First Amendment Right

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The diatribe that the judge gave has very little to do with his ultimate sentence. In fact Judge's can tend to give lengthy spiels when they feel strongly about issues. But, the bottomline is that the judge found that no proof beyond a reasonable doubt existed. If his decision is flawed then you go to the appellate court, and show why. That's how it works.

This. Pretty simple.

[mlmdub130]

how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private, if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea. and at the same time if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private,

Is a person's religion practiced purely in private? Why should I be made to only voice my opposition to superstition in private? No.

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea.

And why is that? Because religious people rarely defend their position with polite discussion, they have to use violence as they know they are wrong. The more 'devout' the more violent.

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

and at the same time if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.

Rarely does a religion show restraint unless it's forced to.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Is a person's religion practiced purely in private? Why should I be made to only voice my opposition to superstition in private? No.



And why is that? Because religious people rarely defend their position with polite discussion, they have to use violence as they know they are wrong. The more 'devout' the more violent.



Rarely does a religion show restraint unless it's forced to.

Common courtesy - Willipedia

Urban Dictionary: Common Courtesy

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

how about this one, they are both wrong. if you want to bash someone's religon do it in private, if we have all learned anything from the past it's that openly offending someones religious beliefs is a bad idea. and at the same time if you claim to be a man of god, regardless what god, how about using some restraint and self control. pretty sure every religon has some form of that wether it be lent, ramadan or whatever.

Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[djnemo65]

This is not a case that was decided on First Amendment grounds right? The judge just said there wasn't enough evidence. That being said, there is a whole lot of understanding the First Amendment fail going on in this thread.

[firstdown]

Why do we even worry so much about offending Muslim's and keep making excuses for their actions? I'm tired of hearing about their feelings and the stupid excuses for what they do.

[RedskinRat]

I'm still not sure why rewarding bad behavior has become 'de rigueur' but I won't be doing it.

Conversely I enjoy being called on my bad behavior. For example: This weekend we were at the Elrod House in Palm Springs, waiting in line for the shuttle bus to load up. The driver says "One seat left, do we have a single?" and this dude steps up, full-on Disco Stu type, hipster clothing at 50 with a very obvious rug, says "I'm single!" to which I reply "Wearing that wig, I'm not surprised".

My wife, who is very polite and civilized, elbowed me and told me to stop being an attention seaker but the others in my party and some people around me found it amusing.

If he'd have said something I'd have apologized, obliquely, and attempted to insult him further, but I am a collossal arse when I'm around crowds of people. I don't generally like people much.

[firstdown]

If this was a person crapping on the bible the left would call it art and provide federal funding for the arts.

[firstdown]

So Saden are you saying if I see someone burning the American flag under the law I can kick their ass?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So Saden are you saying if I see someone burning the American flag under the law I can kick their ass?

I don't condone what that muslim guy did and I don't condone what that atheist did either. All I am saying is there is a limit to free speech and for me that limit is crossing the decency threshold. If someone is protesting US policy and uses the burning of the US flag to symbolize their protest, that's okay. If someone is burning the flag at Arlington Memorial on Veterans day, I would hope you would kick their ass.

Ask yourself "which is worse, burning the US flag or burning the Bible and desecrating a statue of Jesus?" The Bible is the word of God and there is nothing higher than that. Not even the flag. If you feel that strongly about the flag though irrespective of the situation at hand, please feel free to kick some ass. Of course, if I am on the jury your threshold of getting away with it will depend on the the circumstance of it.

[firstdown]

Here's My First Amendment Right!!

F^ck Dallas!!!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Here's My First Amendment Right!!

F^ck Dallas!!!

Yes, Fck the Cowboys...just make sure this doesn't happen to you when you say that while at a bar in Texas/Oklahoma.

Texas Football Fan Nearly Castrated in Bar Fight in Oklahoma Bar | Fox News

[JoeRedskin]

As for the case itself, IMHO, it is one in which all should be embarrassed. The atheist's choice was in poor taste regardless of who was insulted. I don't care if you're an atheist or "religiously inclined", blatantly insulting the beliefs of others, with the intent to mock them, is simply wrong. Not criminal, not illegal, but wrong nonetheless - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a cornerstone of secular Confucian thought as well as Christian.

The muslim should not have engaged the atheist in any way other than use his own rights of free speech. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The judge should have simply ruled and shut up. His commentary is not the law. When judges opine about their personal take on things - as in this case - it almost always muddies the issue.

As to the decision, and as I understand it, the Judge's ruling was that it was one guy's word against another. I didn't see any assault on the video and my understanding (b/c I have not listened to the entire case) is that the police officer did not actually observe the altercation and was merely relaying that which was told to him (admittedly, I may be wrong about this). Would I have ruled differently? maybe, but the decision - based on what I have seen and read - is not so beyond the pale as to be anything other than one of hundreds (thousands even) of judgments made every day that different people will reasonably disagree on.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As for the case itself, IMHO, it is one in which all should be embarrassed. The atheist's choice was in poor taste regardless of who was insulted. I don't care if you're an atheist or "religiously inclined", blatantly insulting the beliefs of others, with the intent to mock them, is simply wrong.

That's fine but who decides what's in poor taste? What do we do when someone gets acid thrown on them because <fill in cult or group of choice> don't like <fill in imagined slight>.

It was a Halloween Parade, FFS!