All Comments (26)

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/donna_freitas/2008/02/secularismtalk_only_meaningful/all_comments.html

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/nicholas_t_wright/2008/02/what_will_replace_secularism/all_comments.html

>>Paganplace:
>>Backatcha, Watergate guy. :)

>>Terra Gazelle:
>>My freedom of speech says I can call our President a moron who could not wipe his @$$ with out being instructed. I wish him the worse case of ring worm and baldness...he IS the biggest loser, he makes us a laughing stock of nations, he is a unmitagated bore...but then so are most Republicans.

>>I want to throw up each time I see his chimp face...he gives smirking pigs a bad PR...can I say I hate him???I sure can...and no one needs to like it or agree.

>>That is freedom of speech.

>>I can not make anyone hear me that does not want to. I can not force anyone to believe as I do. I can not cause or excite to violence useing my freedom of speech.

>>That is not part of our freedom of speech.

>>Many of you do not share my opinion of the shrub...and you can state where I am wrong in your opinion. And there will be others that may want to add to my adjectives.

>>That is freedom.

>>terra

Paganplace: Get it straight....ok?

Terra Gazelle:

Websters states-

Gazelle - a graceful antelope.

Uh...No grace in your diatribe.

May want to consider a name change.

That is a freedom, too.

This society has also already shed a bad light on words such as gay...lets not prevaricate any more words.

Jihadist,

That would be wrong. You have the right to say any stupid thing you want in the good old USA. That right is restricted only in that you can't put others in danger by your words. And that is generally ajudicated by the courts.

Yes Ms Gazelle everyone has the right to be an ignoramus or a buffoon or a gutless wonder. Some of us - mostly on the right understand that eventually we have to behave as adults and get beyond calculated insults and actually reason logically and think beyond Republican equals right wing thug or religious zealot.

I'm still hoping for a reply from Jihadist or any other Muslim to my previous post pointing out the empirically verifiable fact that we Americans do allow people to say things with which we profoundly disagree. (My message was posted as "Anonymous" because I neglected to fill in the "NAME" box. It appeared Feb 3 at 2:52 pm).

Nihil.

Don't get all pissy over your name. I'm from the south and I drawl. Try to get over it.

And how was I to know you are so idealistic? Most people don't decide to redecorate when the house is on fire.

-Primmy Twoer

"But, of course, as you well know, free speech is subjective. We only like the free speech of others if we agree with what they say."

Thank you and regards

"J"

***************************************

Although you have a very good point by stating, "free speech is subjective," agreeing or not agreeing doesn't matter with subjectivity.

The point is does the free speech consist of "fruits" that will benefit humanity. One must draw the line or when free speech is of hatred, killing, destroying, or tearing down that which is good.

Left to the interpretation of subjectivity mass confusion reigns and anything goes.

To "I'm Primmy":

"Nihil?

Are you saying that America's Alien and Sedition Act, Espionage Act and Sedition Act equate to the Shari'ah Law used to sentence Perwiz Kambaksh to death in Afghanistan?

Do tell or shut up."

Well now, do you see anything in my post that suggests that those oppressive acts by the government of the United States equate to the barbaric Sharia law? OK, have you finished looking? Don't see any such thing, do you? Then why ask the stupid question? I was responding to Daniel in the Lion's Den's overly sanguine view of free speech in America. Do you really want to set the bar that low? If we are not as bad as the barbaric Sharia law, then we are secure in our freedom of expression? No, I expect more from a government that proclaims to believe in and to practice the freedoms delineated in the Bill of Rights.

And it is "Neal." If I had meant "Nihil Obstat," or "Imprimatur" for that matter, I would have written that. After all, nothing hinders me from doing so.

"I'm afraid that in your zeal to play the "mirror image" card, you have (at least symbolically) been caught with your pants down."

O the irony..

Jihadist posts are intended to charm our pants off and induce us (westerners y'all) to believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

Then in the heat of an argument- she drops trou and shows us her ASSets..

REPLY TO CAL THOMAS:

Yes, Cal. Aren't we Americans lucky that our Founding Fathers wrote the right to freedom of expression into the Constitution before you and your right-wing theocratic, fundamentalist yahoo cohorts came along and banned anything you didn't like. You remind me of a bunch of pygmy cave men attacking a Mastodon with their puny spears, and--after failing to do any real harm--declaring with straight faces that they never intended to kill it anyway. That's what you holy roller wing nuts are to the Bill of Rights.

REPLY TO: JIHADIST

You wrote:
"I am sure many expressions of free speech in the Islamic world is one you would not tolerate nor encourage as demonstrated thus far. E.g.:
- calling the United States the Great Satan and, United Kingdom the Little Satan
- the Iranian President saying the Holocaust never happened
- taking on and spreading the conspiracy that 9/11 is planned, engineered, encouraged or known by both Mossad and Neocons etc
- expressing condemnations on the Danish-published Prophet cartoons which is an expression of Danish free speech
- calling the west politically hypocritical, economically rapacious and morally degenerate."

