• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charlie Hebdo Shooting: 12 Killed at Muhammad Cartoons Magazine in Paris[w:157,1217]

There are no laws against blasphemy in the United States. We are a civilized nation.

There is! Read your blasphemy laws? Civilized? Looting, rioting, burning police cars is civilised?
 
There is! Read your blasphemy laws? Civilized? Looting, rioting, burning police cars is civilised?

Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that blasphemy laws are unconstitutional.
 
Some states have blasphemy statutes.

From Wiki:

In the United States...a prosecution for blasphemy would violate the Constitution according to the 1952 Supreme Court case Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson.

...United States of America

Main article: Blasphemy law in the United States of America

A prosecution for blasphemy in the United States would fail as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."

Because of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and religious exercise from federal interference, and the Supreme Court's extension of those protections against state regulation, the United States and its constituent state governments may not prosecute blasphemous speech or religious insults and may not allow civil actions on those grounds. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York could not enforce a censorship law against filmmakers whose films contained "sacrilegious" content. The opinion of the Court, by Justice Clark, stated that:

"From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures." Blasphemy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
From Wiki:

In the United States...a prosecution for blasphemy would violate the Constitution according to the 1952 Supreme Court case Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson.

...United States of America

Main article: Blasphemy law in the United States of America

A prosecution for blasphemy in the United States would fail as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."

Because of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and religious exercise from federal interference, and the Supreme Court's extension of those protections against state regulation, the United States and its constituent state governments may not prosecute blasphemous speech or religious insults and may not allow civil actions on those grounds. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York could not enforce a censorship law against filmmakers whose films contained "sacrilegious" content. The opinion of the Court, by Justice Clark, stated that:

"From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures." Blasphemy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I could do some editing for you here in a minute.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Before I say anything else, can someone answer for me this question: On a scale of 0-10, how bad is the Islamophobia in this thread?
 
Few of us here in the US will agree with RDS but he is politely showing us an example of what people in other regions DO think.

I dont agree but I dont dismiss what he's saying. It's stupid to deny opposing views, that just leads to underestimating your opponents.

Just a general statement, not only directed at you Apocalypse.

Moral society, globally, adheres to Western standards.
Not the standards of Lybia and Nigeria mind you.
So yes I do dismiss his opinion as wrong, as it is.
Your approach is quite counterproductive Lursa.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Before I say anything else, can someone answer for me this question: On a scale of 0-10, how bad is the Islamophobia in this thread?

Whatever the actual number is, the correct answer is "not bad enough".
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Whatever the actual number is, the correct answer is "not bad enough".

Yup, that's what I thought.

Humans are such a fascinating species. Some of its factions try to defend their little turf on their insignificantly tiny home, as if doing so were more important than life itself. They are so myopic. They haven't even figured out where to go when their little home inevitably expires someday, let alone how to get enough living creatures there to sustain a biosphere.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Well Socialist, it was your kind that left them into the West under "Multiculturalism" and "Diversity".

What? I mean yeah the extremists are bad and we need to police against it. But does that mean we should understand there are a variety of other folk with different cultures that can all contribute positively to a group? Probably shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Lately? None. Historically? Plenty.

And there are those that exist today, just in smaller numbers. Like the OK City bomber, like abortion clinic bombers....

Today there are more moderate Christians and we've managed to keep our govt. mostly secular. Islam is in a great state of disruption, internally as well as externally.

I dont make excuses for the terrorists anymore than I excuse the OK City bomber or perpetrators of the Inquisition. I just recognize that they are NOT the voice of ALL their religion and I dont paint them all with the same brush.

It makes me ill to think that anyone could possibly think all Christians are like the pathetic mutts of the Westboro Church. I wont do that to all Muslims.

Your comparing one right wing nutjob who never claimed any affiliation with Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition to what's happening now throughout the world? That's your standard of weighing the impact of religious extremists of varying types? Pretty lame.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Before I say anything else, can someone answer for me this question: On a scale of 0-10, how bad is the Islamophobia in this thread?
You're so right.
I cant believe anyone had the nerve to even start the string in the first place.
I mean, Singling Out Muslims just because there was some sort of vague murders Thousands of miles away! Definitely Islamophobia.

