Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[oldbadger]

............ there are three divine persons that are actually one being (triune God). This belief wasn't clear at first. It took almost four centuries to formalize in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381)..................

Yes........ Jesus never defined any of that.
To think it took four hundred years of manipulation to conjure all that up.

Romans, like the Greeks, did like many Gods, including female ones. So it was going to advance Christianity somewhat if a few could be produced, including Mother Mary for them to adore as well.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Not so. Jesus called JHVH "Father". (Most) Christians worship Father and Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit.

Then you obviously don't know the Jewish prayer Avinu Malkeinu:

Avinu Malkeinu Hebrew/English Text

Our Father, our King, we have sinned before You.
Our Father, our King, we have no King but You.
Our Father, our King, act [benevolently] with us for the sake of Your Name.
Our Father, our King, renew for us (on fast days: bless us with) a good year.
Our Father, our King, a good year.
Our Father, our King, remove from us all harsh decrees.
Our Father, our King, annul the intentions of our enemies.
Our Father, our King, foil the plans of our foes.
Our Father, our King, wipe out every oppressor and adversary from against us.
Our Father, our King, close the mouths of our adversaries and accusers.
Our Father, our King, remove pestilence, sword, famine, captivity, and destruction from the members of Your covenant.
Our Father, our King, withhold the plague from Your inheritance.
Our Father, our King, pardon and forgive all our iniquities.
Our Father, our King, blot out and remove our transgressions from before Your eyes.
Our Father, our King, erase in Your abounding mercies all the records of our debts [sins].
Our Father, our King, bring us back to You in wholehearted repentance.
Our Father, our King, send a complete healing to the sick of Your people.
Our Father, our King, rend the evil [aspect] of the verdict decreed against us.
Our Father, our King, remember us with a favorable remembrance before You.

They just came to hold a belief that there are three divine persons that are actually one being (triune God). This belief wasn't clear at first. It took almost four centuries to formalize in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).

And that is an alien god, a blasphemy and simply nothing to do with the God of Israel, period. If you believe in the Trinity, then you simply do not worship what Moses and Jesus himself worshiped, period. There is no squeezing around this problem. If you believe Jesus is a deity, then you don't worship the God of Abraham, the God of the Torah.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes........ Jesus never defined any of that.
To think it took four hundred years of manipulation to conjure all that up

I don't think it was conjured up. Christ was very early believed to be pre-existing agent of whole creation (Word) ... It was just one of possible interpretations. The problem is when one of interpretations became the only one allowed - dogma. Everything else became a heresy.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Then you obviously don't know the Jewish prayer Avinu Malkeinu:

Avinu Malkeinu Hebrew/English Text

/... /

If you believe in the Trinity, then you simply do not worship what Moses and Jesus himself worshiped, period. There is no squeezing around this problem. If you believe Jesus is a deity, then you don't worship the God of Abraham, the God of the Torah.

I know Jews had many many names for God (also Father). That was also my point. Christian Father is the God of Israel.

I agree with the second part. One God must be one person. Father is the Source (the only God). His will is to be fulfilled. If anything/anyone uncreated emanates from Him (as the Christian creed says and also kabbalah) then it's not equal to the Source.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think it was conjured up. Christ was very early believed to be pre-existing agent of whole creation (Word) ... It was just one of possible interpretations. The problem is when one of interpretations became the only one allowed - dogma. Everything else became a heresy.

Jesus never mentioned anything about that.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Jesus never mentioned anything about that.

Yes. But he left a powerful impression. Other many failed messiahs of the era were forgotten and not believed to be anything special (after their death).

 

[oldbadger]

Yes. But he left a powerful impression. Other many failed messiahs of the era were forgotten and not believed to be anything special (after their death).

OK. So Christians might have done better to focus upon what Jesus actually said and did rather than mangle his movement to fit in to what they wanted.
Christianity reversed itself in to so many cultures, religions and beliefs so as to increase its following.
Jesus wouldn't recognise Christianity as much to do with him imo.

 

[JerryMyers]

I'm interested in discussing this further with you but it is getting of topic.
Do you mind if I start a new thread and add your quotation here to it?

My apology for not getting back sooner to you on this, as I just could not find the time to log in.
With regard to you creating a thread and adding my quotation, of course you can, if you have not already done so, although I may or may not participate in this new thread. Not to say I don’t enjoy exchanging different perspective views with you, but I am more interested in the Christians view on what Jesus really said in their scriptures.

Never really plan to spend too much time on this thread, but, one thing leads to another to another and I am still in this thread. I guess people are right when they told me sometimes I must learn to just walk away.

Anyway, I am sure many others will participate in this new thread of yours. I am sure our paths will cross again in some other threads. Stay Safe.

 

[JerryMyers]

You asked for the constitution and the unequivocal statement. As written it is an unequivocal statement which allows absolute freedom. Through the years, court cases have defined a series of exclusions which are subject to prior restraint. One of them is “direct incitement to violence.” This has to do with directing someone to act violently, not driving someone to respond. None is “offensive” speech or “mockery.” Those are protected.

That quote by the Supreme Court Justice is not unequivocal because the phrase “not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable” is subject to interpretations. I can easily say that to provoke and to insult others’ beliefs is not an expression of an idea.


Expression of idea, in the context of the First Amendment, refers to a set of ideas, as presented by those who oppose the government of the day, that could impact development, economic approach or procedural change in the current government policies. In which case, the government of the day cannot prohibit that expression of ideas simply because society find it offensive or disagreeable. Freedom of Speech and Expression Protection is meant to protect people from being harassed, arrested and taken to court for expressing their voices against the government of the day. It was never meant to give absolute freedom to insult, provoke any one or any community.

Other than his questioning of the notion of forgiveness via pilgrimage regardless of sincerity, there is also the issue of determinism and the Christian attitude towards women. If you don’t want to see that, I can send you some scholarly journal articles, but I think the topic is not a necessary branch to pursue. If you want to see Chaucer as simply criticizing a particular institution and not some of the traditional (and by his day, he thought outmoded) beliefs and doctrines, then you can feel free to read it that way.

Actually, I was expecting you to show excerpt(s) from Chaucer’s book that you feel questioning the notion of forgiveness via pilgrimage regardless of sincerity. Probably I was not unequivocally clear about that.

“No longer around” is an interesting way of dismissing him. Swing and a miss again.

You mean he’s still around and I can actually ask him ?? That really, really summed up your thinking logic !! …..And that, folks, is a hit !!

So you put all the power in the hands of anyone and any group which claims offense at any time, and you intend to lead your life changing to accommodate anyone who claims offense. If you think that that’s a way to live then allow me to tell you to change because that attitude offends me.

