What is freedom of the press?
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
What is freedom of the press?
Some people think their freedom of the press is the freedom to cast aspersions upon people in the free practice of their religous freedom. I think the freedom of the press is for the purpose of giant killing only, and that is, in the defense of liberty accross the board from the powerful of wealth, government, and institutions.
Now, religion can certainly be considered an institution; but Islam is much less organized than Christianity, and less susceptible to change from without. If the attack experienced by Danish Muslims were experienced by Christians of any minority community that people would justly consider themselves under attack and move to offense or defense. Ultimately, their practice of their religion has nothing of threat to Western Culture, and to offend with blaspheme those least able to change their beliefs, or to judge them objectively is cruel torture.
There may be plenty to dislike in Islam. The key to change of Muslims is not in an attack of their religion, which is an attack felt personally by all of Islam. The key is to be found in a world where each feels free to accept or reject those aspects of religion that are offensive to social living, and a working alternative to the society formed of shared religious belief. Simply said, make it possible for Muslims to be Muslims while allowing them, without the rejection of their faith, to become full members of the western community. Muslims are very different from us, and the most simple ideal situation would find them in their own environment. This situation will never be had. We must learn to live with these people and to cherish their religious felicity, or leave them to themselves.
Muslims are human beings, whose culture is in many senses incompatible with our own. If we would live in the same world as them we must do so with a measure of mutual respect and acceptance. If the press cannot help with that they should shut their doors for good.
Now, religion can certainly be considered an institution; but Islam is much less organized than Christianity, and less susceptible to change from without. If the attack experienced by Danish Muslims were experienced by Christians of any minority community that people would justly consider themselves under attack and move to offense or defense. Ultimately, their practice of their religion has nothing of threat to Western Culture, and to offend with blaspheme those least able to change their beliefs, or to judge them objectively is cruel torture.
There may be plenty to dislike in Islam. The key to change of Muslims is not in an attack of their religion, which is an attack felt personally by all of Islam. The key is to be found in a world where each feels free to accept or reject those aspects of religion that are offensive to social living, and a working alternative to the society formed of shared religious belief. Simply said, make it possible for Muslims to be Muslims while allowing them, without the rejection of their faith, to become full members of the western community. Muslims are very different from us, and the most simple ideal situation would find them in their own environment. This situation will never be had. We must learn to live with these people and to cherish their religious felicity, or leave them to themselves.
Muslims are human beings, whose culture is in many senses incompatible with our own. If we would live in the same world as them we must do so with a measure of mutual respect and acceptance. If the press cannot help with that they should shut their doors for good.
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
That goal is in no sense I know of fundamental to Islamic belief. In fact they are officially tolerant of Christians and Jews. The danger to us from Islam is that they will see us as we are, religiously hypocrits, infidels bowing before the fetishes of wealth and power. Let us say we are Christians, and prove we are pagans at our peril. The other danger we face is in the evolution of Islam, that the religion has long ago become a mystical and spiritual experiance more profound than anything we can imagine in the materialist West. Their religion is as incapable as Christianity or Judaism of producing anything new in philosophy. However, we share the same God with them, really; and only need make that God real with our actions. Islam is loaded with intelligent and able people. If we persist in making ourselves hateful to these people, it is only a matter of time before they set off a nuclear bomb in one of our cities. We can have peace with these people as we have for most of our shared existence with them. We will not have peace entirely on our own terms.ksolway wrote:There is a potential threat to Western Culture if the practice of Islam involves the destruction of Western Culture. That goal may well be a fundamental part of Islamic belief.Ultimately, their practice of their religion has nothing of threat to Western Culture
- Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Islam is tolerant of other religions only so long as those religions are not perceived to be a threat to their own religion. Since the beliefs of other religions are highly incompatible and antagonistic to their own beliefs, it is easy for Muslims to see other religions as a threat. According to a common interpretation of Islamic teachings this entitles the Muslim to destroy the non-believers in order to protect the faith.propellerbeanie wrote:That goal is in no sense I know of fundamental to Islamic belief. In fact they are officially tolerant of Christians and Jews.ksolway wrote:There is a potential threat to Western Culture if the practice of Islam involves the destruction of Western Culture. That goal may well be a fundamental part of Islamic belief.
