Shooting in Paris; bad one

[USS Wyoming]

What is much more dangerous as when in the face of terror attacks democracies start limiting constitutional and legal rights and social liberties of their own citizens in the name of fighting aforesaid terror ... then the bad guys start winning.

We have trampled upon our own liberties with increasing regularity since 9/11, while engaging in irrational denial of its cause.

Were told what not to say -Hell, even the former spokeskid, Jay Carney warned us about using our freedom of speech.
Were told what not to write - as authors who examine Islam are also routinely threatened with reprisals.
Were told what not to believe - Christian religion in the US is regularly mocked, insulted, made fun of, told to shut up, threatened by lawsuits, harassed by government agencies, etc while the so called "Religion of Peace" enjoys perpetual victim status and is unassailable despite its devoted members hacking of heads in videos, bombing Muslims and non-muslims alike with reckless abandon, gunning down there fellow soldiers, assassinating whomever strikes their fancy from school children by the hundreds, political leaders of every persuasion, to sympathetic Westerner's who think that understanding Islam will lead to shared enlightenment; all this while proudly and loudly declaring with great fanfare that it is done on behalf of the "Religion of Peace".

The US is a constitutional republic and Islam is incompatible with it. Until such time there is a world-wide reformation on the level of Christianity's progression from Old testament to New testament - it will remain a destructive force to all of Western civilization.

 

[2054172]

@ USS Wyoming This is one thing you and I agree on 100%, excellent statement.

 

[2054172]

Here is another good one in the Hadith 4:52:177 Allah's Apostle said : The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which the Jew will be hiding will say: "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so come and kill him!"

Koran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture(Jews and Christians) - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

 

[Ithikial]

<Admin hat on>
Guys not saying there have been any complaints (and there hasn't at least through to me) but given the sensitive nature of talk and the chances of a topic like this derailing, let's just make a conscious attempt at keeping it civil.
<Hat off>

Given events and how different people interpret religious texts for there own end (Christian, Muslim whoever), I'm just glad I'm an atheist and don't attach much weight to any argument that makes me rely on a thousand year old text for my proof. Texts that have also been re-written and edited to suit the needs of different monarchs down through the ages but that's another historical debate altogether. Going to a Catholic Education School growing up, you can imagine the grief I gave my old Religious Education teacher but hey...

 

[2054172]

<Admin hat on>
Guys not saying there have been any complaints (and there hasn't at least through to me) but given the sensitive nature of talk and the chances of a topic like this derailing, let's just make a conscious attempt at keeping it civil.
<Hat off>

Given events and how different people interpret religious texts for there own end (Christian, Muslim whoever), I'm just glad I'm an atheist and don't attach much weight to any argument that makes me rely on a thousand year old text for my proof. Texts that have also been re-written and edited to suit the needs of different monarchs down through the ages but that's another historical debate altogether. Going to a Catholic Education School growing up, you can imagine the grief I gave my old Religious Education teacher but hey...

Your are right sir on a point or so but I did not write their books or my book either, And I believe it is civil so far...just pointing out texts that show what a loving religion it is.

 

[Bert Blitzkrieg]

@Ithikial: just beware then, that atheïsme doesn't become your religion!

 

[Rico]

@Ithikial: just beware then, that atheïsme doesn't become your religion!

Any unquestioning, absolutist adherence to any creed/belief/ideology can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Nort]

We have trampled upon our own liberties with increasing regularity since 9/11, while engaging in irrational denial of its cause.

Were told what not to say -Hell, even the former spokeskid, Jay Carney warned us about using our freedom of speech.
Were told what not to write - as authors who examine Islam are also routinely threatened with reprisals.
Were told what not to believe - Christian religion in the US is regularly mocked, insulted, made fun of, told to shut up, threatened by lawsuits, harassed by government agencies, etc while the so called "Religion of Peace" enjoys perpetual victim status and is unassailable despite its devoted members hacking of heads in videos, bombing Muslims and non-muslims alike with reckless abandon, gunning down there fellow soldiers, assassinating whomever strikes their fancy from school children by the hundreds, political leaders of every persuasion, to sympathetic Westerner's who think that understanding Islam will lead to shared enlightenment; all this while proudly and loudly declaring with great fanfare that it is done on behalf of the "Religion of Peace".

The US is a constitutional republic and Islam is incompatible with it. Until such time there is a world-wide reformation on the level of Christianity's progression from Old testament to New testament - it will remain a destructive force to all of Western civilization.

