(Fixed your quote marks for you.

Yes, I’m ignoring the millions who were persecuted and killed by Christians in the name of Christ. And you know why?

Because I’m talking about TODAY. About TODAY’s threats.

Judaism had its aggressive period, when it conquered the Holy Land. Then it grew the fuck up.

Christianity had its aggressive period, in the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. Then it grew the fuck up.

It’s time for Islam to grow the fuck up.

I was implying things because I didn’t want to imply that in addition to being totally wrong, you were also totally stupid. I regret that now.

Oh, and if you inferred that I was saying you’d been called a coward before, I apologize. That was not my intention, merely that you were familiar with the terms generally.

At least, that was not my intention then. Now, it is.

You, sir, are a coward and a craven. You are intimidated by a small group of savages who loudly proclaim that they will kill those who they perceive as insulting their religion, and you wrap it in high moral principles, saying that you are showing “respect” for them — while showing not a whit of respect for those who don’t threaten violence.

You proudly stand up against Nazis, especially those who’ve been dead for well over half a century, but bow before those who would love nothing more than to unleash a new Holocaust. You would muzzle those who dare to print cartoons, while saying nothing about those who urge their followers to kill Jews, those “sons of pigs and dogs.” You won’t speak out against those who brutally oppress women, even killing them in the name of “honor.”

You feel free to rail against “conservatives” and “Christians” because you know that they won’t try to kill you over it. (The irony here is that I don’t consider myself either conservative or Christian, and therefore unbound by whatever inhibitions you think bind their actions. Fortunately, I have my own sense of morality, responsibility, self-restraint, and maturity (as well as an exceptional laziness) that restricts my ire towards you to this forum.

Keep telling yourself that your position against “hate speech against Muslims” such as publishing cartoons is solely motivated by morality, and not fear. You might convince one or two people. Hell, you might even convince yourself.

But the truth is flagrantly clear to most people.

J.

re my reference to slavery and the constitution. Just to clarify and to show that I’m not being flippant. Where I live was part of the underground railway back in the day and there are picture of the early black refugees working on their farms, with their children. Street names are named after them and their descendant are still here. My point – we never had the piece of paper that was getting waved around in the US at the time, enshrining all sorts of rights etc to some and not others, but people sometimes know whats right and what’s wrong. At the same time, we interned Japanese people and took all of their fishing boats and land years later.

Do you really think I’m saying that?

“You seem to now be saying that because America and other countries got things amazingly horrifically wrong at some point in the past we should just throw out our principles. That’s right out of the Bush playbook, my friend. It’s the kind of thinking that gets us into “not as bad as Saddam” territory.”

No, I’m just saying that even with a piece of paper called the Constitution, with all its god bestowing sanctities, people commit atrocities and that you shouldn’t wave your little flag in the air when another country chooses to live its own way, especially another democratic country. Sorry for using such an extreme example.

“Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong?
Those are both clear cases where the rights of someone else infringe or harm another. Physical harm is a galaxy away from being offended.”

Calling for the death of millions of Muslims is a pretty clear case to me; why not you?

“The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.
And this is where Jay Tea goes back into conservative stupidity, ignoring the many people killed as a result of Christianity. As I’ve said, our current flareups are Muslim, in the past they were Christian, in the future it’ll be one of those again or someone new. Religion does that.”

That’s what I was getting at but he skirted the question and it took him two or three times to say what he implied throughout.

Lets have slavery (for example) for about 400 hundred years, then we’ll all talk about it, then it will stop because of public ridicule and painting mustaches on hate mongers at hate rallies.
You seem to now be saying that because America and other countries got things amazingly horrifically wrong at some point in the past we should just throw out our principles. That’s right out of the Bush playbook, my friend. It’s the kind of thinking that gets us into “not as bad as Saddam” territory.

The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.
And this is where Jay Tea goes back into conservative stupidity, ignoring the many people killed as a result of Christianity. As I’ve said, our current flareups are Muslim, in the past they were Christian, in the future it’ll be one of those again or someone new. Religion does that.

Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong?
Those are both clear cases where the rights of someone else infringe or harm another. Physical harm is a galaxy away from being offended.

We already now that – the cartoon doesn’t clarify anything. But apparently it scares you so much that you’re willing to insult innocent people over and over again, even after they were traumatized by what a handful of Muslims did to your ego.

“That’s a very important point — one that apparently doesn’t hold true in Canada, where the government is enforcing Islamic law against non-Muslims.”

We enforce many laws here, Islamic Law is not one of them. But we will protect innocent Muslims from the tyranny of the PETTY.

“There are terms for those who submit in the face of threats of violence, cb. I’m sure you’ve heard some of them.”

Just when I thought that you finally put the little flags away and turned down the marching bugle music, you bring out the Heritage Foundation flags that they’re giving away for free and you turn up the volume on your broken stereo. Sad, really sad.

I guess you need to insult me the same way you insult Muslims to show the world that you’re not Canadian? Amateur. Scary, but an amateur non the less.

