American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Furbs

 

What do you mean "infiltrating"?? Do they OWN the public property they are demonstrating at? Is deerborne a Muslim canton within America???

NO and NO. ANYONE can protest at any place they want, as long as they do so peacefully.

And when you say "looking for a fight" the SAME EXACT THING may be argued about the neo-nazis who support a movement that murdered 6 million Jews. If that's not "looking for a fight" but this is, you have a very twisted idea of morality.

Actually, that carnival was issued a permit by the city to be used for their festival. They were leasing it, and as such, hold certain property rights under Michigan law. Another group decided to protest this and incited a riot. They infiltrated the festival grounds to protest, which wasn't covered under the permit festival organizers obtained.

When Neo-Nazis come to town, they also obtain permits and legal protections to stop others from doing the same thing to them. The Neo-Nazis are peacefully assembling, and if a Jewish group came in and did the same things these 'Christians' were doing, they would also be inciting under the Michigan code.

reply to post by Furbs


Careful Furbs, you don't want to get caught injecting logic and fact into this ignorant thread.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by PvtHudson

 

What protest isnt looking to cause trouble or incite some kind of response? I'm sure you all would support throwing rocks at gay people who protest, because gee some people don't agree with their position.

You all are a good reminder of how tyranny comes to power. Every single one of you would stomp an iron boot on those you disagree with if you had the power to do so.

Negative. Gay people protesting are trying to raise awareness about their civil rights.

These guys are purposefully going to a Muslim festival to promote hate.

We have freedom of speech in this country. However not all speech is protected.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not speech that's protected by the constitution.

Intentionally holding a sign saying that Mohammed is a child molesting pervert is IMO not covered under freedom of speech.

This isn't the issue at all.

I don't actually think it is or should be against the law to hold a sign like that, as he has gone in history for his unequal views on women and child sexual actiivites. Sorry, the spade needs to be called a spade.

This is about attending another groups meetings, with a agenda and provoking war/division, not peace and understanding.

This is not Christ, who would reach to the light within and nudge goodness in all.

What is this?

However that should not stop people from speaking up and out against abuses of women and children and fascism or theocracy.

For we must.

And I'm sure that for some the truth is going to be offensive.

I have read other versions of Mohummad, but just because there may be some hidden codings, and he may not be who they promote him to be, but a tool of the Catholic Church itself and things may be very convoluted in our historyies and hidden from people, does not mean people would know that, and on the grounds of what they are told and taught, we are talking criminal behavior put into some religion on purpose by some very dark entities governing this planet.

reply to post by dontreally


Let me ask you a few things direct and up-front.

1. Do you believe Jesus was the messiah?
2. Do you believe Jesus was divine or God Himself, as Christians believe?
3. What do you think of the central figure of Christianity, Jesus Christ?

Even if this could be considered inciting a riot (which it couldnt, holding an insulting sign does not qualify as any riot incitement), still those christians are morally superior by far.

riot inciters >>> actual rioters


Stop trying to excuse those violent savages. This is not about muslims vs. christians or any religions, it is about civilised human beings vs. violent subhumans.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Kryties

 

Anyone who can't see how the Muslim side is wrong here doesn't know a thing about how the American constitution is supposed to work. If Muslims don't like, please, feel free to go back to their Muslim countries.

And anyone who thinks what the SPLC Designated Hate Group, "The UnitedWest" did was "right" be showing up at a family festival with billboard sized signs claiming Mohamed was a "Child-Molester and Murderer" and telling attendees that they would "Burn in a Lake of Fire"....anyone who thinks that is "right" is a bigot and racist.

As Crosby Stills and Nash used to sing...Nobody is right if everybody is wrong.

Anyone else find it strange that the video begins AFTER the cops ask them to stop using the Bullhorn??

What were they shouting at these families?

Seeing as the video took great pains to exclude the signs...I imagine they were shouting some fairly ugly stuff.

reply to post by TRGreer

"to do an act or engage in "to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence" "

ughh... Clearly you have never read a book on law.

That article is incredibly vague... and since it is vague, we have to determine what constitutes ""to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence". Hence, why I made the distinction earlier between a moral provocation and a physical act of violence. The latter obviously qualifies as an act that incites violence. Now, between a peaceful gathering and a physical act of violence is the "gray area": the gray area usually refers to acts that are verbal which incite violence. For instance, not personally engaging in but calling for violence. That would definitely be an infringement of that article in the law.

How many times have Christians demonstrated outside a scientology center? Or for that matter, why are neo-Nazis permitted to walk the streets of Chicago, INTO JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS - and this, much more egregiously immoral act of "free expression" is generally tolerated, but this more benign demonstration against Islam, albeit, not morally defensible, is not protected by the constitutional right of free speech?

Explain to me how the former is defensible but not the latter. Have fun with that.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
Ever heard of a white/asian riot in the USA? Go and find a few links to support your rebuttal, bet I'll find more for mine.

Right.

Cos, white people in America/Canada never, ever *riot* when their favourite sports team wins or loses.

Nope, doesn't happen. It must be those pesky "dark skinned" people you keep referring to, cammo'd up in white makeup.

You're just a f-ing racist.

Regardless of the circumstances if a situation turns to violence then charges should be filed.
If i were to throw rocks at any of you i should be held accountable for my violent actions.

reply to post by Furbs

Actually, that carnival was issued a permit by the city to be used for their festival. They were leasing it, and as such, hold certain property rights under Michigan law. A

They purchased a permit for a particular area within the city; outside the lines is where they protested. Legally.

