HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Orlando played host to Mu...

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:43 AM

 

Orlando played host to Muslim speaker’s call for death to gays, just weeks ago

Source: Fusion (ABC/Univision)

"DEATH IS THE SENTENCE" 6/13/16 6:11 PM

This story has been updated with new interviews.

On March 29, 2016

Farrokh Sekaleshfar — a British-born medical doctor and Shi’a Muslim scholar — was invited to speak at the Husseini Islamic Center just outside Orlando, Florida.

During his sermon, “How to deal with the phenomenon of homosexuality,” at the Sanford-based center, the scholar and sheikh described in characteristically sotto voce what it meant to do the compassionate thing for gay people:

“Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence.” He continued: “We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

Portions of that sermon were captured by local TV station WFTV in the video report shown above, uploaded to YouTube by the Islamophobic group “United West.” It represents one particularly harsh Islamic perspective on gays — one that’s not shared widely by Muslims, particularly in the United States.




Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque - WFTV 9 Orlando Report

snip


-------------------------------------







Read more: http://fusion.net/story/313063/orlando-terror-attack-muslim-lgbt/



Fusion is not a right wing site, its a joint venture between ABC and Univision

http://about.fusion.net/

Our Mission
At FUSION, we champion a young, diverse, and inclusive America from the inside out. We approach news and entertainment through a lens that celebrates all voices in today’s world.
Our Audience
We speak to the diverse makers and open minds of today’s America who seek intelligent news and culture coverage for their generation.
Our Talent
With a staff that is 60% non-white, we don’t just talk about diversity – we embody it. With access to communities that others do not, we create honest conversations and represent the widest range of voices in today’s America.

110 replies, 10907 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply Orlando played host to Muslim speaker’s call for death to gays, just weeks ago (Original post)
AntiBank Jun 2016 OP
Chakab Jun 2016 #1
King_David Jun 2016 #5
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #6
Chakab Jun 2016 #48
romanic Jun 2016 #16
Chakab Jun 2016 #49
Warpy Jun 2016 #77
24601 Jun 2016 #83
JudyM Jun 2016 #18
Igel Jun 2016 #29
JudyM Jun 2016 #36
David__77 Jun 2016 #20
Chakab Jun 2016 #43
David__77 Jun 2016 #46
Chakab Jun 2016 #54
raccoon Jun 2016 #88
melman Jun 2016 #25
Chakab Jun 2016 #44
David__77 Jun 2016 #47
Chakab Jun 2016 #51
JudyM Jun 2016 #52
Jesus Malverde Jun 2016 #64
PersonNumber503602 Jun 2016 #104
ReRe Jun 2016 #2
whirlygigspin Jun 2016 #3
ReRe Jun 2016 #4
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #7
ReRe Jun 2016 #10
Jesus Malverde Jun 2016 #71
ReRe Jun 2016 #72
whirlygigspin Jun 2016 #61
FailureToCommunicate Jun 2016 #8
daleo Jun 2016 #66
FailureToCommunicate Jun 2016 #68
daleo Jun 2016 #103
InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2016 #9
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #11
47of74 Jun 2016 #12
Akicita Jun 2016 #15
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #21
smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #53
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #57
TipTok Jun 2016 #85
David__77 Jun 2016 #22
Akicita Jun 2016 #58
Jesus Malverde Jun 2016 #65
christx30 Jun 2016 #17
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #23
christx30 Jun 2016 #26
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #27
philosslayer Jun 2016 #28
christx30 Jun 2016 #30
Akicita Jun 2016 #59
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #60
Akicita Jun 2016 #62
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #67
Akicita Jun 2016 #69
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #70
Akicita Jun 2016 #73
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #74
Akicita Jun 2016 #75
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #79
Akicita Jun 2016 #80
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #81
Akicita Jun 2016 #92
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #95
Akicita Jun 2016 #91
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #94
Akicita Jun 2016 #96
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #97
Akicita Jun 2016 #98
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #100
Akicita Jun 2016 #101
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #105
Akicita Jun 2016 #108
Sand Rat Expat Jun 2016 #89
Akicita Jun 2016 #93
JudyM Jun 2016 #19
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #24
JudyM Jun 2016 #35
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #37
JudyM Jun 2016 #39
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #40
JudyM Jun 2016 #42
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #45
JudyM Jun 2016 #50
AntiBank Jun 2016 #41
Aerows Jun 2016 #56
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #109
YOHABLO Jun 2016 #106
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #110
TipTok Jun 2016 #84
Bad Dog Jun 2016 #90
mountain grammy Jun 2016 #13
AntiBank Jun 2016 #14
rockfordfile Jun 2016 #31
AntiBank Jun 2016 #32
MariaThinks Jun 2016 #33
AntiBank Jun 2016 #34
KamaAina Jun 2016 #38
ymetca Jun 2016 #55
Jesus Malverde Jun 2016 #63
scscholar Jun 2016 #76
TipTok Jun 2016 #86
Bradical79 Jun 2016 #99
Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #78
Quantess Jun 2016 #82
TipTok Jun 2016 #87
BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #102
AntiBank Jun 2016 #107

Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:58 AM

1. ...and pretty much every city in America plays host to Christian fundamentalists with the same

 

viewpoint.












Here's a pastor who called for the death of gays and lesbians at an event that was attended by several Republican candidates for President last year:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:43 AM

5. In Orlando though, an Islamic extremist Gay hating sicko

Just put that message into practice... And killed 50 of us....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:36 AM

6. Mommy, Johnnny did it too! The excuse of toddlers, whining toddlers. 50 killed. Do not dismiss it.

 

This shit was given entry into this country to preach death to Americans. Not acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:10 PM

48. I wasn't excusing a fucking thing. That's what YOU'RE doing. I'm demonstrating

 

that these Right Wing bigots use the same language as that cleric did day in and day out and they are considered respectable to the point where Presidential hopefuls are comfortable being in their presence.

People should have the same response to the cleric and tell these people that this kind of language is no longer acceptable in the public political discourse in the US. The fact that I'm being attacked for pointing this out because of the notion that the only appropriate response to this event is denounce Islam is laughable.

It's just as bad, and people who live in the States have far more exposure to fundamentalist Christians than Islamic terrorists. Getting killed by a group of Rednecks who stomp you to death because you're gay or trans is just as bad as getting killed in a mass shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:34 AM

16. Deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romanic (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:10 PM

49. See post 48.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to romanic (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:26 PM

77. Not really. Inflammatory rhetoric against gays is as common in churches as in mosques

and most people in both places are sensible enough to realize it's hyperbole and that going out and killing people is wrong.

The religious screwball in Orlando was a Muslim. The next religious screwball who shoots up a gay club might be a Christian.

The one thing that allows them to kill so many people at once is easy access to military style guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #77)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:45 AM

83. Not in our Episcopal Church - we dance, drink good scotch and the Anglican Communication suspended

us for because of our deviant tolerance - seems we consecrated a gay bishop or two. Did I mention that our Presiding Bishop is [gasp] African American? Quick, Mary, another bottle of Scotch!

Really folks if all Muslims aren't alike, why would all Christians be in lockstep when we've been fighting among ourselves for a millennium?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:06 AM

18. Thank you for posting this. It is not just Radical Islamists who are calling for violence against

LGBT, and this hate speech is allowed to proliferate and even enrich the perpetrators. They need to be stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:50 AM

29. And yet there's a difference.

Most of the Xian groups I've heard of that denounce homosexuality denounce homosexuality. Some call for violence (most call for other action), but many still say that they'll go to hell. Not "let's send them to hell." For them, Jesus is the judge and God will recompense or mete out punishment. "Let each person work out his own salvation with fear and trembling." Think of this as "late Paul"--the Paul that excommunicated those who were especially notorious, but otherwise let things be.

That's a very Reformationist view, and it percolated through the Enlightenment. The State has some laws it must have and must enforce, but others are iffy. They come, they go, but blue laws and such tend to be spotty. This thinking has filtered down in various countries at different rates. It's not the case that all people in all cultures in all (Western) countries have equally bought into the Enlightenment viewpoints. But it's there, and it's trickled down with increased education and well being. Still hasn't always gotten to the bottom tier in all societies. Not all education qualifies here--STEM is especially weak in this kind of understanding, while a lot of modern liberal arts education has simply bailed on this project.


There's another kind of view, which is that you're virtuous if you command what is good and punish what is bad. That makes every person an enforcer, and this can potentially, given a tad of Western individualism and greater capacity of individuals to wield force, empower each person to take the law into his own hand. Then you smack barkeeps who sell alcohol inappropriately, you vandalize shops open during religious services, or you mete out the punishment, be it a death sentence or something less. Think of this as Shaul, who consented to Stephen's death and who went around rounding up Xians. It's all about making society pure and good and moral. This is medieval, and it's where much of the world always has been and where much of liberal arts education is heading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:21 PM

36. Violence against LGBTs can come from any angle... in the US it's a mish mosh of reasons,

mostly stemming from religions pointing to the "sinfulness", but each looney person who commits violence against LGBTs feels supported by society in doing that. They themselves feel uncomfortable about same-sex relations, at whatever level, and they want to push it away. The violence comes not just from being mentally imbalanced but because they will be heroes, they think, because society "really" hates gays, behind all the political correctness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:34 AM

20. This is really like pointing to black racism in response to manifestations of white racism.

"But the Christians..."
"But the black racists..."

