Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment (debunked)

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment
From the event's website: "The gathering will be attended by over 1,000 community members, clergy, community leaders and public officials of all persuasions who continue to reject the messages of hate and Islamaphobia that have escalated in recent months and years, most recently with the production of the infamous film 'Innocence of Muslims.' " Photo Credit:Facebook

Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You can't make this stuff up.

Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech. Protesting the film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has sparked protests in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the religious feelings of Muslims."

This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.


9/30/12: This blog/article is clearly an attempt to aggravate people. Thanks to a great discussion and multiple contributions "we" have come to the conclusion that this article it bullshit.



by on Sep. 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Replies (471-480):
Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM
2 moms liked this

Look at the beginning of this conversation in the quote box.  You were replying to a response to me.  You implied to the PP that anyone who agrees with the OP article was bigoted.

I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have made the case for why the gist, the title, of the OP article was still correct.  I have acknowledged that the rally was mutipurposeful, but also shown that restriction of free speech was advocated. 

Go back a few posts and you will see another speaker at the rally in question saying that freedom of speech does not protect the film in question.    The "Innocence of Muslims" is not more nasty than "The Godmakers," which is an old, old anti-Mormon cartoon movie that's been distributed for decades. 

With any well-informed understanding of legal history in this country, it is obvious that the anti-Islam film is protected by the First Amendment.

I don't assume that one person speaks for the rest.  The point is that speaking against the First Amendment was indeed a topic, atleast one of them, of the rally. 

I mentioned the international situation because it shows this to be credible.  I certainly hope that people can see through the bigotry whether it is on one side or another.  To do that we have to acknowledge what is being said and what is really going on, both the good and the worrisome, and that is the real purpose of me getting so involved in this post.  ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

The original quote was incomplete and was only found in a biased source.  Yes I know about the minister.  Global leaders calling for anti-blasphemy laws is not something this country can do anything about.  We here in the US have free speech, not all countries do.  Each country has differing laws and applications of the laws, so there's no kind of generalization you can make.  The UN pushes free speech as a human right and I agree with their efforts wholeheartedly.

If the Iranian leader calls for some UN law to sue Obama or this country, do you really think that is anything but a divisive political ploy?  What it is, is rhetoric and bullshit.  Iran isn't known for freedom of speech, luckily the US doesn't have to pay attention to what Iran says about free speech.  Put it in perspective.

If you don't think there are pp's that are bigoted I encourage you to read the thread again.  I stand by what I say.  Why is it, when there is a religious figure calling for free speech, in this case a Methodist minister saying something vague about the government taking a stand, the immediate reaction is that the rally is about passing a law against free speech?  What is YOUR answer?  You wouldn't suppose that it is one speaker's idea?  Furthermore, the only semi-reliable quote was from a Christian, who said the guy who made the movie should be locked up.  Did he say why?  Was he talking about the actual fact that the guy was actually arrested for fraud unrelated to the movie?  Was he talking about using the "fighting words" restriction that currently exists against free speech in this country?  Or was he saying straight up that people should be arrested for blasphemy?  We don't know.  And THAT particular guy is a Christian, so why aren't people bitching about Christians restricting free speech?  Because it is easy for people to say, "well that's just one guy's point of view."  Yet when a Muslim says something, well then that Muslims is a representative of ALL Muslims.  You can see that in this thread.

Do you assume they are all in agreement, the few hundred people who came to this rally?  What about the tens of thousands in the area who DIDN'T attend?  Are they against free speech, too?  What about the Muslims in all the other areas of this country who didn't say anything about it?  Are they also calling for blasphemy laws?  Notice that no one said "blasphemy laws" except the biased article in the OP.  Maybe they were calling for hate speech laws.  Who freaking knows. (not that I agree with that, either, but you have to admit that is a little different.)

Ultimately, the article in the OP wanted to stir some shit and succeeded.  Now we have a bunch of people who took the article at it's word, convinced that most Muslims want to restrict free speech, when the main point (stated by all the literature original from the rally) was about "anti-extremism" and peaceful responses to things like the Mohammed movie.  Yet people not only refuse to discuss that aspect, but there were people IN THIS THREAD who demanded to know why Muslims were "silent" on the violence against the US Embassies.  Yes this whole rally was exactly about that.  