Few Muslims are able to argue with this logic. I have never heard any try.
The same non-existent God?However, we share the same God with them
Neither Muslims nor Christians know anything about the real God.
I would like to hear from them. Unfortunately as soon as a Muslim says anything intelligent about their own religion they are faced with the death penalty.Islam is loaded with intelligent and able people.
Hindus wouldn't agree with you. The violence inflicted by Muslims on Hindus, and vice versa, throughout history is unbelievable.We can have peace with these people as we have for most of our shared existence with them.
I think the only reason we in the West have had peace with Muslims in the past is that we have had relatively little to do with them. We have been separated mostly by geography.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
ksolway wrote:Islam is tolerant of other religions only so long as those religions are not perceived to be a threat to their own religion.propellerbeanie wrote:
That goal is in no sense I know of fundamental to Islamic belief. In fact they are officially tolerant of Christians and Jews.
Few Muslims are able to argue with this logic. I have never heard any try..
Am I to assume you know in some detail about the real God? Let us be clear. I pray to my unreal God every single time I get my ass in a jamb. A Muslim prays 6 times a day? Allah is a minimum of 6 times more real to a Muslim than my God is to me. Shall I take a swipe at Allah while beating on his fortunate few?The same non-existent God?However, we share the same God with them
Neither Muslims nor Christians know anything about the real God.
There is a broad statement. Can you prove it? Muslims may not be too critical of Islam. In its Classical years it laid the foundation of todays Western Philosophy. Unfortunatly in my opinion, Muslims found they could only accept Islam as a spiritual experience, and not as a philisophical experience, and rational examination of the religion ceased. None the less, in regard to Hindu and Christian alike, and among themselves they have been more at peace than at war, and more accepting of others than should have been expected. They are a positive force, if for only one small detail in difference to Christianity.I would like to hear from them. Unfortunately as soon as a Muslim says anything intelligent about their own religion they are faced with the death penalty.Islam is loaded with intelligent and able people.
I cannot agree with this statement, and urge you to read more on the subject. There has been almost constant contact in one place or another between Muslims and Christians in and around Europe and the middle east since the middle ages, and plenty of contact between Muslims and the Eastern Catholic church. Until recent times there were 350,000 Christians living in Bagdad, only one of the great cities of Islam. If these people found it possible to deal equitably with Muslims, why can't we?I think the only reason we in the West have had peace with Muslims in the past is that we have had relatively little to do with them. We have been separated mostly by geography.
Until the invention of Modern Israel Many Jews lived side by side in peace with Muslims, and why can we not do so? Is it because they see an insult to their faith as a veiled threat to every one of them? In this they are fully justified, because it is not hard to deal with differences between distinct groups within one community if the goal is mutual respect, and it is impossible to deal with those one refuses to respect.
Islam is tolerant. Would you agree that is true compared to christianity, where no tolerance was ever required of Christians vis a vis Jews or Muslims. What if the West is responsible for Muslims in all Western Countries because of our endless intrigues, and the constant, and out right theft of their resources. Islam is a martial religion. They were let into all Western contries with a promise of religious liberty. For them that means defense of Islam and struggle against injustice, and is it not an injustice to demean a legacy faith whatever its faults when that religion has brought peace to many, and when no single person can change the religion. For example, you can insult me for being part Irish, but in fact I cannot change the Irish or myself in that regard; so I can only feel insulted. Whatever the faults of Islam, it is dear to the hearts of many, and cannot be easily changed. What is the point of insult if not outrage?
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
Islam has one great strength compared to Christianity, and our weakness is found fully developed in the Canon law, and in Western Law regarding Spoliation.
Under Western law One gives to a person in possession of property a better title to that property with the use of force to eject that person in residence, even if that person had no right to the property to begin with.
A Muslim would laugh at such a contruction of rights, but let me explain. Coming out of the early Catholic church, and out of a desire for both peace and unrivaled Catholic authority, it is only natural that the church would demand peace first, and justice second, and that they should be the final judge of all disputes over property. The result is peace first, and justice second, which often means justice never.