It strikes me as similar.

A Muslim adherent of the Islamic State killed people in Florida.

I also get that there are bigots of all types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:54 PM

43. Sorry, that wasn't my intention at all. I meant to point out that this type of retrograde

 

thinking is mainstream on the Right in the US.

It's dangerous to have political dialogue that consistently dehumanizes people. If you think there's less of a danger of violence because U.S. Christian fundamentalists are somehow less capable or inclined than Muslim fundamentalists or that it's not outrageous that Presidential candidates were introduced by a guy who'd just called for the death of gays and lesbians, I don't don't know what to tell you.

I lived rural Southern community, and I saw religiously motivated violence perpetrated against LGBT people firsthand. The fact author the Right is getting mor and more comfortable comfortable with hate speech since the ascendancy of Trump is plain for everybody to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:04 PM

46. My sense is there is defensiveness talking about Islamic anti-homosexuality.

I have the sense that in this discussion many people on the left throw out the equivalent of "buts" and "look over there."

I think playing the game of comparing magnitudes leads to a diminution of the subject of discussion. I totally understand that others may disagree with my premises.

I want to fully acknowledge that an adherent of Islamic State performed the killings. I'd like that organization and its ideology obliterated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:36 PM

54. Look, I'm not wading into this argument about the "regressive left" and whether or not

 

some Liberals are too defensive about Islam. As a Secular Progressive, I actually have no problem whatsoever criticizing the outcome of a strict adherence to Sharia and the way of life in most majority Muslim countries.

I think playing the game of comparing magnitudes leads to a diminution of the subject of discussion. I totally understand that others may disagree with my premises. [/div class="excerpt"]

...and I think that this type of logic, if you want to call it that, is complete and utter bullshit. There's not much of a comparison to be made because the American pastors are using the exact same kind of rhetoric, and they generally do not face any consequences for it.

You might not die in a mass shooting inspired by anything that those pastors have said but you are far more likely to be subjected to dehumanizing treatment everyday of your life from one of the tens of millions of Americans who adhere to the same brand of Christianity that these nutjobs espouse.

If there's an "game of diminution," it's asserting that millions of acts of discrimination and violence that are perpetrated against LGBT individuals annually because of this worldview can't be referenced because the enlightened, "non-regressive" response to this tragedy is to bash Islam and only Islam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 06:58 AM

88. Yep, just ask the people in Rwanda.

It's dangerous to have political dialogue that consistently dehumanizes people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:41 AM

25. So it's okay then?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:57 PM

44. Ah, no. It's just as bad. Right wing hate preachers should elicit the same

 

reaction as that cleric. The Republicans should be forced to publicly denounce these people rather than pander to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:06 PM

47. I agree with mobilizing against antigay houses of worship

Specifically, against those that do not support the right to liberty of homosexuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:12 PM

51. That's my point. This event should be the catalyst to stamp this

 

type of speech out f the public discourse altogether or at least to make it as toxic as overt racism and anti-semitism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:16 PM

52. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:25 AM

64. pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:12 PM

104. I didn't watch all of those, but that "person" in the second video would fit in well with ISIS

based on all the other stuff he has said. Shouldn't these people all get along like peas in a pod?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:42 AM

2. This is a sick effing country.

We need to turn out the prisons and fill them up with all these GD dangerous homophobes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:53 AM

3. I'm told he is in Australia now

do they have laws against hate speech there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whirlygigspin (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:00 AM

4. Are you speaking of the Muslim Scholar?

Australia is interesting, but no, I don't know how they receive his bigotry over there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:37 AM

7. That you call a Scholar? Hate monger.

 

Oh how they seek to legitimize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:19 AM

10. That's how the article described him.

The Iranian dude. If you are inferring that I am seeking to legitimize the Iranian dude, then you need to get a grip or at least go pick a fight with someone else, because I am not interested sparring with you this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:01 AM

71. He fled Australia as they were going to cancel his visa.

A visa cancelation has tougher restrictions than volunteering to leave. It's unknown if he's back in Britain or the us. Places where British visas are welcome. If you watch the video. on the LBN I posted of his leaving you'll see how sick he really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:47 AM

72. For all we know...

... the Orlando murderer could have attended his seminars since he was in the area, or seen the videos. Maybe the FBI will find tracks of the videos on his computer. The US should not allow him in our country!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whirlygigspin (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:23 AM

61. Malcolm Turnbull orders urgent visa review of anti-gay Islamic cleric Farrokh Sekaleshfar

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/farrokh-sekaleshfar-visa-under-review/7509358

Australian Prime-Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced an urgent review of the visa held by an Islamic cleric who is visiting Sydney.

