The problem is where to draw the line.
While freedom of speech is a positive and progressive thing necessary in a civilized society , by including bigotry as freedom of speech you (the USA effectively) have drawn the line too deep. No surprise then that people like DT are riding high in the presidential race.
The consequences have been unfolding before our eyes, and they are not good
can't help being grumpy...
Just need to let some steam out, so my head doesn't explode...
" title="External link">our religion has to be changed.
Florists who have been happy to serve homosexual customers and employ homosexuals but refused to cater for and participate in weddings, are now forced to partake in the weddings contrary to their beliefs.@Servant of the Lord: We have gone way of topic here, but I'm going to respond as best as possible. The entire issue with all of the things the pro-life movement, the LGBT thing, etc. has nothing to do with you are bad people, etc. The problem is simply that there are people who are trying to push their beliefs onto others.
Bakers, who have been happy to serve homosexuals, have now been forced to write pro-homosexual messages on cakes (i.e. not just suppressing their freedom of speech, but enforcing they make speech they don't agree with).
It is highly likely in a year or two pastors are going to have to officiate the marriage of homosexuals, contrary to their beliefs, or else lose their license to marry people.
That is other people's beliefs being forced on us. Even some prominent atheists acknowledge it. These are religious ceremonies, and we're being forced to participate in them or lose the ability to run our own businesses.
Weddings are religious ceremonies to many Christians, so you might as well make us provide flowers and decor for a demon-worshiping cult's sacrificial ceremony. Obviously the latter is more extreme, but it's the same thing, just a different degree of intensity.
It's all great to say, we live in a pluralistic society, so everyone gets a voice (great!), but when we voice out our views, if they contradict the liberal message, the response is, "no, you don't get to believe that.". Or as Hillary Clinton puts it, if we disagree on abortion,
The courts say, either we agree with homosexuality and partake in the religious ceremonies, or else we aren't allowed to run businesses. Even some homosexuals and atheists have come out and acknowledge that's absurd.
It sounds reasonable to say, "The problem is simply that there are people who are trying to push their beliefs onto others.", but the homosexual community isn't merely after the end of harassment (which I agree must end) or real discrimination (serving them in non-religious services) - the homosexual movement (not every homosexual) are after enforcing the approval of their actions.
Christians are increasingly worried that even disagreeing with certain viewpoints may be classified hate speech in another decade or so.
Maybe you should wait and let history be the judge of which side is right? Everyone claims they are on the right side of history. It just comes off as, well, delusional and ignorant of history. Or at least arrogant and certainly cliched. Instead of arguing why their view is great, they just claim history will justify them so they don't need to bother to explain it to the silly opposition.
As for the "(once again) on the wrong side of history", there are dozens of major events where Christianity was on the right side of history. Our contributions to society, if you cared to actually study it, far outweigh the abuses.
You don't see a problem with forcing someone to write speech they don't agree with? Are you forced by the government to write, "Christianity is the best religion" or other such propaganda?
You don't see a problem with forcing someone to partake in a ceremony (religious or otherwise) they don't agree with? Are you forced by the government to go to church on Sunday? Even if it was just once a year (e.g. Easter or Christmas eve), you'd justly consider that a huge breach of your freedom. If you ran a small business, and were forced to attend church on Easter or else be forced to close your business, you'd be up in arms. This is exactly what is occurring to some Christian small-business owners.
"Newsflash: It's 2016", so why do you feel fine with government pressures strait out of the USSR's cold-war policies? Because it favors your ideology?
We live in a society where you have had freedom to believe differently from me, but now it seems you want a nation where I'm forced to believe what you want,or else get shouted down or ostracized. Are you only in favor of freedom when it benefits you, but favor mandated-beliefs-from-on-high when those beliefs aligns with what you believe? If liberals want a society where everyone can think for themselves and decide, why do they then demand adherence to ideologies that they think is right? It's inconsistent and biased.
Compelling someone to speak or write words they are morally opposed to is government coercion; it's the the seeds of communist-esqe "re-education". I'm not talking hyperbole here, I'm being serious, and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to do some serious re-reading of history.
Some pro-LGBT atheists and some homosexuals recognize the problem with this overreach, but most of the mass of the population goes along with this not realizing the problem, and some for some reason think it's justified.
Freedom from discrimination is very important and worth fighting for - but this goes way beyond that. This is using government-pressure and economic exclusion to force alignment to government-approved ideologies.
Oooooo excellent; good twisting of words there, I like your word play *claps*
Sorry if I twisted your words, it wasn't intentional - what words did I twist? I don't think I did any word-play.
Really, honest question here: what do you want to ACHIEVE by attacking the muslim faith and koran instead of the culprits who actually did do the crime?
Do you believe you can change a whole religion from the outside? Do you think oppressing muslims in the US will help?
Or do you believe oppressing the moderate muslims in the US will make the extremists less likely to attack US target?
