Quote from: Darth Fife on May 27, 2013, 07:37:43 AM
I don't hate Christian, you should know me better than that.

What I do hate are people who use Christianity as a shield for acting in a way that would otherwise be considered obnoxious and disgusting. The Acts 17 Apologetics where not concerned about preaching the word of God to Muslims, they were all about intentionally causing an incident that they could exploit to their own benefit.

This Arab Festival was no different than any other of the many ethnic festivals held across the country - Greek Festivals, Italian Festivals, Jewish Festivals.

These Muslims were not bothering anybody  - they were minding their own  business. If the Acts 17 Apologetics had done the same thing, there would have been no problem at all - but that didn't fit with the Acts 17 morons agenda!

Again, would you be as outraged if a bunch of Neo-NAZIs had invaded a Jewish Heritage street festival preaching the "Good News" of Uncle Adolf?

Did you even read any of the police report I posted? These guys were acting like assholes! They went around sticking video cameras, and microphones in peoples faces. They refused to stop filming when they were asked to and kept badgering private individals about how Islam was a false religion and if they didn't convert they were all going to Hell!

Hell! If someone did that to me, I'd start throwing things at them too!

Now, tell me, honestly, if Muslims did that to you and your family on a public outing, would you have at least called the cops?

I know damned well I would!

-Darth

Regardless, either you back the use of our First, or you allow the enemy to further corrode it's meaning.
This group had every Right to proselytize under 1st Amendment Rights, whether in good taste or not, it's still a Right afforded under the Constitution.
The Scum had no right to get physical because they didn't like the message, that's the law.
Why is this point going over your head?

Quote from: redlom xof on May 27, 2013, 08:01:04 AM
So are you saying that Muslims shouldn't get the protection of the 1st amendment ? ( I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm really asking)

Actually, I'm wondering if the Founders would agree that THIS religion deserves First Amendment protection. Personally, I don't think ANY of them belong here. They do NOT assimilate with our culture. Those who seem to only do so because they are 1 in 1,000.

As their percentages increase in any Western culture they begin to segregate and violence ALWAYS increases. Self-rule also increases.

Kind of a joke, but isn't it interesting that when they bow to Mecca, they are mooning the West?     I always thought that was funny:

Well what the hell is the point of having a constitution that protects individuals and religions from persecution if you can just say " that particular group doesn't fall under the protection of the first amendment ".

You set a very dangerous precedent.   

Again, I'm saying I wonder what the Founders think. I can post many of their words. They sound like me, but there wasn't mass immigration by these barbarians so they didn't have to deal with these people here.

Now PERSONALLY, I have no problem with ANYONE'S religious beliefs. THAT should be protected. The problem comes when you have a cult that openly advocates VIOLENCE against any who won't willingly convert.

In Christianity, "Jesus" (Yeshua) was/is the perfect Man
In Islam, Mohammad was the perfect man and the example they are to follow.

The two can't be compared. They are nothing alike.

PERSONALLY, a cult that advocates personal violence against unbelievers is a cult that doesn't have First Amendment protection.

QuoteIbn Khaldoun makes it clear that holy war is the duty of every Muslim. From his most famous work, Muqaddimah:

   In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.   http://pjmedia.com/blog/no-professor-ahmed-the-founders-were-not-so-fond-of-islam/2/   

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/05/muslims-stoning-christians-in-michigan-not-quite-updated/

This article sheds a little light on this subject in a relatively unbiased manner, I realize that it is a blog, but he has really done his homework on this case.  Also, if you take a look at the few comments on the bottom, you begin to see why there is such a disconnect in this thread, there were two separate cases, one with an "evangelist" intentionally attempting to incite the Muslims, another with a passive group.  The aggressive video is apparently highly edited.

Solar, I am sorry for posting the link to a blog, but I could not find a more balanced article.

Thanks for posting that. I started watching the short version when it caused my computer to freeze up (too many programs running) so I had to restart. I'll watch both versions.

And no, they are not the same group that won the settlement. They are the group parading the pigs head (it's vulgar to treat an innocent animal that way).

I have seen THEIR "edited" version, and while I have not yet watched what's supposed to be the "unedited" version, NOTHING justifies the behaviour of these Muslim 'kids."  NOTHING makes it okay. The only appropriate reaction is to ignore these "christians." First Amendment may not apply in this case, but it is morally wrong and unchristian.

Quote from: JustKari on May 27, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/05/muslims-stoning-christians-in-michigan-not-quite-updated/

This article sheds a little light on this subject in a relatively unbiased manner, I realize that it is a blog, but he has really done his homework on this case.  Also, if you take a look at the few comments on the bottom, you begin to see why there is such a disconnect in this thread, there were two separate cases, one with an "evangelist" intentionally attempting to incite the Muslims, another with a passive group.  The aggressive video is apparently highly edited.

Solar, I am sorry for posting the link to a blog, but I could not find a more balanced article.

Quote from: Yawn on May 27, 2013, 01:54:30 PM
Thanks for posting that. I started watching the short version when it caused my computer to freeze up (too many programs running) so I had to restart. I'll watch both versions.

