American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

I also see tons of people on both sides playing judge and jury all at the same time. Its entertaining to say the least. How long can you argue about whether or not throwing plastic bottles is assualt. How long can you argue about whether or not the Christians crossed the line and therefore lost their protection of free speech. You were not there, you saw a video clip from a biased news source (almost all new sources are bias, especially this one). Come on ATS. You are all better then that (I hope). There are meaningful things to discuss here. But first we have to put aside some things we are not able to speak on because we do not have enough information. An overdose of unsupported conclusion drawing here. An overdose of personal ideology and beliefs when we should be discussing the matter at hand with a balanced perspective. But alas, this is my post 9/11 USA that I am a member of.

Much love to everyone. I've been ghosting this forum for around 8 years and seen the best and the worst. I just hate to see it like this.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Mate, the Muslims were holding a festival, not a bloody protest. The Christians stomped in with signs accusing those peacefully celebrating Muslims of being akin to pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

Which is 100% legal in this fine nation where we have freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.

That's nice you justify violence against those you disagree with. But I am personally getting tired of dealing with primitives and would like to live in a "civilized" world where people can learn to accept the reality that others disagree with them and hold off on getting violent about it.

Originally posted by ItsSocietysFault
How long can you argue about whether or not the Christians crossed the line and therefore lost their protection of free speech.

That is impossible, you never lose protections of natural rights you are born with.

What kind of crap are you saying anyways?

That if you DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE -----> They no longer have rights and you have the right to attack them?
Grow up this isn't the school yard.

reply to post by Maslo

It is actually a good tactic. First they insult their religion, then they wait for violent response and arrest the attackers. I think we need more such "insulters", not just against muslims, but also christians or other ideologies with extremist presence. But it should be better coordinated with the police, first.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Furbs

 

The Christians were probably hoping to make the news so they could rant on about how the evil Muslims were trampling on their constitutional right to incite violence against anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with them and their religion.

This was planned, I am certain of it. And most certainly not by the Muslims....

It was planned, it was even announced and the police were aware before it happened. This entire incident is being overblown, truth be told. The majority of the festival went on without incident, it was only a very small but vocal minority that even paid any attention to the protestors.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Maslo

 

That would be entrapment if coordinated with police.

edit on 27-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Depends. If police is directly involved, then possibly. But if the "insulters" are of civilian initiative (as in this case) and police involvement is restricted to increased presence and collecting evidence, it would not be entrapment, IMHO.

reply to post by muzzleflash



Please, you seem like a senior member, act like one, dont put words in my mouth. I was simply saying you do not have enough evidence to draw a conclusion either way. Which if you read my post with a clear head you would understand that. But you are way to busy attacking me to discuss. Which is why I never post on ATS. You are also wrong. The supreme court has ruled in the recent past that words can physically harm and at times are not protected by free speech. And I do not mean, "yelling fire in a theater." I mean cases just like this one, which I will not rule either way, because I was not there (although I do live fifteen minutes away, and probably have a better understanding of what happened then you) and do not have enough information. You would be wise to do the same.

The "children" behaved like animals with no moral upbringing.
Which is probably exactly what it was, call a spade a spade.
I would have slapped the **** out of them and gotten disorderly.
The adults sit back and watch as the children defile themselves.
Looks like Chicago is polluting the water and the outcome is always the same....

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Mate, the Muslims were holding a festival, not a bloody protest. The Christians stomped in with signs accusing those peacefully celebrating Muslims of being akin to pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

Which is 100% legal in this fine nation where we have freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.

That's nice you justify violence against those you disagree with. But I am personally getting tired of dealing with primitives and would like to live in a "civilized" world where people can learn to accept the reality that others disagree with them and hold off on getting violent about it.