A Muslim has an absolute right to justice, and while his religion often serves to bind his hands and to limit his violence there is nothing comparable to our actio spoliatio on his law books. We are doing all we can to bind every Muslim to Western style law, and Law is a word often heard in regard to Iraq and Israel. It is in an effort to protect our property and the property of our so called friends however acquired that we push Western Law on them.
This sense of an absolute right to Justice is the Concept keeping all of humanity from a perpetual dark age where those with unjustly accumulated wealth may look on unashamed while millions starve or die of disease. Islam is fighting for us. Islam is fighting for the future, and defending all of us Christians too pacified to notice the creep of our rights toward oblivion.
I don't wish for the death of all that is good in Western Culture, nor do I wish for the death of the good in Islam. I do agree with an absolute right to justice.
Under Western law One gives to a person in possession of property a better title to that property with the use of force to eject that person in residence, even if that person had no right to the property to begin with.
A Muslim would laugh at such a contruction of rights, but let me explain. Coming out of the early Catholic church, and out of a desire for both peace and unrivaled Catholic authority, it is only natural that the church would demand peace first, and justice second, and that they should be the final judge of all disputes over property. The result is peace first, and justice second, which often means justice never.
A Muslim has an absolute right to justice, and while his religion often serves to bind his hands and to limit his violence there is nothing comparable to our actio spoliatio on his law books. We are doing all we can to bind every Muslim to Western style law, and Law is a word often heard in regard to Iraq and Israel. It is in an effort to protect our property and the property of our so called friends however acquired that we push Western Law on them.
This sense of an absolute right to Justice is the Concept keeping all of humanity from a perpetual dark age where those with unjustly accumulated wealth may look on unashamed while millions starve or die of disease. Islam is fighting for us. Islam is fighting for the future, and defending all of us Christians too pacified to notice the creep of our rights toward oblivion.
I don't wish for the death of all that is good in Western Culture, nor do I wish for the death of the good in Islam. I do agree with an absolute right to justice.
Spoliation
I don't understand what you are saying here. The only legal definition I could find of spoliation is:propellerbeanie wrote:Islam has one great strength compared to Christianity, and our weakness is found fully developed in the Canon law, and in Western Law regarding Spoliation.
Under Western law One gives to a person in possession of property a better title to that property with the use of force to eject that person in residence, even if that person had no right to the property to begin with.
Which doesn't seem to be what you are talking about.Spoliation is the destruction or alteration of a document that destroys its value as evidence in a legal proceeding. Soliation often carries an inference of intentional destruction in order to avoid negative implications associated with evidence. Some jurisdictions have allowed a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
Spolium. Latin; In the civil and common law: A thing violently and unlawfully taken from another.
Blacks Law Dictionary.
Both violence and lawful are essential to understanding of this concept. If one takes violently after a decision of law one is protected, but the use of violence without resort to law is a crime which, when it involves the taking of property actually gives the one dispossessed a better title when once there was no title.
Spoliatus Debet Ante Omnia Restui:
A Party despoiled (forcibly deprived of possession) ought first of all to be restored.
Spoliatus Episcopus Ante Omnia Debet Restitui: A bishop despoiled of his see ought, above all, to be restored.
And let the violent bastard then plead his case for his property, and good luck. But, once more, you would not expect a Muslim ever to be deprived of his property without resort to vengeance. When you take what a man owns you take his honor. When you insult a man's religion you take his honor. I must wonder if we are not trying to get the Muslims into a place where we might pull them onto our bayonets with their beards, where the British once had them in Afganistan. If the object of the West is to anger these people so fully against us that they cannot think straight we may be on the right track. If they should ever give up on us completely we are in for hell.
Blacks Law Dictionary.
Both violence and lawful are essential to understanding of this concept. If one takes violently after a decision of law one is protected, but the use of violence without resort to law is a crime which, when it involves the taking of property actually gives the one dispossessed a better title when once there was no title.
Spoliatus Debet Ante Omnia Restui:
A Party despoiled (forcibly deprived of possession) ought first of all to be restored.
Spoliatus Episcopus Ante Omnia Debet Restitui: A bishop despoiled of his see ought, above all, to be restored.
