Posted on 01/26/2015 1:03:50 PM PST by Enza Ferreri
Rights are coupled with responsibilities.
Who didn’t know that?
The article does not distinguish between government censorship and a corporate firing of an offending cartoonist. The company can fire whoever they want for insensitive speech/media. But that is far different than such speech being against the law.
yes, the “you can’t yell fire in crowded theatre” concept...
We have the truth--which is verifiable in ways that Islam's lies are not. We have abundant natural and human resources, that in an all-out war, should the other side choose to make it an all-out war, would be undefeatable.
The only question is whether or not we have the courage of our convictions. I think we don't now, but we could if we wanted it enough.
Precisely!
Is the author hoping to plant seeds of freedom of speech suppression? Probably but we see though the ruse once again despite the fancy garnisments of eloquent verbiage and mood setting images handpicked to appeal to his target audience. Just another deceiver doing the Socialist tap dance once again
Hold the bus here Buckwheat. If you are arguing the the government is responsible for protectiing Christianity, then we have a problem here.
I don’t see the article as socialist, especially after going to the publishing site. The source is somewhere in the constellation of Pat Buchanan/John Birch Society/Ku Klux Klan, judging from other articles they run and the comment sections. White supremacy? If it quacks like a duck...
Wow, he has “discovered” something my parents taught me (more years ago than I care to confirm).
Oh well, my folks were only Cajuns with an 11th grade education (thankfully, it was through Catholic schools, which placed them in the Harvard 1940s-level compared to the jokes attending our universities now).
Currently they seem to have an obligation to protect Islam, the religion of peace.
“That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity, at a moment when like never before we need something to believe in and to rally around.
“It’s because of people like CH and De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.
By disarming us, the CH journalists victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death - in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.”
What a bunch of revolting, sheep fodder! To intimate that Christianity, which has survived hundreds of years of every kind of attack that Satan himself could devise; could be defeated and Christians “disarmed” because of mortal words of any kind! I am almost at a loss to describe how stupid this is but then I realize that there are many people who will buy into it.
Absolute free speech may be uncomfortable at times but it surely beats the dumbed down, socialist drivel that is becoming our government. This moron has made the act of expressing an opinion grounds for execution! Amazing!
Christians disarmed? Hardly!
Well said. It’s utter tripe.
>Rights are coupled with responsibilities.<
.
The Constitution does not state that because it was written by basically disciplined and virtuous men who thought that their fellow citizens were just as responsible as they were.
The authors of the Constitution lived in an 18th century atmosphere where people were held responsible for their actions, not foreseeing the total madhouse of moral values of the late 20th and 21th centuries.
Good point. My mistake.
At this point in time there are probably a LOT of people who have never been exposed to the idea that rights and responsibilities are married to one another.
At this point in time there are probably a LOT of people who have never been exposed to the idea that rights and responsibilities are married to one another.
The obvious fallacy in the above discussion was the assumption of an equivalency between formalized debate and all other sorts of civil discourse.
Whereas a debate may need rules, that doesn’t prove that all speech needs rules, since not all speech is debate.
That's how you know you've reached the limit, genius.
The obvious criminal cases are it. Everything else is allowed by definition. Its a freedom thing.
P.S. Let me make this really clear, because my Spidey-sense tells me you're trying to creep through the back door here: YES, it IS appropriate free speech to mock Muslims for their murderous barbarity, their enslaving of women and non-Muslims, and their efforts to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with Sharia. Got that?
Even if it enrages them to violence. In fact, ESPECIALLY if it enrages them to violence, so that we can use their violence as justification to go to global war with their damned murder cult and wipe them off of the face of the Earth once and for all.
I hope I've made myself clear.
>Is the author hoping to plant seeds of freedom of speech suppression?<
.
Whose freedom of expression do you value more? That of the Christians or of the Muslims?
“I value both, equally.”, you say.
Good, you’re a good American. Expect a long fight and lots of bloodshed that the Muslims will win in the end because they are the more aggressive of the two religions.
“I value the Christian view more than I value the Muslim view.”
Good, you’re a good American. You will have to muzzle the right of the Muslim religion because its view is in total opposition of Christian teachings.
“I place a higher value on the Muslim view.”, you say.
Good, you’re a good American. Tell your lovely wife to buy herself a sexy burqa.
Only true if there is no fire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.