So you tell me, WHY are people focusing SO MUCH on the words of one or two people, yet ignoring the people speaking out against violence and extremism, of which there are many more examples.  You tell ME why people would be so biased as to ignore the facts directly in front of their face.  They WILL deny it.  

Quoting Meadowchik:

I would love to see the statement by the event organizer debunked.  The most direct way is for someone to interview him or show that the original quote was innaccurate, yet no such evidence has been offered.

Furthermore, we have unfortunately seen other guest speakers at similar rallies speaking in support of limiting the First Amendment.  Rev. Ed Rowe of Central United Methodist blamed the filmmakers for the embassy attacks and said they should be locked up for the film. (LINK to Lansing State Journal)

Not to mention globally leaders calling for international anti-blasphemy laws:

(LINK to Examiner article)

Then we have the NYC Transit authority, a state entity, banning a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad poster. 

This type of anti-expression sentiment is not merely from one statement from one person, but from many.  It is in anti-blasphemy laws of many middle-eastern countries, and support for it is being seen in the West. Ireland adopted an anti-blasphemy law in 2010.  An Iranian leader recently claimed that a recent UN Resolution could be used to sue President Obama for the "Innocence of Muslims" film, Pakistan is among others calling for international anti-blasphemy laws.

I have looked at dozens of reports on this subject, and indeed I have seen many quotes from people condemning both the violence along with the film, many Muslims and people of other faiths at their sides calling for loving and peaceful responses.  However, there are still those calling for limits on existing First Amendment law.

Please don't start making rash judgments about PPs.  I would love for all of this to not be true. This is a debate that is happening all over the world, it is happening in America.   

 

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Bigotry is why it is unclear.  They want to believe the worst and they will.

That's why I came out swinging in this post.  There will be no reasoning with some people.  

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Meadowchik:

 It's right there in what you quoted, not just the Methodist pastor, but the organizer of the event in the OP, Osama Siblani, said: "There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence." He is talking about limiting free speech.

That doesn't mean that was the purpose of the rally.

Why is that so UNCLEAR to people?


 


 

LivingIslam
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

 That movie and those subway ads are created to dehumanize, villianize and entice hatred towards people who are Muslim.  They are meant to cultivate a climate of dislike and hatred towards us.  There are groups behind this with big agendas.  Look at the timing:  right during the week of 9/11 they bring out the movie and the subway ads.  There is a real agenda to keep the hate, distrust and dislike of Muslim Americans going. 

 

LivingIslam
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

 As a Muslim American I could care less about this trashy movie.  The issue has been spun once again to put Muslim Americans on the defense. 

Hate speech is violence within itself.  Who is violating who here? 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Look at the beginning of this conversation in the quote box.  You were replying to a response to me.  You implied to the PP that anyone who agrees with the OP article was bigoted.

I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have made the case for why the gist, the title, of the OP article was still correct.  I have acknowledged that the rally was mutipurposeful, but also shown that restriction of free speech was advocated. 

Go back a few posts and you will see another speaker at the rally in question saying that freedom of speech does not protect the film in question.    The "Innocence of Muslims" is not more nasty than "The Godmakers," which is an old, old anti-Mormon cartoon movie that's been distributed for decades. 

With any well-informed understanding of legal history in this country, it is obvious that the anti-Islam film is protected by the First Amendment.

I don't assume that one person speaks for the rest.  The point is that speaking against the First Amendment was indeed a topic, atleast one of them, of the rally. 

I mentioned the international situation because it shows this to be credible.  I certainly hope that people can see through the bigotry whether it is on one side or another.  To do that we have to acknowledge what is being said and what is really going on, both the good and the worrisome, and that is the real purpose of me getting so involved in this post.  ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

The original quote was incomplete and was only found in a biased source.  Yes I know about the minister.  Global leaders calling for anti-blasphemy laws is not something this country can do anything about.  We here in the US have free speech, not all countries do.  Each country has differing laws and applications of the laws, so there's no kind of generalization you can make.  The UN pushes free speech as a human right and I agree with their efforts wholeheartedly.