They infiltrated the festival grounds to protest, which wasn't covered under the permit festival organizers obtained.

It appears to me that they were outside the lines, since they were behind the officers who defended those lines.

Originally posted by Maslo
Even if this could be considered inciting a riot (which it couldnt, holding an insulting sign does not qualify as any riot incitement), still those christians are morally superior by far.

riot inciters >>> actual rioters


Stop trying to excuse those violent savages. This is not about muslims vs. christians or any religions, it is about civilised human beings vs. violent subhumans.

Wow. The ignorance and hatred for people you consider "different" to the narrow view of life you cling to is astounding.

Did you grow up in a cave? Do you live under a rock perhaps?

Originally posted by Maslo
Even if this could be considered inciting a riot (which it couldnt, holding an insulting sign does not qualify as any riot incitement), still those christians are morally superior by far.

riot inciters >>> actual rioters


Stop trying to excuse those violent savages. This is not about muslims vs. christians or any religions, it is about civilised human beings vs. violent subhumans.

Civilized humans usually first learn how to write... and then they learn (somewhere in those school books) that we (humans) are all created the same, have same quality in genes.... But not sure if that can reach your 'civilised' super-human head.

reply to post by Indigo5


Morally, I completely agree.

But since the constitution defends the right to chant things that offend another persons beliefs, if that person does so in a legal fashion, in an area permitted by law, than it is LEGAL. The Muslim response was ILLEGAL, BECAUSE - and this is the crucial point - they were BEHIND the lines that separated their Muslim festival from the Christian protestation of that festival.

People carry offensive signs all the time. People online are allowed to spread vile lies about Jews and this is defended as a constitutional right.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Personally I don't consider someone who openly hates other people because they choose to believe and live differently than them as 'civilised'. It is the complete opposite actually.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TRGreer

 

"to do an act or engage in "to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence" "

ughh... Clearly you have never read a book on law.

That article is incredibly vague... and since it is vague, we have to determine what constitutes ""to do an act or engage in conduct that urges other persons to commit acts of unlawful force or violence". Hence, why I made the distinction earlier between a moral provocation and a physical act of violence. The latter obviously qualifies as an act that incites violence. Now, between a peaceful gathering and a physical act of violence is the "gray area": the gray area usually refers to acts that are verbal which incite violence. For instance, not personally engaging in but calling for violence. That would definitely be an infringement of that article in the law.

How many times have Christians demonstrated outside a scientology center? Or for that matter, why are neo-Nazis permitted to walk the streets of Chicago, INTO JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS - and this, much more egregiously immoral act of "free expression" is generally tolerated, but this more benign demonstration against Islam, albeit, not morally defensible, is not protected by the constitutional right of free speech?

Explain to me how the former is defensible but not the latter. Have fun with that.

We don't have to, a jury or judge would have to, and there is plenty of legal precident in Michigan courts for what is and isn't inciting a riot, since The KKK, Neo-Nazis, Polish Jews, and Muslims all have had dealings and strongholds in Michigan for many decades.

People can organize and demonstrate on public use sidewalks and streets as long as they do not impede access to any entrance to property, and as long as they are not inciting violence. As someone who has been to many many protests, I can speak to my own experience that many cities, including Chicago, have a LOT of judicial precedence as to what is and isn't inciting a riot.

reply to post by PvtHudson


Well I don't support violence usually. You have the right to say what you want, I don't have to like it. There are consequences for actions. If you go to a crowd of a couple hundred people and start ragging on their beliefe's someone is bound to take a stand. Does it make it right? No. Of course not. Neither is going down there spewing ignorant hate speech in the first place, and expecting cops to protect you.

If I go to a place and act a fool and people deal with me how ever they deem appropriate and the cops show up are they going to stand there and protect me or escort me out?

reply to post by dontreally


They way people interpret the constitution had been abused by the American public, everything is twisted and confused.

reply to post by TruckDriver69


Protesting the system is important, we need citizens who are watchdogs with teeth always, then alot of this would not be happening, counsels of citizens in every town.

But, basic common law is really the only law that exists, the corporate law is slavery. And, common law is based on the Virtues, basically not to harm.

I think that alot of us don't want to harm others, to incite violence.

In fact, if those youths who threw the stones and eggs, would not have done so, then what these "christians" did, is turn them into criminals when they should not have been turned to that state.

We are to protect our youths, and our sons who battle testosterone spikes all day long, and bring them through the tunnel of developing their skills, and thoughtfulness, and growing up into wise men, overcoming the rough edges of their inner diamond. Not incite them to turn dark. Grow their Light.

This group of Christians violated basic common laws of not harming and actually let down these youths, by instead of being models or teacher or helping them when in need, to show compassion, at a turning point, they incited rash decisions and a turning to dark behaviors.

I am really ashamed of all of them. Them more than the youths.

Also, it is in violation of law, not just the constitution. There is a common law. And inciting crimes or violence can certainly be seen as harm.

reply to post by dontreally

How many times have Christians demonstrated outside a scientology center? Or for that matter, why are neo-Nazis permitted to walk the streets of Chicago, INTO JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS -

Errrr.....But you aren't even christian!!!!

How many times have Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus mocked the central figure of Judaism on national TV.

Or do you expect Christians to disregard this...






????