Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

With this latest exercise of free speech in the United States, many peoples and nations are condemning free speech, saying people should not have control over their own bodies.

My view on speech is that I am pro-speech.

My stance on free speech is; if you don't like free speech (such as burning Korans), then don't burn any Korans yourself. Terry Jones aborted his own private property. His private property, his choice.

For those who are pro-censorship, could you explain why you don't believe individuals should have control over their own bodies (and private property)?

Hopefully we'll get some interesting replies.

ProSpeech

Reason - Because censorship has been repeatedly abused from times immemorial

Objections - However speech that would cause damage in any shape or form to another individual/race/philosophy(religion) should be stopped at all costs

If I want to burn a Koran, I should be able to - my Koran, my choice.

If you don't believe in burning Korans (free speech), then don't burn any Korans yourself.

EH How can you be so civilised westerner and act as if you are a total primitive ape at the same time? You know humans have evolved long and long time ago...

dubai-politics-talk/teenage-girl-arrested-for-burning-koran-t44306-15.html

Berrin, part of civilized behavior allows others to act uncivilized.

That's why you hear many saying that certain groups of people are using the West's freedoms to destroy the West.

Now, back on topic, don't you believe that individuals should be in control of their own bodies?

If you're against Koran burning, then just don't burn a Koran. Wouldn't you agree?

I voted pro speech EH. I dunno why, it just sounds right to me.

I agree with you, BM.

My speech, my choice.

If you don't like free speech, don't practice free speech yourself.

The burning was symbolic of something, that is the cause of the problem , as I said earlier, May the burner have his excretory system reversed

zubber wrote:The burning was symbolic of something, that is the cause of the problem , as I said earlier, May the burner have his excretory system reversed

Any chance of you having your Frontal Lobotomy reversed?

One day, these people will want to live in the West.

Unfortunately, the US can't screen out religious fanatics like zubber from living in the US. But Europe can. If Europe is to survive the next two centuries, it had better do what it can to make sure the only people who immigrate there will uphold her Western values.

Otherwise the zubbers will turn Europe into a seventh century dark age.

BM, here's a comment someone left at a blog I regularly read, what do you think of it:

Many people look for justification in a written law rather than having wisdom or mercy. In conversations with Muslim apologists, they take great pains to point out verses justifying their positions but seem to me to have no real feeling for right and wrong nor for taking responsibility of their actions. If it's in the book, it's good, if it's not in the book, it's bad. Even if it goes against common sense or common decency, Muslims defend it. (The recent UN murders are a perfect example.)

Doesn't it seem like Muslim 'moderates' who will claim they support free speech have no real understanding of why they should support free speech? To them, it's based on their interpretation of the Koran. That's why people like zubber could never support true forms of free speech because he can never think independently for himself. There is no interpretive room in Islam for allowing for blasphemy, so we have 'moderate' Muslims who will claim they support free speech but their definition of free speech is so contrived that it could never be recognized next to real free speech as allowed for in the United States. This is why I am almost convinced we will never see a truly moderate Islam take root in the Muslim world.

EH wrote:
My stance on free speech is; if you don't like free speech (such as burning Korans), then don't burn any Korans yourself. Terry Jones aborted his own private property. His private property, his choice.

EH, I just don't understand the western free logic they have so much to learn from the guidance of the creator.. how can you burn a quran and say that it is free speech when it actually means pro censership? so yes:

If you're against "censorship" , then just don't burn a Koran. Wouldn't you agree?

Lets test more logic with you..
Two thieves glides down a chimney into a house. Now One has a dirty face, the other clean..Which one would start cleaning the face?

Berrin wrote:Lets test more logic with you..
Two thieves glides down a chimney into a house. Now One has a dirty face, the other clean..Which one would start cleaning the face?

Well I, for one have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Berrin.

-- Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:55 pm --

EH, it is quite plain to see that most Muslims can't think for themselves and are ruled by the Koran. It probably stems from them being brain washed as kids and being made to attend lessons on 'How To Be A Good Muslim' as soon as they out of nappies (diapers!).

You're not alone BM. I was going to ask him to try and rephrase it for it to make sense. I thought it might be a private joke and only he knew the answer.

well, away from the subject...
I think both will clean or both will not clean Berrin, coz they don't actually know that one is clean and the other isn't...
wow, interested to learn more from u BM, how about the ppl who convert in old ages, what ur theory of them?

Mahmoud04 wrote:well, away from the subject...
I think both will clean or both will not clean Berrin, coz they don't actually know that one is clean and the other isn't...
wow, interested to learn more from u BM, how about the ppl who convert in old ages, what ur theory of them?

