It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by AceWombat04
Why do you ignore the evidence that these fundamentalist Moslems have been killing people everywhere they go in the world. Why do you ignore the fact that there are teachings endorsing this kind of violence in Islam?
What more proof do you need?
Do you not see the connection?
You can not promote the teachings of killing people. It is a totally different issue than the religious freedom.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by ~Lucidity
I didn't know. But I'm one of those who didn't think a mosque in that area was a big deal in the first place.....which is why this surprised me that this information isn't EVERYWHERE....or should i be surprised that it's not everywhere? lol
Has this been in the corporate media at all (about the mosque that is ALREADY THERE?) I don't watch any the major corporate news stations anymore so I have no idea.
[edit on 17-8-2010 by David9176]
Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by Gorman91
If a direct causal link can be proven between the words of one and the actions of another, fine, (if indeed precedent has been set for this type of thing) press charges and let a jury sort it out.
Personally, If I were in that hypothetical jury, I'd throw the case out. I don't believe anyone can incite violence through words alone. That's a cop-out defense used by idiots who have no other excuse for their crimes (read: Gangsta Rap made me do it).
The line is not blurry. Very clearly, if somebody is saying that bombing a nations's civilians is justifiable, there is a serious issue there. And if somebody does it, they are responsible for that influence. It is no different than mind control. It is indoctrination. Now you can get indoctrinated into whatever you dare please. But if that indoctrination drives you to violent acts against the government and innocent people, the one indoctrinating must be dealt with.
You simply have the right to say whatever you want, and the consequences of saying that are yours to be punished to.