Are you serious, Jihadist? All of the above, and much worst, has been said and written in the United States and Europe, and we Americans and the Europeans have, in fact, allowed them to be said and would, in fact, defend the right of anyone to say them. We also allow such criticism to be freely distributed on the Internet, without a hint of censorship.

I'm afraid that in your zeal to play the "mirror image" card, you have (at least symbolically) been caught with your pants down. We Westerners do, in fact, allow people to express words with which we seriously disagree. How incredible that you believe the examples you cite above somehow prove your point, when even minimal research would show that they are freely spoken in the West all the time.

Jon, let's face it, Jihadist is the type of person who only sees what she wants to see. I suggest that she begin dusting off her Niqab as her home country, Malaysia, slowly but surely goes more Islamic. How do you cook a frog without it jumping out of the water? You turn up the heat slowly. Jihadist is like the frog in hot water. She lectures us but does not know that in her home country more freedoms are lost each day. I suspect that she is really a he and probably an Islamist in disguise. Cause how else can you explain someone so naive. But of course, she will deny all this, yes? But of course, yes

Nihil?

Are you saying that America's Alien and Sedition Act, Espionage Act and Sedition Act equate to the Shari'ah Law used to sentence Perwiz Kambaksh to death in Afghanistan?

Do tell or shut up.

Daniel in the Lion's Den says:
"In the United States we have the Consitutionally enshrined doctrine of freedom of speech which protects individuals from political or state persecution merely for expressing their views."

Do we? How about the Alien and Sedition Act, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, the Smith Act? How about the movie maker (Robert Goldstein) who went to prison for making a movie called "The Spirit of '76" (in 1917) because it portrayed the British in a negative light, which violated the Espionage Act (since England was a war ally)? How about the man (Joseph Yenowsky) who was jailed for ostensibly saying, in a private conversation, that Lenin was the "braniest" man in the world? How about the Palmer Raids, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and McCathyism? How about Eugene Debs going to jail for freely expressing himself? How about the government's oppression of Indians in the United States who were activists for India's independence from British imperialist control? This is just a sampling of instances of government suppression of free speech, by no means an exhaustive list.

whew! jihadist has been called out and named and responds with another telling dose of heavy contempt..

yes. the west has an intense love of life compared to say... an intense love of death.. like say.. a people who teach their children to desire a self-initiated death made more glorious by the number of innocent lives they end in the process..

Hello Jon,

Don't have to shout out my handle here. I can hear/read you.

Quoi? The Occident? The Western World intense love of life? Of course.

The simple fact is, freedom of expression, freedom of speech has to be in terms Muslims who are not familiar with western thought, culture and civilisation understand and immediately understand and relate to. Better to go into Islam, Islamic history and contemporary Muslim thinker-writers for discourses on freedom of speech.

And no point raising what Voltaire and other Enlightenment figures said. After all, Muslim cultures from Algeria to Indonesia are different although they are Muslims. When the west speak of Islamic civilisation and culture, they are, more often than not, refering to Middle East/Arab culture.

By the way, hardly anyone speak of the Occident or the Orient, or Occidendalism or Orientalism anymore. The term "Orientalism", is somewhat tainted for "Orientals" - a branch of biased academic study. So, said many "Oriental" scholars post World War II.

And where exactly is the Orient and who exactly are the Orientals anyway? The Near East? The Middle East? The Far East? All of East of Suez?

As for culture, anyone can read and love Jane Austen and not be British. Anyone can eat and love chili con carne and still not be American. Anyone can listen to and love Bessie Smith and still not be American.

And thank you for your clarification on the Occident - the Western World and western culture. It was most illuminating.

Au revoir to you too and all the best.

"J"

JIHADIST: the Occident -the Western World is a culture and a society of people -it is not a bloodline.

I am not surprised that you will not defend another's right to free speech. You do not believe in free speech.

You may have attended our schools, but you've never understood the West or really fit in. Your knowledge of and fascination for our music scene, our fashion, our extremes, and our intense love of life is permeated with contempt. You may enjoy the ease of living in the Western World, but the strident and disciplined rigors of your chosen "virtuous" path will not allow you to embrace it.

Au revoir.

Hello Jon,

You : Haven't you heard- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Moi : I am not sure if I will defend to the death someone's right to say my mother is a w***e or s**t when she is not, to the death his right to say it. Rather, I will fight him, sue him to the day he died, or the day I died, for libel and slander.

The statement you quoted, and said to have been said by Voltaire, is always used by those who want to say anything and everything without thinking through.

I suppose, my saying Voltaire is anti-Semitic is something you won't agree with but will fight to the death my right to say it?

By the way, I am half-Dutch, so that make me half-western. My mother would be amused to hear that you think I am fascinated with the west and all things western. She made sure we know of her western heritage, culture, civilisation, but not too much about the faiths of her parents.

Perhaps I get it too cynically knowing the best and worst of both worlds?