Nothing like the tyranny of the majority, lording it over the minority. All rights are negotiable, if you can swing 50% plus one of the electorate.

No, thanks.

Oh, and the point of the Mohammed cartoons was, as I understood it, to demonstrate that the rules of Islam are not legally binding on non-Muslims in countries not governed by Muslim law. That’s a very important point — one that apparently doesn’t hold true in Canada, where the government is enforcing Islamic law against non-Muslims.

Would you care to cite some examples, cb, where your “human rights” star chambers have persecuted prosecuted people for offending the sensibilities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Animists, or some other non-Muslim faith?

I stand by my earlier assertion: the “respect” accorded Islam by these star chambers is based not on civilized beliefs, but on fear — and fear that is well grounded in reality.

There are terms for those who submit in the face of threats of violence, cb. I’m sure you’ve heard some of them.

J.

Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong? Who decides to go to war? Who decides not to go? You tell me.

Do I like what happened in Denmark? No. I was furious as you over it. Should we then turn around and mock other believers of that faith for a savage act? NO. Nothing gained by doing so unless perhaps you’re trying to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Unless you need to turn a whole bunch of innocent people with beliefs not your own, into enemies.

“cb, the real questions are: who decides what is “too far,” who decides how it is enforced, and who decides what the penalties are?”

We do.

Oh, and fine, I’ll say it. The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.

By the way, you’ve reminded me of one of my favorite questions:

Does a non-Muslim living in a nation that is not officially governed by Muslim law have the right to not obey Muslim law? The strictures against drawing or publishing cartoons about Mohammed is purely an Islamic religious doctrine. Denmark doesn’t recognize “blasphemy against Islam” as a crime. Neither does the United States.

Apparently Canada does.

J.

When do you think Hitler should have been stopped?

Because it seems to me that a lot of folks who “aspire” to something never get anywhere close to actually doing anything towards it. And if aspiration is to be punished, there are going to be very few folks left.

Some crux of the matter right there. At what point does the “aspiring” become illegal and need to be nipped?

Should someone be arrested because they said “Hitler had the right idea”, or is simply saying that insufficient and some actual action (or call to action) have to happen?

Lets have slavery (for example) for about 400 hundred years, then we’ll all talk about it, then it will stop because of public ridicule and painting mustaches on hate mongers at hate rallies.

Did I get it right?

I’m asking you.

“Yes, and when he started using force the rest of the world kicked his ass.”

He’d been using force and killing Jews for a very long time before the USA joined the ass kicking party. If I recall.

“We are free, thank you very much.
But you aren’t, when it comes to making commentary that might offend someone.”

We protect all our citizens, we try not to scapegoat. We here nip aspiring Hitlers in the bud. You wait till they’ve murdered, and then come along for the ride. You are a scared people, you’re scared of the OTHER, you’re scared of Cuba and every other peoples who choose a life different than your own. If you were as strong as you think you are, you’d leave the rest of the world alone.

We have the capacity of discretion, a uniquely adult ability that is sometimes sadly missing in your world. Look around dude.

“Can’t wait until the WORLD COURT gets the bastards that ruled your country for the past 8 years.
Not exactly sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t signed on. If Bush & Co. face any future legal issues (unlikely) it’ll be here.”

Where ever it happens, as long as it does. Lots of countries haven’t signed on to the American’s version of democracy and that’s never stopped USA from invading in some fashion. So, if you haven’t signed on the World Court and Bush and Co. get busted, then you’ll know how it feels to have someone’s values shoved down you throats. Just a thought.

First, I sign everything I post with my real name. So no need to put it in quotes, “News Reference”.

Second, I never said we should try to provoke let alone said I felt a “need” to do so, and I don’t think anyone said the cartoons were “intentionally designed to endanger American troops”. What I did say is that we shouldn’t let children be in charge. But if you find that actually to difficult to understand or too hard to disagree with, by all means, go ahead and make something up. Wouldn’t want you to strain yourself.

He used hate speech to get to power and then silenced the opposition.
Yes, and the problem was the violence part of the equation. In America we’ve had guys pushing things as virulent as Hitler, if not even worse. They’re free to do so because such ideas can’t compete in a free market of speech. Having the government silence people because of what a listener might draw from it is the very definition of a slippery slope.

Can’t wait until the WORLD COURT gets the bastards that ruled your country for the past 8 years.
Not exactly sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t signed on. If Bush & Co. face any future legal issues (unlikely) it’ll be here.

We are free, thank you very much.
But you aren’t, when it comes to making commentary that might offend someone.

In fact, Hitler wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if he hadn’t been extremely effective at competing with opposing voices.
Yes, and when he started using force the rest of the world kicked his ass.

But beheading isn’t the only method. They have other ways of going after their critics. Ask Theo Van Gogh. Or Pym Fortuyn.

Whoops, you can’t. They were all murdered. Murdered for some kind of offense against “that” religion.

Perhaps you might be able to track down Salman Rushdie — he’s still alive, at last check.

J.