#2
'Cuz no one wants to answer the basic question no matter how many times its been asked.
The Globalists have no probs wid the US + EU + aligned unilaterally paying the bills for everyone else in the world - WHOM IS GOING TO PAY THE US', EU's ETC. BILLS? WHOM IS GOING TO GIVE + REPLACE THE JOBS THAT WENT OVERSEAS?
... ...@etc. in the name of "Globalism", by + for same???
FASCISM-FOR-COMMUNISM-FOR-COMMUNISM, NATIONALISM-FOR-GLOBALISM-FOR-GLOBALISM - IOW, THE PROVERBIAL SELFISH OR NEPOTIST "ONE-WAY STREET"???
[Dawn] RECENTLY, disturbances erupted throughout the Moslem world against the film Innocence of Moslems which was deliberately made to hurt the religious feelings of Moslems.
US President B.O. refused to ban it or take any action against its makers citing the American law on freedom of expression. Obama said that as long as this law exists in America, he cannot take any action against the producers. Also, it is election time in America and President B.O.'s opponents can exploit any slight mistake on his part to reduce his chances of being re-elected.
This should be understood and appreciated. It is what it is. Of course the violence against Americans has to be strongly condemned. But the situation has given rise to an important question: can such a right be absolute as American law makes it out to be? Should it have any limits or not? According to this law, there is no limit and religious sentiments do not count. Even outright and wilful blasphemy cannot be barred or punished.
For example, in a number of New York subway stations posters were recently put up which said, "In any war between the civilised man and the savage, support the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." The relevant court also upheld the ad as permissible according to American law.
Rick Jacobs, a Jewish scholar, commented on the ad thus: "What is the message of this ad, directed at the multitude of subway riders of countless faiths and ethnicities?" Mr Jacobs then continues, "By using the term 'jihad' in the context of war against savages, the ad paints Islam as inherently violent, evil and bent on overthrowing the Western democracies and their key ally in the Middle East , Israel...."
This ad implicates all Moslems as wagers of jihad in the sense of war, though hardly a handful of faceless myrmidons indulge in this and millions of other Moslems take jihad as a spiritual struggle against selfish desires, greed and lust for power. But it is quite legitimate according to American law. Interestingly, an Arab activist who spray-painted one of the posters was tossed in the slammer Drop the gat, Rocky, or you're a dead 'un! . Perhaps we have to understand why such a law was made by America's founders.
Those who came to America after its 'discovery' were mostly persecuted Protestants from all over Europe. The Catholic Church was persecuting them for defying its authority. They did not want its repeat in America and hence they wanted a law which allowed them absolute freedom from all such persecution in the name of religion. And so this law was made.
There is another factor which must also be taken into account to understand the American law. At the time when this law was made America had mostly Protestant Christians and no other religious groups had yet migrated to the country in significant numbers. In their eyes this law was not only justified but greatly needed so that no one used religion for the persecution of others. Had there been a plurality of religions as is the case today, such a law perhaps would not have been enacted. This law gives full freedom to any individual to defy, to blaspheme or to ridicule one's own or others' religions.
First we must understand what freedom of religion means. Religion is a system of belief and belief is rooted in one's conscience. In any democracy, or even non-democratic system, freedom of conscience is a very important freedom which cannot be tampered with. The Koran also greatly respects this freedom of conscience when it says "There is no compulsion in religion...." (2:256).
This right to freedom of conscience or religion can certainly allow a serious critique of certain religious or cultural practices as long as the motive is philosophical. Yet this freedom cannot allow ridiculing or attacking other religious belief systems just to humiliate one's opponent
This right to freedom of conscience or religion can certainly allow a serious critique of certain religious or cultural practices as long as the motive is philosophical.
Yet this freedom cannot allow ridiculing or attacking other religious belief systems just to humiliate one's opponent, either by a powerful majority or minority. So in all multi-religious and multicultural societies the freedom of expression should be qualified by other laws not to offend others' religious feelings. If a law on freedom of expression is not so qualified, it may lead to serious law and order situations in multi-religious societies.
It also needs to be seen in a political context as to which religious group or part thereof wants to misuse this freedom to attack religious beliefs or practices of other religious groups for political purposes.
The same situation arose when Salman Rushdie published his novel The Satanic Verses and the West defended it in the name of freedom of expression. This publication also led to violent demonstrations in the Moslem world and threats to Rushdie's life. In multi-religious societies and with political power struggles between different religious communities, such laws have to be duly qualified through other laws. But such laws should not curb genuine freedom of expression and that is always for the courts to decide.
Freedom of expression, then, is a very delicate matter, not to be taken lightly on either side. The law on freedom of expression has to be quite balanced. While it should allow genuine freedom of expression it should not be made absolute so as to enable certain mischievous groups to attack others' beliefs.
The situation in America has now greatly changed. It is no longer a uni-religious or mono-cultural society. Perhaps the earlier America modifies its law the better it would be for that country.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Pakiwakiland can FOAD!
Posted by: Water Modem ||
10/06/2012 0:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
See DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [Hafiz Saeed]OBAMA STARTED RELIGIOUS WAR ON MUSLIMS.
IIUC, thus the fatwas that call for the death of the film's producers, etal. may also apply to the Bammer???
and
* MEMRI.ORG > LEBANESE CLERIC: OBAMA POLICY COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER 9-11.
* SAME > INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS: THE POPE MUST APOLOGIZE TO MUSLIMS "AS HE APOLOGIZED TO JEWS".
