Muslim topic  permalink

At Last Sense over Free Speech

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 24 of 24
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by David (U14258942) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Geert Wilders has been cleared of all charges of insulting Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against them.

    www.telegraph.co.uk/...

    www.ynetnews.com/art...

    I think this is a great victory for free speech and a blow for the Muslim pastime of claiming "victimhood" at every slight that might befall their religon.

    The one thing that stands out in the two reports above is that because of his stance on Islam he is under the threat of death and needs constant security, until Islam stops resorting to violence as the first tool in the box then it will never have a place in the civilised world.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peace_786 (U14704359) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    David,

    until Islam stops resorting to violence as the first tool in the box then it will never have a place in the civilised world. 

    The last time I checked, Islam absolutely had a place in the civilised world.

    Whether it has a place in 'your' world is no doubt a different matter.

    Peace.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by David (U14258942) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Hi Peace

    Could you explain your perception of "My World"

    Let me tell you a little about "My World" my world is a world where religon does not resort to violence and murder at the slightest pecieved insult, my world is somewhere that women are not treated as chattels, my world is somewhere that homosexuals can be themselves without the fear of death, my world is where women can wear what they like and associate with whom they like without the fear of being punished, my world is a world when people who leave the said religon are not under the threat of death, my world is one where people do not strap bombs to their back and detonate them in public places such as a market place, tube train,bus or anywhere that the aim is to kill and maim as many inoccent humans as possible in the name of religon ...... maybe if islam was in that world then it just might gain some respect and credibility.

    In the meantime however is there any chance of telling us your view on the thread topic.... Geert Wilders

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    "Geert Wilders 'delighted' after being cleared of 'hate speech' "

    He doesn't look delighted, he looks totally knackered.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    I think this is a great victory for free speech and a blow for the Muslim pastime of claiming "victimhood" at every slight that might befall their religon. 

    I am very suspicious of Wilders (he claims free speech but calls for the Koran to be banned?). Nevertheless, certainly a victory for Western values against those who seek to impose medieval Arabic values on the West by violence and intimidation.

    Equality and freedom of speech must be defended, whatever the intimidation. For that much, Wilders deserves at least two cheers.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Peace_786 (U14704359) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    David,

    I have absolutely no intention on wasting my time with the likes of Wilders - just in the same way I would not want to waste my time with the likes of Nick Griffin - the civilised world rejects extremism, "of any kind". As an example, I reject and oppose terrorism, "of any kind".

    You made a comment in your OP, which I will challenge as follows:

    The comment:

    until Islam stops resorting to violence as the first tool in the box then it will never have a place in the civilised world. 

    Islam does not resort to violence as the "first tool" in the box. Unless you can prove otherwise and your proof must be based on the Holy Quran and/or The Hadith.

    Biased muslims always refer to specific verses which they use to insult Islam/muslims and here is a specific verse, which derails your "perception":

    Surah 60, verse 8: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

    Peace.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Peace_786 (U14704359) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Re-posted due to typo.....

    David,

    I have absolutely no intention on wasting my time with the likes of Wilders - just in the same way I would not want to waste my time with the likes of Nick Griffin - the civilised world rejects extremism, "of any kind". As an example, I reject and oppose terrorism, "of any kind".

    You made a comment in your OP, which I will challenge as follows:

    The comment:


    until Islam stops resorting to violence as the first tool in the box then it will never have a place in the civilised world.


    Islam does not resort to violence as the "first tool" in the box. Unless you can prove otherwise and your proof must be based on the Holy Quran and/or The Hadith.

    Biased NON-muslims always refer to specific verses which they use to insult Islam/muslims and here is a specific verse, which derails your "perception":

    Surah 60, verse 8: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

    Peace.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    I am very suspicious of Wilders (he claims free speech but calls for the Koran to be banned?
     

    Well you must place this in the context of Dutch law which bans other books that are deemed to be inflammatory (e.g. Mein Kampf). I think his argument is that free speech should be allowed within limits and that the Koran excedes those.

    I must admit, I think if either the Bible or the Koran was written in Europe today, their authors would find themselves answering similar charges to Geert Wilders. It does seem to be double-standards, but life is often about pragmatism.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    "I must admit, I think if either the Bible or the Koran was written in Europe today, their authors would find themselves answering similar charges to Geert Wilders."

    I must admit I know very little about this Geert Wilders chap, and I could not careless about his views and his expression of them, let him have his say I certainly do not care.