Thanks and regards
"J"

My freedom of speech says I can call our President a moron who could not wipe his @$$ with out being instructed. I wish him the worse case of ring worm and baldness...he IS the biggest loser, he makes us a laughing stock of nations, he is a unmitagated bore...but then so are most Republicans.

I want to throw up each time I see his chimp face...he gives smirking pigs a bad PR...can I say I hate him???I sure can...and no one needs to like it or agree.
That is freedom of speech.

I can not make anyone hear me that does not want to. I can not force anyone to believe as I do. I can not cause or excite to violence useing my freedom of speech.

That is not part of our freedom of speech.

Many of you do not share my opinion of the shrub...and you can state where I am wrong in your opinion. And there will be others that may want to add to my adjectives.

That is freedom.

terra

Jihadist:

We tolerate a lot of things like you seem to think we don't. If we didn't tolerate them Iran's capital city, as just one example would be a black spot that glowed in the dark.

Look at all the gruff poor Cal takes from me alone. I almost feel ashamed of myself sometimes. It's that devastating truth and the freedom to speak it. That's what free speech is all about.

Appears to me that Muslims have awfully short fuses. Everybody with any brains at all knows the Quar'an dictates a pipped up stupid way to live. Prophet Muhammad. Yeah, sure. And we got Pat Robertson talking to God. A stupid jerk is a stupid jerk I always say and they're found all over the world.

If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen but don't expect to eat.

In the United States we have the Consitutionally enshrined doctrine of freedom of speech which protects individuals from political or state persecution merely for expressing their views.

What a weird, sorry, pitiful world this is that we live in, when you actually have to have this written down in a Constitution, and there are actually people who think it is a bad idea, and it should be changed, so that people can be punished for wrong thinking.

The United States has freedom of speech. It is true, everyone does do alot of yelling at each other, but the sky doesn't fall in every time people disagree. For everyone to walk around in lockstep, thinking and voicing the same thing is freakish, weird, and not natural.

JIHADIST said:

"But, of course, as you well know, free speech is subjective. We only like the free speech of others if we agree with what they say."

We don't "well know" that free speech is subjective. Haven't you heard- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And even more so with our enemy. May they feel free to speak their hearts and minds. We don't agree but we are interested and we encourage them to speak.

For all your fascination with the West and all things western -you still don't get it..

Your posts remind me of "a priest with a pornographic watch looking and longing on the sly..sure its stricken from your uniform..but you can't get it out of your eyes". (J Mitchell)

Mr. Cal Thomas,

Thank you for your two sentence statement above.

I am sure many expressions of free speech in the Islamic world is one you would not tolerate nor encourage as demonstrated thus far. E.g.:

- calling the United States the Great Satan and, United Kingdom the Little Satan

- the Iranian President saying the Holocaust never happened

- taking on and spreading the conspiracy that 9/11 is planned, engineered, encouraged or known by both Mossad and Neocons etc

- expressing condemnations on the Danish-published Prophet cartoons which is an expression of Danish free speech

- calling the west politically hypocritical, economically rapacious and morally degenerate

The list goes on...

But, of course, as you well know, free speech is subjective. We only like the free speech of others if we agree with what they say.

Thank you and regards

"J"

Backatcha PaganP.. Cal is NOT Chuck Colson..

REFRESHER= Cal is the syndicated columnist and author who came under fire for comments deemed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to express "Islamophobic attitudes." Discussing the (July,2007) UK terror plots, Thomas compared some Muslims to a “slow spreading cancer.” CAIR urged supporters to call DC radio station WTOP-AM to “express your concerns” and demand that he be fired. CAIR described Cal's comments as “incitement.”

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cal-thomas-defends-his-comments-against-islam-part-1/2971596370

Cal stood by his comments and CAIR backed down.

Here is a portion of what Cal said:

“How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?” Thomas asked. “Okay, let’s have the required disclaimer: Not all Muslims from the Middle East and southeast Asia want to kill us, but those who do blend in with those who don’t. Would anyone tolerate a slow-spreading cancer because it wasn’t fast-spreading? Probably not. You’d want it removed.”

Cal has the right to speak his thoughts on Muslims and Islam.

But as Cal's encounter with CAIR shows- it is an Islamic goal to preclude freedom of speech.

Here's an idea Cal.

Let's present the reading of sacred scriptures at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul along with the same interpretation made by the religious authorities to 5th graders in the public schools. How many do you think will say it was God in the burning bush and not Lucifer? That doesn't have you worried does it?

We can teach intelligent design right along side the Bible. You are in favor of all interpretations aren't you? It's one thing to say God created the world and something a bit different to day Devil did it? What that story is about is a world created by Devil that's superimposed on the real world created by the big bang. God did the big bang, no doubt.

The president said that the reason we're over there is so what's over there won't come over here or something close to that. What's over there is a one sided view of Muhammad's conversation with a supernatural being. The time has come to question just which one it was they, Moses, Muhammad, Joe Smith, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and a cast of thousands made deals with. Et tu Cal?

Backatcha, Watergate guy. :)