No, I don't think "attack" is the right word here.
No one is attacking Muslims or the Koran. What I and I guess others on this side of the debate are saying is that, you've got to be honest with the root cause if you want to have a lasting solution (even if it means being politically incorrect then so be it - Note:not moving anywhere close to Donald Trump's stance here)
For instance, why do they all have to shout "Allah wakauba" (God is great in Arabic) before they blow themselves up?
Why do they all read relevant parts of the Koran in their video clips, to justify their acts?
Why does ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al shaba all have establishing an Islamic state as the main cause of their jihad?
Why do they all call western women "whores", simply for not dressing up like they force their own women to dress?
No one is giving Christians a clean slate either (as @Phantom points out, there are lots of horrible stuff that some Christians do), but when it comes to real terrorism, everyone knows who and which religion, the real culprits are
If we are honest then the solution, for instance, might be getting the Muslim leaders, Imams and local community leaders to re-educate extremists on how to moderately interpret the Koran so as to curb radicalism. This kind of initiative is being attempted here in the UK at the moment. How effective it is... time would tell
I do understand the intention when put like this (though I am not sure that ALL people voicing into the same tune are actually interested in a solution...)
If I for a moment forget my own believe that you misjudge the root cause, I am still not sure though that the solution you put forward here is realistic and could work.
"Muslim Leaders" as in moderate imams, leaders of muslimic states like the Iran, Saudi Arabia and others, have little to zero leverage over extremists. Best they can do is the same the west can do... try to fight them, which is hard if not impossible as long as they are not trying to build a califate (which is why the ISIS is actually making a BIG mistake, and would be ripe for being squashed thanks to sticking to a territory IMO). MAYBE they could additionally go after the terrorist supporters in their own midst (with the saudi arabians being especially bad at this if you believe the intelligence reports, a lot of rich supporters seem to finance a lot of extremists).
The problem I see is what I state time after time. Extremists no longer listen to anyone. Because they are either no longer interested in religion (other than the extreme philosophy of hatred they call religion), or because they choose to follow someone like that. Best you could do is to reduce the amount of new recruits by reducing the amount of extremist preachers. Still, these often are also hard to talk to. Because they choose to no longer listen.
That is one of the most common trait among extremists of all colours, be they right- or leftwing, "religious" or eco extremists. They no longer listen to anyone, as long as this person is not following the same extrem ideology they themselves are.
Now, given that what I put up there is correct (I believe so, but feel free to TRY to re-educate muslims worldwide), there is no easy way out. What I do believe would help is to isolate the extremists more. If moderate muslims are clearly saying no to violence and the radical views of extremists, it might not be the solution, but it would certainly help.
There is no need for "re-education" though. What is needed is the right environment for the society in the muslim countries to develop. All "we" can do as people outside of the islam is trying to help to build the environment. Moderate muslims need to do the legwork, its their religion, and if you do not want to plant the seeds for the next wave of violence, you need to give them the opportunity to grow their religion themselves.
And by environment, I mean economical and cultural aspects first and foremost. This is what will shape religion in the end, as has happened with the christian religion.
Lets be honest, rewriting a "holy book" will not happen... like, ever. How would christians feel if somebody told them to rewrite their book because of <insert legit concern here>? Or the jews? Buddhists?
As long as people think it is "the word of god", the text will not be mutable. All people can do is to make sure the interpretation of the text changes over time, and that extreme interpretations get frowned upon (which happen in christianity too... heretics no longer get burned at the stakes).
I have, it did. Ireland.... the most catholic place on the goddamn planet VOTED in gay marriage. You are so very wrong and I revel in the schadenfreude at seeing your bigotry brought down.Maybe you should wait and let history be the judge of which side is right?
You don't see a problem with forcing someone to write speech they don't agree with?
We live in a society where you have had freedom to believe differently from me, but now it seems you want a nation where I'm forced to believe what you want,or else get shouted down or ostracized.
Oh, you can believe whatever bronze age bullshit you want, but that very same freedom of speech means I get to tell you how backward and repulsive it is. You're free to proclaim your bigotry, the rest of us are free to call you an idiot for it.
Here's the thing: if the government persecutes you for saying that the rich pay too little taxes or that you really like fluffy pink unicorns or that you think Justin Bieber is the greatest musician in history, I will defend your right to say that. And if the government locks you up for saying gay people are icky and you really don't like the thought of two dudes touching each other, well, defending you would be pretty far down on my list of priorities, but I'd still argue that you have the right to free speech.
But if you, as a company decide that you can discriminate against people because of their sexuality because you believe in a particular set of made up rules.... yeah, nah, you're on your own. Privately, you can say that don't like it (and other people get to laugh at your neolithic beliefs), but you don't get to discriminate anymore than a bus company gets to force "coloureds" to sit at the back of the bus.
