If racist speech will get you ruined, why is insulting..?

Post Reply New Topic

Prophet Muhammad considered "free speech"?
we have moved past racial denigration in this country, if you call someone the N-word in public and you get stabbed, is anyone really surprised? if you use the n-word, or the k-word, you will lose your job and your reputation will be ruined... so why is it considered okay to insult Islam, rather than criticize it academically? what is insulting going to achieve? why would you insult someone dearer to us then our own mother, but say it's not okay to use racial slurs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym3Znb0w...

Wolfram, I never said islam was a race, I'm saying that if you can't mock race, why should you mock sincerely beliefs? And he is not a warlord, dammit, he only fought in self defense.

An idea is not entitled to the sort of respect and consideration a person is entitled to. An idea doesn't have feelings.

I respect people who respect me. Considering how most religions badmouth women, I feel that the gloves are off. If I as a woman have to listen to this s**t, then the adherents of said religions deserve to be treated just as disrespectfully as they treat me.

Why is racism called hate speech while insulting Islam is called free speech?
Short answer: because the Jews say so.

And what disrespect would that be? Hmm? Contrary to popular belief, islam does not allow wife beating, as this high scholar of Islam (Grand Mufti of Zimbabwe) shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyQahPZmvU0

also, what is the big deal about covering your hair? contrary to popular belief, niqab and burqa are not required. yes, the hair has to be covered but that's put in place so men will value you for your intellect and not your looks (although they might still find you attractive)
furthermore, slavery was meant to be abolished over time, as abolishing it immediately in Muhammad's time would have had catastrophic consequences, as demonstrated by the American civil war of 1861-1865...
also, women are allowed to work in public.
also, gender segregation is bid'ah (Innovation; a made up rule) and even if it was a rule, it applies both ways... again, i seriously doubt gender segregation is required because it is not in the scriptures. with the exception of in mosques...
also, women DO get half the inheritance of men, but that's because men are required to share the wealth with all their family members equally, whereas women can keep all the money they earn to themselves....
furthermore, there are more female engineers in iran than anywhere else, women in iran are allowed to serve in parliament or in any public job including president, and the REASON women pray in the back is because is women were in front and they bowed down in one of the parts of ritual prayer, their rising butts would be distracting to men, and uncomfortable for the women.

If you call someone the n-word and you get stabbed, you are are a racist and the other person is a (potential) murderer. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It is very important that there is no freedom against offense.

Why?

The principle of rights is one persons right cannot impede another. Offense is so subjective, such a law would restrict people's freedom of speech.

You can in fact use the n-word without facing prosecution. You can say it in context, and also in an offensive way as long as you are not directly harassing someone. Not advising it, but pointing out the principle.

What you can't do is racially aggravated harassment, or commit a public order offense. Same goes for religiously aggravated harassment. A hate crime is encouraging harassment or violence, or impeding their rights. Known as incitement.

There is no law (in most countries), of criticizing or even insulting historical figures. If I say "Cromwell was a tyrant, his brand of Puritanical Christianity was Satanic", no none should be surprised.

I can even say your religion is bad and your religious leader, deity are bad. This is just an opinion, if you don't like it don't listen. I can even say thing which are taboo about your religious leader, becuase the law is not based on your religion, therefore it not there to

No one group should have a monopoly on offense. If something is beyond criticism, that means people are susceptible to being controlled.

If this is not a value that you subscribe to, you might be in the wrong country. However consider the freedoms you do have. You have to accept that offense is inevitable part of life.

Freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want as long as it is not directly inciting violence without fear of punishment from the government. It does not mean a person can say whatever they want and no one can criticize them for it.

The OP is right that ( for a presidential candidate)bashing religion is no different than bashing folks by race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.

Most of the above are "ascriptive" charactistics: you don't choose your age, or gender, or race, or (despite what some claim) your sexual orientation. Its true that religion is not really ascriptive. You can choose your religion, but it is part of how you are raised, its connected to ethnicity, its tradition, and religion itself is valued in America, so it is put in the same category as ascriptive characteristics. And there are laws against discrimination based upon religion.

So in theory candidates can't bash Islam without being marginalized. But in practice America has had a long tradition of social barriers to the White House based on religion. For most of American history mostly Protestant America was unabashed about screaming about the calamity that would occur if of a Catholic were to win the White House. Among other things it would make America "a pawn of the Vatican" (just like electing a Muslim would cause something bad to happen today). The unofficial barrier to Catholics finally fell in 1960 when JFK won. The US is still not a pawn of the Vatican.

It wasn't until 2012 that a major party nominated a Mormon. The world hasn't come to an end yet from that either.

Jews are tiny group, but... major candidate Michael Dukakis is married to one! OMG! That close!

And the US is not even in imminent danger of electing a Muslim to the White House anyway. The only reason the issue is brought up is that certain candidates need to rabble rouse by exploiting xenophobia.