    I think it is worrying when it is being said that the secular humanist or atheistic State would put people on trial if they wrote books like the Koran and Bible, surely proof that the State has become Stalinist and totalitarian.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Often it is said that freedom of speech does not mean that anyone can enter a crowded theater for example and shout Fire!, causing a stampede and death in the process.

    However libertarians have said that this is not a case of freedom of speech, rather it is a case of infrigement of property rights, namely of the theater owner, and or the ticket paying audience of the theater. So the point is if the Geet fellow is standing at a property and not causing any harm to anyones property rights or inciting violence, he is free to say what he likes.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Wilders is simply one of the many who feeds off the whole "threat of Islam" paranoia which currently exists amongst some.

    In any case, he strikes me as either not very knowlegable on the Quran or he is simply dishonest, because if he knew the contents of the Quran in its entirety he would realise that (a) there is no "threat" from Islam, and (b) the answers to tackling terrorism actualy lie within the Quran, and making sure people learn to read it holistically and for themselves instead of solely relying on the opinion of clerics.

    The sad and funny thing about people like Wilders, though, is that they use the same distortions of scripture that the terrorists do, and then proceede to join them in telling the rest of us that it is the "right" version, in an effort to try and "expose" Islam, thereby siding with the minority of Muslims' view against the view of the overwheling majority of Muslims . . . not the most productive, honest, or inteligent approach.

    as for the statement:
    until Islam stops resorting to violence as the first tool in the box then it will never have a place in the civilised world 

    1stly, I didn't realise you were the gate-keeper of "the civilised world", and 2ndly, you might want to get the bouncer, because Inot only has slam been part of the civilised wolrd for centuries, but it also had a big hand in *creating* it.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    I think it is worrying when it is being said that the secular humanist or atheistic State would put people on trial if they wrote books like the Koran and Bible, surely proof that the State has become Stalinist and totalitarian. 

    Not really, the state has to place some controls on publications because they have the power to become propaganda and to harm groups of people. There are passages in the Bible and the Koran, and no doubt other holy texts that encourage violence and discrimination and even hatred of others. Those things wouldn't pass the tests of what is acceptable to publish today. And if they weren't so important to so many people, no doubt they would have been banned by now. But authorities recognise that trying to ban them would probably cause more violence than it would prevent so they don't.


    Often it is said that freedom of speech does not mean that anyone can enter a crowded theater for example and shout Fire!, causing a stampede and death in the process.
     

    I always think this is a silly thing for people to say. What if the theatre *is* on fire? Then you would have a duty to shout fire, or hit the fire alarm, and it would be up to the fire wardens to prevent the stampede.

    Besides, why is likening the Koran to Mein Kampf the equivalent to shouting fire? The two things aren't alike at all.

    I suppose what people are really implying when they say this is that panicking crowds act irrationally, and they think that Muslims will behave like a panicking crowd. Not very complimentary is it.


    However libertarians have said that this is not a case of freedom of speech, rather it is a case of infringement of property rights, namely of the theater owner, and or the ticket paying audience of the theater.
     

    Well I think shouting fire in a theatre when you know that it's untrue, would be a reckless act because people would understandably rush to leave the building to save their lives. It's not quite as understandable to riot because a book you really like has been likened to another book you don't like it being compared to.


    So the point is if the Geet fellow is standing at a property and not causing any harm to anyones property rights or inciting violence, he is free to say what he likes.
     

    No, he's free to say what he likes within certain limits. ie. he can't libel people, he can't incite illegal activity or hatred, he can't reveal official secrets, that kind of thing. But other than this, he's just expressing an opinion and he's as entitled to his as everyone else is. The court has deliberated and decided he hasn't contravened those limits, but only just.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Islam does not resort to violence as the "first tool" in the box. Unless you can prove otherwise and your proof must be based on the Holy Quran and/or The Hadith 

    Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

    Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

    Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

    Etc Etc. And this from a medieval brigand/warlord who would nowadays be prosecuted as a war criminal.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Sunday, 26th June 2011



    Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
     


    Thanks for proving my point about people like Geert Wilders, I have already pointed this out before, but here is how the context within which that verse appears:

    1. An acquittal, from God and His Messenger, unto the idolaters with whom you made covenant:

    2. 'Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.'