Now I get it!!! One of them is blind!!!! I win!!! I win!!!

EH, I just don't understand the western free logic they have so much to learn from the guidance of the creator.. how can you burn a quran and say that it is free speech when it actually means pro censership? so yes:

Berrin, someone burning their own personal copy of a Koran is not what censorship is. It would be censorship if I were to take your Koran and burn it.

Mahmoud04 wrote:well, away from the subject...
I think both will clean or both will not clean Berrin, coz they don't actually know that one is clean and the other isn't...
wow, interested to learn more from u BM, how about the ppl who convert in old ages, what ur theory of them?

I wasn't going to reply to you mahmoud. There is too much that gets lost in translation, i think. I can't give an explanation about those who choose to convert in later life. I don't have a problem with people who practice their religion quietly, what i don't understand are those who have to shout it from the roof tops and wear their relifion like some badge of honour. I don't get most Muslims, the way their whole life revolves around their religion. you should be the person first and your religion secondary to that.

By what stretch of one's imagination can the burning of a book (the Koran in this case), be associated with free speech?? And if part of being civilized is to tolerate uncivilized behavior, then why punish rapists and murderers?
A relatively recent (in Historical terms) event was the Nazi Book Burnings in Hitler's Nazi Germany. In May 1933, more than 25000 precious volumes went up in flames, in a ritual bon-fire, because these were considered un-German by the Nazis! Hitler's arch propogandist, Joseph Goebbels, delivered a fiery address on this occasion to more than 40000 people gathered to hear him say "The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end." For the word Jew there, substitute Muslim now.
I do not follow any religion or dogma myself. I dont need any ancient text to tell me that lying and dishonesty is bad. But I think the premise of this survey is flawed. Book burning is NOT free speech.
Peace

Bethsmum wrote:

Mahmoud04 wrote:well, away from the subject...
I think both will clean or both will not clean Berrin, coz they don't actually know that one is clean and the other isn't...
wow, interested to learn more from u BM, how about the ppl who convert in old ages, what ur theory of them?

I wasn't going to reply to you mahmoud. There is too much that gets lost in translation, i think. I can't give an explanation about those who choose to convert in later life. I don't have a problem with people who practice their religion quietly, what i don't understand are those who have to shout it from the roof tops and wear their relifion like some badge of honour. I don't get most Muslims, the way their whole life revolves around their religion. you should be the person first and your religion secondary to that.

Hi BM, I really don't like it if u don't want to discuss or respond to my posts... (may be I shouldn't say that, but I like discussions and u r a good one in that)
u said

"I don't have a problem with people who practice their religion quietly"

this is the point, and my only concern with some of ur posts is generalization, I am Muslim, and I know some Muslims are (grrrrrr, so is ppl from other religions, its humankind), but that doesn't make me or Islam something bad? if u have problems with individuals I agree with u that u have the full right to act towards them the way u like, but to attack the whole thing, including myself? this is annoying to be honest, and not allowing a way for discussion coz it turns to be ME or YOU, which should not be the case...

BTW, I was 2 times in my life few minutes or meters away from a real death coz of terrorist actions, would I blame it on Islam or all muslims? no coz I know they are terrorist and will dive down in hell for killing innocent ppl..

^ It helps to know what private property is

But hey, if you don't believe in Koran burnings, just don't burn any Korans yourself.

My Koran, my choice.

Book burning is NOT free speech.

Just because you say it isn't free speech doesn't make it so.

I found no sense to this poll.

In the US, where freedom of speech is a right, there is still a level of censorship attached to it. Speech is just that - spoken words. If one really practices free speech, then one can publicly be vocal and say that they are going to kill the President of the US, one can tell their neighbor "if your dog keeps taking a poop on my property I will kill it and you", if you speak publicly and say "I'm going to bomb the White House", if you sit on an airplane and even hint at the possibility that you are going to blow it it, they are all words, with serious consequences.

Burning a holy book is an action that has consequences in more ways than one. To do so in the privacy of your own home is one thing, to publicly announce such an action is to incite. Saying you will burn a holy book and burning it are two different things but each act has one purpose and has consequences. Words are as powerful and actions. People are jailed or sued for uttering certain words, and making accusations.

We live in a time where one has to stop and think about saying certain things, and that is self-censorship, instilled in ourselves as a result of overall censorship. It's no different from thinking about the actions one takes. There will always be a level of censorship when it comes to speech.

zonker wrote.
I do not follow any religion or dogma myself. I dont need any ancient text to tell me that lying and dishonesty is bad.