If the Iranian leader calls for some UN law to sue Obama or this country, do you really think that is anything but a divisive political ploy?  What it is, is rhetoric and bullshit.  Iran isn't known for freedom of speech, luckily the US doesn't have to pay attention to what Iran says about free speech.  Put it in perspective.

If you don't think there are pp's that are bigoted I encourage you to read the thread again.  I stand by what I say.  Why is it, when there is a religious figure calling for free speech, in this case a Methodist minister saying something vague about the government taking a stand, the immediate reaction is that the rally is about passing a law against free speech?  What is YOUR answer?  You wouldn't suppose that it is one speaker's idea?  Furthermore, the only semi-reliable quote was from a Christian, who said the guy who made the movie should be locked up.  Did he say why?  Was he talking about the actual fact that the guy was actually arrested for fraud unrelated to the movie?  Was he talking about using the "fighting words" restriction that currently exists against free speech in this country?  Or was he saying straight up that people should be arrested for blasphemy?  We don't know.  And THAT particular guy is a Christian, so why aren't people bitching about Christians restricting free speech?  Because it is easy for people to say, "well that's just one guy's point of view."  Yet when a Muslim says something, well then that Muslims is a representative of ALL Muslims.  You can see that in this thread.

Do you assume they are all in agreement, the few hundred people who came to this rally?  What about the tens of thousands in the area who DIDN'T attend?  Are they against free speech, too?  What about the Muslims in all the other areas of this country who didn't say anything about it?  Are they also calling for blasphemy laws?  Notice that no one said "blasphemy laws" except the biased article in the OP.  Maybe they were calling for hate speech laws.  Who freaking knows. (not that I agree with that, either, but you have to admit that is a little different.)

Ultimately, the article in the OP wanted to stir some shit and succeeded.  Now we have a bunch of people who took the article at it's word, convinced that most Muslims want to restrict free speech, when the main point (stated by all the literature original from the rally) was about "anti-extremism" and peaceful responses to things like the Mohammed movie.  Yet people not only refuse to discuss that aspect, but there were people IN THIS THREAD who demanded to know why Muslims were "silent" on the violence against the US Embassies.  Yes this whole rally was exactly about that.  

So you tell me, WHY are people focusing SO MUCH on the words of one or two people, yet ignoring the people speaking out against violence and extremism, of which there are many more examples.  You tell ME why people would be so biased as to ignore the facts directly in front of their face.  They WILL deny it.  

Quoting Meadowchik:

I would love to see the statement by the event organizer debunked.  The most direct way is for someone to interview him or show that the original quote was innaccurate, yet no such evidence has been offered.

Furthermore, we have unfortunately seen other guest speakers at similar rallies speaking in support of limiting the First Amendment.  Rev. Ed Rowe of Central United Methodist blamed the filmmakers for the embassy attacks and said they should be locked up for the film. (LINK to Lansing State Journal)

Not to mention globally leaders calling for international anti-blasphemy laws:

(LINK to Examiner article)

Then we have the NYC Transit authority, a state entity, banning a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad poster. 

This type of anti-expression sentiment is not merely from one statement from one person, but from many.  It is in anti-blasphemy laws of many middle-eastern countries, and support for it is being seen in the West. Ireland adopted an anti-blasphemy law in 2010.  An Iranian leader recently claimed that a recent UN Resolution could be used to sue President Obama for the "Innocence of Muslims" film, Pakistan is among others calling for international anti-blasphemy laws.

I have looked at dozens of reports on this subject, and indeed I have seen many quotes from people condemning both the violence along with the film, many Muslims and people of other faiths at their sides calling for loving and peaceful responses.  However, there are still those calling for limits on existing First Amendment law.

Please don't start making rash judgments about PPs.  I would love for all of this to not be true. This is a debate that is happening all over the world, it is happening in America.   

 

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Bigotry is why it is unclear.  They want to believe the worst and they will.

That's why I came out swinging in this post.  There will be no reasoning with some people.  

