Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ] 

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

23 Feb 2012, 10:12 am

Ok, dressing up as zombie pope and mohammad in Halloweed is bad taste and not funny. But it is as legal and fine as dessing up as zombie Obama or McCain. It gives no one the right to choke you for offending them. A judge apparently thinks that if you are offended you are entitled to choke people.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... y-with-it/


_________________
.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 Feb 2012, 11:07 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Ok, dressing up as zombie pope and mohammad in Halloweed is bad taste and not funny. But it is as legal and fine as dessing up as zombie Obama or McCain. It gives no one the right to choke you for offending them. A judge apparently thinks that if you are offended you are entitled to choke people.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... y-with-it/


Although it pains me greatly I think I actually AGREE with you on this one thing.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

23 Feb 2012, 11:17 am

Legally? The judge is out of line. The ruling needs to be appealed and overturned; this is a nation that values the rule of law, and this kind of abuse of that law is a clear violation of our social contract.

Morally? Freedom of speech comes with the freedom to take the consequences. If I dressed up as Zombie Mohammad or Zombie Jesus or Zombie Rick Santorum and someone wanted to start a fight with me about it, that's on me. I went out and did something I know is offensive, and if I don't wanna back down, I need to be prepared for people wanting to stand up for what they believe in, probably by kicking me right in the nuts.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

23 Feb 2012, 11:22 am

The judge is apparently also a muslim according to other news stories. He must have converted while on a tour.

Quote:
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

23 Feb 2012, 11:48 am

Would the same thing happen if someone attacked the WBC?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Feb 2012, 11:49 am

Raptor wrote:

Although it pains me greatly I think I actually AGREE with you on this one thing.


Sorry, that's not allowed on this forum. :P



kestrel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 574
Location: Ohio

23 Feb 2012, 11:50 am

That judge offends me. Can I choke him?



HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

23 Feb 2012, 12:05 pm

It wasn't even that good a costume - it needed a sign to explain what it was. Perhaps it offended his taste in costumes.
But, all things considered, if that is true, it should be deemed a violation of the man's human rights if he's not defended by the legal system after being the victim of an attack.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

23 Feb 2012, 4:33 pm

This commenter nails it.

FSq Collapse wrote:
This is akin to the old rulings regarding rape. It is the old "she was asking for it dressed so provocatively, so she had it coming. Case dismissed."

This. Sickens. Me.


Apparently, the a-hole who defended the strangler of free speech was a Republican.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE#t=100

R. Mark Thomas wrote:
The so-called victim was clearly the antagonist. We introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude towards Muslims.


R. Mark Thomas

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Thom ... 3290155987

I wonder why that as*hole is so absent when Peter King is conducting his Muslim hunting hearings. Oh, yeah, that's right, in terms of GOP hate:

Atheists >> Muslims


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Feb 2012, 5:09 pm

Raptor wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Ok, dressing up as zombie pope and mohammad in Halloweed is bad taste and not funny. But it is as legal and fine as dessing up as zombie Obama or McCain. It gives no one the right to choke you for offending them. A judge apparently thinks that if you are offended you are entitled to choke people.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... y-with-it/


Although it pains me greatly I think I actually AGREE with you on this one thing.


I imagine that if we all cooled our heads, you and we would agree more often than not.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



petitesouris
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 371

24 Feb 2012, 4:01 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
This commenter nails it.

FSq Collapse wrote:
This is akin to the old rulings regarding rape. It is the old "she was asking for it dressed so provocatively, so she had it coming. Case dismissed."

This. Sickens. Me.


Apparently, the _________ who defended the strangler of free speech was a Republican.

I wonder why that _________ is so absent when Peter King is conducting his Muslim hunting hearings. Oh, yeah, that's right, in terms of GOP hate:

Atheists >> Muslims


You could be right. I mean islam has a lot in common with right wing ideology. Right wingers only use the average person's fear of militant islam to turn this country into a police state ruled by unquestioning fear, with atheists, among other "misfits" becoming the "enemy at home". I am sure islamization would be a great way for them to acheive this end.

If the GOP ignores the basic rights of atheists, 10-20% of the American population, then they are useless against terrorism despite the right's constant finger pointing at "marxists" for promoting political correctness.



Last edited by petitesouris on 25 Feb 2012, 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

24 Feb 2012, 5:03 pm

petitesouris wrote:
... despite the right's constant finger pointing at "marxists" for promoting political correctness.


Yeah, damn those "politically correct Marxists" - when they ruled Afghanistan they just oozed appeasement to Islam. :P

Pretty funny how the right can forget such recent history.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

24 Feb 2012, 8:09 pm

If the judge condoned this under the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, then his interpretation of it is seriously flawed. I'm sure in the past there have been rulings that even if it was done as a religious practice, any act of violence outside of self-defense (and by that I mean killing/maiming when your life is in immediate danger) is not OK. I do not think Islamic law should be implemented or condoned in the US (which is essentially what Muslims are aiming for), as the religion condones and even calls for acts of terrorism and violence to people, groups, and nations who are not predominantly Muslim (why do you think they hate the United States?). Those who say it is a "religion of peace" are either lying or do not know what their book says.

I acknowledge that what I have said is very politically incorrect, but to be blatantly honest, I do not give a damn.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


petitesouris
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 371

24 Feb 2012, 8:29 pm

LiberalJustice wrote:
If the judge condoned this under the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, then his interpretation of it is seriously flawed. I'm sure in the past there have been rulings that even if it was done as a religious practice, any act of violence outside of self-defense (and by that I mean killing/maiming when your life is in immediate danger) is not OK. I do not think Islamic law should be implemented or condoned in the US (which is essentially what Muslims are aiming for), as the religion condones and even calls for acts of terrorism and violence to people, groups, and nations who are not predominantly Muslim (why do you think they hate the United States?). Those who say it is a "religion of peace" are either lying or do not know what their book says.

I acknowledge that what I have said is very politically incorrect, but to be blatantly honest, I do not give a damn.


If America follows the same path as Europe, results will not be any less catastrophic. While I am sure there are some American muslims who favor American values over islamic tyranny, we should not forget that some of the suicide bombers who murdered 3,000 people were muslims from this country.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2012, 8:38 pm

petitesouris wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
If the judge condoned this under the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, then his interpretation of it is seriously flawed. I'm sure in the past there have been rulings that even if it was done as a religious practice, any act of violence outside of self-defense (and by that I mean killing/maiming when your life is in immediate danger) is not OK. I do not think Islamic law should be implemented or condoned in the US (which is essentially what Muslims are aiming for), as the religion condones and even calls for acts of terrorism and violence to people, groups, and nations who are not predominantly Muslim (why do you think they hate the United States?). Those who say it is a "religion of peace" are either lying or do not know what their book says.

I acknowledge that what I have said is very politically incorrect, but to be blatantly honest, I do not give a damn.


If America follows the same path as Europe, results will not be any less catastrophic. While I am sure there are some American muslims who favor American values over islamic tyranny, we should not forget that some of the suicide bombers who murdered 3,000 people were muslims from this country.


But neither were any of the suicide highjackers citizens of this country. I think the implication that any American citizens are to be suspect because they share some common trait with our enemies sets a dangerous precedent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

24 Feb 2012, 8:47 pm

If Islam has the idea that a certain historical figure cannot be depicted, then Islam is incompatible with modernity. In the long run, either Islam has to change, or modernity has to change. Let's not beat around the bush, we all know which one is going to change. I just hope that it doesn't involve violence.

EDIT: Actually, that beings up an interesting point. What if the guy had just been dressed up as Mohammed, not Zombie Mohammed? And what if it was just some sort of "historical figures" theme party, instead of a parade? Could the attack still have happened? In other words, was the guy angry because Mohammed was being depicted, or because Mohammed was being depicted as a zombie?