What attitude offends you ? Poking fun at your silly thinking logic ??


Like Trump, you are so obsessed with projecting an image of power and strength – Trump thinks putting on a mask is a sign of weakness when all the health experts said masks can save lives in this pandemic time. You, on the other hand, think willing to change (if proven that one’s action is upsetting the sentiments of all the followers of a certain faith), means putting all power in the hands of the other party. Both of you need to grow up. Thank God, Trump lost !!

And I see the showing of a picture as part of a class not as mockery but as sincere teaching. And you are the one who jumped to a conclusion about my political affiliation and judged me by it (post 156). Strange that now you say it shouldn’t be relevant.

Firstly, I didn’t judge you by your political affiliation as I could not have known what political affiliation you are attached to, and I don’t really care. I was just asking you whether you are a supporter of Trump because I see similarities in your argument style with Trump’s, Secondly, nobody, other than those in his class, can know what exactly Samuel Paty was trying to achieve by showing a caricature of Muhammad, knowing, assuming he was not ignorant, that showing a caricature of the Prophet is going to upset the sentiments of the Muslims. So, you are just assuming that it was sincere teaching on his part.

I did in post 177. Now that I reread it, I see that the change of tense was an inference I made. So we’ll just stick with the immoral omission of a word.

So, what’s the difference between ‘often the best way’ and ‘the best way’ when both are referring to the ‘the best way’ ?

You are lost again. You told me (#178) not to be offended by grammar so I pointed out that..

Lost ??! Dream on.


When did I tell you ‘not to be offended by grammar’ ? Was it when I said “if you are easily offended by grammar…’ ? Am I communicating with a six years old here or what …?

you think it is acceptable to be offended by a civics lesson. The murderer in France was offended by a particular civics lesson, and I am offended by your disdain for grammar. You think one should be ignored and one reacted to.

What makes you think I am offended by a civics lesson ? I said, “If grammars easily offend you and civic lessons must include materials which upset the sentiments of others…..” ?? ‘A civics lesson’ and ‘a civics lesson that include materials which upset the sentiments of others’ are two very different things just as a fully furnished apartment and an empty apartment are two very different things. I am surprised that you are not able to make the distinction.


BTW, I am not offended by a civics lesson, I am just against any lesson that include materials which upset the sentiments of others.

Actually, I defend the legal right to be wrong according to someone else’s morality. Maybe that’s too subtle for you so you reduce it to a simplistic, wrong formulation.

There’s no such thing as a legal right to be wrong – right is right, wrong is wrong. The reason you are saying you are defending the legal right to be wrong because you misinterpret the First Admendment to mean the absolute freedom of speech and expression when it’s not.

My logic is determined by the existence of law, that’s true. Unless you want to tell me what the transcendent moral code is that everyone should accept, I will have to be driven by a legal code that is uniform and consistent for all.

If your logic is determined only by the existence of law, then, you would be the guy who will drive up to a traffic light and wait and wait and wait for the light to turn green, causing massive jam behind you when it’s obvious to everyone the traffic light has stop functioning and the reason you will not move forward cautiously is because the law said you can only proceed when the traffic light is green.

I’m just going to let this hang here for a minute. You are now saying that his killing was senseless because it makes no logical sense for him to do something which provokes someone else to kill him. You aren’t saying it was senseless because it is illogical for someone to kill him, but it is senseless because he didn’t have to provoke someone to kill him. So the blame for his death is on him, not on his killer. Wow.

Well, if you care to read to understand what was written, then, you should know that I did speak against the other party too. Here it is again – “Senseless because it makes no logical sense for anyone to mock and provoke the sensitivity of others which could incite a retaliation and senseless because violent retaliations is not going to bring good to anyone or improve the image of the retaliators’ Belief or Faith but only will make it worse”.

I quoted a Supreme Court justice who said that a certain type of speech is protected and you say it isn’t because it is solicitation? Speech that is not protected is a direct incitement to follow the words of the speech, not speech eliciting a response. Read up on Brandenburg.

Yes, you did quote a Supreme Court Justice. However, I just realized you also just change your position from saying absolute freedom of speech to ‘a certain type of speech is protected’.


And to say ‘Speech that is not protected is a direct incitement to follow the words of the speech, not speech eliciting a response’ is not that accurate too. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. pointed out – “When you create a ‘clear and present danger’ to others through your speech, that speech is not protected”. I would say showing a caricature of Muhammad and knowing that action would upset the sentiments of the Muslims is ‘a clear and present danger’ to others. Why ? Because history have shown Muslim extremists have reacted violently to such showing.

That is what I said. And you took that and imputed something else. I don’t believe that there is a right not to be offended. You took that and claimed that I mean that “to be offended should also be a right” which I never said.

So now you are saying people should not have the right to be offended, but people should have the right to offend ?? Wow.

 

[JerryMyers]

Actually, I recognize that to retaliate with violence is LEGALLY wrong in addition to being morally wrong. But since I’m not talking about morality (because different people subscribe to different moral codes) the moral aspect of any behavior is irrelevant to what I have been saying. So claiming my position on an issue of morality is arguing facts not in evidence.

Well, yes, to retaliate with violence is legally and morally wrong. But you are wrong to say different people subscribe to different moral codes. The truth is we all subscribe to the same moral code – those who carried out morally wrong activities are not because they subscribe to a different moral codes, they didn’t but they just lack moral values in their characters.

No, just to remind you that the core issue here was that a teacher was beheaded because of his exercising a legally protected right in his classroom. What you are defending isn’t some nebulous “retaliate with violence” but a beheading.

Well, ‘retaliate with violence’ IS an act of violence which should cover the whole spectrum of violence including bombing a building and beheading someone.


And I am not defending the one or two Muslims who carried out that senseless act as you are trying to imply, I am defending all the Muslims around the world who are offended when their Prophet was made an example in a classroom, but chose not to act irrationally – they don’t deserve to be hated or ridiculed just because of a few who acted irrationally and irresponsibly.

You said that both sides have to change (178) but in 187 you ask “ – where and when did I ever say I want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes.”

So I am pointing out that either you do demand changes on both sides (which would be “stop killing” on one, and “stop teaching things that drive Muslims to kill” on the other) as per 178 or as you insist in 187, you never claimed that Muslims would demand that the way the class is taught needs to change so they must be OK with the way things are taught.

Which one is it? Are you demanding changes or not?

Yes, of course, both sides must be willing to make changes in their approach if different communities are to coexist in harmony and I have never changed my stance on that.


