The beginning of the end of free speech

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law" John (10:34)

Logically that is end of game, "YOUR LAW." Their law, says they are gods. You do not understand how to read in context.

 

Oh, where to begin. Jesus and the entire gospel story is a solar and zodiacal allegory. Jesus' death and resurrection directly parallel the winter solstice. In just a few days from now, the sun will reach that low point in the southern sky from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, where it will remain for about three days before beginning its ascent again, back towards spring and summer. Jesus' story parallels the entire journey from birth to 'wilderness' (when the sun is alive but not yet powerful, i.e. still winter), through its ascent to power and glory in the summer, and on to its eventual downfall in the fall, and its eventual death and rebirth in December.

The ancients didn't have a clue about the physics behind the apparent changes in the sky throughout the year and the associated changes in the weather, but they noticed this correlation and had to keep track of it in order to have agriculture. Christianity was born of astrology and Zoroastrianism (all from Persia). Even the wise men (magi) of the Nativity were astrologers. Not that I believe that they actually existed outside of the story any more than Jesus did, but it's remarkable that Persian astrologers were featured in the story at all.

 

Excellent example of freedom of speech. Next time bring up the Egyptians too, monotheism and sun worship.

Now back to the Black Stone Idolaters and their false prophet MoHamMad:

"[38.74] But not Iblis: he was proud and he was one of the unbelievers.
[38.75] He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?
[38.76] He said: I am better than he; Thou hast created me of fire, and him Thou didst create of dust.
[38.77] He said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away:
[38.78] And surely My curse is on you to the day of judgment." http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=708759

Just remember, the Devil made Iblis do it because all is written.

Man Satan
---- = -----
Water Air

So, here you have man is to water as Satan is to air. Or, in biblical terms Satan is the principality and the power of the air, or as Al Quacka put it:

"Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: 'But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)'; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

As you can see Allah is Satan, both the principality and power of the air and he controls the clouds.

 

ANGELIC VS SATANIC VERSES


Asleep but in a dream could hear,

When Gabriel whispered in the ear

Some passages he had selected,

But by Mahound they were rejected:

"The village is too gross!", he pleaded;

"Unvarnished word is not what's needed;

In between their sloth and play,

The prayer must come five times per day."

Gabreel kept barging through the doors:

"You must break loose now from your whores;

The curtain vanished, you may see:

From all impure you may be free;

Beyond all ritual time and space,

By Allah held in sweet embrace;

The one true voice comes from above:

Gihad be banished, only love!"

Inexorably roll the fates;

In stoic patience, Allah waits;

In rock‑proud Islam, Mahound stayed;

Gabe's verse forgot; as goat he brayed.

 

Cool!

 

Do you mean the adversary? The guy YHWH was placing bets with about whether a man would lose his faith if the ever-loving YHWH killed his family, servants and livestock? That old pal of YHWH?

Or do you mean the Zoroastrian evil character described as ho diabolos?

 

Job is a philosophical work, in the end he concludes that he knows he knows nothing whereas his tormenters knew everything; considerably before Socrates “Job” figured it out.

Whatever name you give it (Ahriman...Asha'man Wheel of Time, Sith fairies), if it controls the clouds, it is evil.

 

You're correct that being a member of a political party is not a crime in the US though that depends also on what that political party is up to.

Today we have another 'Russia scare' in which members of the Republican Party are being accused of participating with the Russians in the undermining of a Presidential election. And of course these accusations are flying about, and destroying lives, many years after the Cold War has ended. Do you see parallels here?

We have also seen careers ended and lives ruined from accusations of 'sexism' and 'racism' which, in the scheme of things, are far less egregious than the tens of millions who died as a result of communism.

And of course, McCarthy was correct is saying that Communists had infiltrated the US Government and had an undue influence on US politics. The evidence that communist propaganda was effective lies in the fact that their greatest opponent, Joe McCarthy, is still vilified by many today whereas opponents of Fascism and Nazism are not.

And, by the way, there are no 'standards of free speech'. You either have it or you don't.

 

Europeans often respond as though Leftists in the US aren't also making the same points through an ongoing and constant stream of consciousness. I've yet to see much original from European posters that hasn't been said multiple times in the US media first.

As to 'international bullying' many Americans would like to see it stop also and are, by nature, isolationist. This was most apparent in the years preceding WWII after the US lost hundreds of thousands of their people just 20 years after they became involved in The War To End All Wars. The British aree still complaining that that Americans didn't participate in that war soon enough.

If the Americans hadn't become involved in WWII, or the Cold War against the expansion of Communism, would Europeans have considered that a good thing? They were marching in the streets against "Ronald Raygun" and US policies at the time despite having lost half their continent to Josef Stalin and the Communists

I''d be more than pleased to watch Europeans defend themselves without US involvement but how likely is that? We see Europeans stumble from one bad idea to the next with little time to catch their breath between these debacles. If less 'international bullying' from Americans is what you seek then the idea certainly has my support.