Zonker if all people belived that lying and dishonesty was bad, today we would living in absolutely perfect world.. Differences between people(created) will always exist, it's when those beliefs clash and become life threatening that we need a human judge for final judgement..In this case the ultimate source for the judge to make up his mind will also be revalation as things will eventually get out of control . Why? becouse human guidance through revelation exists and those educated millions who follow them, will challange secular law in that respect, until peace and tranquility established amongst people .
i.e many secular laws allow fighting words go unpunished which can be very damaging on someone's fame, honour, ego,status, repute etc.. if, this happens between two ego swolen people, it can go as far as killing one another(damage to sacred human life)..Now the judge at court doesn't think that there is something wrong with it..But our creator knows that it can be damaging and life threating and warns us about importance of virtues in order to protect human dignity,repute therefore life existance..
Under these circumstances one cannot say religion is dogma when it is meant to be pragmatic to establish peace,security and prosperity in society..
You can further investigate what I am saying from this link..
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=645

.

-- Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:01 pm --

event horizon wrote:

EH, I just don't understand the western free logic, they have so much to learn from the guidance of the creator.. how can you burn a quran and say that it is free speech when it actually means pro censership? so yes:

Berrin, someone burning their own personal copy of a Koran is not what censorship is. It would be censorship if I were to take your Koran and burn it.

if you don't mean to censorship quran than go find an empty notebook for the entertainment of burning..infact, better still light fire to your own house for greater joy of burning..

Weren't you the one talking about private property (ownership). since when american law gives one the right to damage someone else's private property?

I know that when it comes to smear islam your logic can be anything but logic..
Now let's get back to my question to test your logic in real life...
Two thieves glides down a chimney into a house. One has a dirty face, the other clean..Which one would start cleaning the face?

.

Bethsmum wrote:EH, it is quite plain to see that most Muslims can't think for themselves and are ruled by the Koran. It probably stems from them being brain washed as kids and being made to attend lessons on 'How To Be A Good Muslim' as soon as they out of nappies (diapers!).

What is hard to understand for free minded people is that Islam for devout Muslims is the PERFECT religion. Actually it is very hard (if not impossible) to understand for devout Muslims that infidels cannot see this. Or at least that is my understanding of it. Where most followers of most other religions have some understanding that other people can find comfort in a different believe system, this concept is alien to devout Muslims. The reason I think is the constant hard claim that Islam is the PERFECT religion, based on the last revelation, delivered by the PERFECT man.

What is hard to understand for free minded people is that Islam for devout Muslims is the PERFECT religion. Actually it is very hard (if not impossible) to understand for devout Muslims that infidels cannot see this.

It is a perfect religion for devout muslims becouse it is not only a faith but it is also a set of ideas (law) that governs every spheres of life:acts of worship, behavior, business dealings, family law, inheritance, criminal law, administration of justice, and politics to name a few topics.(this is why it is a way of life) When you read islam with good intentions, open heart and conscience, everything it says makes sense when you withness the ills of societies.. Never in 1400 year of its existance, it needed various parallel ideologies for progression of its societies, it combined all the ideas that various modern ...isms.. such as liberalism, communism, capitalism, etc. wanted to achieve..any yet it is still superior to all of them in the sense that it tries to achieve it in the best balanced form.

Anything you find hard to observe about islam you can ask questions FD, better still you can make a degree out of islamic teology and understand its philosopy.

The reason I think is the constant hard claim that Islam is the PERFECT religion, based on the last revelation, delivered by the PERFECT man.

LOL, that one perfect man indeed wasn't "the source" of deliverance tho, he only was doing his divine duty of conveying the message of our creator,as did the previous messenger of God before him ..

Bora Bora wrote:I found no sense to this poll.

In the US, where freedom of speech is a right, there is still a level of censorship attached to it. Speech is just that - spoken words. If one really practices free speech, then one can publicly be vocal and say that they are going to kill the President of the US, one can tell their neighbor "if your dog keeps taking a poop on my property I will kill it and you", if you speak publicly and say "I'm going to bomb the White House", if you sit on an airplane and even hint at the possibility that you are going to blow it it, they are all words, with serious consequences.

Burning a holy book is an action that has consequences in more ways than one. To do so in the privacy of your own home is one thing, to publicly announce such an action is to incite. Saying you will burn a holy book and burning it are two different things but each act has one purpose and has consequences. Words are as powerful and actions. People are jailed or sued for uttering certain words, and making accusations.