In post #187, I was responding to your statement - “And you want Muslims to say ‘Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes’”. What you seem to miss is that this is not about who must make the change first for the other side to change, it’s about both sides willingness to change for a better world. If you want to clap, you need both hands – it does not matter which hand you raise first, but it does matter that both hands are raised and meet to produce a clap.

I’ll type slowly for you. You took my pointing out that you have “France should” statements and said that it wouldn’t make sense to speak of another country. So I simply clarified that my argument was centered on your making a recommendation for a change in the law and not in the lawlessness. I wrote, “If you, or Muslims think that the French should change, then you and the Muslims should get into politics and change the laws”.

it’s not a recommendation for a change, it’s a plea for both sides to make changes and it’s not about the need to change the law, its about changing people’s perception of how they view each other. If you still cannot get it, I will say slowly for you the next time.

So we don't need laws and rules for drivers -- we just need a moral code and that will solve who has the right of way, or how many seconds you have to stop at a stop sign.

So if you stopped at a red light but there was no one around, you would go through it because there are no other drivers around for you to consider? And speeding is not wrong on an empty stretch of road because you can’t contextualize it through a moral code? But you drive in a way that considers other road users so if you have a green light and want to turn, but the person on your right, who has a red, wants to go through it, you would allow his illegal consideration to determine how you drive. It would morally wrong for you not consider what he wants I guess.

Of course we need laws and rules. Traffic lights are not there to control you but they are there to ensure smooth flow of traffic especially at junctions.


Taking your example, well, if the motorist on the right has the moral responsibility and considerations for the other motorists, he would not have gone through the red light, now would he ??

“Lootings, thefts, killings and such, continue to make headlines not because there’s no law but because there’s no moral values and sense of responsibility”. Except when the people perpetrating these acts think that they are acting morally because their own moral codes justify these behaviors. You are OK with that, I guess.

There is no singular moral code which everyone agrees to. There are laws to which all people in a place are bound. Trying to explain that all people have to be moral according to YOUR idea of morality, and until then, they have to expect that others will act illegally makes no sense.

Moral code is singular. It’s just your perception that different people subscribe to different moral codes. Moral is about decency and ethical judgment based on one’s conscience. Perpetrators do not have a different moral code, they just lack moral values and ethical judgment and thus they do not have any conscience in their actions. And of course, their actions is against the law.

 

[rosends]

That quote by the Supreme Court Justice is not unequivocal because the phrase “not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable” is subject to interpretations. I can easily say that to provoke and to insult others’ beliefs is not an expression of an idea.

Everything is open to interpretation then. If I say "no" you would say that that is not unequivocal because someone can interpret that to mean "yes.". You asked for the statement that is unequivocal. The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying “no law” and yet later court cases have made exceptions. The wording of the justice is similarly unequivocal. Others have equivocated. The statement hasn’t. What you can easily say does not change what the statement is.

Expression of idea, in the context of the First Amendment, refers to a set of ideas, as presented by those who oppose the government of the day, that could impact development, economic approach or procedural change in the current government policies. In which case, the government of the day cannot prohibit that expression of ideas simply because society find it offensive or disagreeable. Freedom of Speech and Expression Protection is meant to protect people from being harassed, arrested and taken to court for expressing their voices against the government of the day. It was never meant to give absolute freedom to insult, provoke any one or any community.

That is indeed your personal interpretation of it. Freedom of expression is designed to allow people to make unpopular statements with the same protection as one who says something that people agree with. It gives the right to be wrong, and the freedom to offend. That’s a simple truth of American law.

You mean he’s still around and I can actually ask him ?? That really, really summed up your thinking logic !!

No, I mean you dismiss him glibly with a particular phrase which minimizes that he was murdered. You are having trouble with basic English and logic.

What attitude offends you ? Poking fun at your silly thinking logic ??

Does it matter what offends me? You have stated that if someone is offended, the one who offends should change. Are you now saying you can decide what offense is valid? Once I say I am offended, you, by your own logic, must change.

Like Trump, you are so obsessed with projecting an image of power and strength...You, on the other hand, think willing to change (if proven that one’s action is upsetting the sentiments of all the followers of a certain faith), means putting all power in the hands of the other party. Both of you need to grow up. Thank God, Trump lost !!

Again with the Trump references? I think that rights are protected and people should change to fall in line with the law. You want to ignore the law when your personal moral code tells you to. But I’m willing to say this without trying to tie you to any political affiliation by association.

Secondly, nobody, other than those in his class, can know what exactly Samuel Paty was trying to achieve by showing a caricature of Muhammad, knowing, assuming he was not ignorant, that showing a caricature of the Prophet is going to upset the sentiments of the Muslims. So, you are just assuming that it was sincere teaching on his part.

Fortunately, there are reports from students as to exactly what he intended and what he said. And that he excused Muslims who felt they would be offended. Murder of Samuel Paty - Wikipedia.

So, what’s the difference between ‘often the best way’ and ‘the best way’ when both are referring to the ‘the best way’ ?

You don’t see a difference between a claim of “often” and an unqualified “the best”? OK. I’ll update your card.

When did I tell you ‘not to be offended by grammar’ ? Was it when I said “if you are easily offended by grammar…’ ? Am I communicating with a six years old here or what …?

You told me “so excuse my grammars” and I choose not to. And, no, I’m not a “six years old” [sic], just someone offended by your grammar. You must now change it.

What makes you think I am offended by a civics lesson ? I said, “If grammars easily offend you and civic lessons must include materials which upset the sentiments of others…..” ?? ‘A civics lesson’ and ‘a civics lesson that include materials which upset the sentiments of others’ are two very different things just as a fully furnished apartment and an empty apartment are two very different things. I am surprised that you are not able to make the distinction.

So you are not offended by a civics lesson if it is structured as you like it, but a lesson which includes stuff you don’t like, you are offended by. The lesson in question was a civics lesson. But you now want to call it not “a civics lesson” (which it was, by genre) but by its specific content. Do you answer questions like “would you like lunch?” with “I would like lunch that has in it specific foods, but that’s different from lunch.”

BTW, I am not offended by a civics lesson, I am just against any lesson that include materials which upset the sentiments of others.

So curriculum and pedagogy be damned because you don’t like stuff. I'm offended by a civics class that teaches people tolerance when my religion preaches intolerance as this mocks my religious belief -- so the class must change.

There’s no such thing as a legal right to be wrong – right is right, wrong is wrong. The reason you are saying you are defending the legal right to be wrong because you misinterpret the First Admendment to mean the absolute freedom of speech and expression when it’s not.