 

If Germans find it agreeable to restrict free speech in order to maintain public order then go ahead. I'm sure there are many ways that restricting speech, and ideas, can be justified. We only have to look at recent history, and many parts of the world which control speech today, to resurrect many of those ideas and the logic behind them.

 

And yet it was the leftists who were most supportive of free speech during the Cold War, and WWII.

What you seem to be advocating is selective free speech - ignoring the right to say something rather than than the discretion of whether we should say something. That decision by the individual was especially important when the nation was at war, and it could be argued that the nation is at war now. In general free speech should be at the discretion of the individual and not by the government.

 

This is a case of 'can' we say it rather than 'should' we say it.

Anyone who says things like that obviously came from a troubled background but should not be arrested for saying it. There'll likely be other forms of retribution.

 

Fred C. Dobbs is quarreling on feelz not evidence.

 

First of all, there is an overarching right in our constitution for us: "The dignity of man is inviolable!"
Anyone who thinks to violate this superior right with the right to "Freedom of Speech" is liable to prosecution!

Then we learned from our mistakes in the republic after the First World War, which also caused Hitler's seizure of power or could not prevent it.
One of these fundamental mistakes was the misuse of the Freedom of Speech right, on which Hitler, with all his hate speech and clear statements, wanted to abolish the republic and the constitution!

It is therefore perfectly logical that anyone who wants to abuse a constitutional right to abolish the Constitution, must be stopped with all severity of the Constitution and the rule of law! Does such an individual then still have the right to this right? No!

 

Dont hold your breath waiting for that to happen

 

I have no idea? Ridiculous!

So Moses, Abraham, the Flood, the Genesis, and all the other things that are in the Old Testament NOT part of Christianity in your view?

And you say, I have no idea ... already funny if I as an atheist have more idea than you of your religion!

 

I would argue about the accuracy of your description "stream of consciousness". This is actually a "stream of unconsciousness". Forgive me for being picky, but there is a world of difference between the two.

Otherwise I agree with you. The same thoughts manifest on both sides of the Atlantic because, I think, the message is largely unchanged because US foreign and defence policy is largely unchanged.

I have some sympathy for your thoughts on this, but as the Polish diplomatic cables made clear the US was agitating the Polish, French and British to go to war against Hitler circa 1937/8. And the CFR War & Peace Studies Project 1939-45 was all about the US capitalising on the destruction in Europe in their bid (successful) to take over the British Empire and build a future US world hegemony.

There are no innocents here.

As I mention above it was always the US plan to get involved in the European war and it was very largely the US who worked for a militarised cold war thereafter. I'll have to try and find the article about George Keenan, the originator of the US "containment" policy against the Soviets.

Years later he became an outspoken critic of US foreign policy and how the Soviet Union, exhausted by WWII, posed no serious military threat against the US or Europe. He berated the US for having developed a military counter-point to the Soviets who he said were simply an ideological and political rival. Later still he ferociously attacked the US for starting an arms race.

But by then the so called military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about was de facto running America and his comments fell of deaf ears and deep pockets.

I suspect your pleasure will be rewarded.

I think that the EU has long held plans to develop its own military (defence and foreign policy) as it grows into the role of the United States of Europe. I also rather suspect that NATO will be wound down to a shell and then eventually shelved and forgotten. Thereafter it depends on the new foreign policy a USE follows, but my guess would be one that worked commercially with Russia and China and not against it - but with a military force able to withstand direct attacks against its interests.

This judgement is based on how the German business elite are happy to but Russian gas (Nordstream etc) and how German business were outraged at their nation succumbing to US forced sanctions against Russia - something that severely damaged their commercial interests.

It will be an interesting time, I think.

 

I asked you a simple question you could not answer, so let’s go back to the other question you would not answer:

"How the hell do you determine a 'fact kernel,' when dealing with whether someone, a so-called 'Prophet,' or god, should be worshiped or not?" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-free-speech.547350/page-5#post-1069996321

I will not answer questions when you do not, especially when the rest of off topic, that question is ON topic of freedom of speech. The answer to the second question ("So Moses, Abraham, the Flood, the Genesis, and all the other things that are in the Old Testament NOT part of Christianity in your view?") in your post requires you to answer my question, which you failed to answer:
"Who did they claim was their father, which prompted Jesus to say the following?

John 8:44 'You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.'"

 

Point #1

"How the hell do you determine a 'fact kernel,' when dealing with whether someone, a so-called 'Prophet,' or god, should be worshiped or not?"

