Your Right To Be An Idiot
-
>it's the "interpretations"...
Me thinks not. It's the actions demanded by Islam.
Jihad is a requirement of Islam. According to the Prophet, there is no greater deed than Jihad.
If the "interpertations" didn't kill anyone, I'd agree.
Quran 4:90: 'If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.'
Quran 8:39: 'So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).'
How is this not clear? What did I mis-interpret?
In Islam there is no freedom of "interpretation" only submission for Muslims, you, and I.
Don't believe me, Listen again to Usama...
-
Don't want to turn this into a religious battle, but can we have some context here? I know quite a few Bible verses that could be taken by themselves and look pretty bloody. Especially in the area of Joshua or Chronicles/Kings. 🙂
Not completely disagreeing with you - I'd say that the cries from the Muslim community saying that these people are not following Islam have been few and far between, but I would like some context before just throwing some quotes out. Helps keep things a little more civil.
Anyway, to tie this in with the main article - we have freedom of religion. People are free to believe and follow Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, Christianity, atheism, wicca, or some odd blending of all sorts of things. However, that freedom doesn't carry over to "convert or die". It just means that the federal government won't impose a religion on the country. (don't really want to get into this one - it doesn't tie in to the main post other than it's another freedom in America)
Like I posted earlier - this could get interesting. 😀
-Pete
-
Okay. Not quite sure if I'm being dinged here, but I'll rise to the bait this once and try to avert a religious war that may be trying to spring up since I started this reply.
Freedom of speech and truth are not the same thing at all. That's part of what I thought led to this discussion and is what is problematic about sites like Wikipedia. Accepting the fact that everyone is free to speak, or write, or publish anything they choose inherently suggests that you need to take great care in processing all of this information when you come across it.
Taking the bait and probably the hook as well here, I am not one who accepts that truth is one's perception at all. I'm much more of an absolutist here. Either something is true or it is false. I can be color blind and stare at a green light all day thinking that it's red, but it doesn't change the fact that the light is green. My perception has nothing at all to do with the reality and it doesn't alter it one bit.
As for my diplomacy couch, I'll definitely get off of it now and say that I wasn't in any way referring to anything Bush said or did. I have a slight problem discussing any politician and the truth at the same time as they don't typically go together.
The point of my post was that accepting freedom of speech also means that you also accept that people may say and write things that are false. People have a tendency to believe something just because they see it in print or hear it broadcast and there is a real danger here. That's really what I was trying to get at.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
Excellent point. I think one author wrote something like, "Truth is that which, even when you stop believing it, still exists."
Hard to find people who believe in an absolute truth - it's all so relative nowadays. I can see that people may perceive the truth differently, but there's still an absolute to it.
And yes, freedom of speech does give you the right to go around stating that the sky is green with pink polka dots and purple stripes. It doesn't protect you from the possible psychiatric eval that may follow. 🙂
-Pete
-
>we have freedom of religion.
Yes. We Americans do. Muslims around the world are not so lucky... They do *not* have the "Freedom" to choose. Try choosing to be Jewish in Saudia Arabia... Does the word "Dhimmi" come to mind?
Yes our Government doesn't impose "a religion" on us - thank you Founding Fathers. But, that is not the case in countries like Iran where I would be beheaded for the few words I've keyed thus far.
Because this is not a discussion about religion but one of being "free" enough to be an Idiot, I ask again: What force on the planet has the goal and the desire, if not the actual means, to squash my "freedom" to type what I wish?
-
- not quite sure what "dinged" means but it sounds very "assaulty"...and sswords - if you were addressing me then no - wouldn't dream of "dinging" you....was merely agreeing with you is all....strange huh....that you saw it as "bait"...
when all I aimed to do was nod my head in agreement..Pete - really like the measured and focused direction of your posts - would love to see those "bible verses" that'd be considered inflammatory if taken in isolation or out of context...
As for the "green sky with pink stripes & purple polka dots" I think that the psychiatric eval - if any - should only be made to question aesthetics and colour schemes..
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
I'd have to put in a quick note about other non-Islamic countries who have the goal, desire, and means to squash your freedom to type what you wish - at least if you live in their countries. China comes to mind as the first offender, but there are quite a few others.
