Oh, dear me, surely that is a blasphemous hateful religious statement for anyone who does not religiously accept the notion of the Common Era?

What speech, or writing, or other human doing cannot be labeled as hateful blasphemy by someone?

For myself, I object to the intentional burning of books and people and such.

Surely, for those who “believe in the death penalty,” my objection is hateful blasphemy.

Is not “belief in blasphemy” itself inextricably blasphemous?

He’d like to stomp out freedom of speech here, and so would most democrats. He already demonstrated that with his intimidation of private citizens on the internet.

The only way Islam can grow is IF freedom to criticize it is suppressed. That is how it always grew in the past. And now that communications are worldwide and fast, Islam is, for the first time in history, threatened by open debate. It would like to nip that in the bud.

Please, go ahead and criticize my religion. I am not a sissy panty-waist who demands you stop saying things I don’t like to hear. I’m not a coward in the face of criticism. I relish the criticism of my faith and the opportunity to defend it.

This is because I’m know that my faith is the true faith, and the true God, and I have nothing to fear.

If I post the correction of a comment in the “Comments” area then it’s a comment and not a correction.

I’ve obviously not thought this threw.

So are we now going to have a corrections page to the post that shows the corrections? Or is nal not going to post on the Comment side? Which is it nal?

NOOOOOOooooooooooooo!

Is this administration play both sides?

****************************

nal, It is nice to see that you are human. I have had numerous ARGGGG moments as well. I am sure that the professor will even overlook this slight “keyboard alignment” issue that has occurred.

I’m sure that cat was just throwing out a bone to JT to make him feel better! I’m so glad I never make grammar, spelling or typing errors of any kind!

I fear nal, you have caught that which you have been trying to correct and prevent.

Typeoid Fever.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

Is this administration play both sides?

I disagree on the idea of a deeply religious society that follows a religious social order not needing a state, for who shall defend that order?

Even in secualr non-religious socieites like those in the West, or even Communist USSR, social mores were enforced by way of the state.

Let me re-use an earlier example: most Americans are opposed to child pornography and other such extreme forms of erotic material. This is standard belief, that is, a “moral” among most Americans.

But who enforces these morals when they are disobeyed?

If there is a very religious traditional society that does not believe in certain behaviour or acts or speech, and regard them as both an affront to both the divine and to social order in general, then naturally they would expect the state, as the supreme guaranteer of order, to be the enforcer of these morals as well.

If there is a deeply religious person for whom the state should not interfere, then that person probably holds a very individualistic faith with little to no social bearing (that is, no “group/community commandments” as it were, things to apply to the whole of the people), and thus has no problem with others disturbing that order.

But I figure most religions hold both personal and communal values. The former is up to the individual, but the latter is to be held by the community via the state.

There are other kinds of religious social structures than those that have the State enforce their rules. I know pious people of all sorts of religious stripes, from Christian to Pagan to Buddhist that would never dream of trying to legislate their particular religious codes. It’s actually contrary to their beliefs in a few cases. So while your idea of a society that puts great importance in their religion may be contrary to Freedom of Speech, it’s certainly NOT the case in all deeply religious societies.

There is no contradiction between personal beliefs and societal/cultural ones.

Think of the legal system. Each nation has its own laws, yet within that nation all individuals obey that law.

it’s not a case of either total individualist anarchy (every person with his own morals), or total one-world morals.

Further, i never stated that religious sentiments and freedom of speech as inherently opposed, but it is the case that America’s version of freedom of speech is inherently opposed to a religious social structure.

This is fine, but I am opposed to imposing that system on others.

I find your stated views confusing given the greater context of this conversation. Your argument seems to be “I want everyone to mind their own business, so one group of people should be able to tell another group what it can’t say.” I’m sure you see the conflict inherent in saying that different cultures should be allowed to have their own standard of “moral behavior,” but that individuals within those cultures shouldn’t.

On the other hand you pose a seemingly false dichotomy between having a religious society and one that values freedom of speech. Deep seated religious beliefs manifest themselves in many ways, not just adherence to cultural and theological taboos.