And let the violent bastard then plead his case for his property, and good luck. But, once more, you would not expect a Muslim ever to be deprived of his property without resort to vengeance. When you take what a man owns you take his honor. When you insult a man's religion you take his honor. I must wonder if we are not trying to get the Muslims into a place where we might pull them onto our bayonets with their beards, where the British once had them in Afganistan. If the object of the West is to anger these people so fully against us that they cannot think straight we may be on the right track. If they should ever give up on us completely we are in for hell.
Spoliation
I hate to keep harping on something so trivial... but I can't find this. I don't have direct access to Black Law Dictionary, so I had to check some other sources.propellerbeanie wrote:Spolium. Latin; In the civil and common law: A thing violently and unlawfully taken from another.
Blacks Law Dictionary.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:
SPOLIATION, Eng. eccl. law. The name of a suit sued out in the spiritual court to recover for the fruits of the church, or for the church itself. F. N. B. 85.
2. It is also a waste of church property by an ecclesiastical person. 3 Bl. Com. 90.
SPOLIATION, torts. Destruction of a thing by the act of a stranger; as, the erasure or alteration of a writing by the act of a stranger, is called spoliation. This has not the effect to destroy its character or legal effect. 1 Greenl. Ev. §566. 2. By spoliation is also understood the total destruction of a thing; as, the spoliation of papers, by the captured party, is generally regarded as proof of. guilt, but in America it is open to explanation, except in certain cases where there is a vehement presumption of bad faith. 2 Wheat. 227, 241; 1 Dods. Adm. 480, 486. See Alteration.
http://www.interfire.org/features/spoliation.asp:
http://www.law-dictionary.org/SPOLIATIO ... N%2C+torts:WHAT IS SPOLIATION?
Black's Law Dictionary defines spoliation as the destruction or alteration of evidence.3
3. Black's Law Dictionary 1401 (6th ed.1990).
http://www.law-dictionary.org/SPOLIATIO ... ION%2C+Eng:SPOLIATION, torts. Destruction of a thing by the act of a stranger; as, the erasure or alteration of a writing by the act of a stranger, is called spoliation. This has not the effect to destroy its character or legal spoliation.
http://www.dcba.org/brief/junissue/2005 ... rn0605.htm:SPOLIATION, Eng. eccl. law. The name of a suit sued out in the spiritual court to recover for the fruits of the church, or for the church itself.
I can't find any reference that sounds like what you are saying. In any case, it strikes me as a minor point of law (possibly obsolete), and not a fundamental tenet of modern law. Since you are quoting stuff in Latin, perhaps this is old law, English common law, or something like that?Spoliation of evidence is defined as "the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence."2
2 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
Re: Spoliation
the sense of recovering ecclesiastical property is the original sense of the law, as canon Law. Apparantly it was common for one bishop to take over the see of another and benefit from the earnings, and the taking back with force of this see with violence was judged so as to give even that one with no claim on the see, if dispossessed by violence a better claim. The object was peace first, order second, and justice third. The case of destruction of evidence is not in the original sense of the word, which is to rob, strip, and pillage, as in despoil from Websters new universal unabridged. Law and Revolution, by Berman has a good explaination of spoliation, and I can round up some facts tomorrow. The two latin standard expressions were from Ecclesiastical law, British law. Blacks is in the next room, and yes, the whole point of the law is consistent with punishing violence before the fact.DHodges wrote:propellerbeanie wrote:Spolium. Latin; In the civil and common law: A thing violently and unlawfully taken from another.
Blacks Law Dictionary.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:SPOLIATION, Eng. eccl. law. The name of a suit sued out in the spiritual court to recover for the fruits of the church, or for the church itself. F. N. B. 85.
2. It is also a waste of church property by an ecclesiastical person. 3 Bl. Com. 90.
SPOLIATION, torts. 1 Greenl. Ev. §566. 2. By spoliation is also understood the total destruction of a thing; as, the spoliation of papers, by the captured party, is generally regarded as proof of. guilt, but in America it is open to explanation, except in certain cases where there is a vehement presumption of bad faith. 2 Wheat. 227, 241; 1 Dods. Adm. 480, 486. See Alteration.
http://www.interfire.org/features/spoliation.asp:
http://www.law-dictionary.org/SPOLIATIO ... N%2C+torts:WHAT IS SPOLIATION?
