[Faith-talk] Liberty versus travesty.

Thu Jan 23 22:54:45 UTC 2014

I suspect we don't disagree as much as you think we do. I never claimed all terrorists are Muslim and I happen to believe very strongly that the vast majority of Muslims are good people, just like the vast majority of Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and atheists and agnostics are all good people. If my comments gave you the impression that I think less of Islam or Muslims then I think of other people, I would respectfully suggest you are misunderstanding what I am saying but I apologize for giving you that impression all the same. And, to be clear, The sick propaganda I hear from some fanatical Christian extremists absolutely sickens, horrifies and disgusts me… but I firmly believe that in order to protect the liberty of citizens democratic governments are legally bound not to interfere with this hateful speech, Which I find absolutely repulsive, unless it becomes a real danger to the life liberty or property of those being vilified. I hope you understand the distinction I'm making between "legal"and "right."I absolutely agree with Mustafa when he says that we ought to be civil and respectful in discussing our differing opinions; and of course it's wrong to maliciously spread hateful propaganda. However, as history has shown us, Government bans against hate speech are ineffective and, if anything, inspire the very violence they set out to prevent. Yes, because America was established on the idea that the government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, and because one of those integral rights happens to be free expression, A government set up under such a system cannot simply ban speech which the majority finds offensive. Just because the Pat Roberts I have the right to speak my opinion precisely because the Pat Robertsons and Anne Colters of this country also have the right to spew their filthy nonsense. All I'm saying is, for government to really protect The liberty of its citizens, it can't differentiate between the people who are being respectful and the people who are spreading disgusting propaganda. This is, of course, one of the main flaws of democracy… but again I think history teaches us that every other system which has been tried, including the suppression of dissenting voices, reprehensible and disgusting though they might be, ultimately causes more violence and depression and tyrany.

Of course I commend most awful for being respectful and open to engaging in thoughtful and civil dialogue. I also wish nothing but the best for him and Sarah and, Doris, I agree with you that The future hope of humanity lies in today's young people being more willing to engage in such open dialogue. The only area where me and Mostafa seem to disagree on this issue, and it is a substantial disagreement indeed, is whether or not government has the right or responsibility to try and force all free speech to be civil and respectful. In my mind, that defeats the purpose, and leads to less liberty for everybody involved more often than not.
All the best,
Kirt

