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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (511-520):
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM


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. 

 

The movie was out before 9/11. 

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM


Quoting Moniker:

I agree but what if it's not that simple? What if it gets more complicated? Let's imagine, the climate towards Muslims in America turns very hostile. What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common? Would your opinion change? Would you support some limitations?

Quoting Meadowchik:

 


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.  :)


What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common?

1.  Movies, ads, and other media have being made against Christians, Jewish people, black people and other minorities for decades and this hasn't happened.

2.  Violence against Muslims is lower than it has been in many years.  The climate is getting better overall in the U.S., not worse.


smalltowngal
by Platinum Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting futureshock:


Quoting Moniker:

I agree but what if it's not that simple? What if it gets more complicated? Let's imagine, the climate towards Muslims in America turns very hostile. What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common? Would your opinion change? Would you support some limitations?

Quoting Meadowchik:

 


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.  :)


What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common?

1.  Movies, ads, and other media have being made against Christians, Jewish people, black people and other minorities for decades and this hasn't happened.

2.  Violence against Muslims is lower than it has been in many years.  The climate is getting better overall in the U.S., not worse.


I'm wondering where you're getting your stats from because every place I've looked at is quoting the FBI and there was a 50% rise from 2009 to 2010. I can't find any newer stats but I know there have been more incidents around here. There is a larger Muslim population in this area though so it makes the local news and not national news. 

12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

 

Quoting smalltowngal:

 

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting Moniker:

I agree but what if it's not that simple? What if it gets more complicated? Let's imagine, the climate towards Muslims in America turns very hostile. What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common? Would your opinion change? Would you support some limitations?

Quoting Meadowchik:

 


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.  :)


What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common?

1.  Movies, ads, and other media have being made against Christians, Jewish people, black people and other minorities for decades and this hasn't happened.

2.  Violence against Muslims is lower than it has been in many years.  The climate is getting better overall in the U.S., not worse.


I'm wondering where you're getting your stats from because every place I've looked at is quoting the FBI and there was a 50% rise from 2009 to 2010. I can't find any newer stats but I know there have been more incidents around here. There is a larger Muslim population in this area though so it makes the local news and not national news. 

From the non-bias SPLC:


 

Anti-Muslim hate crimes soared by 50% in 2010, skyrocketing over 2009 levels in a year marked by the incendiary rhetoric of Islam-bashing politicians and activists, especially over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York City.

Although the national statistics compiled by the FBI each year are known to vastly understate the real level of hate crime, they do offer telling indications of some trends. The latest statistics, showing a jump from 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2009 to 160 in 2010, seem to reflect the consequences of a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric from groups like Stop Islamization of America. Much of that vitriol was aimed at stopping an Islamic center in lower Manhattan.

It was the highest level of anti-Muslim hate crimes since 2001, the year of the Sept. 11 attacks, when the FBI reported 481 anti-Muslim hate crimes.

The year 2010 saw multiple verbal attacks on planned mosques, along with several violent attacks and arsons and the first attempts to ban Shariah religious law, even though the Constitution already precludes that.

It’s not provable precisely how hateful rhetoric from public figures drives criminal violence. But anecdotal evidence suggests the link it a tight one. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim hate violence skyrocketed some 1,600%. But then-President George W. Bush gave several speeches emphasizing that Muslims and Arabs were not our enemies. Almost certainly thanks to that, anti-Muslim violence declined the following year by almost two-thirds.

The 2010 FBI statistics also showed a rise of almost 11% in anti-Latino hate crimes. The increase may be related to the vilification of immigrants surrounding the passage of Arizona’s S.B. 1070. Since then, even more anti-immigrant rhetoric has been heard around the country, suggesting that when the FBI’s 2011 statistics come out next fall, they will show a further increase.

 

 

Interesting SPLC makes no mention of ant-Jewish hate crime.  

FBI-2010

Religious bias

Of the 1,552 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

  • 67.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
  • 12.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
  • 4.2 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
  • 3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
  • 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
  • 9.1 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
  • 3.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
muslimah
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 2:25 PM

 

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting stacymomof2:

I'll tell you what, I'm not so much irritated as disgusted at the blatant bigotry being excused on this board these past couple of weeks.  I've seen you dissect an anti-Obama bullshit story in a heartbeat, yet this is beyond you, huh.  Jihad means terrorism!  Muslims are savages, animals, blow them into a parking lot!  They beat their women and rape their kids!  Sharia means stoning!  And God help any poor muslimah on this thread who has the nerve to provide actual accepted definitions of these words that are being used against her.  Ignored or told to get over it, her explanations denied like she is ignorant of the religion she practices.  Every violent protester is the prime example of Islam, the other billion and a half Muslims apparently don't exist.  Peace rally=anti-free speech, meanwhile lectures abound from people swearing that Muslims aren't speaking out.