There's a huge difference between discrimination and being compelled to write things that you have objections to. I may have to listen to someone's anti-semitism in public, but there's no way in hell I'm going to be compelled to write it down just because that someone is paying me. That's how protected speech works; it's the "my right to swing my fist ends at your face" thing. It's not "bronze age bullshit". It's called "The Enlightenment".
Saying, "You believe homosexuality is sin, so don't have gay sex. But since I don't believe gay sex is wrong, don't ban me from having gay sex" is reasonable and logical even if it conflicts with my religion, because no direct harm is being done to 3rd parties except for the 3rd parties who willing engage of it of their own free will.
Not so with abortion - we believe a real harm is being done to a 3rd party who is unable to speak up or fight for themselves. It is illogical to say "You think murder is happening? Just don't participate in it, and you're in the moral clear.". It's not a valid option.
I might have quite the opposite opinion in this topic than yours, but:
I really applaud the way you present your opinion up there. I am serious. Not often do I hear someone against abortion for religious reason present his opinion in a way that is both logical and understandable for someone of different faith or no faith and having a different opinion on abortions. Even I agree that this IS a valid concern...
Really, if boths sides would start using good points like that, the debate might be way less heated and more productive, instead of quickly escalating out of proportions.
Didn't really change my opinion on the topic, but if I could, I would give you a +1.
Quite offtopic, I know. Had to bring some positivity into the thread... carry on with the discussion now.
I know that patterns concerning governments and terrorists have been attributed to the "nature" of Islam. But a group using religion to justify their actions isn't new. Especially in the US. Especially now. Also Islam incorporates customs and traditions that existed long before Islam existed. So treating Islam like money as if it's the root of all evil is pretty disingenuous.
Well, Islamophobia didn't just come out of thin air. Why are we not hearing, "Danishophobia", or "Copticophobia"? Because there were actual bombings, and shooting, and killings, and beheading, and slaughter, by some people in the name of Islam.
Whether or not Islam is actually a religion of peace becomes irrelevant, because these people that we call terrorists just smeared black paint over Islam. In a country where Islam is not commonplace like the US, it makes sense for people to react in fear. If Martians were to exist and come attack and terrorize the Earth, we would all have Martian-o-phobia.
What you want is not telling people "Islam is a religion of peace". That message won't come through. It contradicts with what have been happening, and there's not enough arguments you can make about Islam to revert the killings and bombings and beheadings and etc. It doesn't matter what you say about Islam or Qoran or Muhammad or whatever, the violence associated with Islam have occured far too many, and it continues to happen.
If Joe comes to bully you on a consistent basis, and Joe's mom come to apologize and tell you "I'm sorry. Joe is actually a nice kid". Would you believe his mom? Well, No! But that's exactly what you are doing when you say "Islam is a religion of peace".
The people who have to be doing the work here are the peaceful Muslims. They can't stand idle. They can't just sit there and let their other muslims do shitty things. That's like having an evil brother who goes out terrorizing your neighbors, and you let him do it. No you won't let him do it, your family shouldn't be letting him do it. The only thing your neighbors can do against him is to defend themselves or kill him if he had crossed the lines. Your neighbors are not your family, they don't have the burden to correct your family.
I know that patterns concerning governments and terrorists have been attributed to the "nature" of Islam. But a group using religion to justify their actions isn't new. Especially in the US. Especially now. Also Islam incorporates customs and traditions that existed long before Islam existed. So treating Islam like money as if it's the root of all evil is pretty disingenuous.
Well, Islamophobia didn't just come out of thin air. Why are we not hearing, "Danishophobia", or "Copticophobia"? Because there were actual bombings, and shooting, and killings, and beheading, and slaughter, by some people in the name of Islam.
Whether or not Islam is actually a religion of peace becomes irrelevant,
because these people that we call terrorists just smeared black paint over Islam.
In a country where Islam is not commonplace like the US, it makes sense for people to react in fear.
If Martians were to exist and come attack and terrorize the Earth, we would all have Martian-o-phobia.
What you want is not telling people "Islam is a religion of peace". That message won't come through.
It contradicts with what have been happening, and there's not enough arguments you can make about Islam to revert the killings and bombings and beheadings and etc. It doesn't matter what you say about Islam or Qoran or Muhammad or whatever, the violence associated with Islam have occured far too many, and it continues to happen.
If Joe comes to bully you on a consistent basis, and Joe's mom come to apologize and tell you "I'm sorry. Joe is actually a nice kid". Would you believe his mom? Well, No! But that's exactly what you are doing when you say "Islam is a religion of peace".
The people who have to be doing the work here are the peaceful Muslims. They can't stand idle. They can't just sit there and let their other muslims do shitty things. That's like having an evil brother who goes out terrorizing your neighbors, and you let him do it. No you won't let him do it, your family shouldn't be letting him do it. The only thing your neighbors can do against him is to defend themselves or kill him if he had crossed the lines. Your neighbors are not your family, they don't have the burden to correct your family.