#3
"By using the term 'jihad' in the context of war against savages, the ad paints Islam as inherently violent, evil and bent on overthrowing the Western democracies and their key ally in the Middle East , Israel...."
How odd. What a coincidence.
That sounds just like whats going on in the world today.
#4
But if adherents to a certain religion know that if they don't like something, they can simply go violent, act up and threaten until the objectionable piece is removed, they will do this every time.
#5
The situation in America has now greatly changed. It is no longer a uni-religious or mono-cultural society. Perhaps the earlier America modifies its law the better it would be for that country.
Paki-Land does not get us--probably never will. We are still largely an uni-religious society. Other cultures and religions are protected as a result of our Bill of Rights--something which is not so in Pakistan. There can be no compromise between our Constitution and Sharia Law. The islamic scholar (?) who wrote this is free to stay in Waki-Land and stick to writing about islam.
All this slime (and I include ZB) don't understand that even though Zero would probably love to ban this expression he does not have the authority to do so. Any serious attempt to, on the part of the gov't. could easily lead to a revolution.
#8
If a law on freedom of expression is not so qualified, it may lead to serious law and order situations in multi-religious societies.
Strange that since those concepts were enshrined (1790-2012, approx. 200+ years), we haven't had the significant and constant fratricidal issues that bedeviled the multi-religious society of Europe during the previous 200 years, also known as the Reformation, the Religious Wars, and Thirty Years War. BTW, something that is actively going on between Sunni, Shia and Sufi today.
Long, long piece from City Journal, so just a teaser here. Better than your average screed.
Even before his inauguration, Barack Obama was an imaginary man, the creation of his admirers. Think back to the 2008 Time magazine cover depicting him as FDR, the Newsweek cover of the same year on which he was shown casting Lincoln's shadow, or the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"--this in 2009, less than a year after he had taken office. It was not that Obama had done nothing to deserve these outsized comparisons and honors--it was not just that he had done nothing--it was that he seemed for all the world to be a blank screen on which such hysterical fantasies could too easily be projected, a two-dimensional paper doll just waiting to be dressed in leftist dreams.
Obamas hapless fumbling, bad temper, and inarticulate inability to defend his record were actually thoroughly predictable. They were simply facets of the man as he truly is, unfiltered by the imagination of his media supporters: a man who has succeeded, really, at almost nothing but the winning of elections; a man who cannot distinguish between his ideology and life; a man who does not seem to know how the machinery of the world actually works.
#2
The media has been one large Fun House with distorted mirrors making the One to be a giant and Mitt the midget. It appears, once removed from that artificial play of imagery, a very surprised part of America rudely found out what 'beer goggles' means.
#3
The historian James Thomas Flexner referred to George Washington as "The Indispensable Man", meaning that, as brilliant and determined as the other Founding Fathers were, their efforts to create America would have come to nought without the unique virtues of George Washington.
Looking at that little nebbish on stage the other night, you have to ask, "How exactly would we be worse off if Champ lost the election and retired to private life?" And the answer is, not at all. He brings nothing to the table except maybe the ability to do a good job of reading a speech; against which you have to offset the guy's pathological narcissism. He's a zero even by the standards of modern liberal politicians. Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and LBJ were towering giants compared to this guy.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/06/2012 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've wondered since the first debate what would happen if Mitt Romney brought up the shocking status of Black Male unemployment, how it has cratered under BO.
I doubt that he would try but I figure the sound of BO's head, and those of his sychophants, exploding would register on seismographs everywhere.
The mystery Obama... emanates instead from a journalistic community that no longer in any way fulfills its designated function, that no longer even attempts the fair presentation of facts and current events aimed at helping the American electorate make up its mind according to its own lights.... They have fallen prey to that ideological corruption that sees lies as a kind of virtue, as a noble deception in service to a greater good.
To be fair, this corruption existed back in the days of Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and going on back a century or so (think 'Walter Duranty').
But to paraphrase Matt's comment: Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley were giants compared to today's media personages.
#7
The mystery Obamathe hollow receptacle of out-sized fantasies left and rightis not a creation of his own making, political chameleon though he may well be. The mystery Obama... emanates instead from a journalistic community
I slightly disagree. In order for O-Teams empty vessel strategy to have been so successful a large portion of the journalistic community wasnt simply complicit theyre in friggin cahoots.
LOS ANGELES (AyPee) -- A DNC party propaganda film dramatizing the alleged death of Osama bin Laden will debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two (2) days,
just 48 hours, one day and a wake-up,
before the presidential election.
The channel says it will air "Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden," distributed by The Weinstein Co., on Sunday, Nov. 4. Company co-chairman Harvey Weinstein is a prominent fundraiser for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
National Geographic Channel President Howard T. Owens said Thursday that the film's air date is totally,
I say again totally
unrelated to politics and was chosen to help promote the start of the channel's fall season.
Viewing of this presentation is mandetory. "We know who you are".
#4
I'm hoping some development will make that not a good idea. Maybe we can find a OBL double in time?
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/06/2012 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Will Weinstein be releasing a film about The Benghazi Attack soon?
I think AQ will be far less generous in providing the snatched documents and technical experts that the WH did. Now Al Jazeera might be able to put something together for something just before the election. They could buy their access by pointing out that the production would be as effective as drones have been in removing AQ personnel from the play.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] RECENTLY, disturbances erupted throughout the 
