Across the US, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater?

If there's a fire I'd say it is a good idea. If not then I am sure the management will ban the individual concerned.

False alarm, of course. You knew that. And how many dead? (Citing a case in Chicago where dozens died.) Free speech to say "Fire!" should be protected even if people die. Gotcha.

See, I knew you were going here anyway, so there's no point in pointing out to you that you're putting words in to my mouth. Let's indulge this rather puerile line of argument. Firstly, the right to speak freely does not mean that the use of free speech has no consequence. It means that the state does not have power of veto and the right to sanction any and all statements uttered by a citizen. I have no problem prosecuting people who cause death etc by inciting various acts.

You can't run away from this with the "words in the mouth" thing. It's a logical follow-on to absolute free speech. And a documented case as well. People died because some fool decided to exercise his right to free speech. But that's fine, he has the right doesn't he?

You've also got quite a substantial task on your hands if you want to prove that banning yelling 'fire' would have prevented this. I am inclined to think that it was a spur of the moment thing. All that your token gesture restriction on speech would accomplish would be the legitimisation of absolute state control over every citizen's speech. What you seem to be advocating is preemptive regulation of free speech. The name for that is thought crime.

Banning yelling "Fire!" does work, unless you can prove otherwise.

And cliches like "thought crime" can stay in the bucket.

[Trolldor]

A man can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

He can, however, engage in a discussion at any time with anyone in that theatre about the fact that he believes there to be a fire.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A man can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

They can, and have. You want to limit their free speech or something, buddy?

He can, however, engage in a discussion at any time with anyone in that theatre about the fact that he believes there to be a fire.

If he does so with the intention of starting a panic?

[Trolldor]

If, after presenting his point of view and the audience has, after deliberation and debate, concluded that there is in fact a fire and then decides that the best possible option would be to panic, then they can do so.

Free Speech is about expressing opinion. Shouting "Fire!" in a theatre for the purposes of causing disruption is not an opinion. If the man doesn't believe their to be a fire, then stopping him from saying so isn't the stifling of free expression.

[Meekychuppet]

And cliches like "thought crime" can stay in the bucket.

Er... no. You don't get to set the parameters of a discussion just because you haven't got an adequate response for the rebuttals put to you.

Banning yelling "Fire!" does work, unless you can prove otherwise.

Again, no. If you want to make the case for this then you can prove it, otherwise it remains an unknown. It's clear that, since there wasn't a fire, and you were citing this as an example of mischief, the perpetrator here knew they were causing trouble. It is likely that they simply got far more than they bargained for. Since this individual was looking to cause trouble I am not sure how effective a ban would have been.

[JimC]

what does that have to do with anything?

Basically, if islamic groups protest against any restriction against building mosques in western countries, they are being hypocritical, given the total ban imposed in the country that is the heart of their religion...

Unless there is some way to show that all Muslims support the ban in Saudi Arabia then I don't see how this statement could possibly be true.

It would be interesting to know the extent of that support, true, but all muslims would regard Mecca and Medina as heartlands of their faith, and the dominant islamic culture there is violently intolerant of any other religion operating there. I'm not making a huge point of this, since I reluctantly agree that one cannot forbid mosques for basic reasons of the freesom to be deluded. However, the intolerance of at least one major group of muslims is worth contasting to the freedom they are afforded in other regions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If, after presenting his point of view and the audience has, after deliberation and debate, concluded that there is in fact a fire and then decides that the best possible option would be to panic, then they can do so.

Free Speech is about expressing opinion. Shouting "Fire!" in a theatre for the purposes of causing disruption is not an opinion. If the man doesn't believe their to be a fire, then stopping him from saying so isn't the stifling of free expression.

Now you're defining free speech. Isn't that limiting someone who has a different opinion?

This shit never ends, presently presented opinions notwithstanding. So I leave you to chew on it. My lawn needs attention if the grass is going to grow properly.

[Trolldor]

Free Speech is specifically about protecting opinion, that's what it has always been about.
A man shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre without the intention of presenting his opinion but merely to cause disruption isn't exercising his right to free speech because he is not presenting a point of view that needs to be protected even if gross and incorrect.