I don't recall ever espousing a belief in an absolute freedom of speech, so imputing that to me is an error. As for the "right to be wrong"
Free Speech & America: Right to Be Wrong Endangered | National Review

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24397029?seq=1

Reflections on Liberty

https://cognella-titles-sneakpreviews.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/80892-1B-URT/Kirtley_Ison_SP.pdf

Do As They Say: It's the Law

Is There a Right to Be Wrong?

Pa. Supreme Court Update: Is Ill Will A Required Element of Bad Faith?

http://contentdm.ad.umbc.edu/digital/api/collection/Retriever/id/21299/download



but of course, you know better.

If your logic is determined only by the existence of law, then, you would be the guy who will drive up to a traffic light and wait and wait and wait for the light to turn green, causing massive jam behind you when it’s obvious to everyone the traffic light has stop functioning and the reason you will not move forward cautiously is because the law said you can only proceed when the traffic light is green.

And what measure do you use to decide when the light has been red for too long? Are you the person who decides and then rams the car in front of you who is waiting 5 more seconds, because your measure is “right”? If you want to criticize me because I follow the law, feel free. I would rather be taken to task for following the law than for not following the law.

Well, if you care to read to understand what was written, then, you should know that I did speak against the other party too. Here it is again – “Senseless because it makes no logical sense for anyone to mock and provoke the sensitivity of others which could incite a retaliation and senseless because violent retaliations is not going to bring good to anyone or improve the image of the retaliators’ Belief or Faith but only will make it worse”.

yep, I saw the “and.” If you think that that mitigates the ridiculousness of your first half, you’d be wrong. You also don’t say that the murder is “senseless” because it is morally wrong, just because it isn'te good PR. Strange. For someone so focused on morality, you don’t condemn the immorality or say “it is senseless because it makes no sense to behead someone.”

Yes, you did quote a Supreme Court Justice. However, I just realized you also just change your position from saying absolute freedom of speech to ‘a certain type of speech is protected’.

I never claimed that there was an absolute freedom of speech. You asked for an unequivocal statement (post 185) specifically about mockery and ridicule. I showed you the unequivocal language of the first amendment, itself, and the unequivocal statement by a Supreme Court justice. Any interpretation or equivocation is by others. The statements stand as unequivocal on their own.


àAnd to say ‘Speech that is not protected is a direct incitement to follow the words of the speech, not speech eliciting a response’ is not that accurate too. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. pointed out – “When you create a ‘clear and present danger’ to others through your speech, that speech is not protected”.[/quote]


Yes, that means when you CREATE the imminent danger by directly inciting people to follow your words and be violent not saying something that will lead others to respond. Schenk's language was designed to motivate soldiers not to serve, following his advice.

I would say showing a caricature of Muhammad and knowing that action would upset the sentiments of the Muslims is ‘a clear and present danger’ to others. Why ? Because history have shown Muslim extremists have reacted violently to such showing.

You would be wrong under the law. Also, don’t forget that the statement was about a time of war. In a time of peace, the justice said that the same language would be protected [“he stated that “in time of peace,” the pamphleteer and co-defendants “would have been within their constitutional rights.””] Clear and Present Danger Test So he would disagree with you…unless you think that France and the Muslim world are in a time of war.

So now you are saying people should not have the right to be offended, but people should have the right to offend ??

I’ll try to spell this out for you real simple like – I am saying that there is a legal right to offend, but not a legal right to be offended. To be offended is a reaction and a choice, but not a right under the law. Try to see the difference between having a right and having a legal right.

 

[rosends]

Well, yes, to retaliate with violence is legally and morally wrong. But you are wrong to say different people subscribe to different moral codes. The truth is we all subscribe to the same moral code – those who carried out morally wrong activities are not because they subscribe to a different moral codes, they didn’t but they just lack moral values in their characters.

You really think we all subscribe to the same moral code? According to my moral code, it is wrong to eat pig. Does a Christian subscribe to that also? My moral code says that it is immoral to wear a four cornered garment without 8 strings attached to each corner. Does your moral code demand that? Which one of us lacks the moral values? Who gets to tell all those cultures which say that killing a blasphemous person is moral that their characters lack the right and true moral values?

Well, ‘retaliate with violence’ IS an act of violence which should cover the whole spectrum of violence including bombing a building and beheading someone.

it also includes a slap on the wrist. Using a vague and general term sanitizes the behavior.

And I am not defending the one or two Muslims who carried out that senseless act as you are trying to imply, I am defending all the Muslims around the world who are offended when their Prophet was made an example in a classroom, but chose not to act irrationally – they don’t deserve to be hated or ridiculed just because of a few who acted irrationally and irresponsibly.

If you are defending the action of beheading as an understandable and inevitable response and equating it with the mockery which inspired it then you are staking a position which I find offensive. If person X breaks the moral code of person Y and you see it as at all understandable that person Y then breaks the legal code that both are equally bound to, then I see a problem. I don't recall, though, generalizing this to a ridicule of any larger group. Apparently, doing that would lead inevitably and understandably to my being beheaded.

Yes, of course, both sides must be willing to make changes in their approach if different communities are to coexist in harmony and I have never changed my stance on that.


In post #187, I was responding to your statement - “And you want Muslims to say ‘Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes’”. What you seem to miss is that this is not about who must make the change first for the other side to change, it’s about both sides willingness to change for a better world. If you want to clap, you need both hands – it does not matter which hand you raise first, but it does matter that both hands are raised and meet to produce a clap.

So as to your question, “where and when did I ever say I want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes.”” the answer is, post 178. You have answered your own challenge. You said something and then asked “when did I say that want Muslims to demand that the other side changes as well.” I never said “first” – you are claiming both are necessary but you asked “when did I say both are necessary?”

it’s not a recommendation for a change, it’s a plea for both sides to make changes and it’s not about the need to change the law, its about changing people’s perception of how they view each other. If you still cannot get it, I will say slowly for you the next time.

“France should” is not a recommendation for a change but a plea? Your pleas are constructed as recommendations.

Of course we need laws and rules. Traffic lights are not there to control you but they are there to ensure smooth flow of traffic especially at junctions.

Ah, so we need rules and laws. Sounds to me like “you are incapable of doing anything unless there’s a LEGAL SYSTEM which tells you what you can do and what you cannot do.”

Taking your example, well, if the motorist on the right has the moral responsibility and considerations for the other motorists, he would not have gone through the red light, now would he ??

Maybe he was going to buy a lottery ticket so he could win and have the money to pay for his father’s heart surgery and the behavior was moral. You do understand the idea of competing moralities, right? Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral code is singular. It’s just your perception that different people subscribe to different moral codes. Moral is about decency and ethical judgment based on one’s conscience. Perpetrators do not have a different moral code, they just lack moral values and ethical judgment and thus they do not have any conscience in their actions. And of course, their actions is against the law.

