It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We’ll Protect Your Rights, So Long As you’re NOT Muslim!!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I want to start this with a disclaimer, this is not meant as a reflection of everyone on ATS or in our communities just an observation I have made of those who write the anti-Islam threads and posts and preach anti-Islamic rhetoric. Also I am not Muslim, I am Catholic and no I am not in any way a terrorist sympathiser.

I have observed many anti-Islam posts and threads, granted there are also many pro-Islam members of ATS out there as well. I have noticed a case of double standards however when it comes to the anti-Islam threads. It seems that for those who write these threads, they regard Muslims as less than human and as such are not covered by the natural rights of man (I am not fan of these but most of you are). This disgusts me, effectively there are members of ATS and in our communities in general that members of the Islamic community are lesser humans. It’s not better than they way people of a African Caribbean ethnicity were treated during the early 20th century. These Islamophobes, will rant on and on about how they have freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, right to protest, right to live in a democratic society and so on yet seek to restrict these fundamental freedoms for Muslims. The only logical explanation for this attitude is that they are xenophobic and basically hate all Muslims because they are different.

For instance the Islamophobes will preach their own religion, tell you all about what God has said in the Bible, quote the pope and tell how what a disgrace it is that their local Church has been shut then they might even sympathise with us Catholics in Ireland. They are advocating freedom of religion for themselves, its suits them, they need this freedom to practice their own religion (or lack thereof)and as such will violently protect this fundamental right. As soon as a Muslim does the same however, they suddenly change their song sheet, ranting about how Muslims shouldn’t be building Mosques in their communities, how it is wrong for them to be preaching, and how dare they ask to build a Muslim school. It’s one rule for everyone else and another for the Muslims this is just unfair, it’s wrong you’re helping to build a new religious apartheid system only because it suits you. The funny thing is that you are shocked and disgusted with they fight back by blowing up a plane. If you call a pig a dog for long enough that pig will start to act like a dog, same principle with the terrorists. We all have to acknowledge that not all people of the Islamic faith are terrorists and we have to stop treating them as such.

I could say the same about the right to hold a peaceful protest. The Islmophobes will go out a protest against “extremist Islam” (EDL in the UK, probably the KKK in America) the reality is allot of the time is that they are protesting against the Islamic faith in general. Yet, when the Muslims come out and protest against the school that’s been blown up in Gaza or maybe even against the troops in Afghanistan who have just slaughtered their families the islamophobes jump all over them. It seems that Muslims don’t have the right to protest but the islamophobes do and by extinction the Islamophobes have a right to freedom of speech however the Muslims do not.

When it comes to the right to self defence things start to get really complicated, the Islamic faith claim to be under attack and as such use this to justify their “terrorist” actions. I do not sympathise with terrorists, and an account of their reasons for justifying their attacks are not for this thread. What is for this thread however is when the Islamophobes start to attack shop keepers claiming it is to defend us all from extremist Islam. If they wanted to do that they should have joined the military and go fight the real terrorists, not attack old men. And again, if this attack results in retaliation they are brained as terrorists by society and thus their right to self-defence is undermined.

In the past on ATS I have said how I think rights should be restricted and I still think that they should, but they should be universally restricted, to target one group in society is wrong and unjustifiable. It just seems so ironic to me that in a were people society people fall over themselves to protect their rights, yet some of these people at the same time seek to abolish the rights of Muslims despite these rights apparently being universal. By denying Muslims their natural rights and undermining them you are betraying your own believe system.




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 




...I think rights should be restricted and I still think that they should, but they should be universally restricted, to target one group in society is wrong and unjustifiable. It just seems so ironic to me that in a were people society people fall over themselves to protect their rights, yet some of these people at the same time seek to abolish the rights of Muslims despite these rights apparently being universal. By denying Muslims their natural rights and undermining them you are betraying your own believe system.



Seems to me your logic is flawed - and you are guilty of the same hypocrisies you (rightly) identify in others.

If rights are "restricted," then a power group must be established to protect "restricted" information and the like. Consequently, that power group will have rights that others don't.

What's the difference between a.) you saying Insiders should have full rights but Outsiders should only have restricted rights, and b.) others saying Christians should have full rights but Muslims should only have restricted rights ?

...Seems you just want a tussle over who the Insiders and Outsiders are, and how to define and identify them.

[tsk]



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
What do you have to say about violence ignited towards non-muslims depicting prophet Mohammed in media? They aren't even muslim, yet they are expected to follow muslim custom.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
First you seem to mistake natural rights[whatever those are] with constitutional guaranteed rights. Please list these rights that you have ha are natural rights.

Second with all liberty comes responsibility. Having a right does not supersede the responsibility of he party to respect the rights of others.

The right not to be offended does not exists. In fact it is a constitutionally protected right to be able to offend someone as long as it is not detrimental to the well being of that person. So yes I have a right to be rude, obnoxious, insulting and even bigoted.

It is also a responsibility of a people to keep those similar in check and not support those that use violence and oppression to bring about a desired effect. [where is the islamic outcrying to bring these jihadist o justice?