[Robert_S]

Free speech is a slippery slope on both sides.

But the thing I would be worried about is getting the wording of whatever laws you might have in mind just right. I'm happy with how we have it in the US.

By the way, we do have Islamic terrorists in the US, not too far from me actually.

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1128380368/De ... l-building.

To me, the terrorism seems minor compared to the massive drain on the intellect and the soul* that religion brings with it. Trying to square religious beliefs with scientific knowledge, having to find some holy scripture to justify your ethics and morals, trying to figure out gender relations in the modern are while your outlook is stuck in a desert nomad raider mindset... It's gotta be millions of lifetimes worth of wasted time and effort and perverted ethics.





*I mean the soul that's made up of lots of tiny robots, not the woo thing.

[redunderthebed]

A mosque is no different from a church synagogue temple or anything of that sort. If we are a tolerant society therefor freedom to worship has to be granted to all.The trick is not to isolate them and alienate them thats what has lead to muslims blowing themselves up in the UK and going over to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight holy jihad.

We should be accepting them and integrating to our society then the minority that caused 9/11 and all this other terrible loss of life will be isolated and muslims will be more willing to go to the cops that cousin hasan is planning to drive a car into the US embassy.Bigotry towards them just drives them into the arms of the nutters. Quite often the community doesn't trust the police so therefor wont do anything when they know something is happening.

Shit for a forum thats meant to be rational and all there is alot of irrational bigotry flying around in this thread and basically all threads relating to Islam. I mean we would be jumping up and down if Atheist were getting treated like muslims are these days.

There is something in what you say, red, especialy about the potential for radicalisation, in the context of how moderate muslims are treated...

However, Islam does want to play by separate rules. It wants no opposition to building mosques anywhere in the west, or it will cry foul and enlist the help of the confused left to assist... (deep down, the left is for the high jump when the world-wide caliphate is established...)

But of course, different rules apply when the filthy infidels wish to display their particular delusion on the holy ground of islam (which is a work in progress, the fundamentalists certainly want it to be the entire Earth)

It expects opposition to mosques being built and all due the climate of fear that has being built and of course they are going to oppose what do you think they are going to take this lying down. However i think the nature of the opposition is troubling it is seen as a brown peoples religion and something foreign and evil and the opposition is merely a bigoted response to almost every wave of immigration to the west since year dot for a vast majority.Toontown merely rehashed what people like him have done as i repeat since year dot catholics jews asians and i could go on have had this shit flung at them.

I'm not saying that Islam is a belief i agree with i oppose all religions equally. However i do oppose racism and bigotry with equal measure and fervour and i think for alot of people there opposition to Islam is rooted in it and old prejudices towards immigrants and foreigners are rearing their ugly head in this guise.That in my book is far more dangerous than a minority of nutters. In fact if it isn't reigned in one day that minority could grow into a majority with a siege mentality and isolation and lack of integration into society.

Got to remember people extremism in ALL religions is a threat to a secular democratic society not just ones practiced by brown people.

[Trolldor]

But it is the pervasive nature of Islam that saw the International Human Rights commission declare it a violation of human rights to criticise honor killings.
This is the Islam which demands, by force of arms, that criticism be silenced. I would wish no law be passed that would forbid them from practicing their religion, but I would welcome any and all attempts to deprive of this primitive hatred, guised as a religion, any form of respect.

[Pappa]

But it is the pervasive nature of Islam that saw the International Human Rights commission declare it a violation of human rights to criticise honor killings

Do you haz linky?

[Trolldor]

It was quite some time ago, I was in high school in fact, so I can try.

Oh, I was mildly incorrect, it was the United Nations itself where the resolution was passed.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world ... f6e78c78d5

[RuleBritannia]

But it is the pervasive nature of Islam that saw the International Human Rights commission declare it a violation of human rights to criticise honor killings

Do you haz linky?

He's been totally misleading, at the 60th session the issue of honour killings was rejected by Muslim officials as "inferference with internal affairs of a sovereign state", which is not the same thing as the UNCHR declaring it a violation of human rights to criticise honor killings.

[Trolldor]

It would do your character some service to retract that statement. I have under no circumstances been misleading, I have been operating on the information I am in possession of.