So when a religion allows killing because someone doesn’t follow ITS moral code, that is moral? And if a country forces people to serve in the army to protect the nation, but the individual is a pacifist, there aren’t two conflicting codes? Can you show me a definitive text of this singular moral code?

 

[paarsurrey]

If you happen to live in a secular society, such as France, you may believe that secularism provides a framework for democracy where:
1. There is a separation of state and religion
2. There is freedom to practice one's faith (theist, agnostic or atheist), without harming others, and to change faith if one so wishes.
3. There is equal treatment of faiths and ideologies by the state, so long as a citizen acts within the law.

Does the lampooning and portrayal of Muhammad amount to blasphemy, and is this harmful to Islam/Muslims?

Is mocking others or their loved ones a good human trait? I understand, it only shows the mockers have no sincere arguments. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Redemptionsong]

Is mocking others or their loved ones a good human trait? I understand, it only shows the mockers have no sincere arguments. Right, please?

Regards

Mockery is unpleasant but it's not life threatening.

I guess the difficulty for legislators, wishing to uphold freedom of speech but not wishing to encourage hate, is to frame law that minimises hurt. But is it possible to frame law that outlaws mockery without diminishing important freedoms of speech?

The thing that would make a law against mockery hard to frame is the fact that not everyone has the same sensitivity. Is it possible to say what constitutes an insult? If we simply say it's what an individual believes to be insulting, then we run into a problem of objectivity, and truth claims.

You might believe, based on the Qur'an, that Jesus is not the Son of God. I might take this to be an insult, even regarding it as blasphemy. On the other hand, based on the Bible, I might say that Muhammad is not a true prophet. You might see this as an insult, and even regard it as blasphemy. Should your right to free speech, and mine, be curtailed because of some potential insult, or do we have the right to share what we believe to be true?

Truth claims are not intended as insults. I don't say that Muhammad is a false prophet because I want to insult you; quite the opposite. I tell you this because I want you to understand who Jesus is, and to save you from what I see as a deception!

 

[JerryMyers]

Everything is open to interpretation then. If I say "no" you would say that that is not unequivocal because someone can interpret that to mean "yes.". You asked for the statement that is unequivocal. The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying “no law” and yet later court cases have made exceptions. The wording of the justice is similarly unequivocal. Others have equivocated. The statement hasn’t. What you can easily say does not change what the statement is.

A firm ‘NO’ would mean a NO. No one, other than you, is going to interpret that as a ‘yes’.
Let me say it again - the clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is NOT unequivocal as it’s subjected to interpretations. Your interpretation of that clause is that it allows absolute freedom (such as to mock, to insult, etc) is a misinterpretion of that clause. That clause aka the Establishment Clause, has nothing to do with mockery or such, let alone, allowing mockery. This may help to enlighten you - Establishment Clause - Wikipedia

No, I mean you dismiss him glibly with a particular phrase which minimizes that he was murdered. You are having trouble with basic English and logic.

Saying ‘someone is no longer around’ means dismissing that someone ?? OK, let me rephrase that original question - Ask someone who was murdered, dead ? That sounds better to you ? No matter how you want me to say it, it could never hide your trouble with logic and basic English sayings.

Does it matter what offends me? You have stated that if someone is offended, the one who offends should change. Are you now saying you can decide what offense is valid? Once I say I am offended, you, by your own logic, must change.

Where and when exactly did I state if someone is offended, the one who offends should change ?? Please quote it.

Again with the Trump references? I think that rights are protected and people should change to fall in line with the law. You want to ignore the law when your personal moral code tells you to. But I’m willing to say this without trying to tie you to any political affiliation by association.

Again with the Trump references ??? Why not ?? Especially when I can see similarities between you and Trump. And what has this got to do with any political affiliation ? You need to do something about you’re the logic of your thinking process – it’s really screwed up.

Fortunately, there are reports from students as to exactly what he intended and what he said. And that he excused Muslims who felt they would be offended. Murder of Samuel Paty - Wikipedia.

Oh really ?? So if I said to you “Please leave the room as I am about to insult your mother” and by saying that it means you have given me the permission to insult your mother ??

You don’t see a difference between a claim of “often” and an unqualified “the best”? OK. I’ll update your card.

You tell me then what’s the difference between ‘often the best way’ and ‘the best way’ – lets be specific here.

So you are not offended by a civics lesson if it is structured as you like it, but a lesson which includes stuff you don’t like, you are offended by. The lesson in question was a civics lesson. But you now want to call it not “a civics lesson” (which it was, by genre) but by its specific content. Do you answer questions like “would you like lunch?” with “I would like lunch that has in it specific foods, but that’s different from lunch.”

Are you really that simple minded of a person ?? And what’s wrong if somebody ask me “would you like lunch?” and I responded with “Yeah, I would like to have a beef burger” ?

The fact that you can’t see that your lunch analogy is not in the same context as the comparison between a standard civics lesson and a civics lesson that upset the sentiments of millions of others, tells me how simple minded you are. Do you attend seminars which have your interests or do you attend any seminar just because they are all seminars ?? You said you are not a 6 years old and I agree, you are just a 4 years old.

So curriculum and pedagogy be damned because you don’t like stuff. I'm offended by a civics class that teaches people tolerance when my religion preaches intolerance as this mocks my religious belief -- so the class must change.

Say what ?? You are offended by a civics class that teaches tolerance ?? Really ? That speaks volumes of your character and your state of mind. You need help, buddy.

I don't recall ever espousing a belief in an absolute freedom of speech, so imputing that to me is an error. As for the "right to be wrong"

You don’t recall ever espousing a belief in an absolute freedom of speech? How convenient ! You interpreted the First Amendment as an absolute freedom of speech. Here’s what you said of the First Amendment – “As written it is an unequivocal statement which allows absolute freedom”. Still claiming loss of memory ??

And what measure do you use to decide when the light has been red for too long? Are you the person who decides and then rams the car in front of you who is waiting 5 more seconds, because your measure is “right”? If you want to criticize me because I follow the law, feel free. I would rather be taken to task for following the law than for not following the law.

Are you kidding me ? Are you telling me that you do not know how to tell when a red or a green is too long or too quick ? Even my 10 years old kid can know that and sense something is not right with the traffic lights. Oh I forgot, you need the law to tell you that.

yep, I saw the “and.” If you think that that mitigates the ridiculousness of your first half, you’d be wrong. You also don’t say that the murder is “senseless” because it is morally wrong, just because it isn'te good PR. Strange. For someone so focused on morality, you don’t condemn the immorality or say “it is senseless because it makes no sense to behead someone.”