Freedom of Religion as it is inside of most constitutions given and so there is fact-kernel important when you blame something without given the full background and facts ... because then it is hate speech only with no backing!

The great Prussian King Frederick II already put it in a nutshell with this analogous statement:

"Everyone should be happy and live in my state, no matter what religion he is, as long as they abide by my laws and are faithful subjects of my state ... in which, as their king, I am the first servant of the state!"

Conversely, any hostility to a religion, just because of religion is also prohibited - point!

Point #2

"Who did they claim was their father, which prompted Jesus to say the following?"

Everyone knows that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship at least the same god .... but with different way and sort and ideology at least.

But this is not the answer to my question!
Is Genesis part of the Christian faith - yes or no?
The answer is yes and it is clear that everything in the Old Testament is yes and therefore the Old Testament is also part of the Christian faith - point!

Or are you seriously saying that Christians do not believe in their religion that God created the earth in ... no idea ... 7 days or so?

 

So if I offend your dignity I can face prosecution? I get the feeling you're dignity is very sensitive so I'll not mention it whilst in Germany.

You seem oddly unfamiliar with German history during that period.

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on “free speech” in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, “Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany.”

Germany had hate speech laws and a Constitution prior to Hitler's rise and yet descended into the ugliest nation in modern history.

If hate speech laws and Constitutions can't solve the problem, what might? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/reasonable-restrictions-road-tyranny-mark-steyn/

 

The full article 1 of our constitution reads:

(1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect them is a duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore commit themselves to inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human community, peace and justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights bind legislation, executive power and jurisdiction as directly applicable law.

With this immutable article 1 in our constitution ... nothing and nobody can abolish it !!! ... it is no longer possible to deprive sections of the population (like the Jews at the time) and persecute them for their faith and ultimately render them without rights!
This never happens in Germany wit article 1 never ever again ... and will be prevented even in the beginnings to be a crime!

Please stop these unnecessary comments ... I have studied history, albeit and ironically in focus and with the Master's thesis a part of US history.

If you know so much better and with regard to your execution here ... then a simple question: why could not Hitler be stopped, could be elected, win the election as the strongest party and finally seize power?

Of course, in one part you are right, because even the best laws are not even worth the paper they are written on if they are not (correctly) applied and executed ... and that was also the case with Hitler!

 

You're quite right. In fact I wanted to change it then forgot.

Then it all comes back to flawed foreign and defense policies by the US. If that's the case perhaps it's time to look at other nations and their foreign and domestic policies to see where these problems may originate and what we, as democracies, can do about them. Perhaps another country can lead the way in any decision making process.

Seems the Americans were right about Hitler and the Europeans (with one notable exception) were wrong.

The fault was Hitler's and his followers. Let's not call the British, Poles, Czechs and Americans et al Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.

The American people certainly didn't want to get involved in yet another European War. In fact that's why many Europeans fled Europe, and for religious reasons as well. FDR finally convinced them it must be done, which pleased Churchill greatly.

Perhaps the British should get their history correct. Did they want the Americans in their war? Did they not? Did they want the Marshall Plan or did they not? Did the Americans enter too soon or too late? Have the British now forgiven the Germans but not the Americans for events which took place during the war years? Seems to be more complaining about Americans than Germans which seems quite odd.

No matter what the Americans do they'll be criticized for it and that's largely because European history seems to be a movable thing.

Keenan had a brilliant analysis at the time the article was written but he was obviously wrong aboout Soviet intentions in later years, or chose to ignore them. Reagan had it right.

Eisenhower and millions of others around the world were sick of European penchant for wars, invasions, murderous ideologies, and so on. There have been no serious wars since Eisenhower and even the Cold War remained largely cold.

I am very doubtful of any of that happening because of a serious error in European thinking. They always overlook culture. Marx certainly did and that was most obvious in the formation of the EU. They can make "Ode To Joy the official anthem but who will sing it? Now Germany and it's neighbors will make a common enemy of the US. a common enemy being necessary for groups to gather together, but they are again making a huge mistake. These European exercises in poor judgement have stopped being as surprising as they once were.

That's all small stuff but what's more interesting is your takeaway from this.

 

Of course I'm right and history proves it. The hate speech laws, despite being strictly enforced, were useless against Hitler and all the fine words in the Constitution meant nothing, and still don't.

 

No ... because they are only meaningless if they are not enforced ... and because they were not proper enforced against Hitler and because there were holes in laws which Hitler miss-used, he was able to raise power at least. And one of the first actions he did was the elemination of the constitution and the democracy! Example?

You know the so-called Nuremberg race laws of 1935?
With today's Constitution, these nefarious laws would be impossible ... because of Article 1 of our Constitution!

 

Post some 'evidence' you may have and we'll take a look at it, okay?