Sheik Farrokh Sekaleshfar has been quoted as describing death as an appropriate sentence for homosexuality.

Mr Turnbull said Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had asked his department to conduct the review.

"This is a legal matter and has to be dealt with in the appropriate way, but his visa is being reviewed at the direction of the Minister even as we speak," Mr Turnbull said.

Mr Turnbull said while the Sheik had a valid visa, Australia had a "zero tolerance for people who come to Australia who preach hatred".

Mr Dutton said he was first made aware of the case yesterday.

"We need to consider all of the facts before we make a decision, but the Government's position remains very clear," he said.

"We won't tolerate people who are preaching hate in our country, we wont tolerate the presence of people who fail the character test under Section 501 of the Migration Act."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:45 AM

8. "plays host" is an odd way of stating that someone happened to speak in a particular place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:12 AM

66. It sems like standard usage

If you are invited to speak at a venue, they are hosting you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:39 PM

68. Yes of course the venue is hosting, but the headline sorta suggests the city of Orlando hosted him.

"Orlando plays host..." rather than "nearby Islamic Center hosts..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:23 PM

103. I see your point now

It is confusing, and seems to imply some kind of civic government endorsement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:25 AM

9. Sick, sick, sick!!! What a POS scumbag pig!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:27 AM

11. This is what happens when you fetishise free speech.

The protection of free speech allows the weak and powerless to stand up to the rich and powerful. Hate speech which almost always goes after a minority group should not be afforded the protection of free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:36 AM

12. Germany learned that lesson

 

Unfortunately it took so much death and destruction for them to learn that lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:25 AM

15. So you stand in opposition to our First Amendment?

Or only your approved views should be allowed?

Free speech helps to expose bigots like this "scholar".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:35 AM

21. I don't give a monkeys about your first ammendment

or any other ammendments or your constitution. Hate speech is not given the protection of freedom of speech over here, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with my views. I didn't draft the legislation, but I do agree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:29 PM

53. I agree with you on the topic of hate speech.

 

It's simply too dangerous and presents a threat to life and liberty for too many people, as we are seeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:43 PM

57. Thanks.

If the only argument for allowing something is free speech, it's not worth listening to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 04:19 AM

85. You should make a list of 'naughty' topics...

 

... and we'll compare notes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:36 AM

22. That man is not a US citizen.

I absolutely support barring him from speaking his views in the United States. He should be barred from entry to the US absolutely unless he recants his views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:36 AM

58. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:27 AM

65. +1...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:56 AM

17. What you call hate speech

also allows us to denounce this guy without fear of being prosecuted.
If he comes to speak here in the states again, he needs to be protested as loudly and offensively as possible. He needs venues to tell him to get bent. Refuse his business.
Free speech works both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:38 AM

23. What a load of rubbish.

This shooter has been denounced over here with no problems at all. Hate speech should not be granted the protection of free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:42 AM

26. After the rapes in Germany by migrants on New Years eve,

people were denouncing the migrants. And were arrested by German authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:47 AM

27. That's not the same thing at all.

They weren't arrested for denouncing the attackers, but for spreading hate against all Muslims and migrants.

Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:47 AM

28. As they should have been

 

"the migrants" weren't responsible. A tiny, tiny percentage of criminals were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:52 AM

30. I prefer the freedom to say whatever I want.

The US will never emulate Germany. And people like this piece of crap that call for the death of gays are going to get a HUGE spotlight on them now. They won't be able to spread their hate anymore. They are going to be drowned out.
And that will probably involve saying things that would get you arrested in Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:38 AM

59. Dangerous Orwellian talk. Who gets to decide what is hate speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:49 AM

60. Parliament.

Taking any concept to absolutes is more than dangerous. And the 50 dead in Orlando are proof of that. There's pretty much a consensus on what defines hate. It works well over here, better in fact, our press didn't lie back and allow Bush to go to war.

Freedom of speech is pretty meaningless when the press are too scared to tell the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:56 AM

62. When the press is too corrupt to do its job is when freedom of speech becomes even more

important for the average citizen in order to hold the government accountable. The press over here is not scared. Just corrupt.