You saw that but that’s not good enough for you but the passage in the First Amendment is good enough for you to conclude that as absolute freedom of speech ?? Are you for real ?? Well, I know for sure I don’t support senseless killing committed by any side and it does not matter to me how you want to describe it. Senseless killing is senseless killing and no one can defend that and I think most, if not all, rational people will know what senseless killing is.

I never claimed that there was an absolute freedom of speech. You asked for an unequivocal statement (post 185) specifically about mockery and ridicule. I showed you the unequivocal language of the first amendment, itself, and the unequivocal statement by a Supreme Court justice. Any interpretation or equivocation is by others. The statements stand as unequivocal on their own.

Yah, right !! You better be 100 percent sure before saying ‘I never claimed….’ or ‘I don’t recall…..’ else no one will take you seriously.

I’ll try to spell this out for you real simple like – I am saying that there is a legal right to offend, but not a legal right to be offended. To be offended is a reaction and a choice, but not a right under the law. Try to see the difference between having a right and having a legal right.

So, you are telling me, to be offended is a choice, and to offend is not a choice because it’s legal ?? Well, that’s 'real simple' to understand. Fact is, no matter how you want to spell it out, you are just telling me how screwed up is your mind.

 

[JerryMyers]

You really think we all subscribe to the same moral code? According to my moral code, it is wrong to eat pig. Does a Christian subscribe to that also? My moral code says that it is immoral to wear a four cornered garment without 8 strings attached to each corner. Does your moral code demand that? Which one of us lacks the moral values? Who gets to tell all those cultures which say that killing a blasphemous person is moral that their characters lack the right and true moral values?

Whether you eat pork or not is your choice, it’s not a matter of moral code. Muslims don’t eat pork because their Faith prohibits them from doing so. Wearing a bikini or just a speedo trunk will not be the proper attire to attend a shareholders meeting but it is at the beach or at swimming pools. Likewise, wearing a four cornered garment without strings attached as worn by Muslims performing pilgrimage in Mecca should not offend anyone, but wearing similar garments in the streets may offend some. Again, none of these is about moral codes, its about choices and complying to the respective religious standards.

it also includes a slap on the wrist. Using a vague and general term sanitizes the behavior.

A slap on the wrist is an act of violence to you ?? OK. I will update your card.

If you are defending the action of beheading as an understandable and inevitable response and equating it with the mockery which inspired it then you are staking a position which I find offensive. If person X breaks the moral code of person Y and you see it as at all understandable that person Y then breaks the legal code that both are equally bound to, then I see a problem. I don't recall, though, generalizing this to a ridicule of any larger group. Apparently, doing that would lead inevitably and understandably to my being beheaded.

When and where did I ever say or imply that I am defending senseless killing unless to you beheading is not a senseless killing. You are just embarrassing yourself in your futile attempts to demonize me.

So as to your question, “where and when did I ever say I want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes.”” the answer is, post 178. You have answered your own challenge. You said something and then asked “when did I say that want Muslims to demand that the other side changes as well.” I never said “first” – you are claiming both are necessary but you asked “when did I say both are necessary?”

Post #178 ?? You mind show me where (in Post #178) did I say “I want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes?”

“France should” is not a recommendation for a change but a plea? Your pleas are constructed as recommendations.

The plea is for both sides to change, not “France should”. Then again, I cannot expect your simple mind to understand that.

Ah, so we need rules and laws. Sounds to me like “you are incapable of doing anything unless there’s a LEGAL SYSTEM which tells you what you can do and what you cannot do.”

Ah, again, you are exposing your incapability to think rationally and logically. To you, if the law allows you to offend others, therefore, you must offend others. It would never dawn on you, that to offend is a choice – you can choose not to offend. The laws are just guidelines for rational people to go about their daily lives in an orderly and safe environment. For irrational people, the law is a warning to them to toe the line and, crossing the line will have legal consequences. But then again, you would not understand that.

Maybe he was going to buy a lottery ticket so he could win and have the money to pay for his father’s heart surgery and the behavior was moral. You do understand the idea of competing moralities, right? Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

He jumps the red light because he was going to buy a lottery ticket ? Please, you can do better than that. And saying ‘maybe’ is not going to win you cases in a court either. Imagine in a court case, the defense attorney said “Maybe he was killed because he refused to give my client the money to buy lottery tickets to fund his father heart surgery”. Really ??

So when a religion allows killing because someone doesn’t follow ITS moral code, that is moral? And if a country forces people to serve in the army to protect the nation, but the individual is a pacifist, there aren’t two conflicting codes? Can you show me a definitive text of this singular moral code?

The Dictionary of Cambridge defines moral as “relating to the standards of good or bad behavior, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws”. This set of standards is singular and universal and preached by all Faiths. Don’t tell you don’t know what constitutes honesty, fairness and good behavior – surely you don’t need the Law too to tell you that !

 

[rosends]

àA firm ‘NO’ would mean a NO. No one, other than you, is going to interpret that as a ‘yes’.
Let me say it again - the clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is NOT unequivocal as it’s subjected to interpretations.

So a firm “NO” would mean a “NO” which no one while interpret but then you say that the words“No law” can be interpreted otherwise.

Your interpretation of that clause is that it allows absolute freedom (such as to mock, to insult, etc) is a misinterpretion of that clause.

Actually, I never said that though you keep insisting I did. I pointed out that there are all sorts of exceptions to the first amendment including protecting mockery. I then gave a quote from a supreme court justice supporting that point.

That clause aka the Establishment Clause, has nothing to do with mockery or such, let alone, allowing mockery. This may help to enlighten you - Establishment Clause - Wikipedia

Why would you cite the Establishment Clause (the first part of the first amendment, that deals with religion) when talking about the second part, speech?

Saying ‘someone is no longer around’ means dismissing that someone ?? OK, let me rephrase that original question - Ask someone who was murdered, dead ? That sounds better to you ? No matter how you want me to say it, it could never hide your trouble with logic and basic English sayings.

When I made a point about how he was murdered and you dismiss him as “not around” then you reduce the circumstances through your language.

Where and when exactly did I state if someone is offended, the one who offends should change ?? Please quote it.

Post 196, “ If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”

Oh really ?? So if I said to you “Please leave the room as I am about to insult your mother” and by saying that it means you have given me the permission to insult your mother ??

If it is protected speech (which it is) then while it might be mean or offensive, it is still protected and at least I am providing a trigger warning. By the way, teachers do this. If I have a student whose parent died, before I teacher some aspects of Shakespeare, I warn the student that it might be hurtful and the student might want to take a walk.