And no, they are not the same group that won the settlement. They are the group parading the pigs head (it's vulgar to treat an innocent animal that way).

I have seen THEIR "edited" version, and while I have not yet watched what's supposed to be the "unedited" version, NOTHING justifies the behaviour of these Muslim 'kids."  NOTHING makes it okay. The only appropriate reaction is to ignore these "christians." First Amendment may not apply in this case, but it is morally wrong and unchristian.

I am in complete agreement with that, speech and action are wholly different.

A case could be made (and I probably agree) that this group was there to incite a riot. This is the group that lost their lawsuit?

The megaphone was a bit much.  The other group was ASSAULTED for their words. If you saw the Arab Christian in the video I posted, he had a completely different spirit, and they were right to award them the $300k

Quote from: Yawn on May 27, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
A case could be made (and I probably agree) that this group was there to incite a riot. This is the group that lost their lawsuit?

The megaphone was a bit much.  The other group was ASSAULTED for their words. If you saw the Arab Christian in the video I posted, he had a completely different spirit, and they were right to award them the $300k

I agree, that is why I wondered if (perhaps) you, Solar, and I were posting about different groups, perhaps even from different years?  I am not sure, but this is how I feel about it:

1. While taunting and inciting a group to act may be protected, it is stupid.  And reacting in a physical way to words may be understandable human behaviour, but it is not protected.

2.  In the case of the peaceful group that was arrested for talking, perhaps the festival should look into a non-publicly owned space for their festival if they do not wish for public interaction.

Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2013, 08:06:42 AM
Regardless, either you back the use of our First, or you allow the enemy to further corrode it's meaning.
This group had every Right to proselytize under 1st Amendment Rights, whether in good taste or not, it's still a Right afforded under the Constitution.
The Scum had no right to get physical because they didn't like the message, that's the law.
Why is this point going over your head?

So, you support the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at soldier's funerals and all of the other sick things they do?

-Darth

Yes. We (Darth and I) were talking OVER each other about two different groups. I don't like these "christians," and I personally don't think the First Amendment protects your "right" to disrupt a public event. Going in as a Christian and TALKING to Muslims, as in the videos I posted, IS -- 100%.

They are planning to move the festival to a park (private, or public, I don't know) where it can be better controlled.  Megaphones and disrupting any public event is wrong.

A few years ago, there was a parade in Cleveland (MLK Day, I think). A white guy drove up and unfurled a Confederate flag, just to piss off the group.  A few of the black guys chased him down in their cars and beat him up. The police charged the white guy with inciting a riot. The black guys weren't charged! I don't agree with that, but if that applied there, that's what they should charge these guys with (maybe).

Quote from: JustKari on May 27, 2013, 02:36:49 PM
I agree, that is why I wondered if (perhaps) you, Solar, and I were posting about different groups, perhaps even from different years?  I am not sure, but this is how I feel about it:

1. While taunting and inciting a group to act may be protected, it is stupid.  And reacting in a physical way to words may be understandable human behaviour, but it is not protecte
2.  In the case of the peaceful group that was arrested for talking, perhaps the festival should look into a non-publicly owned space for their festival if they do not wish for public interaction.

Quote from: Darth Fife on May 27, 2013, 02:41:15 PM
So, you support the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at soldier's funerals and all of the other sick things they do?

-Darth

You can not only protect speech that is good and right.  If we decide the WBC is vile and should lose their rights, where do we draw the line?  We all know what happens when the government begins to restrict freedom because of the "greater good", eventually that greater good gets big enough to bite you where it counts.  While what they preach may be hateful and horrible and completely wrong, we must defend their right to say it lest we be silenced someday.

A megaphone at a private event (a funeral) is a good place to start.  Same reason but they are even more disruptive.

Quote from: JustKari on May 27, 2013, 03:14:59 PM
You can not only protect speech that is good and right.  If we decide the WBC is vile and should lose their rights, where do we draw the line?  We all know what happens when the government begins to restrict freedom because of the "greater good", eventually that greater good gets big enough to bite you where it counts.  While what they preach may be hateful and horrible and completely wrong, we must defend their right to say it lest we be silenced someday.

Let me play Devils Advocate, if you'll excuse the expression.   

There are, maybe, 30 members of the WBC who believe that protesting at funerals is a good idea. There are over 300 million other Americans who would never think of doing such a horrendous thing. By any objective standard you might care to employ, protesting at a funeral is a bad thing to do - some would say "evil" thing to do.

Should we not do away with evil and stand up for what is right?

I don't believe our Founders meant for Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of Religion, for that matter) to be an absolute. I believe we not only have a right, but a duty to limit both for the good of society.

As the old saying goes, You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything!

-Darth

The 10 Amendment were added because the states refused to go along with the Constitution UNTIL these Amendmets were added as a PROMISE that the Federal government would not violate these basic human rights. So no, these rights cannot now have limits as long as they are WORDS and BELIEFS. Disrupting an event isn't covered under the First. You have a right to SPEAK. You don't have a right to force others to LISTEN.

That's where this group, and the Westboro group err.