I sure wouldn't want our Republican controlled Congress deciding what is hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:52 AM

67. The speech you wish to protect isn't holding the government to account.

It's advocating attacks on minorities.

Lots of democratic countries have anti hate speech legislation. It's pretty standard definition, you could use one of those if you don't trust your own government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:24 PM

69. Speech inciting violence is illegal over here too. Speech by people saying they hate this or hate

that is not illegal nor should it be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:50 AM

70. Even when the result is 50 dead people?

What good does legitimising hate speech do? It doesn't hold the powerful/governments to account in fact it helps them by focusing the public on a scape goat.

By fetishizing free speech you've lost the whole point, your press is in the hands of the rich and powerful and instead of pointing out corruption your too busy defending the rights of those picking on minorities.

Btw, Orwell was first and foremost a Socialist. If you read Animal Farm you'll notice the main criticism of the pigs/Soviets isn't that there are worse than the capitalists but the same. That seems to shoot over most American's heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:59 AM

73. Free speech does not legitimize hate speech. It opens people who say ridiculous things to

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)

the ridicule they deserve.

Fetishizing free speech? What the hell is that? A way to put down a basic right? Like fetishizing abortion, fetishizing equal rights, fetishizing the environment, fetishizing equal pay, fetishizing women's rights, fetishizing minority rights, etc. What an infantile way to put something down.

You're right. Our press is in the hands of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, so is our government. You want the rich and powerful who control our government to decide what people can and cannot say. I am aghast at that. It would only cement their grip on power.

Many people with totalitarian leanings are more than happy to see those they disagree with silenced. But if and when the shoe is on the other foot and it is the people they agree with who are silenced, they are not so happy.

I don't want this country to become one where the rich and powerful, who control our politicians to a great degree, get to decide what people say and think. You might think they would be benevolent rulers, but I think they have shown they will put their own interests first.

It was free speech that allowed the abolitionists to speak out against the evil of slavery. It was free speech that allowed MLK to march and forced racist laws to be overturned. It is free speech that is changing views towards the LBGT community. It is free speech that allows us to express outrage against the Orlando massacre. We are free to make up our own minds about what or who is to blame, whether it be guns, Christians, radical Islam, homophobia, or whatever. We all have a right to our opinion and a right to express that opinion. We don't need the government to force us to accept whatever it is in their best interests to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:39 AM

74. If you had free speech, one which allows the Media to report the truth, you'd never have

illegally invaded Iraq. For all your feather spitting you've failed to convince anyone of the so called superiority of your system. Our press with our anti hate speech legislation is far freer and far more honest than yours.

You talk about holding the government to your account, but for all your supposed free speech that never happened. Instead you support those who spread hate in a knee jerk response to anything that appears to threaten your precious constitution.

Instead of talking about MLK who didn't use hate speech why don't you talk of the "good" that the hate merchants you support have done? You can't so you give a load of platitudes about something that wouldn't be affected by anti hate speech legislation because you can't deal with the issue of hate speech.

You sound like the Pope railing against the concept that the Earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. It's the 21st Century, not the 18th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:03 PM

75. Have you read a newspaper lately? Even a corrupt one would inform you that the citizenry overthrew

the establishment and their Oligarch masters and nominated Trump on the republican side. Unfortunately, it was Trump they chose to overthrow their establishment. We very nearly overthrew the establishment and their Oligarch masters on our side as well with Bernie. That was despite the opposition of the corrupt media and the many millions of dollars spent against us. Free speech by many millions of people allowed this near upset on our side and actual victory on the republican side over the Oligarchs despite all their money, power, and press.

Hate speech is often in the eye of the beholder. When slavery was legal here, Southerners looked at the abolitionists opposition to slavery as hate speech against their way of life and would have outlawed it if they could. But free speech rights protected the abolitionists. Free speech allowed the unions and honest reporters to publicize the horrible working conditions of factory workers at the turn of the century. Today, many Christians and Muslims regard LGBT gains to be attacks on their religious freedom, but they cannot silence the LGBT community and their supporters because of freedom of speech. Both sides are allowed to express their views in the court of public opinion and the LGBT side is winning because more and more people are realizing they are right.

Free speech oftentimes protects minorities and allows them to express their views. They have the right to peacefully march and protest to expose injustices and change views.