You tell me then what’s the difference between ‘often the best way’ and ‘the best way’ – lets be specific here.

Specifically, “often” means “not always”. Omitting it leaves the statement as a blanket with no exceptions. Words have specific meanings. Taking one out creates a different meaning. Is this news to you?

The fact that you can’t see that your lunch analogy is not in the same context as the comparison between a standard civics lesson and a civics lesson that upset the sentiments of millions of others, tells me how simple minded you are. Do you attend seminars which have your interests or do you attend any seminar just because they are all seminars ?? You said you are not a 6 years old and I agree, you are just a 4 years old.

The fact that you can’t see that any civics lesson could offend someone (communists hate lessons about capitalism and its successes) is sad. The fact that you can’t see that there is a difference between the indefinite article and a qualifying phrase is likewise sad.

Say what ?? You are offended by a civics class that teaches tolerance ?? Really ? That speaks volumes of your character and your state of mind. You need help, buddy.

When did I ever mention a civics class that teaches tolerance? Making stuff up isn’t helpful.

You don’t recall ever espousing a belief in an absolute freedom of speech? How convenient ! You interpreted the First Amendment as an absolute freedom of speech. Here’s what you said of the First Amendment – “As written it is an unequivocal statement which allows absolute freedom”. Still claiming loss of memory ??

First, I quoted, and didn’t espouse - look the word up if you don't know. Second, I quoted in response to what you asked me to present, a constitutional statement which is unequivocal, as this is. Notice how I said “as written, it is” not “I believe”.

Are you kidding me ? Are you telling me that you do not know how to tell when a red or a green is too long or too quick ? Even my 10 years old kid can know that and sense something is not right with the traffic lights. Oh I forgot, you need the law to tell you that.

So since you are so expert, what is “too long or too quick” and how did you get to that conclusion, and does it apply to every light? This is clearly a matter of your morals, so lay them out.

You saw that but that’s not good enough for you but the passage in the First Amendment is good enough for you to conclude that as absolute freedom of speech ??

Still, no.

Yah, right !! You better be 100 percent sure before saying ‘I never claimed….’ or ‘I don’t recall…..’ else no one will take you seriously.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills before you start typing.

So, you are telling me, to be offended is a choice, and to offend is not a choice because it’s legal ??

Um, no. To be offended is a choice and to offend is a protected right. Since when does something’s being protected as legal mean it is not a choice. I can also choose not to offend so to offend is a choice as well.

 

[rosends]

Whether you eat pork or not is your choice, it’s not a matter of moral code.

My religious code isn’t a moral code? Wow. But showing a picture of Muhammed as blasphemy is a matter of a moral code? Did you know that in my religion, embarrassing someone is not allowed? Is that a moral law or not?


You have a very strange idea about what is part of a moral code – it includes laws of driving a car, but not rules governing personal behavior.

A slap on the wrist is an act of violence to you ?? OK. I will update your card.

Good. Because yes, that is violence.

When and where did I ever say or imply that I am defending senseless killing unless to you beheading is not a senseless killing. You are just embarrassing yourself in your futile attempts to demonize me.

Once you say that the killing was a predictable retaliation and the teacher brought it on himself through his teaching, you are rationalizing murder. When you say that it was senseless because THE TEACHER should not have taught something, you are refusing to place blame on the murderer.

You mind show me where (in Post #178) did I say “I want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes?”

Here is your quote from 178, “if we want to stop these senseless killings, then, both sides have to make changes in their approach”


So you are saying that BOTH have to make changes which, in this case, is changing how the civics class is taught.

The plea is for both sides to change, not “France should”. Then again, I cannot expect your simple mind to understand that.

Responding to something which wasn’t the subject isn’t helpful. You are shifting the focus because I answered exactly what you asked. You made a series of "France should" recommendations. I pointed out that these recommendations can be pursued through changes to the law. Then you called them pleas and I pointed out that "should" is the language of a recommendation, not a plea. Now you shift again to "both sides".

Ah, again, you are exposing your incapability to think rationally and logically. To you, if the law allows you to offend others, therefore, you must offend others.

Really? Where did I say that? I said you have a right to offend others, not an obligation. Inventing my position isn’t useful.

For irrational people, the law is a warning to them to toe the line and, crossing the line will have legal consequences. But then again, you would not understand that.

Laws do have legal consequences, but laws also create protected spaces called “rights” which one can choose to exercise.

He jumps the red light because he was going to buy a lottery ticket ? Please, you can do better than that. And saying ‘maybe’ is not going to win you cases in a court either. Imagine in a court case, the defense attorney said “Maybe he was killed because he refused to give my client the money to buy lottery tickets to fund his father heart surgery”. Really ??

Sure, all the guy has to say is “I was working towards saving a life and in my moral code, that is important.” You say that there is only one moral code, and he says “OK, this is part of it.”

The Dictionary of Cambridge defines moral as “relating to the standards of good or bad behavior, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws”. This set of standards is singular and universal and preached by all Faiths. Don’t tell you don’t know what constitutes honesty, fairness and good behavior – surely you don’t need the Law too to tell you that !

Fair to whom? Each side in war thinks that it has the obligation to kill to protect its citizens. I need a law to decide when killing is fair and when it isn’t. You want to claim that some objective moral code exists. So show it to me, with all details spelled out. You have already said that my moral code isn’t a moral code.

 

[JerryMyers]

So a firm “NO” would mean a “NO” which no one while interpret but then you say that the words“No law” can be interpreted otherwise.

The complete statement of my response to you is “A firm ‘NO’ would mean a NO. No one, other than you, is going to interpret that as a ‘yes’. The fact that I also said “No one, other than you, is going to interpret that as a ‘yes’. Here, I am speaking in the context of the possibility that the ‘no’ can be interpreted (correctly or incorrectly) as a ‘yes’. How do you interpret the ‘no’ in “Congress shall make no law…” as a yes ?? Don’t just generalize the word ‘no’ but try to understand the context.

Actually, I never said that though you keep insisting I did. I pointed out that there are all sorts of exceptions to the first amendment including protecting mockery. I then gave a quote from a supreme court justice supporting that point.

You never said what exactly ? Lets be specific here. If you said you have never interpreted the First Amendment as 'an absolute' freedom, I have proven to you that you did.

Why would you cite the Establishment Clause (the first part of the first amendment, that deals with religion) when talking about the second part, speech?

I cited the Establishment Clause because you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – that’s why.

When I made a point about how he was murdered and you dismiss him as “not around” then you reduce the circumstances through your language.

No, when I said “Ask someone who’s no longer around?”, I was responding to your sick suggestion - ‘Ask Samuel Paty’. So, stop mocking the deceased and show some respect. .