    3. A proclamation, from God and His Messenger, unto mankind on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage: 'God is quit, and His Messenger, of the idolaters. So if you repent, that will be better for you; but if you turn your backs; know that you cannot frustrate the will of God. And give thou good tidings to the unbelievers of a painful chastisement;

    4. excepting those of the idolaters with whom you made covenant, then they failed you naught, neither lent support to any man against you. With them fulfil your covenant till their term; surely God loves the godfearing.

    5. Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

    6. And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security -- that, because they are a people who do not know.

    7. How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger? -- excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing.

    8. How? If they get the better of you, they will not observe towards you any bond or treaty, giving you satisfaction with their mouths but in their hearts refusing; and the most of them are ungodly.

    9. They have sold the signs of God for a small price, and have barred from His way; truly evil is that they have been doing,

    10. observing neither bond nor treaty towards a believer; they are the transgressors.

    11. Yet if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then they are your brothers in religion; and We distinguish the signs for a people who know.

    12. But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief; they have no sacred oaths; haply they will give over.

    13. Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and purposed to expel the Messenger, beginning the first time against you? Are you afraid of them? You would do better to be afraid of God, if you are believers. 


    Well, it seems as though the ones that it’s calling to “fight” are those who break their oaths and peace treaties, those who are aggressors and expel one from ones land, and not just an unqualified ordinance to kill “pagans (or infidels or unbelievers)”.

    Don’t know about you but it doesn’t sound like an earth shattering proposition to me, sounds more like the stuff of International law; in fact, it sounds quite a lot like Justice. . or maybe you think that those who break peace treaties through aggression shouldn’t be resisted? Perhaps you would have let the Nazis take Poland without a fight, then; since that was the impetus for Britain’s involvement in WW2, the Nazis breaking their Oath and storming into Poland.

    As the Surah says, “so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing”, and even if/when they break their covenant and declare war, the Surah says any who “seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security”, which sounds a lot like modern rules of engagement to me, with the added duty to have to take them to a place of safety. . .and to think this was laid down 1400 years ago through an illiterate Arab, but we in the 21st Century haven’t really managed to better it.

    So all in all, if that’s your example, the teachings of Islam don’t sound so bad to me, and given the striking similarities with International Law and Rules of Engagement, they shouldn’t sound too bad to you either.

    You know, you should try actually reading the Quran in its entirety, instead of just snippets here and there, it might just enlighten you:

    www.al-quran.info

    I have used the Arthur John Arberry translation, since it is more difficult to accuse a non-Muslim of biased translating, but feel free to look around at the different ones on there.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Sunday, 26th June 2011



    Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
     


    what, you have an issue with this passage?:

    2:190 AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

    2:191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

    2:192 But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

    2:193 Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong.

    2:194 Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked: for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.

    2:195 And spend [freely] in God's cause, and let not your own hands throw you into destruction; and persevere in doing good: behold, God loves the doers of good 


    guess you must be an ultra pacifist, hope you remain consistant and not defend yourself if and when you ever find yourself being attacked.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
     


    hmmm, that's a tough one, here is the surah in full

    1 All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifieth Allah, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

    2 O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not ?

    3 It is most hateful in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not.

    4 Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure.

    5 And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Why persecute ye me, when ye well know that I am Allah's messenger unto you ? So when they went astray Allah sent their hearts astray. And Allah guideth not the evil-living folk.

    6 And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.

    7 And who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah when he is summoned unto Al-Islam ? And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

    8 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light however much the disbelievers are averse.

    9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

    10 O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom ?

    11 Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know.

    12 He will forgive you your sins and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eden. That is the supreme triumph.

    13 And (He will give you) another (blessing) which ye love: help from Allah and present victory. Give good tidings (O Muhammad) to believers.

    14 O ye who believe! Be Allah's helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah ? They said: We are Allah's helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.  


    now does it seem inteligent to take the verses you cite in isolation, or would it be more accuarte and intelectually honest to remember the fact that 2:190 says to fight against those who wage war against you but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors. 

    and that 2:192 says that if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. 

    and that 9:4. says not to fight those of the idolaters with whom you made covenant, then they failed you naught, neither lent support to any man against you. With them fulfil your covenant till their term; surely God loves the godfearing 

    and the fact that 60:8-9 God forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion's cause, nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them, and act justly towards them; surely God loves the just.