If you think that government controlled speech will always ban just the speech you oppose and will always support the speech you approve of I think you are sadly mistaken. At least not in this country. Too much of our government is controlled by the rich and powerful and their interests will always come first. They pretend to support minority causes to sow dissension and division in the country and focus our attention on our differences. Meanwhile, as our attention is focused on those things, they are robbing us blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #75)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:36 PM

79. Your defence of hate speech has allowed you to elect a Fascist as Republican nominee.

That's not really a good thing. Trump is part of the bloody establishment as well. Neither is your stance on abortion, (seeing as you brought it up,) where the religious right thinks it can tell women what to do with their bodies, and it's very difficult if not impossible to obtain one is some states.

Your press places as much value on lies as it does the truth, and isn't to be trusted.

Your refusal to redefine free speech for the 21st Century so that hate speech is not offered the protection has done nothing for your dishonest press or the safety of minorities, but it has given us the possibility of a fascist in charge of, still, the most powerful country on the planet.

I can see why you're such a fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #79)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:50 PM

80. We have a saying over here on this side of the pond that we may not agree with what our opponents

say but we will die defending their right to say it. Many have. Free speech is free speech. You can say what you want. I can say what I want. As long as it is not inciting violence or libeling some one. If I think you are saying something hateful, I am free to criticize you for it.

I had nothing to do with Trump's nomination. I voted for Bernie.

It is not the religious right but the illustrious government that you fetishize about that tells women what they can and cannot do with their bodies most of the time. It's the government that tells women what drugs they can put in their body, that they cannot use their bodies for sex to make money, unless it is filmed of course, what age they can use their bodies for sex, what age they can put alcohol in their body, how much they need to clothe their bodies in public, and on and on. They even regulate what food a woman can buy for her body or how much time her body can spend in a tanning booth.

I completely agree that the press lies and cannot be trusted. All the more reason for the rest of us to have free speech rights to be able to expose the truth.

I would define a facsist as someone who would take away the rights of those that disagree with him. Therefore,I think you are more of a facist than Trump. Trump is just an idiot. I haven't heard that he is proposing to take away anybody's free speech rights like you would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:55 AM

81. I've heard it.

You've not been able to come up with one good reason why hate speech should be protected, just a load of paranoid nonsense about how genuine free speech will come under attack.

America isn't exactly a shining example of free speech with McCarthyism and a supine press that preaches a right wing agenda and for whom lies are as important as the truth.

Look at countries with hate speech legislation and you'll see all your paranoid nonsense is just that, and you'll find a better more honest press and a less violent culture. No trigger happy racist cops over here.

I'm done going around in circles with you anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:00 PM

92. The one good reason is that you can never trust the deciders of what is or is not hate speech.

For example, some people think that voicing opposition to freedom of religion to accommodate LBGTs is hate speech. Others believe that voicing opposition to accommodating LGBTs on religious freedom grounds is hate speech. In your world, whoever happens to be in power gets to decide which is hate speech and can silence ban views. So if the RW is in power, the LGBT community and their supporters would be silenced.

Freedom of speech, meanwhile, allows all points of view to be heard, as long as it does not promote violence or is slanderous. Your point of view cannot be banned just because your party is out of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:59 AM

95. Paranoid nonsense.

Opposition to freedom of religion is not classed as hate speech, neither is opposition to accommodating LGBT. I live in the real world and so far you've not given me one example of how free speech in Britain has been damaged by outlawing hate speech.

We've got better education, better healthcare, a less racist, less trigger happy police force and a lower murder rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #74)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:41 AM

91. Government controlled speech would allow the media to report the truth? Get a grip. Was Pravda your

news source of choice to get the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #91)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:54 AM

94. You're living in a fantasy world.

Try to stick to the subject instead of going off on some paranoid tangent. This is not about government control of speech, but not allowing hate speech. I will ask you again, what specific damage has been done by the UK outlawing hate speech? Give me one concrete example, not a load of vague paranoid nonsense.

Btw, the BBC is far from government controlled, and it's a far more reliable source of news than your lickspittle media that broadcast round the clock government propaganda in the run up to the illegal war in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #94)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:13 PM

96. Did you not say that government is the decider of what is hate speech? Therefore government controls

speech. It's that simple. I don't follow British news closely so am not aware of the effects of the UK outlawing hate speech but I wonder if it was a contributing factor to the lack of response to the 1400 children who were victimized by the Muslim rape gangs over there. That would not be tolerated over here and thank God we have the freedom of speech to talk about it without fear of arrest.

I have no idea if the BBC is reliable or just politically correct and I won't take your word for it because it seems you don't know the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 01:29 PM

97. It's not that simple at all.

It's already been established and you can't find anything wrong with it specifically so you talk in paranoid generalities. We have a truly independent judiciary, and anyway it's established law it's not something that a future government is going to be able to tinker with without monumental opposition.