Post 196, “ If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”

You are one wily character, aren’t you ? In that post, I was responding to your comment “Once I say I am offended, you, by your own logic, must change”. In response, I said “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” And you understand that as ‘if someone is offended, the one who offends should change ?? Please stop embarrassing yourself.

If it is protected speech (which it is) then while it might be mean or offensive, it is still protected and at least I am providing a trigger warning. By the way, teachers do this. If I have a student whose parent died, before I teacher some aspects of Shakespeare, I warn the student that it might be hurtful and the student might want to take a walk.

If you have a choice to be mean or offensive, then, why choose to be one ??

Specifically, “often” means “not always”. Omitting it leaves the statement as a blanket with no exceptions. Words have specific meanings. Taking one out creates a different meaning. Is this news to you?

You sure ‘often’ means ‘not always’ ? This is your exact words – “And, yes, often, mocking the beliefs of others is the best way to make the world a safer place”. So, if you said ‘often’ means ‘not always’, so are you actually saying "not always, mocking the beliefs of others, is the best way to make the world a safer place" ??

The fact that you can’t see that any civics lesson could offend someone (communists hate lessons about capitalism and its successes) is sad. The fact that you can’t see that there is a difference between the indefinite article and a qualifying phrase is likewise sad.

You sure it’s not you who can’t see the difference between the indefinite article and a qualifying phrase ?? The fact that you can’t see that I am not referring to just about any civics lesson but only civic lessons with materials that upset the sentiments of millions of others is embarrassing to say the least..

When did I ever mention a civics class that teaches tolerance? Making stuff up isn’t helpful.

Making stuff up ?? Please, don’t associate me to you. Here are your exact words – “I'm offended by a civics class that teaches people tolerance when my religion preaches intolerance as this mocks my religious belief -- so the class must change”.

First, I quoted, and didn’t espouse - look the word up if you don't know. Second, I quoted in response to what you asked me to present, a constitutional statement which is unequivocal, as this is. Notice how I said “as written, it is” not “I believe”.

If I quoted you a clause to make a point, that’s because I believe, support or embrace what was stated in that clause. You, on the other hand, are telling me that you quoted a clause to make your point (that the clause, as written, allows absolute freedom) BUT you don’t believe or support what you just quoted ?? Then, why quote it in the first place ?? If you are not sure what ‘espouse’ is, look the word up.

So since you are so expert, what is “too long or too quick” and how did you get to that conclusion, and does it apply to every light? This is clearly a matter of your morals, so lay them out.

Well, that will be dependent on where the traffic lights are installed as different streets will have different lights frequency settings, it’s not a standard-setting for all streets. On average, I would say, the lights are set between 20 secs to 130 secs, give and take. So, for someone to wait for the light to change color for more than 30 minutes, I would say is not normal, or the driver has fallen asleep.

Still, no.

Still no what ?? Be specific.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills before you start typing.

I think anyone can know what “I don’t recall…” or “I never claimed….” is, and that’s why I said you better be 100 percent sure before making such statements. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills before you start typing.

Um, no. To be offended is a choice and to offend is a protected right. Since when does something’s being protected as legal mean it is not a choice. I can also choose not to offend so to offend is a choice as well.

OK, so, to offend is a choice and you can choose not to offend but you choose to offend anyway ?? Why ??

 

[JerryMyers]

My religious code isn’t a moral code? Wow. But showing a picture of Muhammed as blasphemy is a matter of a moral code? Did you know that in my religion, embarrassing someone is not allowed? Is that a moral law or not?

If abstaining from eating pork is your religious code and according to you, is also a moral code, then, are you saying those Christians who eat pork are morally wrong ?? .

You have a very strange idea about what is part of a moral code – it includes laws of driving a car, but not rules governing personal behavior.

You have a strange way of interpreting things. Driving a car is not a moral code, driving a car is an activity. Being considerate to other road users while driving is part of a moral code. Traffic rules are not part of a moral code, but adhering to traffic rules is.

Good. Because yes, that is violence.

I thought ‘a slap on the wrist’ is an idiom. to indicate a very light punishment, but to you, a slap on the wrist is violence. You need help, buddy.

Once you say that the killing was a predictable retaliation and the teacher brought it on himself through his teaching, you are rationalizing murder. When you say that it was senseless because THE TEACHER should not have taught something, you are refusing to place blame on the murderer.

I said “Senseless because it makes no logical sense for anyone to mock and provoke the sensitivity of others which could incite a retaliation ………”. I DID NOT say “senseless because THE TEACHER should not have taught something”. Surely saying what others didn’t say is not part of the Jewish religious code, is it ? Or saying what others didn’t say is your natural tendency ??

Here is your quote from 178, “if we want to stop these senseless killings, then, both sides have to make changes in their approach”
So you are saying that BOTH have to make changes which, in this case, is changing how the civics class is taught.

Yes, without pointing to any specific detail of what needs to change. Areas of weaknesses or shortfalls vary from one person to another. So, yes, both sides need to change in their approach but to do that, both sides, first, need to recognize their weaknesses or mistakes.

Responding to something which wasn’t the subject isn’t helpful. You are shifting the focus because I answered exactly what you asked. You made a series of "France should" recommendations. I pointed out that these recommendations can be pursued through changes to the law. Then you called them pleas and I pointed out that "should" is the language of a recommendation, not a plea. Now you shift again to "both sides".

Yes, the plea is for both sides and it’s in black and white that I did say “both sides need to change in their approach”. Do you have in black and white that I said “I recommend France should…..’ ??

Really? Where did I say that? I said you have a right to offend others, not an obligation. Inventing my position isn’t useful.

Yes, you did say to offend others is a right, BUT, you never said it’s ‘not an obligation’. You just added that. Crafty of you, isn’t it?

Laws do have legal consequences, but laws also create protected spaces called “rights” which one can choose to exercise.

Yes. But I have never come across a ‘right’ that runs against a moral code.

Sure, all the guy has to say is “I was working towards saving a life and in my moral code, that is important.” You say that there is only one moral code, and he says “OK, this is part of it.”

The intention may be morally right and noble, but the action is not. Likewise, you don’t cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.

Fair to whom? Each side in war thinks that it has the obligation to kill to protect its citizens. I need a law to decide when killing is fair and when it isn’t. You want to claim that some objective moral code exists. So show it to me, with all details spelled out. You have already said that my moral code isn’t a moral code.

First, do you even know what ‘fair’ is ?? Second, in war, you have the obligation to protect the citizens and the sovereignty of your country and in wars, casualties are expected, and you kill only when not doing so, will put the lives of those you are obligated to protect in grave danger.