As already posted in this thread, it actually breaks Michigan code and is backed by multiple judicial precedents. That is the reason no charges were filed this year, the protestors were going to be cited if they pressed charges, because they would be inciting the violence.

reply to post by muzzleflash


reply to post by Maslo

Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[citation needed] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ItsSocietysFault
I also see tons of people on both sides playing judge and jury all at the same time. Its entertaining to say the least. How long can you argue about whether or not throwing plastic bottles is assualt. How long can you argue about whether or not the Christians crossed the line and therefore lost their protection of free speech. You were not there, you saw a video clip from a biased news source (almost all new sources are bias, especially this one). Come on ATS. You are all better then that (I hope). There are meaningful things to discuss here. But first we have to put aside some things we are not able to speak on because we do not have enough information. An overdose of unsupported conclusion drawing here. An overdose of personal ideology and beliefs when we should be discussing the matter at hand with a balanced perspective. But alas, this is my post 9/11 USA that I am a member of.

Much love to everyone. I've been ghosting this forum for around 8 years and seen the best and the worst. I just hate to see it like this.

edit on 27-6-2012 by ItsSocietysFault because: typo

Watch the video, a bottle did not draw blood like that.

Originally posted by Maslo
IMHO.

Would this be the same opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view of the world should be jailed, deported, executed etc etc?

Not much of an opinion if you ask me.

Originally posted by dontreally
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.

And at no time did I say the protest was illegal....

As Samuel Johnson once wrote..Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

This Op title is dishonest, the UnitedWest group is a known hate group, The video is edited and hate propaganda...This thread is bait fot hate and fear mongers.

The Supreme Court said last year it was OK for these CHRISTIANS to show up and giddely taunt family members at the funerals of dead American Soldiers...Is it thier constitutional right? Sure...would I shed a tear if one of them got hit in the head with an errant frisbee or water-bottle? No.

If you think that someone has a right to use violence against someone they disagree with over a verbal debate, than you need to leave this country now please.

This country is founded upon the protection of rights.

You do NOT have a right to hit someone.

You DO have a right to argue back, or choose to IGNORE them.

Hitting someone makes you a criminal, especially if it's over beliefs.

To be fair, one scholar out there claims that the whole 72 virgins was a mistake and martyrs receive a reward of 72 raisons

Do you mean raisins?

If I recall correctly, those same passages describe that the man being rewarded can wed these virgins, and that they have large breasts and look at them longingly, etc., etc. Does this scholar argue that the man instead weds 72 raisins?

Thanks for the chuckle.

Bottom line, these fundies brought it on themselves, but anybody (from either side) who committed assault, should be arrested and prosecuted. Someone spouting hate may be ignorant, etc., but that does NOT give one the right to suddenly throw law out the window and behave like an animal.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

"civilized"

There is that word again. Used as if the Christians accusing Muslim children of worshiping a pedophile and the parents of being rapists and murderers was somehow 'cililized' and the Muslim response was not.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Maslo
IMHO.

Would this be the same opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view of the world should be jailed, deported, executed etc etc?

Not much of an opinion if you ask me.

What the hell are you talking about? Thats not my opinion. I dont even support exections..

Stop with the immature trolling and ad hominems already..

Originally posted by Indigo5


As Samuel Johnson once wrote..Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

You believe in garbage than.

You have no right to hit me for what I say. If you do I will have to use full force to protect myself.

I am a small guy I cannot fist fight so great, but I can aim a gun extremely well.

So you better take your quotes and put em in the trash where the belong lest it lead you into a situation you are not prepared for.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


This is why religion is the root of all evil....It has never done anything on the side of good. The guys walking in to the festival were looking for a fight and a reason to call Muslims evil. They got what they came for. All they wanted to do is get them to act like they did so they could video tape it. Both sides are fools for believing in a all might being. The Christians are just as bad if not worse. Religion is evil, it brings out the worst in whoever believes in this stuff made up by people looking to control the masses.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Mate, the Muslims were holding a festival, not a bloody protest. The Christians stomped in with signs accusing those peacefully celebrating Muslims of being akin to pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

Which is 100% legal in this fine nation where we have freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.

Not all speech is protected speech.

Please review the following.

Source

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.