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Meadowchik:

 It's right there in what you quoted, not just the Methodist pastor, but the organizer of the event in the OP, Osama Siblani, said: "There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence." He is talking about limiting free speech.

That doesn't mean that was the purpose of the rally.

Why is that so UNCLEAR to people?


 


 

 

12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

 

Actually the MTA has since revised it's rules on what type of ads they will accept along with requiring the ad to have a disclaimer. 

Quoting Moniker:

The court over ruled the ban, the fact is free speech won. 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 They were censored before the court order went into effect, weren't they?  The point was that this is not a localised, isolated issue. 

Quoting Moniker:

Right. So I'm confused why you used the ads as an example of censorship of free speech.


 



Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM


Quoting LivingIslam:

 As a Muslim American I could care less about this trashy movie.  The issue has been spun once again to put Muslim Americans on the defense. 

Hate speech is violence within itself.  Who is violating who here? 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Look at the beginning of this conversation in the quote box.  You were replying to a response to me.  You implied to the PP that anyone who agrees with the OP article was bigoted.

I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have made the case for why the gist, the title, of the OP article was still correct.  I have acknowledged that the rally was mutipurposeful, but also shown that restriction of free speech was advocated. 

Go back a few posts and you will see another speaker at the rally in question saying that freedom of speech does not protect the film in question.    The "Innocence of Muslims" is not more nasty than "The Godmakers," which is an old, old anti-Mormon cartoon movie that's been distributed for decades. 

With any well-informed understanding of legal history in this country, it is obvious that the anti-Islam film is protected by the First Amendment.

I don't assume that one person speaks for the rest.  The point is that speaking against the First Amendment was indeed a topic, atleast one of them, of the rally. 

I mentioned the international situation because it shows this to be credible.  I certainly hope that people can see through the bigotry whether it is on one side or another.  To do that we have to acknowledge what is being said and what is really going on, both the good and the worrisome, and that is the real purpose of me getting so involved in this post.  ;)

I'm grateful that this discussion has been mostly civil, for one. I also couldn't care less about the movie. The itention of the blog writer might have been to put Muslims on defense, but it wasn't my intention in posting this thread.

You're correct that people can be hateful and hurtful with their words and the intention of their words. This thread has been enlightening for SO MANY PEOPLE. Hopefully the people who have a new perspective will no longer perpetuate the kind of ignorance that has fueled the rage. That's something.


Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM


Quoting 12hellokitty:


Actually the MTA has since revised it's rules on what type of ads they will accept along with requiring the ad to have a disclaimer. 

Likely a disclaimer stating that the thoughts of the ad don 't supprt that of the MTA or the city. IMO that's not an appropriate disclaimer. lol

Moniker
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM


Quoting LivingIslam:

 That movie and those subway ads are created to dehumanize, villianize and entice hatred towards people who are Muslim.  They are meant to cultivate a climate of dislike and hatred towards us.  There are groups behind this with big agendas.  Look at the timing:  right during the week of 9/11 they bring out the movie and the subway ads.  There is a real agenda to keep the hate, distrust and dislike of Muslim Americans going. 

 

But why and who do you think is behind that? 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting LivingIslam:

 As a Muslim American I could care less about this trashy movie.  The issue has been spun once again to put Muslim Americans on the defense. 

Hate speech is violence within itself.  Who is violating who here? 

As for me I will continue to say that grown adults don't have a right to demand protection from a central authority from the thoughts and speech of others.  I will continue to say that Islam should not be condemned wholesale because of the actions of a few or some. 

We can hope that more people will take the entire issue in perspective, and not boil it down to a choice of either hating all Muslims or agreeing them with entirely, that they will pick "none of the above," then be reasonable.  :)

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Moniker
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting 12hellokitty:


Actually the MTA has since revised it's rules on what type of ads they will accept along with requiring the ad to have a disclaimer. 

Likely a disclaimer stating that the thoughts of the ad don 't supprt that of the MTA or the city. IMO that's not an appropriate disclaimer. lol

And a disclaimer that the views expressed don't reflect the views of the MTA isn't an infringement on speech. Those types of disclaimers are widely used.

LivingIslam
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM
2 moms liked this

 I appreciate the dialogue as well. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN