atheism just as much an ideology as Christianity or Islamism?

No, Atheism is the disbelief of the existence of a god. It's only an ideology to theists who are desperate for a position to argue from.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

So why is it that that its okay to offend one and not the other.

All religious positions are open to the same level of doubt and ridicule to me.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Sure its a pretty shitty situation that people actually want to offend people who are believers, non-believers, or believe differently, but we should all have the right to voice our opinion even if it is offensive.

Um.....

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

The whole problem is that different ideologies are being able to behave differently. And worst of all its because of positive reinforcement of bad and irrational behavior.

Er.........

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

What does the horrible acts of the Dutch Catholic church have to do with people having the right to offend Muslims or Christians?

I was substantiating your post with another anti-catholic media article, I rarely see anything anti-islam unless it's CLEARLY STATED that these were 'mis-understanders' or 'a small minority'.

Do you think that religion or belief should be off limits to ridicule or scrutiny?

[mlmpetert]

I think you’ve completely missed what I was trying to say.

I absolutely do not believe religion or belief of any kind should be off limits to ridicule or scrutiny. Rather i just think its sad that people find purpose in insulting and mocking the beliefs of others. However, what I find even more unfortunate is the selective scrutiny and extremist sympathizing many of us seem to display.

I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims? Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be? Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?

You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case? Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims?

I'm certainly not but I don't like the NYT in the first place.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be?

Which discrimination are you referencing? It's a bigoted newspaper, it's not a surprise.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?

Absolutely, as the judge mentioned The atheist would have been killed in the Middle East for his beliefs.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case?

Primarily my post was to gauge whether people even care about the erosion of rights under this administration. Certainly there appears to be an incredibly out of proportion application of 'kid-glovery' regarding a very tiny but extremely vocal minority.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?

He decided that a police officers sworn testimony wasn't relevant ( I read the court transcripts early on so I'm not sure what you mean by 'prior') despite the fact that the defendant admitted to assaulting the victim.

The judge seemed, from everything I've read, to allow his experience in the Middle East to allow a sliding scale of justice here instead of correctly applying the the law for assault.

I appreciate your response, thanks.