America’s freedom of speech has absolutely NOTHING to do with societal behavior (and yes, we surely have lowered ourselves, values, etc, on the back of freedom of speech as it has been used as a very powerful tool by the left-wing scum of our society) and EVERYTHING to do with a hope, a vision, a want if you will, for every man to have a fair and unencumbered voice as to what happens in his life and community / country.

There should be no fear in publicly voicing one’s opinion when it comes to matters of religion. I am a Christian and have to fight my own personal battles with things I find “impossible” that are found within the Bible (unfortunately starting at the very beginning) so I do not wish harm, or silence, on someone who thinks the whole idea (Christianity / God) is lunacy. At the same time, if I feel like protecting / enlightening someone against the terrors of Islam (too many to list) in a public forum I should be able to do so.

“Exporting” these freedoms is not a new concept or idea and actually is not even an “American” idea. It is because OF America’s “construction” that these freedoms have been able to mature and “live”. Man has always wanted to be free to say, to do, to live … to assist other countries / cultures / people in being able to realize these personal freedoms is a human effort, not an American effort. And surely even “Dar” must know that humans are far older than America.

Hate crime laws are for the weak minded, can I get a handout, somebody owes me something, scum that has permeated our society and of which is a propaganda tool employed by the liberal machine of death.

This joint effort of which Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. obama) has become a party to should be a surprise to no one. This is only a very small step in his grand scheme to incrementally destroy this country. Anyone who denies that this is the case should just continue to keep his head far beneath the sand’s surface … don’t worry little fella, it will all be over soon!!

P.S. Don’t forget – IT’S ALWAYS OPEN SEASON ON BLACK PANTHERS!!!

I wrote only of imposing American “freedom of speech” onto Egypt, anything beyond that, namely American agreeing to Egyptian morals or principals, I am not.

—-

To Gyges,

No, but it its persistance gives it a greater authority than new ideas, UNTIL those new ideas and values can prove themselves superior, which I have yet to see with regards to America’s version of “freedom of speech”.

American society is not happier, not smarter, nor more peaceful, nor more socially stable, than that of Egypt, due to its “freedom of speech”.

Even America’s political structures have not been necessarily well-served by its “freedom of speech”. Its almost as propogandized as Egypt, with the difference that most Egyptians atleast know that their government is b.s.-ing them, while most Americans are more gullible in believing their government (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all being good examples of this).

My views are simple: everyone mind their own business. And just as I am opposed to America invading another country to impose “democracy”, tso too am I opposed to pressuring opther countires to adopt America’s ways.

If they see America’s way and like it, so be it, but otherwise to each his own.

Are you making graven images that offend MY GOD? To HELL you shall go. Wait a New Yerk Minute. If memory serves me correctly IT IS NEVER NAMED HELL. CALLED HELL. OR HELL IS NOT MENTIONED.

So right now you are safe. I am recalling the KJV.

You mean this one?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hypocrisy/mt07_03.html

“Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

The Elder is so so blinded by his righteousness that he does not even see the irony of an Elder of the LDS (of Prop 8 fame and bankroll) complaining that the government might meddle in religion. LOL. What is that quote about taking notice of a mote in the eye of a neighbor while ignoring the beam in ones own?

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, art has been around for thousands of years, glass windows are relatively new, as is wide spread pollution. Age is not an indicator of inherent worth.

Thank you, Jonathan Turley.

Oh, where to begin! This might sound harsh but IMHO (brace yourself Dar), it would appear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe reading this before your next post will be of some help. Enjoy Dar, facts are wonderful things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Freedom_of_speech

Every society in history technically has “freedom of speech”, in the sense that people are allowed to talk about most subjects. Even in Stalinist USSR people generally could talk about food, family, sports, etc….

At the same time, all societies place certain limits on that freedom, based on its own particular moral standards and traditions.

So, when one society goes to another and states “you must adopt (our version of) freedom of speech” it’s really stating “you must adopt our morals and traditions (which are the reason for our current definitions and standards of freedom of speech)”.

So I ask, based on what? Why is that particular version of American freedom of speech now the “right” one?

Yes there are certain truly universal rights, such as a life to life and eating/drining/sleeping through one’s own means.

