?Impact Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Perhaps we should charge them with hate speech. We should try. We do charge people for certain crimes the commit outside the country like having sex with someone underage, but not all crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada. If we can't today, it is at least worth changing the Criminal Code to allow us in the future. Someone should also be checking into his speeches inside of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 You haven't heard current members praising the Trump notion of banning Muslim immigration? Really? You can't get more open about it than say Argus. It's not prejudice to say that the typical human rights abuses in Muslim majority countries are worse than in some other cultures. However, it still doesn't excuse Christian theocratical (not sure if that's a word) actions either. It is hard to ignore the "religion of peace" or "my religion is better than their religion" taunts from Christian apologists. Hypocrisy is annoying and on this board I often find myself reminding people that they live in glass houses. That's what I meant when I said there were views that were I disagree with, but that were in the same general direction. Remember, we were talking about the notion that all Muslims were the same. The 1.6 billion number was mentioned in the thread I quoted. Questioning immigration policy, even up to excluding all Muslims, a view I disagree with, does not tar all Muslims with the same brush. It acknowledges that there is a risk, with allowing Muslims to immigrate, that there will be those among them who believe in the worst of Islam. A risk some people are less willing to take than I am. I doubt that anyone who expects to be taken seriously is going to claim that all Muslims are the same. Let's state the obvious. Half of them are women. I can't imagine very many of them have extremist views. So the notion that someone who forgets, for the moment, to qualify a statement before posting, is somehow meaning to imply all the planet's muslims are covered by their post is disingenuous. Does my earlier statement about women imply that I mean all Muslim men are the same. It shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Perhaps we should charge them with hate speech. We can do that in Canada. Is that hate speech? Is he simply stating the facts as he sees them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Is that hate speech? Is he simply stating the facts as he sees them? That is something that should be tested in court. Of course, at the same time we will have to charge everyone who prints and publishes the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 That is something that should be tested in court. Of course, at the same time we will have to charge everyone who prints and publishes the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. That's what I mean. You just quoted something that exists, but you don't believe it. If you did believe it, would making the same quote constitute hate speech? Wouldn't you also have to incite to follow the recommendation in the quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Perhaps we should charge them with hate speech. We can do that in Canada. Should hate speech laws even exist? Can't we just shut down and counter bad ideas and embarrass the perpetrators? Though to counter that thought, what happens when a major political party is taken over by a fascist? hmmm. With all the hate and racism being spewed, I guess we can counter it, but the normalization effect just sets us back a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Should hate speech laws even exist? I don't think so. It should not be illegal to hate, and it should not be illegal to say you hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 ...who murders infidels via inspiration by ISIS and other groups? Idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Please read Kimmy's post, this is not a thread about Islam. I was not aware, we could not talk about one of the leading causes or motivations for this attack.... To clarify: I didn't want to forbid all discussion of Islam in this thread. I wanted to keep the focus of this thread on the Orlando massacre. I don't object to discussing what role Islam played in this event. When I said I don't want this to become "a generalized Bash Islam thread", I meant that if Islam is going to be discussed in this thread, it had better relate directly to the topic at hand. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Laws against hate speech is fascism....the "Orlando Shooter" was free to say whatever he wished....constitutional right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Well, the "Orlando Shooter" didn't actually say much of anything. Orlando's Husseini Islamic Center hosted a speaker who's noted for promoting execution of gay people. Maybe in the USA incitement of hate and violence is a constitutional right, but in Canada we could theoretically bar a speaker like that from entering our country. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Well, the "Orlando Shooter" didn't actually say much of anything. Orlando's Husseini Islamic Center hosted a speaker who's noted for promoting execution of gay people. Maybe in the USA incitement of hate and violence is a constitutional right, but in Canada we could theoretically bar a speaker like that from entering our country. Clue: Orlando, Florida is not in Canada. Thousands of Canadians can be found in the state each year, "hate speech" or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The question isn't whether they had the legal right to host this individual at their center, BC2004. They clearly did. However, does that choice fit with the loving, friendly, supportive image which they're now trying to portray in wake of Sunday's events? Does that choice suggest that the Muslim community actually tolerates, condones, and promotes homophobia? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Does that choice suggest that the Muslim community actually tolerates, condones, and promotes homophobia? -k More directly, one might ask if there might in fact be any link between an Orlando Muslim community hosting this speaker who called for murdering gay people and one of the Orlando Muslims taking up the call and carrying the killings out. If someone truly believes in a religion, and truly believes that a speaker is representing the truth of that religion, then is it really so surprising that he or she might carry out what the speaker calls for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 However, does that choice fit with the loving, friendly, supportive image which they're now trying to portray in wake of Sunday's events? Does that choice suggest that the Muslim community actually tolerates, condones, and promotes homophobia? No more than historical choices and legislation in the United States and many other nations regardless of mass shootings. Why should "Islam" be held to a different standard ? "Homophobia" is a very old human behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 ....In any case, the comparison between religions is not particularly relevant. Clearly, hatred of homosexuals is prevalent within Islam and many prominent Muslim religious figures support harsh penalties, including death, for homosexuals. This is in direct opposition to current Western values..... Yes...current Western values, but not so long removed from darker times for homosexuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) Yes...current Western values, but not so long removed from darker times for homosexuals. Paul Lynde for center square. We've been accepting of gays for quite some time on many levels. Edited June 16, 2016 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Yes...current Western values, but not so long removed from darker times for homosexuals. Fortunately, Western society has progressed. And that progress should not be sacrificed on the altar of not offending Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) Fortunately, Western society has progressed. And that progress should not be sacrificed on the altar of not offending Muslims. We often forget...No Renaissance...no Enlightenment...no everything. Almost every aspect of our culture was created in the West...everything we take for granted. Edited June 16, 2016 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) As well, Leviticus is part of Jewish Law...rather than the verbatim word of God. A human decided that... As I said, not particularly relevant. There is a lot of crap in old story books. What matters is that in some communities, calling for death for homosexuals is an acceptable mainstream position, and in others it is not. That is the relevant consideration. Beliefs and religions change. Looking at holy books is irrelevant because people can interpret them any way they want in all religions, which is why I have never bothered to participate in all the bible/quran quoting that goes on around here. What is important is looking at what beliefs are actually prevalent in a community today. And, unfortunately, mainstream Islam hosts a lot of beliefs that are deeply incompatible with Western values including gay rights, women's rights, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and separation of church and state. It is not unique in holding some or all of these beliefs, nor do all Muslims hold all these beliefs, but it is common enough among a group large enough that it cannot be ignored. Edited June 16, 2016 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 We often forget...No Renaissance...no Enlightenment...no everything. Yep....mid enlightenment we find worse "mass shootings" in U.S. history....like the Sand Creek massacre. Mass shootings are a very American tradition, whether Muslim/ISIS or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The big difference is the message. Jesus said one thing...Mohammad another. The complete opposite... I simply don't think a defense of Christianity is needed or relevant when criticizing the problems we see today with some of the beliefs prevalent among Muslims. Christianity has had plenty of its own problems historically and can be criticized severely in many ways. Fortunately, it has for the most part had its murderous tendencies subdued. We must now work on taming the next intolerant aggressive religion as we did the last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 .....But, almost unheard of elsewhere in the West. Indeed...Made in America. We seem to be catching on somewhat... And that's why this "mass shooting" will contribute to a media attention span that has an ever shortening half-life. There will be no changes to gun laws, and far more "assault rifles" will be sold because of threats to ban them or restrict possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 And that's why this "mass shooting" will contribute to a media attention span that has an ever shortening half-life. There will be no changes to gun laws, and far more "assault rifles" will be sold because of threats to ban them or restrict possession. I posted earlier that we're quickly trying to put it behind us...nervously...but there we go. Done. Whew... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 ...thank goodness for that gator...my wife dryly mentioned re: Mr Omar's rampage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.