When was the last time the KKK as a group was involved in any terrorist attack that was supported by that organization.

So where are these supposed rights violations? Perhaps those that support Sharia law in violation of due process can tell us. Maybe Muslim women will speak up and address the freedoms that they have. Perhaps the families of murdered christians will come forth and explain the error of their loved ones ways.

Please do not come here and call the pot black. Yes we are not a perfect people, but do not accuse us of unchecked or even unreasonable suspicion.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'd say it's more like "We'll respect your rights, as long as you respect our rights."

But as long as they burn flags everytime someone says something they don't like, then they can't be allowed to have the same rights they don't allow others to have.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


You residing in the U.K should be more Anti-Islamic than anyone. Your laws are changing more and more to cater to the Muslims. For the most part they care for no one but themselves. Heres proof:


I mean really, according to them, the Muslim they are commemorating is the only person that lost his life on 9/11.
I think it is pretty cold-hearted to forget about the thousands of others that lost their lives. Hey don't get me wrong, i know it could have been a family member. The outrage that this caused though, i cant see where in was necessary.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SKinLaB
 


Freedom of expression really stings when someone expresses something you disagree with, doesn't it?

Natural Rights are understood to be legal claims that human beings can make by virtue of their humanity. This is an important document concerning 'inalienable rights,' as is of course the U.S. Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by reluctantpawn
 


I like how you started that post with the words “your first mistake is....” then went on to make a mistake yourself. The American constitution that outlines your constitutional rights originate in the liberal ideal of the natural rights of man as set out by the English philosopher John Locke. I don’t really want to get into the specifics as that is not what this thread is about its about how some members of our communities seek to defend these rights for themselves but will attempt to restrict them for those in society they disagree with , in this case Muslims.

Also this is not a thread targeted at America, its just about everyone in general, I will give you a example form the UK. The EDL (English defence league) go on a protest about how they don’t want a Muslim school built, a pro-Islam or anti-fascist group such as the UAF (unite against fascism) have a protest against the EDL’s protest. The EDL start to complain and tell the police that the UAF have no “right” to be protesting just because they disagree with each other. This usually leads to violence and before you know it the EDL and UAF are all in jail because they tried to restrict each other’s rights. All because the EDL don’t like Muslims building schools, but they don’t mind any other religious schools being built.

It is fundamentally wrong for one group in society to attempt to restrict the freedoms of another group because they have a dislike of said group, this works both ways because the EDL (or whoever) have a right to say what they want against Muslims. Even if it means they are advocating the restriction of the Muslims universal natural rights whilst ironically defending their own. The solution as i see it is to abolish these rights and have the restricted by passing laws universal to all people in society.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


You know..

It's something I've observed both in real life and threads on the ATS..

It isn't just Muslims. It's immigrants. And I'm not saying Illegal Immigrants. Legal ones. I have family members that don't seem to like them, for various reasons. Even though they might be Naturalized citizens...

It's sort of an entitlement effect. People that have grown up here, think they are entitled to more than others. They think it's just "their" country. And Islam falls right into that effect. It's seen as a "foreign" religion. Like it doesn't belong here. Like it hasn't been here, and is now just coming to notice. And by some measures, there's truth to it being a foreign religion.

But I find this frame of mind that people believe they should get more than others because they might have been in this country longer (Seeing as this isn't directed solely towards Americans, insert country there.), and that's only true when it comes to matters of social security and such.. But that's entirely different.

Have you ever noticed how many of the Anti-Islamic people have refered to X country as hosts to Islam? I have.
And then there's the news media opinion where they will say "We're at war with Islam." And then they'll say "Oh well we don't mean islam, we mean 'radical' islam. Everyone knows that."

I think it's quite clear most people do not know that, they know it, and they keep doing it because it gets them ratings.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Natural rights are rights given by man for the purpose of control. Unalienable rights are rights endowed by our creator and cannot be taken away by man. Do not confuse inalienable with unalienable.

I cannot speak for the world. Nor can I even speak for the US, but as for me I cannot follow a dictate from the UN that does not have my best interest at heart. Everything done by them undercuts our supreme law of the land. And in my opinion that is inviolate.

God made all people equal. What we do with ourselves after we become accountable sets us apart.

respectfully

reluctantawn



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by SKinLaB
 


Freedom of expression really stings when someone expresses something you disagree with, doesn't it?

Natural Rights are understood to be legal claims that human beings can make by virtue of their humanity. This is an important document concerning 'inalienable rights,' as is of course the U.S. Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I agree with you. Nor would i make an attempt to say they were violating any freedom of speech. It bothers me yes. There is nothing i can do about that. I was making a point about Muslims sheer ignorance to disregard anyone else that passed other than a Muslim. They have every right to express what they have. And they wonder why so many hate them. I do understand your point though. And yes i know, everyone hates the U.S blah blah blah.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SKinLaB
 


I get your point too, it is pretty distasteful to commemorate the death of one person when thousands of others died. Even so, at least they are recognizing 9/11 as a crime. If there was only one Muslim that died [innocently] in the attacks, then it makes sense that they would feel special comraderie with that one victim instead of the others.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join