The age old question. Do you want freedom or do you want liberty. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[2054172]

Rico that is true if it effects others adversely. Or of one runs off thinking they only have the answer with their own interpretation.

 

[Ithikial]

The age old question. Do you want freedom or do you want liberty. They are mutually exclusive.

Wait what? Okay I'm going to need some help here. Freedom and liberty are mutually exclusive to each other - that you can not have a state of affairs where both occur at the same time? They are the first words you'll find when you look up the other in a thesaurus. I mean one has slightly more political overtones than the other but they are on the same wavelength. Also dictionary definitions (Google).

liberty

1. 1.
   the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.
   "compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
2. 2.
   a right or privilege, especially a statutory one.

freedom

1. 1.
   the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
2. 2.
   the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

I don't think the follow up words for Patrick Henry's famous quote of "Give me liberty, or give me death!" was followed up with "But keep my freedom."

 

[Nort]

Wait what? Okay I'm going to need some help here. Freedom and liberty are mutually exclusive to each other - that you can not have a state of affairs where both occur at the same time? They are the first words you'll find when you look up the other in a thesaurus. I mean one has slightly more political overtones than the other but they are on the same wavelength. Also dictionary definitions (Google).

liberty

1. 1.
   the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views.
   "compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
2. 2.
   a right or privilege, especially a statutory one.

freedom

1. 1.
   the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
2. 2.
   the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

I don't think the follow up words for Patrick Henry's famous quote of "Give me liberty, or give me death!" was followed up with "But keep my freedom."

On the one hand, if you have "freedom" (the unabridged power to act and do as one wants) then you can do anything you want in society, free of restraints. That includes doing things that might be inconsistent with the interests of others. So the rights and interests of others can be adversely affected (i.e., oppressed). Those others are denied "liberty."

If, on the other hand, you have "liberty" (being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by others) then those others are not free to act towards you as they wish (i.e., their "freedom" is restricted).

In a society where everyone has freedom, no one is guaranteed liberty. In a society where everyone has liberty, no one is guaranteed freedom.

Patrick was arguing for a scenario that restricted the freedom of the British to do as they wished toward the Colonials. His perspective was that he needed to be "liberated" from the Crown's tyranny. His liberty at the cost of the Crown's freedom.

I may be getting too technical from a political perspective. When I got my political science degree from UC Berkeley, that was one of the first things we were taught. At the core of studying the science of politics, and trying to envision a utopian society, was how one grapples with this tradeoff.

 

[Ithikial]

On the one hand, if you have "freedom" (the unabridged power to act and do as one wants) then you can do anything you want in society, free of restraints. That includes doing things that might be inconsistent with the interests of others. So the rights and interests of others can be adversely affected (i.e., oppressed). Those others are denied "liberty."

If, on the other hand, you have "liberty" (being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by others) then those others are not free to act towards you as they wish (i.e., their "freedom" is restricted).

In a society where everyone has freedom, no one is guaranteed liberty. In a society where everyone has liberty, no one is guaranteed freedom.

Patrick was arguing for a scenario that restricted the freedom of the British to do as they wished toward the Colonials. His perspective was that he needed to be "liberated" from the Crown's tyranny. His liberty at the cost of the Crown's freedom.

I may be getting too technical from a political perspective. When I got my political science degree from UC Berkeley, that was one of the first things we were taught. At the core of studying the science of politics, and trying to envision a utopian society, was how one grapples with this tradeoff.

Ah! Now I get your earlier post. I didn't realise you were referring to 'absolute freedom' with no boundaries which yes I agree would be anarchy and chaos. Back in my uni days (again politics here as well) we always had to distinguish between the two as they were very different concepts. It was a definitely a point of confusion for some of us first years that there could be degrees 'freedom' and not only a black and white idea that you are either free or not. Indeed when most people in day to day discourse talk about freedom they are probably unknowingly talking about their own concept of freedom built up around personal experience (as I did earlier) - ie the framework of governance, laws and political situation et al they live within. No one could seriously debate that say the UK and Australia are not both countries that you would consider their population as 'free.' However, the degree of freedom both countries populations have to operate within is different given a wide range of factors. Not to mention how different political ideologies would look at it from different viewpoints.

Nort, given your comments about liberty above do associate that word more with the the Classical Liberalism idea of 'Freedom from' and the word freedom itself to the more reformist liberal idea of 'Freedom to' do something? Language is quirky thing.

I miss my Uni days and the hours of debate with my peers (but not the poor student part).