You're not living in the real world but a hypothetical one. And you're going to stay there because of your reactionary devotion to an 200 odd year old document. Why is an 18th Century aristocrat's definition of free speech so important that it can't be updated for the 21st Century?

You are talking absolute nonsense the only reason you know about the victims of crime is because the perpetrators were tried and jailed. That's not tolerating something. (Again, you talk in generalities, deliberately inflammatory ones as well instead of addressing a specific group.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #97)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:06 PM

98. I know that in the real world government control of speech worked real well for Stalin and the

Soviets for 70 years Putin is trying to reinstate it to a great degree. It still works good today in communist China, Cuba, and many other countries to keep the politicians in control of the peoples. If it works well for England and a few other countries in Europe, good for you. I prefer freedom for the USA.

BTW, Go Iceland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #98)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:49 PM

100. Changing the subject to Stalin.

If you're freer why do you lock up considerably more of your population, and have people going bankrupt to pay medical bills?

Btw,I doubt you could point out Iceland on a map. And I'd rather face Iceland than Portugal. Ronaldo can be devastating on his day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #100)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:46 PM

101. The subject is government control of speech. Stalin is an example of why I am against it.

Talk about changing the subject. We could go tit for tat about which is the best country all day, but let's just stick to a freedom of speech discussion.

I am of Icelandic heritage so am cheering my cousins on. They've played great so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:26 AM

105. The subject is whether or not hate speech should be afforded protection.

It's not about government control. You can't address the topic so you talk a load of vague paranoid bollocks.

I don't give a monkeys about your lineage, I thought you were proud to be an American, clearly not if you need to bang on about being Icelandic.

I've wasted too much time on you as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:46 AM

108. I'm hurt you don't care about my lineage. After all, we may be related. My ancestors used to rape

and pillage down there all the time.

I've had it with you as well.

Cheerio and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Akicita (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:46 PM

89. Well said.

The only speech that should be criminalized is speech that calls for or advocates violence. It's one thing to say "I approve of X" and entirely another to say "You should go out and do X."

One of the beautiful things about free speech is that it allows the marketplace of ideas to flourish, and that offers us the best avenue to getting rid of such deplorable worldviews. It allows those who hold these repugnant views to out themselves and put their ignorance on display, so the rest of us can then point out said ignorance for all to see. Ridiculing the ignorance and narrow thinking behind racism and bigotry will do far more to diminish it than criminalizing it would.

And as you rightly point out, once the power to criminalize speech is established, it opens the door for its abuse. A Republican-controlled Congress could, under these laws, muzzle the opposition. Or just as bad, a Democratic-controlled Congress could do the same. Giving the powers-that-be the further power to silence anything they, or the majority, don't like is a disastrous idea.

Lastly, to paraphrase Tyrion Lannister... when you tear out a man's tongue, you're not proving him wrong, you're only telling the world you fear what he has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Rat Expat (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:07 PM

93. I would add slander to the speech that should be criminalized. For example, accusing someone of a

crime when you know they are innocent.

Love the Lannister paraphrase. So true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:08 AM

19. It's also the fetishizing of anti-LGBT hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:39 AM

24. It is.

I'm sure there's plenty of right wing non Muslims who would go along with those sentiments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:13 PM

35. Exactly! This is a prime opportunity for the media to delve into hatred of LGBTs, and all they can

do is look at the terrorism angle, from every which way. Homophobia analysis? Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:35 PM

37. It's happening over here too.

This is (gay) journalist Owen Jones storming out of a Sky News newspaper preview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:47 PM

39. Homophobic terrorism, he called it, yes, that is a good term for it! And good for him! This is

how I and many of my LGBT brothers and sisters feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:54 PM

40. I know.

I'm straight but one of my kids is LGBT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:05 PM

42. Your points about fetishizing hate speech & the exasperation of that gay journalist would make

a fantastic OP. Just a nudge in that direction...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:03 PM

45. It was Will Self who first said it.

On a Channel 4 News discussion following the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

If you want to start a thread on that vid you've got my blessing. I've argued enough on this thread as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:12 PM

50. LOL. IKWYM. I started a related one..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:59 PM

41. Sky News bashing Trump!

 

Fox had best get on that bandwagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:17 PM

56. I don't blame him for walking out.

 

The degree to which people were missing the point was incredible.

Do not attempt to rationalize away the fact that this was targeted at gay people. I don't recall anyone saying that Dylan Roof, when he shot up a church, wasn't a racist.