Black's Law Dictionary defines spoliation as the destruction or alteration of evidence.3
3. Black's Law Dictionary 1401 (6th ed.1990).
http://www.law-dictionary.org/SPOLIATIO ... ION%2C+Eng:SPOLIATION, torts. Destruction of a thing by the act of a stranger; as, the erasure or alteration of a writing by the act of a stranger, is called spoliation. This has not the effect to destroy its character or legal spoliation.http://www.dcba.org/brief/junissue/2005 ... rn0605.htm:SPOLIATION, Eng. eccl. law. The name of a suit sued out in the spiritual court to recover for the fruits of the church, or for the church itself.Since you are quoting stuff in Latin, perhaps this is old law, English common law, or something like that?Spoliation of evidence is defined as "the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence."2
2 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).
Drunk Anglican
.
Drunk Anglican
Anglican Leader soft on Islam, hard on US
The drunk Anglican should be ashamed of his slobberings against Christian Zionism and the United States.
http://ronpaulpresident.blogspot.com/20 ... lican.html
.
Drunk Anglican
Anglican Leader soft on Islam, hard on US
The drunk Anglican should be ashamed of his slobberings against Christian Zionism and the United States.
http://ronpaulpresident.blogspot.com/20 ... lican.html
.
-
xerox
Re: What is freedom of the press?
...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What is freedom of the press?
Replaced words "Islam" and "muslim" with "Mary" and "religion" with "people"... try it for the rest of the posts, it's fun.
Once upon a time there lived girl, and her name was Mary.
Can you?
Once upon a time there lived girl, and her name was Mary.
kevin wrote:Mary is tolerant of other people only so long as those people are not perceived to be a threat to Mary. Since the beliefs of other people are highly incompatible and antagonistic towards Mary, it is easy for Mary to see other people as a threat. According to a common interpretation of Marys teachings, this entitles the Mary to destroy them (hmm, you sure on that kevin? What's your source? -> the "non-believers") in order to protect Mary.
Few Muslims are able to argue with this logic.
Can you?
I can't wait, till we have tech to colonise space. Should be fun! Can you imagine it?!kevin wrote:I think the only reason we in the West have had peace with Muslims in the past is that we have had relatively little to do with them. We have been separated mostly by geography.
It's just a ride.
-
ZenMuadDib
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Re:
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. First of all, Islam came about before Western Civilization was ever called that and if the "West" is seen as a threat to their civilization then of course they will defend themselves just as we would do that. If there is a fundamental aspect in Islam that is counter to the West then the same would go for the West. It is ridiculous to think that Western civilization is somehow better or smarter or more pure than other civilizations.Kevin Solway wrote:There is a potential threat to Western Culture if the practice of Islam involves the destruction of Western Culture. That goal may well be a fundamental part of Islamic belief.Ultimately, their practice of their religion has nothing of threat to Western Culture
Torture does not work as history shows
.
Torture does not work as history shows - by Robert Fisk
There is no evidence that rendition and beatings and waterboarding and the insertion of metal pipes into men's anuses - and, of course, the occasional torturing to death of detainees - has ended
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/ ... 77213.html
.
Torture does not work as history shows - by Robert Fisk
There is no evidence that rendition and beatings and waterboarding and the insertion of metal pipes into men's anuses - and, of course, the occasional torturing to death of detainees - has ended
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/ ... 77213.html
.
Re: What is freedom of the press?
Freedom of the press is a right to which everyone that owns a press is entitled.
But it does not grant citizens a right to publish whatever they want in any newspaper they want.
If the newspaper doesn't want it, they don't have to publish it.
The 1st Amendment merely limits the government's capacity to restrict the newspaper's choices.
But the 1st Amendment has never protected:
Libel
Slander
Sedition
Perjury
Certain threats to the U.S. President
But it does not grant citizens a right to publish whatever they want in any newspaper they want.
If the newspaper doesn't want it, they don't have to publish it.
The 1st Amendment merely limits the government's capacity to restrict the newspaper's choices.
But the 1st Amendment has never protected:
Libel
Slander
Sedition
Perjury
Certain threats to the U.S. President
30 character limit on sigline?