As for choosing to be non-Islamic in an Islamic country - it's possible, but doable. Whether you live, are free, or enjoy benefits others enjoy - that's dependent on the leaders and citizens in the country. We weren't too much better all that long ago (segregation, anyone?). Of course, if your beliefs are strong enough, you'll take a stand for them, regardless of the cost.
Just a reminder that there are other things out there trying to suppress free expression of thoughts/ideas.
-Pete
-
"Hard to find people who believe in an absolute truth - it's all so relative nowadays."
I may be straying a bit here, but I believe that this is a very dangerous road to go down. Once you accept that truth is relative, then you are free to bend it and shape it at will. You also accept the fact that it can be changed by others and the consequences can be dire. Something is either right or it isn't. Perception and relativeness have nothing to do with it, and do not alter the facts.
This is why I don't want my news editorialized or spoon fed to me, and why I garner it from numerous sources. I'd rather learn the facts and make up my own mind about the issues. But in today's media and especially in the US, this has become increasingly difficult. More and more, opinions are expressed rather than facts. The result is not a news article, but rather a spin put on any given story designed to lead you to a conclusion which may or may not be correct. Reporting should be factual period. Anything else is entertainment, but not credible news.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
C-SPAN it is then...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Only when counting sheep doesn't work.
Although anything beats Faux News (who should be forced apologize to real foxes in the wild, all over the world).
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
I do think we as 'free willed' economies... and countries should have an 'idiocy' clause.... in their constitution, bill of rights, charter.
I want to right to claim for any old stupid reason say, 3 times a year, that I am an idiot or have behaved in an idiotic manner; then we all can move on.
The punishment will include
1) being forced to stand a corner, if you have been on your fourth claim to be an idiot.. a corner in a farmers silo.
2) wear a cone like cap.
3) carry a placard whereever I go... with the words idiot painted on it.
Apologies to the brain damaged, under some medicinal treatment impairing event, or the drunk and or chemically induced mental retardation.
I'm sure women would be best suited for the council to determine the qualifacations who might have to make that claim.
And if you dont like what I have said ... you can find me in the silo.
-
and if shushy is offering dinging's where does one sign up for such a thing....
I know ... I'll head back to the silo now...
I had to edit my previous post terribly so... but then I'll just claim 'my second idiocy' tag.
and arguing over religeon is like arguing over which fork is the right one for the salad.
"There probably is a right one; but why eat the salad when there's sirlion steak coming next."
-
Well....if we're going to have an Idiocy clause, then we also need to have a:
Comissioner General of Common Sense. This would eliminate a lot of the ludicrous litigation we've seen:
Hot coffee spilled in your lap at the drive through? You're an idiot, no lawsuit for you. And let's give you 90 days in the pokey to think about it and while we're at it we're going to fine you $5,000 for wasting the court's time.
Got to be a 400 pound beast by eating nothing but McD's, KFC, and BK? You are a glutton and greedy to boot. No lawsuit for you. Sentence to be 3 years on a fat farm with a diet consisting of nothing but Tofu and alfalfa sprouts.
Examples could go on and on....
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
Don't forget those who've lost their lives to cancer or ailing from it and getting compensated by the tobacco companies they're suing....what a lucrative pastime litigation is...no wonder the first thought that comes to mind when losing a finger is...forget about the doctor...let's save this and use it in a bowl of Wendy's chili...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
Why is it that every other form of cancer get a ribbon, but lung cancer is villified?
Do those people deserve it? As far as I know smoking is an addiction... a yummy tasty mmmmm i want a smoke now sort of thing....
<five minutes pass .. think smoke rings>
The wendy situation though has turned into jail time for those people.. i think i saw 7 years.. for one of them... pretty steep for stupidity...
in land of the free.. i would think everyone would expouse support for litigation really... for the other option is letting the king decide... and apparently that didn't sit to well with pilgrams who hung out with the dutch first... then tried it out across the pond... it was a good things the natives were such a push over... sadly interesting how their litigation is not so successful...
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 71 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply