4 posts tagged “free speech”

As a Christian, I use the term "of God" to communicate the concept of "ordained" by or "part of His original design" for human society.  In the Jewish tradition, Jews use the term "kosher" extended from their dietary laws.  In Islam it is referred to as "Halal" or approved, also extended from dietary laws.   The Muslims also have a word for the opposite "Haram" where as the Christian and Jewish traditions use simple negatives to express the same concept of not being "of God" and not being "kosher."

Many liberal Democrats actually believe THEY are doing God's work by advocating for homosexual legitimacy, by protecting illegal immigrants, by favoring Islam, by forcing national philanthropy on Americans, by eliminating our right to be armed for self defense, (the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech violated 18 gun laws going onto the campus' with guns, do you think 2 more laws would have made any difference to them?) by forcing America's wealth into the hands of enemies and barely friendly states, by opposing war, by cutting the military budget, by advocating cultural diversity, by eliminating public Christian displays, by shutting down evangelism in public, by supporting radical feminism and the obfuscation of gender roles, debasing the level of civility, and defending pornography.

Examples follow:

Here is the way the original description of Prop 8 read:

• To provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Jerry Brown is advocating for same sex marriage using his position as Attorney General to describe a  bill that has already passed in liberal California to sound more like a violation of human rights.  Here is Brown’s new description:

• Changes California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

John LeoBowling With Our OwnRobert Putnam’s sobering new diversity research scares its author.

25 June 2007

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”

Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

Geert Wilders of the Netherlands has been promising to release his movie FITNA for months now.  (Fitna translated means 'unbeliever.'  He has battled his own government and press in order to have the 'right' to release his movie to speak out about the dangers Islamism is posing to his culture and to his country.  His only option for releasing this movie was to post it on the internet because no publisher or media outlet would open their doors to him.  LiveLeak, here in America posted the movie for us because of their belief in freedom of speech even though they don't necessarily agree with the message.  In less than 48 hours LiveLeak, the internet video posting service, pulled the movie from their site due to threats made against members of their staff.  Our own media is complicit with this silencing of video evidence of Muslim aggression with regards to clips like the planes crashing into the towers during the attacks on the World Trade Center and Daniel Pearl's, Nicholas Berg's, murders which the radicals so proudly posted on the internet and many other examples.  They do so on the basis these scenes are too disturbing while finding no trouble airing video of other murders or assassinations of political leaders.  Remember the lawyer that was shot several times by his disgruntled client?  The end effect is the dumbing down of the American public with regard to the vast array of the threats against Western culture.  The author of 'Roots of Jihad' Dr. Tawfic Hamid and many others who would know tell us how the radical versions of Islam are main stream in Muslim countries' governments and educational institutions.  During his interview on a Canadian news and commentary show, he explained radical Islam as that which teaches Salaf which is the root of Wahabism and moderate or mystic version of Islam is called Sufi.  He explains that the Salafi teacher can point to hundreds of references in Islamic literature that support violent actions whereas the Sufi teacher is not theologically supported.

The 15 minute film displays the results of the murderous works of radical Islam in both their own culture and in our culture and compares these images with verses out of the Q'uran and sermons, speeches, and interviews made by the most popular radical religious, political leaders, and even their teaching institutions instructing their followers to kill the Jews and attack the infidel until he submits, that Islam will rule the world, will defeat and rule the U.S. England, etc.,  There is nothing false presented in the movie and it is offensive to Muslims because they fear retribution against their peaceful members for what the radicals are doing.  I was fully aware of most of these images and the sermons and speeches because I have been blogging on this very topic for the last two years and had posted most of the images in my articles.   The final message in the film is two-fold, "Stop the spread of radical Islam" and "Muslims must be the ones to reform Islam."

The subject of this article is to point out that Islamism is inhibiting free speech in the one country built on 'freedom of the people' and 'self governance.'  The United States of America has been attacked in a far more damaging way than 11 Sep 2001.  This attack is defeating our basic rights successfully and revisiting the question of whether free speech is a legitimate right to our citizens.  We've been through this before with the marches by the KKK.  We hate the message of the KKK but we allow them to say what they say because if they can't speak their message, then eventually we won't be able to speak ours.  The difference in this instance is Islam.  Islam en total is 1.3 billion people around the world and rapidly growing, a substantial number to be sure.  Early into the struggle between radical Islam and the West, it was estimated that the radicals make up 10% of all Muslims.  That comes out to 130,000,000 people who want to force Islam on the rest of the world.  Add to that number the moderate Muslims who are offended by cartoons of Muhammad or videos revealing how extreme and how far spread Islamism has managed to become, because they fear Western retribution will fall on them, and you begin to see consequences of speech in a new light.  Now, due to the threat Muslims are posing to the venues of modern day speech (LiveLeak, YouTube, etc.,) hacking the websites of any and all hosts who've posted FITNA and threatening their staff members and to the Western media's reluctance to look at the whole story, the controversial movie is difficult to access and information is more difficult to get.  There are still sites where you can get it\ but they are increasingly less popular, smaller sites organized by people like Brigitte Gabriel and Dr. Hamid.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103&p=1

This is a movie about the stifling of Christian speech in America.  It details the accounts of people who've been arrested, had the microphone unplugged when they were speaking, children being led through Muslim prayers in school, etc.,  Very important documentary revealing the present day persecution of American Christians by America.
http://www.silencingchristians.com/video4.aspx
this is an important resource to prove our experiences happening now all over this nation.movie