"Just few bad apples"
"Not all Muslims are terrorists"
"Most muslims are peaceful otherwise the planet would be in flames." (of course, it Is)
"This has nothing to do with Islam." (nor does ISIS, or Saudi Arabia, or al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or Sunni-Shia violence)

BTW, this is DEBATEpolitics. If you feel a post is Islamophobic, please tell us which one and why.
 
Last edited:
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

LOL, I have been avoiding this debate but this one is soooo funny.

1.) He aint french.. he is British, born and bred.

Anjem Choudary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) He is a well known radical going back decades. He in fact is accused of being the inspiration for the 7/7 bombers if I am not mistaken. The Brits have been trying to get him convicted of terror many times but have found it more than hard.... does not help that he is a lawyer of course.

3.) He has zero credibility and in no way represents Islam in any form and cant even really be called an Iman. He has been condemned many times by Islamic leaders in the UK for his words and action. Last I looked it up, he did not even have a mosque to preach from because no mosque would allow it.

Pete, surely you can come up with some examples of Christians or Jews committing mass murder over cartoons, can't you? The Apologist wing is depending on you for one of your ''yes, but the Jews...the Christians...." post. Don't let them down!
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

From the link in the OP.

This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

That Muhammad dude needs to shut his piehole.
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

You're so right.
I cant believe anyone had the nerve to even start the string in the first place.
I mean, Singling Out Muslims just because there was some sort of vague murders Thousands of miles away! Defineitely Islamophobia.

"Just few bad apples"
"Not all Muslims are terrorists"
"Most muslims are peaceful otherwise the planet would be in flames." (of course it Is)
"This has nothing to do with Islam." (nor does ISIS, or Saudi Arabia, or al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or Sunni-Shia violence)

BTW, this is DEBATEpolitics. If you feel a post is Islamophobic, please tell us which one and why.

I don't even know what this means. Could you at least give a number, 0-10?
 
There is! Read your blasphemy laws? Civilized? Looting, rioting, burning police cars is civilised?

Could you cite some 'blasphemy laws' for us?
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

Yup, that's what I thought.

Humans are such a fascinating species.

I love the liberal style of sounding so superior that you frame your response as if you're not even human... talking down to us all in the third person, high above all us mere mortals.

Some of its factions try to defend their little turf on their insignificantly tiny home, as if doing so were more important than life itself. They are so myopic. They haven't even figured out where to go when their little home inevitably expires someday, let alone how to get enough living creatures there to sustain a biosphere.

:roll:

Is there a point to this pseudo-intellectual derail?
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

I don't even know what this means. Could you at least give a number, 0-10?
Could you at least give us your number first and tell us WHY?
You implied it's like "10".

If you see Islamophobia, take issue with it. Point us to the posts.
I don't think it's too high.
I still see way too much PC Apologism and HAVE specifically taken issue with it. (recommended)

Though many of the Usual Islamo-Apolgogists are Not even posting in this string because it proves them wrong... AGAIN!
So the string IS skewed more towards the critics of Islam. Not to be confused with the Absurd neologism 'Islamophobe' which has No valid meaning whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

I love the liberal style of sounding so superior that you frame your response as if you're not even human... talking down to us all in the third person, high above all us mere mortals.



:roll:

Is there a point to this pseudo-intellectual derail?

I could drink beer with you dude.

:cheers:
 
Re: Terror Attack In Paris

What is Islamophobia?

Islam: The religion.
Phobia: An irrational, deep-seated fear.

I love the liberal style of sounding so superior that you frame your response as if you're not even human... talking down to us all in the third person, high above all us mere mortals.



:roll:

Is there a point to this pseudo-intellectual derail?

Have you ever watched K-PAX? Good movie, and a depressing movie, for the same reasons. It features an alien who takes human form and proceeds to amaze the brightest scientists on Earth by what he calls "common knowledge" back on K-PAX. It's fascinating by how enlightened humans think they are when they have trouble with such basic sociological functions, such as not killing one another.
 
Back
Top Bottom