But otherwise most of the “rights” that America has are pecular to its own history and traditions and whose imposition over-seas cannot be defended.

Take abortion. TO many left-wing Americans it is a “right”, based on the notion that “women have rights over their own bodies” and ofcourse “fetuses are not alive”. Fine.

But if America were to try to impose abortion over-seas because it believes in a “woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body”, and that it’s all about “women’s rights”, it would in sense be assaulting that other culture’s moral views on life and trying to impose its own vision on when/where life starts.

The poster “nal” wrote of “moral relativism” and a”slipper slope”.

Now let us suppose another society/nation, where notions of sexuality are different.For them nudity and sexuality is an innate human trait found from birth. As such, pedophilia, prostitution and open displays of sex/pornography (such as on basic television) are all acceptable to them. To them is is part of one’s behavioral/speech rights.

Is such a nation were to come to the US and proclaim that it has more freedom (which it does, in a sense), and as such America should adopt its freedoms, it would in sense be telling America to adopt its views on sexuality/modesty. And just like with this Egyptian-blasphemy case, it would have no real argument in favor of such as imposition other than that it is “more freedom” (which in a sense it is).

I cannot support such actions. Unless one can make a solid rational/moral argument, not for the some vague “freedom of speech”, but for the actual would-be imposed cultural values that lie underneath it, then no on thise Egyptian case.

“I’m not sure how you’ve determined that people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives make up a minority of this country’s inhabitants. Many people go about worshiping their God quietly. They don’t wear their religion on their sleeves.”

************************

You have encountered the moral smugness and persecution complex of those who believe with intense fervor that they know the “way,” the demographic facts notwithstanding. Note the value laden implication that while there might be more Christians among the populace, only a chosen, morally enlightened few consider their religion “an important moral guide.” Their “way,” of course, is dictated by their magic books and the often-time illiterate interpretations of their soothsayers. There is no arguing or discussion with them because their books tells them so and equate non-believers with the devil. Good luck in this debate!

I’m not sure how you’ve determined that people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives make up a minority of this country’s inhabitants. Many people go about worshiping their God quietly. They don’t wear their religion on their sleeves.

Regarding fundamentalist Christians: Even if they aren’t a majority here, they have become quite an influential minority. If I object to some of the things some of the fundamentalists do, I think I should have the right to speak out against their actions…in my own country.

You say that honor killings and eight-year-old brides are a different story. How so? If such things are allowed to occur in my country, I believe I should have the freedom to speak out against them.

Christian heretics were once tortured, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake. That was hundreds of years ago. That happened in an “older” European society. Some “old” societies may believe slavery is okay or treating women as chattel is acceptable. You may consider such moral. I do not. Let’s just call that a difference of opinion.

BTW, I’m not an “urban America.”

And that’s fine, so long as such standards are left to the superstition riddled countries and cults that actively practice their religions as extensions of government policy elsewhere. The point that several posters are making is that when respect for religion reaches into other (specifically this one), secular societies and threatens the legally codified civil rights of non-believers there is a problem. That vague edicts from world bodies or specific decisions like the ones cited in the Professors article further degrade the Constitution’s protection of citizens speech here in America is unacceptable and such ‘respect’ should be rejected in favor of free expression.

Also, when child brides, stoning women to death for adultery or for being raped, honor killings and a structure of laws prohibiting civil rights to women is so pervasive as to reduce them to chattel are built on a religious framework which is the foundation of a government then such things are not different issues. They are a direct result of religion as government structure- a theocracy. America is not a theoracy and should not entertain such notions as workable trade-offs with the Constitution under the banner of respect or hate speech laws.

The issue isn’t exporting the western template to others (you will find serious opposition to the concept of ‘nation building’ on other threads and topics here) the problem is importing such pre-intellectual values here under the guise of respect.

DAR: “More specifically, why should it be that of some 30-40 year old mind-set born from drugged-up hippies and pseudo-marzists,…”

I can’t cop to drugged-up these days but if by ‘marzist’ you mean a particularly strong, nearly irresistible attraction to the dark chocolate Mars bars, well, mea culpa. A thick dark creamy coating of chocolate over a silky, melt in your mouth whipped nougat center- like biting into a chocolate covered cloud… yea, I’m a marzist straight up; no ‘pseudo’ about it. And damn proud of it. You insult my Marzism at your own peril sir.