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Doris and Chris <chipmunks at gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> I am sorry but need to disagree. I live outside the United States and have many friends who disagree with current policies. I think there have been voices that demanded that impeachment of President Obama was not enough and that he should be hanged.
> 
> Mustafa and the Lady of his heart may make an unlikely couple and face criticism from their respective backgrounds but I firmly believe that it is wieth their generation that will determine whether this century will be one of peace or ongoing warfare.
> 
> It was not Muslim terrorists responsible for many acts of violence but in many cases homebaked terrorists that turned against their own system. Just think of the Sniper in the DC area who killed and wounded more than 10 people regardless of their faith and religion.
> 
> Respectfully yours
> 
> Doris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 02:30 PM 2014/01/23 -0700, you wrote:
>> Mostafa,
>>  I think I understand a little bit of why you see freedom of speech
>> in such a narrowly defined way but, and I say this as respectfully as
>> possible, that is not how it is interpreted in America, or indeed the
>> democratic world as a whole. The idea that freedom of speech is only
>> the right to civaly and courteously disagree with someone runs counter
>> to the American tradition and, I submit, is actually dangerous though
>> doubtless well-intended.
>>  First, the precedent of American law has protected many hateful and
>> disgusting activities as free speech. This includes, but is no means
>> limited to advocating racist/white supremmecist beliefs, burning
>> American flags in public, legal toleration of American Nazi parties,
>> legal protection of hatemongering groups like the Danbury Baptist
>> church (which makes much of the Anti-Muslim rhetoric you call
>> attention to look quite tame), and the list goes on and on. The idea
>> behind this is that government, with very narowly defined exceptions
>> when there is a clear and present danger to national security, does
>> not have the legal authority to surpress a person's right to express
>> opinions, no matter how disgusting and even harmful. In America, and
>> most other western style "democracies" the line is drawn when violent
>> speech turns in to violent action; in other words, people here have
>> the constitutionally protected right to, say, venemously and
>> vitriolicly mock whatever religion they want but are breaking the law
>> if that speech turns into violence or harm to property. And, while
>> it's far from perfect, it works.
>>  Of course there is descrimination and terrible misinformation about
>> Islam in America but, by and large, Muslims are safe to practice their
>> religion here. In contrast, you need only look at countries where this
>> freedom to say hateful things is not protected and enforced and you'll
>> find, generally, violence and vandalism and even sectarian warfare.
>> Better to let hateful insults be spewed than insight killing and
>> luting and violent uprising by telling people they cannot speak their
>> mind, even though a few will use this freedom to spew vial and evil
>> rhetoric. I have several Muslim friends in America, and I'm willing to
>> bet they'd rather be living here, though they are sometimes
>> disrespected and sometimes mocked, than in, say, Iraq or Syria or even
>> your own Egypt where they would face the very real possibility of
>> having their mosque burned down, being blown to bits by a suicide
>> bomber, facing violence between protesters and government on a daily
>> basis, etc. The very right given to evil demogogues to insight hate
>> and misinformation, much as it may seem paradoxical, is what keeps
>> minorities safe and mostly free to practice their beliefs.
>>  Best,
>> Kirt
>> 
>> On 1/23/14, Mostafa <mostafa.almahdy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear all, peace be with you.
>> >
>> > Today I just wanted to slightly extend my script on recognizing the
>> > difference in between freedom of expression and the offence of committing
>> > verbal violence.
>> >
>> > For many Americans, it is difficult to differentiate in between the freedom
>> > of speech, and the hate incitement or the action of committing verbal
>> > violence toward minorities.
>> >
>> > I have heard about dozens of domestic chronicles which contained
>> > discrimination on either ethnical, religious, or even racial basis.
>> >
>> > That should not be tolerated any more now in America, whilst the world has
>> > entered the phase of the twenty first century.
>> >
>> > Kids should be taught from even kindergarten level how to respect each
>> > other, and how to unconditionally love one another.
>> >
>> > Americans ought to plainly differentiate in between the freedom of speech
>> > and the offence crimes which are committed all the time now in America.
>> >
>> > I do not really know why many of my American friends have failed to
>> > recognize the plain difference between them.
>> >
>> > The freedom of speech is your legal right to disagree with me, and to freely
>> > oppose my opinion, whilst adhering the principles of courtesy and
>> > deference.
>> >
>> > I have some friends who openly have expressed their opinion about Islam,
>> > they disagree with Islam, and I was never offended at all, because they
>> > convey their standpoint politely.
>> >
>> >   But, the problem lays over with those who took advantage of the vast
>> > freedom that were given to them constitutionally, and they deliberately
>> > perverted their constitutional rights, whilst justifying their broad
>> > intrusion of other people rights to just live prosperously and
>> > harmoniously.
>> >
>> > I want to highly encourage my nice and respectful friends in America to
>> > stand for truth, and to defend the fundamental rights of racial minorities.
>> >
>> > Christian Zionism commits interracial crimes in the name of the divine in
>> > the United States.
>> >
>> > There are many Pastors who abuse the religious rhetoric to incite for hate
>> > and discrimination toward others.
>> >
>> > I still do not understand why this hateful Theology is not constitutionally
>> > prohibited  in the United States.
>> >
>> > I still do not get the major motivation of tolerating the mass incitement of
>> > hate crimes in the name of the religion in America.
>> >
>> >     I still want to understand why Pastor Hagee is not criminalized of
>> > deliberately committing public hate incitement rhetoric.
>> >
>> > For those who do not know Pastor Hagee very well, he is a radical right-wing
>> > Texan, the self-appointed chief of the Cornerstone Church, the cofounder of
>> > a cult Lobby called Christians United for Israel, and it is essentially
>> > based in America.
>> >
>> > Pastor Hagee occasionally advocated for waging pre-emptive strikes and
>> > nuclear holocaust against Islam.
>> >
>> >   Pastor Hagee preached for his audience, that worldwide third war has
>> > already commenced, and it has to be with or against Israel.
>> >
>> > Pastor Hagee calls us the devilish infidles, and he considers the commission
>> > of the union of supplying Israel militarily a religious duty.
>> >
>> > Israel has the right to exist, and that is the problem of Islam hostility to
>> > the nation of Israel, these are the precise quoted hate sentiments of Pastor
>> > Hagee.
>> >
>> > He okays bombing innocent civilians in Jerusalem to allow his pro Zionist
>> > allies to build their racially settlement constructions, and he supports the
>> > warfare industrialized complex in Washignton, which explicitly appends to
>> > this inhuman disposal.
>> >
>> > Hagee uses the theological rhetoric to gravely misguide his innocent
>> > audience, and he uses his global evangelism television to essentially
>> > promote for vandalism and to evoke hate incitement crimes against Muslims in
>> > the United States and beyond.
>> >
>> >       I have substantially observed the phenomenon, that if a right-wing
>> > Pastor wants to express his extremist views, he moves to the States, so he
>> > guarantees that he would not be countered with security review or censorship
>> > because of the significant liberty therein.
>> >
>> > It seems to me, that the United States utterly tolerates religious
>> > radicalism of right-wing evangelists from the protestant denomination,
>> > whilst simultaneously, it speaks against Islamic fundamentalism.
>> >
>> > I am not sure though, are we dealing with a unilateral subjection at this
>> > point?
>> >
>> > I am critically speaking against the demonize Islam bandwagon in the United
>> > States.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well I emphasize once again, that we are confronting an eminent threat to
>> > the religious tolerance that we mutually abide by.
>> >
>> > I do not call for eliminating the constitutional rights of expressing your
>> > opinion outspokenly in America.
>> >
>> > But at the same time, something has to be done, to prevent misusing your
>> > freedom of expression.
>> >
>> > If someone gets out of his private territory, he sequentially transgresses
>> > the boundries of others and their private space, that in my humble opinion
>> > has to be considered a violation of the law.
>> >
>> > You can appreciate your opinion whilst courteously prising my different
>> > perspective.
>> >
>> > Even homosexuality, you can respectfully criticize its conception and
>> > disagree with it, but at the same time, you should not lead a demonize
>> > bandwagon against  it.
>> >
>> > That has to be classified as public incitement of hate against minorities.
>> >
>> > Even in Islam, we do not hate  homosexual people, we just condemn this
>> > unrighteous deed, we criticize this unethical act which violates the human
>> > nature,  but certainly we do not hate them.
>> >
>> > I hope I made my point clearer.
>> >
>> > Well, that is what I have got for the time being.
>> >
>> > I hope you enjoy reading my posts, and peace be with you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Faith-talk mailing list
>> > Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> > Faith-talk:
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Faith-talk mailing list
>> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/chipmunks%40gmx.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com