- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
'In a move that is certain to further escalate already stretched racial tensions in America's most cosmopolitan city, some 100 New York City buses will soon carry jarring anti-Islamic posters which feature photos of an ISIS beheading victim, his alleged executioner, Adolf Hitler, declare "Yesterday's moderate [Muslim] is today's headline" and proclaim "It's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism" as part of an "educational campaign." According to the NY Daily News, the ads, paid for by flame-throwing blogger Pamela Geller, at a cost of $100,000, are intended as an “education campaign” to warn of the “problem with jihad” and Islamic sharia law, Geller said.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/09/arab ads NYC.jpg
My reaction?
Here in Toronto, on our buses and subways, religious ads are always controversial. However, if they simply espouse the "benefits" of one religion without disparaging any other religion they have been accepted in limited ways. The ones I've seen have simply been informational such as "get more information here", etc.
Personally, regardless of your views on the topics expressed in the three ads posted in the OP, I believe these ads are dangerous in that they could incite violence against anyone who is outwardly Islamic and clearly many Muslims wear their religion quite clearly in their everyday lives. On that basis, I would oppose them just as strenuously as I would oppose some Palestinian support group who wanted to post ads condemning Israel for Palestinian "apartheid".
That's no excuse to deny others their 1st Amendment rights. If Muslims are offended to the point of violence, then they'll suffer the concequences of their crimes; perhaps other Muslims will come to understand, by that example, that they have to moderate their religious feelings.
When do the first amendment rights of one party override the first amendment rights of another?Aren't you disrespecting the first amendment rights of Muslims when you say they "will come to understand, by that example, that they have to moderate their religious feelings"? Isn't the NYC subway/transit system an arm of the government? Can't it be argued that the government is clearly abusing the first amendment rights of Muslims through allowing such ads?
Aren't you disrespecting the first amendment rights of Muslims when you say they "will come to understand, by that example, that they have to moderate their religious feelings"?
Well, that should calm things down :roll:
Pamela Gellar is a nutjob who spends her existance inciting hatred of a entire people based on religious affiliation.
What people?
I'm not in love with the Saudi government. They're Muslims and I hate Muslims. I am a big fan of facts and there aren't any facts to support the accusation that the Saudi government funds terrorists.
This recent parade didn't gain as much attention as the ads did. ‘Pro-Terror’ (United American)Muslim Day Parade – NYC- 2014- pics/vids | the "silent" majority no more!That's no excuse to deny others their 1st Amendment rights. If Muslims are offended to the point of violence, then they'll suffer the consequences of their crimes; perhaps other Muslims will come to understand, by that example, that they have to moderate their religious feelings.
Those that you have already publically stated that you hate.
This recent parade didn't gain as much attention as the ads did. ‘Pro-Terror’ (United American)Muslim Day Parade – NYC- 2014- pics/vids | the "silent" majority no more!
There a fear by some of offending Muslims and Islam moreso than other groups or religions and, as well, we might also ask ourselves if anything on that ad is untrue. Given the amount of Islamic violence against innocent people throughout the world in the past few decades I think it's time we dropped our concerns about offending anyone. This does not mean we should be attacking or defaming innocent individual Muslims but I see no problem in attacking the religion which is committing so much violence in the world today.
Well, that should calm things down :roll:
Pamela Gellar is a nutjob who spends her existance inciting hatred of a entire people based on religious affiliation.
While all racism is bigotry, not all bigotry is racism. Islam is a religion, not a race, therefore anti-Islamic statements, while they are bigoted, are not racist.
They've been defending it at least since 9/11 while attacking Christianity, as we can see on these threads. Christopher Hitchens is one of many who noticed these bizarre reactions.Islam is a politically correct religion. Liberals are obligated to defend it. I believe the anti-American/anti-democracy ellements make Islam acceptable to Liberals.
So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?