We live in a time where one has to stop and think about saying certain things, and that is self-censorship, instilled in ourselves as a result of overall censorship. It's no different from thinking about the actions one takes. There will always be a level of censorship when it comes to speech.

I think Bora Bora sums it up just about right really, I would add that free speech is a right in most democracies in the world today and not just in the US.

It is a perfect religion for devout muslims becouse it is not only a faith but it is also a set of ideas (law) that governs every spheres of life:acts of worship, behavior, business dealings, family law, inheritance, criminal law, administration of justice, and politics to name a few topics.(this is why it is a way of life) When you read islam with good intentions, open heart and conscience, everything it says makes sense when you withness the ills of societies.. Never in 1400 year of its existance, it needed various parallel ideologies for progression of its societies, it combined all the ideas that various modern ...isms.. such as liberalism, communism, capitalism, etc. wanted to achieve..any yet it is still superior to all of them in the sense that it tries to achieve it in the best balanced form.

Berrin, in my experience Muslims are the biggest hypocrites. They say they believe in one thing and in reality, practice another.

Berrin, in my experience Muslims are the biggest hypocrites. They say they believe in one thing and in reality, practice another.

A muslim by birth right does not assure someone to be a good mu'min...I know many muslims who are atheists and who are hypocrites and so on...But I also know many muslims who are absolutely trustworthy and try hard to live by, according to quranic akhlaq..(btw, I am also aware of your exaggeration due to your disbelief)

God in quran talks about variety of disbelief known as kufr..so there is no surprise there...
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=71

don't generalize, anybody there er er er (echo echo echo....)....
by the way BM, believe and practice can't be linked directly with hypocrites, for example u believe racist isn't good, don't u :O...

We live in a time where one has to stop and think about saying certain things, and that is self-censorship, instilled in ourselves as a result of overall censorship. It's no different from thinking about the actions one takes. There will always be a level of censorship when it comes to speech.

Bora, I'm afraid you're off the mark as to what is allowable speech in the United States. Thankfully, virtually all political speech is tolerated. However, speech that is deemed by the authorities as causing an imminent threat to the speaker or others can be stopped by the police. The beauty of this, however, is that that speech is conditional to the public's reaction to the speech and the speaker could very well take his comments to another town (or speak on another day/location) where his views do not stir a reaction and freely express his beliefs without police interference.

And quite frankly, if you don't like free speech, just don't practice it yourself.

Why can't you just allow others to burn Korans? They're not yours, after all.

event horizon wrote:

We live in a time where one has to stop and think about saying certain things, and that is self-censorship, instilled in ourselves as a result of overall censorship. It's no different from thinking about the actions one takes. There will always be a level of censorship when it comes to speech.

Bora, I'm afraid you're off the mark as to what is allowable speech in the United States. Thankfully, virtually all political speech is tolerated. However, speech that is deemed by the authorities as causing an imminent threat to the speaker or others can be stopped by the police. The beauty of this, however, is that that speech is conditional to the public's reaction to speech and the speaker could very well take his comments to another town (or speak on another day/location) where his views do not stir a reaction and freely express his beliefs without police interference.

And quite frankly, if you don't like free speech, just don't practice it yourself.

Why can't you just allow others to burn Korans? They're not yours, after all.

EH, I'm off the mark?? I'm confused now. I thought this was a discussion about freedom of speech in general, not political freedom of speech. There is an audience for every type of speech EH, including political.

Here's an example: When Sarah Palin was stomping for election as VP, her target were white rednecks, white trailer trash, white backwood hicks, towns with a population of 1,500 and they ate up every word she said. I never saw her campaign to a mixed audience - I'm talking white, brown, black. It was always white. Now, had she targeted areas where people were a mix of skin color and nationalities, were working middle to upper middle class,more than likely she would have been dismissed, which I believe she was - for being an idiot. So, her targeted audience were more stupid than she was, but she held the same values as they did, that's why they loved her. Many women, regardless of their station in life, thought she walked on water because they were too caught up in her becoming the first female VP. If she spoke to an all woman audience she would be well received. Giving the same speech to an all male audience, there would be a different reaction. Some may think "female", but most would think "stupid".

On the other hand Hilary Clinton could speak to any audience and she would be recognized for the intelligent capable person that she is, whether one agreed with her or not.

Again, burning a holy book is not freedom of speech, it's an action. If you announce that you are going to burn a holy book, that is speech!!!! Your off the mark when you can't see the difference between speech and action.