“We’re Obligated To Use Our Freedom Of Speech To Condemn Insults” To Islam…"

[Wilikon]

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both.

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.  And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults — (applause) — and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.  Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/obama-people-faith-must-confront-insults-religion/

[SOAD]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

[jaysabi]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

I should think so. He seems to be conflating two unrelated things to me. One is the legal right to freedom of speech, the other is a subjective judgment on what that freedom of speech should be used for. In saying that if we use free speech we are obligated to condemn those who insult another's beliefs, he's asking for conformity of values. While I agree insults to another's beliefs are unnecessary, I also believe conformity of values is impossible. While he's asking for conformity of values (to his values), people who hate Islam are wondering the same thing: why won't he conform to our values?

The only thing I can say with certainty is that there ought to be freedom of speech, and there are no inherent obligations that come with it.

[Wilikon]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

That was true, until it became not true anymore regarding islam.

He is saying EXACTLY what pope francis said regarding the limit of free speech and religion, but in doublespeak. Some kind of a clause the whole world has signed a long time ago I was not aware of. American atheists, since most of them voted for that dude, twice, are stuck with agreeing with whatever he is saying 100% of the time. I find this very amusing.

 



I guess broadway shows in NYC will have to close down now...

[Wilikon]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

I should think so. He seems to be conflating two unrelated things to me. One is the legal right to freedom of speech, the other is a subjective judgment on what that freedom of speech should be used for. In saying that if we use free speech we are obligated to condemn those who insult another's beliefs, he's asking for conformity of values. While I agree insults to another's beliefs are unnecessary, I also believe conformity of values is impossible. While he's asking for conformity of values (to his values), people who hate Islam are wondering the same thing: why won't he conform to our values?

The only thing I can say with certainty is that there ought to be freedom of speech, and there are no inherent obligations that come with it.

Yep. But he is not "conflicting". I have to give 0bama credits for being a master in doublespeak. This is very good for me as it sharpens my BS decoder.

[Wilikon]

Former White House Faith Leader Praises Obama For Linking Christianity To Isis...

Dubois: “A conservative audience. I thought it was a really important statement. You know, the president did a great job, I think, of drawing a distinction between those who misuse religion in the name of evil, and the religion, the faith itself. And he said, ‘Listen, all faiths have experience with those who twist and manipulate the words of the prophet for their own evil ends.’ Whether in the Crusades or folks who participated in slavery or Jim Crow. Now we have ISIS doing the same thing. The president was basically saying, ‘this is not Islam. ISIS represents American Muslims, no more than the crusaders or slaveholders represent Christianity.’ Particularly because a lot of Americans don’t know their Muslim neighbors, who haven’t spent a lot of time with the Muslim-American folks in the community. And the president, I think, wanted to make clear that what we’re seeing with ISIS does not at all reflect on Muslims around the the world.”


https://grabien.com/file.php?id=35439&searchorder=date

[rosh]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

People who condemn the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned.

[jaysabi]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

People who condemn the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned.

I don't think it's the people who condemn the publication of the prophet's image they're worried about so much as the people who violently react to it.

[Spendulus]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

People who condemn the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned.

I don't think it's the people who condemn the publication of the prophet's image they're worried about so much as the people who violently react to it.

You know what?  If they publicly committed suicide, they'd get considerable more respect and attention to their cause than if they kill those who publicize the supposed prophet's images.

[Wilikon]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

People who condemn the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned.

I don't think it's the people who condemn the publication of the prophet's image they're worried about so much as the people who violently react to it.

You know what?  If they publicly committed suicide, they'd get considerable more respect and attention to their cause than if they kill those who publicize the supposed prophet's images.

Some publicly commit suicide. Usually in crowded places...

[BADecker]

Right!

The biggest insult to another person's religion is when you harm or murder him because of his religion. Other insults are when you harm or murder his family members.

Now let me see. Which religious group in modern times does this the most to any other?

Yes. The mask comes off.

[username18333]

And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

People who cond[one] the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned.

⇒

[(oYo)]

With freedom comes responsibility. There are consequences to everything you do or don't do.

[username18333]

With freedom comes responsibility. There are consequences to everything you do or don't do.

. . .

Freedom was relegated to “rights.” What else did you expect?

. . .

(Prior enlightenment thought and its secular humanism, your Arminianism would be heresy.)

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

[(oYo)]

With freedom comes responsibility. There are consequences to everything you do or don't do.

. . .

Freedom was relegated to “rights.” What else did you expect?

And 'rights' have become 'privileges'.

[grendel25]

Murder in the name of religion is never justified.  There is no way these hate groups will be sustainable. 

[patt0]

Murder in the name of religion is never justified.  There is no way these hate groups will be sustainable. 

Murder in the name of religion has been going on for a very long time all over the world : /
But maybe things are done for other reasons and religion is only used to justify it and not the cause.