    God only forbids you as to those who have fought you in religion's cause, and expelled you from your habitations, and have supported in your expulsion, that you should take them for friends. And whosoever takes them for friends, those -- they are the evildoers. 


    because if you would arbitraraly ignore all those, then you simply reinforce point about the similarities between the distortion via selective reading practiced by people like Geert Wilders and the Terrorists

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    And this from a medieval brigand/warlord who would nowadays be prosecuted as a war criminal.

     



    or in the words of some other people:


    "I have studied him (Muhammad PBUH) - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness."
     

    — George Bernard Shaw (The Genuine Islam)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad"
     

    — William Montgomery Watt (Muhammad at Mecca)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "I wanted to know the best of one who holds today undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidness, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle."
     

    — Mahatma Gandhi
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
     

    — Thomas Carlyle (On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History)

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by honeymonster56 (U14627677) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    To David.

    This is very good news both for Geert Wilders and the rest of the world.

    In my mind the intent to incite hatred and discrimination was never there.

    It is time now for Muslims (like Christians have had to do over the years) to stand up and say 'not in my name'

    Although Geert Wilders is not a Christian himself many have prayed for him and we need to continue to pray for his safety.

    Honey

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by ocoste (U1912512) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    To Honeymonster & David:



    Well said to both of you. The latter for the OP (FANTASTIC NEWS!) and to the former for stating 'It is time now for Muslims (like Christians have had to do over the years) to stand up and say 'not in my name'".

    Absolutley and long overdue, but will it happen, I'll not hold my breath. There is such a powerful force of brain washing and conforming without question in Islam that this is unlikely.

    We have Peace (one of the more moderate on this board) fudging the issue of violent muslims who seek to kill Gelders and other's in the most blood-thirsty fashion, and confidently quote 'THEIR' holy book as not only giving them license to do so, but say it comples them to as no-one can insult their precious prophet or book. Let these people do as Gelders says and either stay or return to Muslim lands, enjoy their backwardness and the poverty that comes with it, and leave the West in peace to prosper and enjoy this life, as most of us respect and treasure, being content to meet 'our maker', when he decides.

    And while we're on the subject of free speech, Aaqil Ahmed, small victory in closing these boards, the Internet is a powerful force, and people are more than awake to the threats from Islam and it's followers.

    Goodbye all, and to Julie in particular, you'll feel much better if you just come out of the closet! smiley - winkeye


    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    John Stuart Mill:

    "I choose, by preference the cases which are least favourable to me – In which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of utility, is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions. However positive anyone's persuasion may be, not only of the faculty but of the pernicious consequences, but (to adopt expressions which I altogether condemn) the immorality and impiety of opinion. – yet if, in pursuance of that private judgement, though backed by the public judgement of his country or contemporaries, he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defense, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the assumption being less objectionable or less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case of all others in which it is most fatal.”

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Rosebud (U14888612) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    Goodbye all, and to Julie in particular, you'll feel much better if you just come out of the closet!

     


    Goodbye ocoste, stubborn till to the end. When ever I hear this, I shall think of your advice to come out of the closet smiley - winkeye

    www.youtube.com/watc...

    smiley - winkeye



    Julie

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    "Not really, the state has to place some controls on publications because they have the power to become propaganda and to harm groups of people"

    No it does not, the State only does this to maintain and increase its own power.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by blaidd_cymraeg (U5517039) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    "Not really, the state has to place some controls on publications because they have the power to become propaganda and to harm groups of people"

    No it does not, the State only does this to maintain and increase its own power. 
    aah that mythical beast called the state its all the shape shifters that did it,watch out for the killer clowns from outer space.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    "aah that mythical beast called the state its all the shape shifters that did it,watch out for the killer clowns from outer space."

    The State is real it is known and its actions are always carried out for its own ends, though they are presented to the ruled as if they are for them.

    "The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation— that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning- and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose." ~ Albert Jay Nock

    Wealthy people often use their influence over the government to gain legal privileges for themselves and take resources from poor, working class, and middle class people.

    1. Government -- all governments everywhere -- exists to enable some human beings to control and manipulate other human beings. While an occasional purpose of government is to interfere with others' private lives and control their ideas and/or values, the overarching purpose of government is to enable some people to live at the expense of others via taxation, forced labor, etc.

    2. The history of humankind is therefore the record of the struggle between Liberty and Power, between those humans who simply wish to be left alone to live their lives in peace and those who wish to control other human beings. Historians who portray the past as primarily consensus rather than conflict or as the inevitable triumph of impersonal, progressive social forces are lying apologists for tyranny.

    Report message24

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.