SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

tater · 08-30-10, 10:30 AM

Freedom of (political) speech in the US is absolute as long as you are not suborning a crime. It's the 1st Amendment. Ditto religion, though the "establishment clause" can certainly be read to prevent government sponsorship of religion—since personal belief is a "Natural Right" and the government can't grant you something you already have. I find the german laws which ban some speech abhorrent. I understand the context, but the end result is to treat citizens like children—which is always the wrong answer, IMHO. I suppose it is easier to accept in societies that are fine with the State as mommy and daddy. Myself, I'll willing to takes some lumps in the name of liberty. If that means listening to idiots I disagree with, so be it.

This puts the US in a pickle vs Islam. I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc. What % of Christian churches would be considered "radical" if their doctrine included death for leaving the church, or publicly denouncing it's beliefs? Right, 100% would be.

The best solution, IMHO, is to have a strict separation. Dump all special treatment of religion. Tax them. If they engage in activity that is dangerous for national security, shut them down. Note that many religious people in the US would happily have the government do this to "cults"—a cult being some silly belief system that is not YOUR silly belief system as far as I can tell.

Hold all religions to the same standard. Christians are hated (by some) as fundamentalists for Biblical literalism. The same people should equally hate any muslim sects that hold the same literalist beliefs. Instead, here, we routinely see people that hate Christians, defending a far worse fundamentalism. Boggles the mind, frankly.

We have to make sure we don't defend enemies of enlightened, democratic pluralism in the name of political correctness (which is what the left here bends over backwards to do—and the right often times, too, look at W's talk about Islam being "hijacked"—what rubbish, it was Islam being itself).

08-30-10, 10:30 AM	#7
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Freedom of (political) speech in the US is absolute as long as you are not suborning a crime. It's the 1st Amendment. Ditto religion, though the "establishment clause" can certainly be read to prevent government sponsorship of religion—since personal belief is a "Natural Right" and the government can't grant you something you already have. I find the german laws which ban some speech abhorrent. I understand the context, but the end result is to treat citizens like children—which is always the wrong answer, IMHO. I suppose it is easier to accept in societies that are fine with the State as mommy and daddy. Myself, I'll willing to takes some lumps in the name of liberty. If that means listening to idiots I disagree with, so be it. This puts the US in a pickle vs Islam. I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc. What % of Christian churches would be considered "radical" if their doctrine included death for leaving the church, or publicly denouncing it's beliefs? Right, 100% would be. The best solution, IMHO, is to have a strict separation. Dump all special treatment of religion. Tax them. If they engage in activity that is dangerous for national security, shut them down. Note that many religious people in the US would happily have the government do this to "cults"—a cult being some silly belief system that is not YOUR silly belief system as far as I can tell. Hold all religions to the same standard. Christians are hated (by some) as fundamentalists for Biblical literalism. The same people should equally hate any muslim sects that hold the same literalist beliefs. Instead, here, we routinely see people that hate Christians, defending a far worse fundamentalism. Boggles the mind, frankly. We have to make sure we don't defend enemies of enlightened, democratic pluralism in the name of political correctness (which is what the left here bends over backwards to do—and the right often times, too, look at W's talk about Islam being "hijacked"—what rubbish, it was Islam being itself).