Islamic Clerics Demand Global Ban on Insults to Islam | CNSNews.com: Should insults to Islam be against the law?
Heisenberg
2012/09/17 22:12:02
|
|
|||||
|
10 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
139 votes
|
|
93% | |||
CNSNEWS.COM reports:
CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.
Read More: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/leading-sunni-cler...
Talk about a sick biased Dirtball!
In either case you need to clarify just what you meant.
B) You think insulting ANY religion should be illegal.
Those were the only ideas you expressed, there's really nothing to specify given that one is merely an expansion on the other
This concept not only infringes on freedom of speech but overtly reprimands the questioning of an established religion. Were such a law in place for the past century, we would have gotten NOWHERE as a society in terms of science or ideology.
You are also correct in that even this "moratorium" on insulting ALL religion being a law, does run afoul of the First Amendment. Not so much from the establishment clause as from the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
I don't find much of that from a lot of people on the interwebs.
Agree
There are a lot of things people can't talk about in America and if they do the free speech will fail.
Every things have limits should not be crossed, there is no absolute freedom at all even in America.
..This rates both a yes & no. Libel & slander are not free speech. Inciting a riot is not free speech. But doing these things will not cause Free Speech to fail.
"Every things have limits should not be crossed, there is no absolute freedom at all even in America."
..In general this is true. But we are not discussing anything in general terms here. We have a very specific issue. Making a law about NOT insulting Islam is a step towards Establishment, hence unconstitutional. It also would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
"in·cite [in-sahyt] verb (used with object), in·cit·ed, in·cit·ing.
to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot."
...At least you didn't include everyone. But even 2/3 sounds a bit high. Whether or not YOU change you mind is up to you. But don't you think it is presumptuous of you to speak for nearly a billion other souls?
If you made some statistics you will know that I'm right.
All the people I know they have the same opinion. All muslims on social that I visited they share this opinion. If I took those as samples you know that the majority have this opinion.
..Invalid argument to claim majority from your contacts.
"All the people I know" & "All muslims on social that I visited"
..People tend to socialize with people of a like nature. So it is no surprise that your social circles have opinions very similar to yours.
You might not watch the other side of media only the American side of media and you will know that I'm right.
I hope you consider SodaHead as not only my social circles.
For this question 100% of muslims vote Agree.
If you want an other way come here to middle east and ask everyone on the street and everyone at their house ask them and you will find the answer.
I may not associate, may - because I never ask, with Muslims, but I read a great deal.
"(C)ome here to middle east and ask everyone on the street and everyone at their house ask them and you will find the answer."
..Now you are trying to tell me that the only Muslims that count are the ones in the Middle East? I'm sure the rest of them would not being dismissed like that.
But you can not libel a dead person!
That's you in you system problem but in our law and many laws we can.
And in maney counteries (Islamic and non-islamic) desecrating relgions is illegal.
..No! but I do expect you to be open to differing points of view and sources of information. And to decide for yourself, rather than unquestioning acceptance of day to day happenings.
"That's you in you system problem but in our law and many laws we can."
..I find that hard to believe. Can you show me where that is stated? Allowing a dead person to be libeled.
Libel "a legal term signifying defamation so serious that damages are presumed" Being dead how is the person damaged? "The historical reason for allowing claims for slander and libel is to protect the person's reputation and thus his or her ability to earn a living and enjoy the benefits of good standing in the community. Once the person is dead, those concerns go away."
Yes it's a law in Saudi Arabia you can't say anything offends a dead Muslim except merciful.
And how about desecrating relgions are you trying to turn a blind eye.
..Don't bet on it!
"Yes it's a law in Saudi Arabia you can't say anything offends a dead Muslim"
..Sorry your "saying" so is insufficient evidence.
"(H)ow about desecrating relgions are you trying to turn a blind eye."
..Apparently you did not read, or remember my original comment. Insulting & desecrating are not the same thing.
Because all of the Islamic countries consider it desecrating and not only Islamic countries Russia also finds it desecrating and extreme and meant to incite riots and considers it to be out of free speach boundaries.
"des·e·crate [des-i-kreyt] verb
1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
3. to treat with sacrilege; profane."
"in·sult [v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt] verb
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean."
Clearly not the same thing.