Christian fundementalists, or atleast people who value religion as an important moral guide in their lives, make up a minority in this country.

Further, “honor killings and eight-year-old brides” are a different issue.

—–

To Gyges:

Egyptian anti-blasphemy laws have been a part of Egyptian, and indeed much of the regional and world history, for centuries and even millennia.

—–

To nal:

First of all, “moral relativism” and “moral absolutism” are vague terms that don’t reflect real-life conplexities.

One can be am moral “absolutist” and still accept that other cutlures have different standards.

One should ask, IF there is to be one absolute moral standard globally,why should it be America’s? More specificalyl, why should it be that of some 30-40 year old mind-set born from drugged-up hippies and pseudo-marzists, over the centuries- and millinia-old ones of the Old World?

Most societies through-out history showed respect to religion, only recent American/Western societies have decided other-wise. Fine, but why should that be now the new “normal” in global moral standards?

Sorry, but “freedom of speech” as defined by America is just “American urban cultural values” in disguise.

Fine for urban Americans, not so for 5,000+ year old societies.

While a diversity of values should be tolerated, there should be limits to what is acceptable behavior. Thoughts are the real target of the blasphemy laws. Criticism is merely the manifestation of thoughts. Freedom of thinking is a universal human right.

The very fact that religion uses violence, or the threat of violence, to suppress criticism, is evidence of its moral bankruptcy.

Who’s religion is important in Egypt, the individual’s or the state’s?

The thing is, religions wax and wane. Today’s State Religion is tomorrow’s oppressed minority and today’s oppressed minority is tomorrow’s rulers. Look at the history of England, or Rome. Freedom of Speech doesn’t just protect the majority, it protects the minority, today you might favor your religion’s laws, tomorrow you may protest the tyranny of another’s.

That’s sort of a moot point though, the proposal isn’t to spread American “Freedom of speech” it’s to spread Egyptian anti-blasphemy laws.

You wrote: In other words, most Egyptians value religion, most Americans don’t think religion plays to an important a role in their lives.

************

I would have to disagree with your statement that “most Americans don’t think religion plays to (too?) an important role in their lives.” Just check out cable television here. You’ll find plenty of televangelists talking and singing about God every day/night of the week. The ranks of fundamentalist Christians seem to be growing by the minute. These same Christians want to impose their religious views about creation science on the rest of us–and on our public school students. They want certain types of books banned from school and public libraries and school reading lists. I think I should have the right to speak out against any religion that wants to prescribe what I should believe…what kinds of movies can be screened in public theaters…what kinds of books other people’s children should be allowed to read, etc.

Maybe freedom of speech does “represent a specific and Western philosophy.” I would like that freedom of speech not to be encumbered with a “watch what you say about religion threat.”
I’m not a proponent of porn–neither am I a proponent of “honor killings” or eight-year-old brides.

You seem to think that the America’s “freedom of speech” beliefs are divorced from any moral foundation, but rather than being an amoral practice, freedom of speech represents an affirmation of certain morals, namely those of America.

In other words, most Egyptians value religion, most Americans don’t think religion plays to an important a role in their lives. If “freedom of speech” were to gbe imposed on Egypt than that would represent an imposition on the American view of religion. It would be America telling Egypt “you think religion is sacred enough that it shouldn’t be insulted,; we don’t, therefore you shouldn’t either”.

Same with porn. Allowing porn would not be simply some amoral freedom, but rather would represent an imposition of a certain value or belief, namely that modesty and chastity are out=moded and you should adopt our views of the human body and sexual relations”.

I hope I have been clear. “Freedom fo speech” isn’t some neutral universal tool, but does represent a specific (and Western” philosophy.

We sure wouldn’t want the rest of the world to adopt the principle of free thought. That’s a slippery slope that could lead to … (I’ll have to get back to you on that.)

Either you believe in the principle that humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights, or you don’t. The best way to teach the world about that great principle is to stand up for it.