Another example: [RQUOTER]"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," [...] "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."[/RQUOTER]
Our freedoms I'm not a member of the media and I'm also in the US. And freedom of speech and freedom to offend is two different things... Just as Donald Sterling.
BTW, freedom of speech implies that you have the right to offend and people also have the right to not deal with you and think you are an idiot.
Only because he signed a contract with the NBA, and I wouldn't say getting 2 billion dollars for your team punished.
The Washington Redskins are still the Washington Redskins, right? Has anyone "forced" them to change their name? Has Dan Snyder been attacked by Native Americans?
If it was because of the contract the NBA could have forced him out along time ago. It was because players were threatening to not play.... And just because you may value something doesn't mean another person values it the same. Nope... And no one cares because the natives are a small group with a small voice. But if you offend other groups in this country (like Sterling did) _ changes could possibly happen.
Ask them directly what the Islamic punishment for blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy is. Lip service. I'm sure many, mainly the ones in the U.S., are genuine but that's because they are more secular than their peers. It's reasonable that many Muslims would hold corporal punishment for these actions as acceptable if their infallible super prophet also had problems not taking criticism well.
What about prosecution from the government which is obviously what everyone here is referring to when referring to free speech. No one said there won't be repercussions for certain speech, but those repercussions won't be dealt by the criminal justice system, maybe sometimes it would go to civil court, but never criminal court unless the speech was a direct threat.
lol what a cop out. people have a problem when muslim leaders DON'T say anything, and when they do denounce these acts, they still have an issue.
No, but it's more understandable than someone being punished for making fun of a man who lived 1600 years ago who raped children and murdered thousands. Just because a group of people find that man infallible, doesn't mean he is off limits to criticism and satire.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-0Ks4pCO5O8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> That Imam denounces violence yet when Dawkins asks him a direct question "What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam" he refuses to answer until he gives in and admits that the punishment for apostasy is death in Islam under Sharia law. He states a cop out by stating that it's only punishable by death only under Sharia law, so under Great Britain it doesn't apply and seems baffled why Dawkins would ask this question if it doesn't relate to Muslims under British law. Yet, this guy doesn't understand along with many Muslim leaders is that the IDEA that death for apostasy is considered a GOOD IDEA is what perpetuates these violent attacks. If death for apostasy is a morally acceptable law under Sharia law, the most perfect legal system according to Muslims, why wouldn't it be a good idea outside Islamic jurisdiction?
I guess if he is just using this address to tell Catholics not to insult other religions and be accepting of other religions because it's the Christian thing to do, then I see nothing wrong with it. But if this is just a general comment about how everyone in the world should act, then yikes! I don't think I could disagree more.