 Meanwhile other people are whining about Piss Christ and Bill Maher.  Pure ignorance about society, about anything beyond their own tiny, pinpoint of a world where Fox and Breitbart are king, 'Merica can do no wrong, and free speech is only the speech they agree with.

Irritated is not the word.

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, futureshock.  Notice the quotes are around "the religious feelings of Muslims" and not "blasphemy laws are necessary."  Who knows what the guy actually said.  So Sean Hannity took some article from Breitbart and hyped it up?  Color me shocked.  But don't color me convinced.  

This comes from Breitbart.  Do you only like them when they talk smack about muslims, or are you a fan of Breitbart?  Funny you seem to disagree with them at other times, but when they talk about Muslims they are all good, huh?

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting stacymomof2:

Because all the articles that are saying it are from one source and just copy the same article.  Someone posted an article from the Arab newspaper that explained what the ralley (not really a protest but a meeting at a mosque) was about, it never mentioned free speech.  I myself lined the facebook event page, nothing about free speech in there.  None of the posters or event pages linked to the actual event say anything about blaspemy laws, they only talk about condemning violence.

No valid source has been shown to say anything about free speech laws.  A Muslim woman from the Dearborn area said the event was exactly as presented in the posters and facebook page, that it had speakers from other faiths and was a rally to support anti-violence and anti-islamophobia.  The only source for anything about free speech was a partial quote from a biased source that didn't actually say anything about free speech laws.

This seems to have stemmed from Breitbart and Sean Hannity, both of whom are known to misquote and make stuff up. 

It wasn't even a protest of the anti-Islam movie, it was people gathering to talk against violence and extremism.  Just like their event page, posters, and attendees said it was.

Quoting Moniker:

I'm sorry if I missed it but how did we come to the conclusion that this article was a hoax or a complete misrepresentation? I found several different articles all saying it was about free speech. If it's been debunked that's great but I'm wondering how anyone came to that conclusion? 


The only source for anything about free speech was a partial quote from a biased source that didn't actually say anything about free speech laws.

Is this the quote you are claiming has nothing to do with free speech?

rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the religious feelings of Muslims."



There is no need to get so irritated.  I am just trying to clarify the story.


I really like and respect you so I am going to be brutally honest with you. 

I am very sorry for making you feel angry, that was never my intention.

Here are my issues with this topic:

Jihad means terrorism!  

Terrorists who are Muslim are the ones who frequently use this word, Jihad.  They mean it in a way that represents:

ji·had

noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.

For you to claim that it ONLY means a personal struggle (paraphrasing) is disingenuous at best.

Muslims are savages, animals, blow them into a parking lot!  

I have never, ever said ALL Muslims are savages.  However, some Muslims do blow up innocent people.  You may claim that they are not "really Muslims" but THEY think they are.  They are interpreting your Quran differently than you are, but it is the same book nonetheless.  I think it is dishonest to try to claim they are not following Islam just because they are following it in a radically different way than you are following it. 

They beat their women and rape their kids!  

Are you trying to say that women do not get beaten in many Muslim countries for showing ankles, going to school, getting raped, etc., etc.? Trying to claim that this does not happen is another example of being less than honest.  You are trying to deny reality.  Many of us have seen or read of instances of this happening.  No one has ever said ALL Muslim men beat women. 

I have never seen anyone claim they rape their children, but I am sure you were just using that as hyperbole.

Sharia means stoning!  

No one has ever said Sharia means ONLY stoning, but for you to claim that Sharia does NOT EVER include stoning is, again, disingenuous.

And God help any poor muslimah on this thread who has the nerve to provide actual accepted definitions of these words that are being used against her.  

That is just it, you are NOT providing all of the accepted definitions of these words, only those accepted by YOU and the Muslims YOU associate with.  See above.

Ignored or told to get over it, her explanations denied like she is ignorant of the religion she practices.  

See above.

Every violent protester is the prime example of Islam, the other billion and a half Muslims apparently don't exist.

No one is saying this.




 

The word for holy war is harbun muqaddasatu which is word that you will not find in any Islamic holy text.

Shariah means Gods law.


Click to join

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

 Well, the link in the quote box leads to the OpEd of Arab American News.  You could read that, and then at its home page you will see a heading for the rally, click on that for the article.  This news website is published by the rally organizer, so reasonably speaking, it should give a fair representation of the the event from the organizer's point of view. 

That might be a good place to start.

Quoting smalltowngal:

 

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting Meadowchik:

So we have the event organizer speaking on limiting the First Amendment, and a speaker at the rally doing so as well.  The gist of the OP was correct, in that atleast one of the themes of the rally was to speak against the First Amendment.  It is not debunked.

The newspaper also prints its official opinion on the subject, entitled, "Government must join us in efforts to stop hate," and it calls on the government and Congress to lead the way.  LINK

 

If only they denounced the murders committed by other Muslims over this movie as vociferously.

How do you know they didn't? It's hard to even find online why this rally even occured or what it was called. Would most sites even print if Muslims were talking against the violence Muslims in the Middle East have commited over this movie? 

 

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM


lol, well, I never said everyone had to like me.  

What I mean is the things I quoted from the OP.  If you agree with those things, (not a discussion about free speech, but the generalizations and assumptions in the article) I consider that bigoted.  I do.  We can discuss in reasonable terms about restrictions on free speech being absolutely unacceptable.  What I will not go along with is these things being said:

from the OP: the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech. 

confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution

If you have any question about how this is percieved I will C&P the comments from the truncated article on The Washington Times and the Detroit News Weblog.  It seems I am not the only one who percieves the article that way, these comments show that this article, rather than being a reasonable discussion about free speech, is a reinforcement of bigotry.  I underlined some fine Americans pontificating on their oh-so first amendment respecting POV.

  • I wonder if these Muslims should be sent for sensitivity training since they offend most Americans. Just a thought...

    • Bert Penney, You are my hero.
  • Okay, lets limit free speach, and have them be the first to just shut up! How would they like that?

    • Just gotta love you Russell, Extremely well said.
  • I promise to not talk bad about a religion who would cut my head off because I don't follow that religion.
  • they can love their prophet all they want BUT NOT at the expense of our hard earned by the blood of patriots bill of rights... our country, our land, our civil law by US-Constitution...

    • Go Cindy, We're going to win this.

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his 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.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

I understand your passion and the way you express it.

Yes, often people can recognize BS when they see it. There are people who are looking for confirmation of their own ignorance, too.

However, IMO calling someone a bigot for not understanding bullshit when they see it doesn't help. = )

The people who are focusing on the words of a few people are probably looking for fuel to fire up their hate wagon. Those people are the obvious bigots. If 'those people' are who you meant, then disregard paragraph three.

= )




stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

CONT:


    • Go home Muslims. Don't like our rules or customs, pick a different country to live in. There are over 188 other countries to chose from.

    • They recognized some gullible idiots that would cow-tow to their BS sharia law crap
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

It seems you are dicussing the article, not following it.  So I wouldn't say that.  If you agree with the parts I highlighted from the article, I'm gonna have to say yes.  Do you agree with those parts I pointed out?

Quoting Meadowchik:

So you were straight up calling me a bigot? 

I can clearly see the hyperbole of the article, but the essential gist--that in the title--is still credible.  Notice in a PP that I quoted another speaker at the rally, quoted in an article published in the online newspaper of the rally organizer, saying that free speech does not protect things like the film.  According to precedent speech as in the film IS clearly protected by the First Amendment, so, in essence, the speaker was saying that current First Amendment law is wrong, or he does not understand it.  But the result is the same.

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his 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.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

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?


 


 


 


stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

That's not why I am calling people bigots.  Better re-read what I said if you care to know.

Quoting 12hellokitty:


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his 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.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

I understand your passion and the way you express it.

Yes, often people can recognize BS when they see it. There are people who are looking for confirmation of their own ignorance, too.

However, IMO calling someone a bigot for not understanding bullshit when they see it doesn't help. = )

The people who are focusing on the words of a few people are probably looking for fuel to fire up their hate wagon. Those people are the obvious bigots. If 'those people' are who you meant, then disregard paragraph three.

= )



Why don't people stop calling other people bigots for taking a different side?  In the case of the ad, it can be shown that BOTH Israels and Palestinians are at fault and extremists are fueling hate on BOTH sides.  Why don't people stop playing thought police on here and assuming they know the intention of the points and questions others make. 




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)



Featured