Draw Muhammad day

[Penumbra]

Strawman argument. The color of his house is not spreading hate speech, or telling us what to believe, or demanding rights over and above others.

You're talking apples and oranges.

Laws that allow for religious freedom in free countries typically confine them to the rest of the law. So they get religious freedom, as long as it doesn't violate other laws.

-If hate speech hits a certain level, other laws kick in. Hate speech can only go so far.

-If a person tells you what to believe- who cares? They can't enforce it.

-What rights are they demanding over and above others?

 

[Quagmire]

I'm so happy to hear that, do you feel superior now?

What do you mean "now"?

LOL!

So you actually think that's something to be proud of?

 

[A Troubled Man]

So you actually think that's something to be proud of?

Your ridiculous remark? Not really, I just laughed at it for what it was.

 

[Quagmire]

Your ridiculous remark? Not really, I just laughed at it for what it was.

I'm talking about your own selective perception.

If you have your mind made up that you're going to continue believing what you already believe in spite of what anyone tries to show you, why waste time discussing it?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Laws that allow for religious freedom in free countries typically confine them to the rest of the law. So they get religious freedom, as long as it doesn't violate other laws.

There are religions that have demanded and successfully lobbied to have their religious laws incorporated alongside judicial laws, even when the judicial law can show them to be guilty but their religious laws show them innocent. Sharia law, for example.

-If hate speech hits a certain level, other laws kick in. Hate speech can only go so far.

If it falls under the umbrella of religion, it can go pretty far, and does.

-If a person tells you what to believe- who cares? They can't enforce it.

That would infringe on my rights not to hear them tell me what to believe.

-What rights are they demanding over and above others?

That's exactly what we've been discussing here.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I'm talking about your own selective perception.

Don't you mean your perceptions?

If you have your mind made up that you're going to continue believing what you already believe in spite of what anyone tries to show you, why waste time discussing it?

Then, go away.

 

[Quagmire]

Don't you mean your perceptions?

No, I mean yours. See, this is what I'm talking about.

Then, go away.

How likely do you think that is?

 

[A Troubled Man]

No, I mean yours. See, this is what I'm talking about.

No, I don't see what you're talking about, I see only opinions based on superiority.

How likely do you think that is?

You tell me.

 

[Quagmire]

No, I don't see what you're talking about, I see only opinions based on superiority.

I rest my case.

You tell me.

If I thought telling you anything was a possibility.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I rest my case.

Happy now?

If I thought telling you anything was a possibility.

You've said absolutely nothing of value so far, were you planning to start? At least the other staff are providing some fairly good arguments.

 

[Quagmire]

Happy now?

Yeah.

You've said absolutely nothing of value so far, were you planning to start?

What you mean is I've said nothing that's going to do you any good.

 

[Penumbra]

There are religions that have demanded and successfully lobbied to have their religious laws incorporated alongside judicial laws, even when the judicial law can show them to be guilty but their religious laws show them innocent. Sharia law, for example.

If it falls under the umbrella of religion, it can go pretty far, and does.

That would infringe on my rights not to hear them tell me what to believe.

That's exactly what we've been discussing here.

^This is a straw man. A change of subjects.

We were talking about the document you put forth. Your quoted material was shown to be a misinterpretation. The discussion then turned towards the concept that people shouldn't have the freedom to express their religion in public, which was argued against.

-Now you're talking about putting religion into laws, which is a completely different subject. I agree that religion shouldn't be put into laws, but that's not what we were talking about.

That would infringe on my rights not to hear them tell me what to believe.

I don't have the right not to meet people I don't like in my daily life. Because that would be an unenforceable right. Or a right that's so hard to enforce, it would obliterate multiple rights in the process of trying to enforce it.

And easier way is to just get over it. If you don't like to hear people telling you what to believe, then just ignore them. They might not like you telling them that they're wrong. The right to not be bothered can be enforced on private property. But restricting the speech of others in public- not a sustainable move.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then, you inadvertently support to take my freedoms away in the process. You also support their freedom to spread hate speech.

I support their freedoms and yours. Your freedoms are not in danger.

They are legally free to spew whatever hateful nonsense they want, just as the rest of us are free to criticize them for it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then, obviously, you don't know and are hence supporting your argument from ignorance.

I've responded to your other examples. But also know that such laws are also the only ones I'd support.

 

[Riverwolf]

Unfortunately, that is far from reality. There is a great deal considered hate speech in religions and a lot of violence has been attributed to it.

If you say so. You have yet to show that, though.

Just as you haven't really given any proof of your above assertion.

You keep making accusations without any real evidence.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm talking about your own selective perception.

If you have your mind made up that you're going to continue believing what you already believe in spite of what anyone tries to show you, why waste time discussing it?

I don't know about you, but I'm having fun. ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

That would infringe on my rights not to hear them tell me what to believe.

None of us have any such rights, and I would never support such a nonsensical thing.

This is your right in the matter: you have a right to ignore them.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I don't know about you, but I'm having fun. ^_^

hehe me too. I got three staff members panties tied in a knot.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Here's the thing, all you folks would have had to do was to put up this article or one very much like it explaining 'freedom from religion' to show the differences, which is what I was waiting for. Of course, I'm on your side in the sense that the religious can spew all the hate speech they want and we need to fight for their right to do so, because the only thing that will counter hate speech is more speech. And, that's the bottom line.

"Freedom from religion has two relevant aspects: personal and political. On the personal level, a right to be free from religion means that a person has the freedom not to belong to any religion or religious organization.

When it comes to politics, the freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion."

What is Freedom From Religion? Freedom of Religion Requires Freedom From Religion

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry, but I don't see how that makes me wrong. That is just once again the pandering to the religious to have their freedoms, regardless.

The intention of the First Amendment was to "pander to the religious"?

But, much of it can be equated to hate speech and incite violence, it has, and you know it.

Yet here you waste your time on a Forum dedicated to religious speech.