No, I just see people trying to explain away that homophobia couldn't possibly be the problem here.

I'm just sick inside over this. I don't know a single gay person that hasn't been harassed or abused because some sanctimonious asshat decided that they were sent by God to eradicate us.

Put your religion in the garbage can if it is a religion which advocates that you are the final arbiter of who lives and who dies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:13 AM

109. I think certain members on the public, (on both sides of the Atlantic,)

would rather see this as an adjunct to Jihadi terrorism as opposed to viewing it as homophobic terrorism in its own right. The reason they do this is so they don't have to confront homophobic abuse and killing by those who aren't Jihadis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:17 AM

106. I think that Mateen's motives were personal. Feeling rejection made him click >

 

and take out his pent up anger on the very night club that he frequented. This was payback .. and then construed by ''the powers that be'' as an action of Islamic Radical terrorism. How convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #106)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:16 AM

110. He clearly had issues regarding his own sexuality.

If this is seen as Jihadi it means homophobia doesn't have to be addressed by white Christians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Dog (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 04:18 AM

84. So I'll put you in the anti-free speech category...

 

Hate speech is meaningless...

It's all hate speech to someone and objective standards are impossible to implement and in the end it comes down to the whims of whoever is doing the deciding.

Free speech is for the ugly bits your don't like as well... Just that easy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:02 AM

90. So I'll put you in the don't understand what's going on category.

We have anti hate speech in the UK. Our press is freer, we value truth, and we never had McCarthyism. Your mate has been incapable of demonstrating why allowing hate speech is a good thing. I don't expect you to do any better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:36 AM

13. Don't we have enough of our own crazy clergy?

Please, let's put these psychos on a no entry list. Some common sense is in order. He now says that's not really what he "means" and condemns the killer, but my opinion is, this nut is complicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:53 AM

14. killing LGBT is EXACTLY what he meant and said. there are

 

other videos of him spewing the same shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:05 AM

31. We have played host to a number of right wing conservative hosts that talk hate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rockfordfile (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:13 AM

32. We need the Fairness Doctrine back that Raygun helped abolish.

 

Everytime I see a Clear Channel billboard here in Stockholm I think of shitty USA right-wing radio and gag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:32 AM

33. and yet draw a cartoon and see how easily feelings get hurt

well, my feelings are hurt when innocent people are threatened and I'm devastated when they are killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MariaThinks (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:06 PM

34. they lock people up in prison here for doing brutal satirical art that delves into racial and religi

 

grey areas. So far not for the Muhammed cartoons although there are calls for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:43 PM

38. The shooter came from Port Saint Lucie, about 120 miles away.

 

That was not his mosque, if he even had one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:58 PM

55. Underneath

... the violence it always seems to be about sex, and the desire to contain and control it for reasons that maintain hierarchy. Society isn't yet at the level of uttering its "safe word" when the psychosexual restraints we impose on each other cause certain individuals to explode with rage rather than ecstatic release. Spraying a crowd of people with your "death-sperm" is evidence of a psychological anguish society barely recognizes because it cannot reconcile human sexual proclivity with natural diversity within its hierarchical systems of individual control.

The killer's behavior cannot be understood in terms of social norms, or by blaming some ideology, or by simply proclaiming him to be sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:23 AM

63. Radical Islam is incompatible with western culture.

Like cancer it must be eradicated. Cultural relativism for extremist political and cultural beliefs is cultural suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:06 PM

76. Stop trying to blame this on a group not responsible!

 

The NRA did this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 04:33 AM

86. Hardly...

 

Let's not blame the shooter or the group that he actually professed belonging to...

Go ahead and pick a group that you have an axe to grind with. That sure was convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #76)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 02:49 PM

99. Plenty of blame to go around -nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:41 PM

78. Husseini Islamic Center should apologize for hosting such hatemongers...

 

and promise that such homophobia will not be preached there again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:12 AM

82. Do you think they will?

I would wager a dollar (my standard bet) they will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #82)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 04:37 AM

87. Not if they don't want their building burned and their leadership murdered...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:15 PM

102. And the Republican Party says he should have the right to own guns

 

I am a firm believer in the 1st and 5th amendments. But as a society we need to consider if there is a constitutional way to ban this person from owning guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlackLivesMatter (Reply #102)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:08 AM

107. only way is to focus on the type of weapons, magazines, ammo

 

If a person isn't on a ban list and has no criminal background severe enough to warrant a ban, there isn't a constitutional way to keep all types of guns out of their hands.

Only way is to repeal the 2nd Amendment, which will never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread