Rakhel
Well-Known Member
That is not Freedom of Speech. That is Freedom from Speech.
There is a big difference.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
There is a big difference.
I am one the people who use the freedom of speech. I do not spread hate or racism.
Are we to go back to the middle ages where neighbors are telling on each other for speaking their thoughts that some organization or law has prohibited?
I guess the next time a bunch of us get together and burn some flags of places we don't like along with a few effigies of leaders just to add to the festivities, we'll have to be real careful what we say.
If you try to bottle up hatred you will also bottle up truth. You will bottle up many expressions of love.
I deal with the public and talk to people all day. I never know what they will say. When it comes to politics or religion I have my opinion and respect others right to same thing. To try make me believe as you do against my will would only cause me to resist that much more.
When you say all religons I believe I would rather they narrowed it down a little.
For example; any religion that worshiped the blue fin tuna would not have exclusion from ridicule.
Man has always been searching for proof that any of the religions is the absolute truth yet it evades them.
The proof is all around you. You can't bottle God in a book.
More enlightened people like know that God is as changing as the people He created and is with us always.
I think you know my vote.
i believe there is a diversity in religions , which looks like offend each other .
it's seems that you don't distingue between the critic religion teachs and insult/lie/mock religion teach
abrahimic religions are best exemple for me , they realy looks like offened each other inspite they are sharing many teaching and issue .
when a verse of Talmud which considerate "only" the jew is Adam , non jewish is not adam .
or in Torah Jacob won God in fight !!! that agaisnt my belief that God almighty and powerful never defeated/surrender by human .
or chritianity : God died in Cross for our sin, that also against my beliefs that God almightly never died ...etc.
like these religions teach (opinions) should not considerate as mock/insult/lie more than diversity (differents opinion ) to subject
or different views from diferent angles .
it's seems that you don't distingue between the critic religion teachs and insult/lie/mock religion teach
abrahimic religions are best exemple for me , they realy looks like offened each other inspite they are sharing many teaching and issue .
when a verse of Talmud which considerate "only" the jew is Adam , non jewish is not adam .
or in Torah Jacob won God in fight !!! that agaisnt my belief that God almighty and powerful never defeated/surrender by human .
or chritianity : God died in Cross for our sin, that also against my beliefs that God almightly never died ...etc.
like these religions teach (opinions) should not considerate as mock/insult/lie more than diversity (differents opinion ) to subject
or different views from diferent angles .
if you considerate the christianity (and maybe islam) provoke the judiasm .
then i said i am offened by Talmud verse which considerate only the jews as Adam , non-jewish is not adam .
if we considerate the religions provoke each other ,it's seems in this case that the judiasm provoke first by that verse of Talmud .
Last edited:
apophenia
because you had no idea what you talking about .
nafs al amarra: close to the meaning in english "a self pusher/order you (to make sin)"
نفس الأمارة
it's not had no relation with your subject .
this is not critic , this i considerate offened against islam by lie and fake info.
it's seems that you use the antislam sites ,which they post lie and fake info about islam ?
because you had no idea what you talking about .
nafs al amarra: close to the meaning in english "a self pusher/order you (to make sin)"
نفس الأمارة
it's not had no relation with your subject .
this is not critic , this i considerate offened against islam by lie and fake info.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Soooo...it shouldn't be taken as an offense or insult when it is taught that witches are evil or should be stoned/killed then? Just a difference of opinion right? Just diversity? And it shouldn't be taken as offensive that women should be treated as second class to men and should ask their husbands for permission in practically everything they do, including leaving their own home or speaking to another man even in passing? And it shouldn't be taken as offensive that a woman should be hit or beaten if she falls "out of line" with her husband? It's all just "diversity" right?
Can't have it both ways. If you want to silence things that you find offensive then why shouldn't others have the right to silence that which they find offensive even if it comes from you and others in the Muslim community? Everyone has to put up with things that they don't like to hear. The way we deal with it is to argue back WITH OUR WORDS AND REASON. Not our fists and weapons. We certainly don't outlaw the speech itself, for if we did, no one would be allowed to say anything at all.
we are talking about beating-wife , and we agree that it's soft beat , i don't know if the western people beat their wife more than muslims , but i am sure their is humilation against the women in the west (for my opinion )
i see that the women in the west are just used their "body" like trade in publication and movies. more then mind .
if you considerate the christianity (and maybe islam) provoke the judiasm .
then i said i am offened by Talmud verse which considerate only the jews as Adam , non-jewish is not adam .
it's seems that the judiasm provoke first
Always bear in mind that the media portray a bizarre caricature of reality.
The western women you meet on this forum will give a much better picture.
What does "soft beat" mean, as you understand it?
Besides, I don't think all Muslims agree on only one interpretation of the Qur'an. There are many scholars and a diversity of opinion inside Islam. It's not as black-&-white as you make it seem to be.
And I don't see what the "West" has to do with this. It seems to me that you keep bringing it up instead of presenting coherent arguments for your position. What you appear to be doing here — assuming that what you say about "the women in the west" is true, and I think it is more of an over-generalization — is merely presenting a tu quoque argument in order to justify your position. Even if what you are claiming about "the western women" is true (and again, I don't think it is), two wrongs don't make a right anyway.
Last edited:
That doesn't answer my question. The idea of beating a wife - no matter how "softly" - is offensive and insulting to many many women.
Should the U.N. prohibit those views?
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
if you considerate the christianity (and maybe islam) provoke the judiasm .
then i said i am offened by Talmud verse which considerate only the jews as Adam , non-jewish is not adam .
if we considerate the religions provoke each other ,it's seems in this case that the judiasm provoke first by that verse of Talmud .
If you had actually read what people wrote about that portion of the Talmud months ago you wouldnt write this bs.
As always it makes no sense at all to discuss anything with you.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Are you with UN "global" prohibition aimed at preventing and eliminating violence against women and girls in all parts of the world?
Goal 1: Adopt and enforce national laws to address and punish all forms of violence against women and girls
The lack of effective national laws to end violence against women, or the failure to implement such laws where they exist, is widespread. Impunity for violence against women often results from States failure to implement international standards at the national and local level.
In many places, laws contain loopholes that allow perpetrators to act with impunity. In a number of countries, a rapist can go free under the penal code if he marries the victim.
Many States have no specific legal provisions against domestic violence. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in more than 50 countries.
Ending impunity and ensuring accountability for violence against women are crucial to prevent and reduce such violence.
Governments can learn from many examples of good practice.
Some States have enacted comprehensive laws specific to violence against women that provide multiple types of remedy, such as the 1994 Violence against Women Act in the United States, which authorized federal support for training for police, prosecutors and judges; shelters and rape prevention programmes; and a national telephone hotline, amongst other things.
Review and reform of laws have brought significant advances. Psychological and economic violence are now incorporated in the legal definition of domestic violence in a number of countries, including Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and South Africa.
Vigorous arrest and prosecution policies and appropriate sentencing make a statement to society that violence against women is a serious crime.
Implementation of laws is enhanced by educating police and judicial officials, such as the training given to police in the Republic of Korea on the laws on domestic violence, procedures in responding to reports and steps to protect victims.
Several countries have minimum sentences for crimes such as rape.
UNiTE
Well?
jazzymom
Just Jewish
apophenia
Well-Known Member
What ? Of course it is related to the subject !
Your idea of 'honor' is one of the worst of the nafs al amarra ! It is pride and ego which is so corrupt that it incites people to murder innocent people in the name of the prophet !
What could be a more extreme example of nafs al amarra than that ?
You don't even know your own religion, or have any respect for it, if you claim to not understand that.
And 'shaitan' is so close to your heart, you believe there is no difference between al quaeda suicide bombers and people who draw cartoons !
I learned the meaning of nafs al amarra from a sufi sheikh with whom I studied, not from an anti-islam site.
You are displaying terrible ignorance and deceitfulness in my opinion.
People that are on the side of truth, that have nothing to be ashamed of, that have nothing to hide, that are confident that logical argumentation is on their side of the debate, and that are more interested in knowing the truth than being right or holding power, rarely have the need or desire to censor alternative positions.
I'm happy the current poll is 54 to 3 against the law.
I'm happy the current poll is 54 to 3 against the law.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
They also feel no need to duck direct questions, in my opinion.
I wish one of the law supporters would just come out and tell us who should be in charge of enforcing the No-Insulting/No Lying law.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
They can't.
Cause if they do it will be revealed that the whole law is nothing but a blatant lie used to give certain weak faithed cowards power.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that the answer to "Who should be in charge of deciding?"...
... is "Someone who thinks exactly like I do about everything. In other words, an Imam from my sect of Islam, preferably my own Imam."
Just my best guess about why we can't get an answer.