Fucking Islamophobes.
I'm really going to stop following Adam Baldwin on Twitter - his world view might just turn me off to his character on Chuck one of these days which would totally ruin my current favourite show for me. He tweeted "Constitution Trumps Islamic Law" and posted this article: click here.
The first sentence reads:
When reading stories about that formerly obscure Florida preacher behind the Quran burning controversy, bear in mind that the only law he would have broken in doing so would have been Islamic law.
I stopped reading after that. First, like I've said a million times, there's no such thing as "Islamic law". It REALLY pisses me off when these idiot "journalists" throw around this phrase as if it means something, when actually it doesn't. I wish these self-professed intellectuals (obviously they view themselves as such; otherwise they'd be writing about which celebrity is sleeping with Paris Hilton or whatever) would do some research before they open their mouths to talk, or in this case, put fingers to keyboard and come up with some crap article on a subject on which they don't even have the most elementary of understanding.
Second, what kind of ridiculous point is the writer trying to make with that statement? Just because it breaks "Islamic law" only, that makes it okay? The preacher has a constitutional right to burn the Quran now? Are we actually serious? I mean, is this a serious argument? Arguments like this provide justification to my government, and other like-minded governments, to curtail free speech, and let me tell you: IT PISSES THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF ME. Can we use our brains here, people? Of course, that's assuming these stupid fuckhole Islamophobes even have any.
This argument doesn't even pass the logic test. It doesn't make any sense. You just have to extrapolate from first principles to see this clearly: what is the purpose of freedom of speech? It sure as hell is NOT to allow some fucking narrow-minded idiot preacher who probably has never been outside of the United States to burn the Quran. The purpose of freedom of speech is to guard against the tyranny of the government, amongst other things. It's to give citizens a voice so that they can dictate the actions of their elected leaders. It is not for anyone to shoot their mouths off about anything they like without consequences, especially if the speech is spiteful and harmful to a group of people whose rights the state has an interest in protecting.
Tong and I were talking about this and he didn't know it, but we actually agree that you can't push this too far. I think Singapore needs more free speech, but definitely not to the extent where people can seriously argue that I can burn a Bible because it's within my freedom of expression to do so. Also, I'd like to have some supporting authority for her claim that the only law the idiot would've broken is "Islamic law". No, really, I'm sure there are American laws against such things, though they wouldn't be couched in such terms. In Singapore, the guy would be arrested and detained under the fucking ISA 10 seconds after he made the threat.
Americans can be so brain-deadly stupid that it leaves me SO speechless. What the hell is this shit about Islam threatening to overthrow the Constitution? Ask yourself if that makes any sense. And for fuck's sake, the underpinning of the rights under the American Constitution, and rights in general, is the protection of the minority. How would protecting the fucker preacher's "right to free speech" serve this basic purpose when it's utterly offensive to American Muslims? Surely American Muslims are Americans too. Surely this American person can't be arguing that Muslims cannot be Americans.
I really, REALLY hate this stupid wave of Islamophobia. Don't judge what you don't understand. And you don't understand because you fear it.
Okay, whatever. I'm gonna shower and read my book before I sleep. I'm almost done with Atwood's Cat's Eye. Way prefer Blind Assassin but that's to be expected.
Lastly, my comment on the retarded article:
When reading stories about that formerly obscure Florida preacher behind the Quran burning controversy, bear in mind that the only law he would have broken in doing so would have been Islamic law.
I stopped reading this article after that sentence. First, please take a course in Islamic studies before you purport to have the authority to comment on what "Islamic law" even means (failing which, maybe you should've added a disclaimer or a caveat that you're using the term "Islamic law" to mean a certain thing). Second, I can't take seriously the argument of a person who ostensibly believes it's okay to burn a Quran to make a statement, and that it is his "right" to do so within his freedom of speech. Spurious arguments like that provide all the reasons why unbridled free speech should never be in place - it leads to abuse, it leads to intolerance, it leads to hatred. Let's see if you'd make the same argument if a Muslim cleric is threatening to burn the Bible.
Of course, it's my bad if I've completely misconstrued your argument - I didn't bother reading the rest of your article because the utter intellectual poverty of the first sentence gave me no reason to do so. Have fun in your Islamophobic corner. Sadly for the world, and as evidenced by the hideous comments on this article, you're in good company.
The first sentence reads:
When reading stories about that formerly obscure Florida preacher behind the Quran burning controversy, bear in mind that the only law he would have broken in doing so would have been Islamic law.
I stopped reading after that. First, like I've said a million times, there's no such thing as "Islamic law". It REALLY pisses me off when these idiot "journalists" throw around this phrase as if it means something, when actually it doesn't. I wish these self-professed intellectuals (obviously they view themselves as such; otherwise they'd be writing about which celebrity is sleeping with Paris Hilton or whatever) would do some research before they open their mouths to talk, or in this case, put fingers to keyboard and come up with some crap article on a subject on which they don't even have the most elementary of understanding.
Second, what kind of ridiculous point is the writer trying to make with that statement? Just because it breaks "Islamic law" only, that makes it okay? The preacher has a constitutional right to burn the Quran now? Are we actually serious? I mean, is this a serious argument? Arguments like this provide justification to my government, and other like-minded governments, to curtail free speech, and let me tell you: IT PISSES THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF ME. Can we use our brains here, people? Of course, that's assuming these stupid fuckhole Islamophobes even have any.
This argument doesn't even pass the logic test. It doesn't make any sense. You just have to extrapolate from first principles to see this clearly: what is the purpose of freedom of speech? It sure as hell is NOT to allow some fucking narrow-minded idiot preacher who probably has never been outside of the United States to burn the Quran. The purpose of freedom of speech is to guard against the tyranny of the government, amongst other things. It's to give citizens a voice so that they can dictate the actions of their elected leaders. It is not for anyone to shoot their mouths off about anything they like without consequences, especially if the speech is spiteful and harmful to a group of people whose rights the state has an interest in protecting.
Tong and I were talking about this and he didn't know it, but we actually agree that you can't push this too far. I think Singapore needs more free speech, but definitely not to the extent where people can seriously argue that I can burn a Bible because it's within my freedom of expression to do so. Also, I'd like to have some supporting authority for her claim that the only law the idiot would've broken is "Islamic law". No, really, I'm sure there are American laws against such things, though they wouldn't be couched in such terms. In Singapore, the guy would be arrested and detained under the fucking ISA 10 seconds after he made the threat.
Americans can be so brain-deadly stupid that it leaves me SO speechless. What the hell is this shit about Islam threatening to overthrow the Constitution? Ask yourself if that makes any sense. And for fuck's sake, the underpinning of the rights under the American Constitution, and rights in general, is the protection of the minority. How would protecting the fucker preacher's "right to free speech" serve this basic purpose when it's utterly offensive to American Muslims? Surely American Muslims are Americans too. Surely this American person can't be arguing that Muslims cannot be Americans.
I really, REALLY hate this stupid wave of Islamophobia. Don't judge what you don't understand. And you don't understand because you fear it.
Okay, whatever. I'm gonna shower and read my book before I sleep. I'm almost done with Atwood's Cat's Eye. Way prefer Blind Assassin but that's to be expected.
Lastly, my comment on the retarded article:
When reading stories about that formerly obscure Florida preacher behind the Quran burning controversy, bear in mind that the only law he would have broken in doing so would have been Islamic law.
I stopped reading this article after that sentence. First, please take a course in Islamic studies before you purport to have the authority to comment on what "Islamic law" even means (failing which, maybe you should've added a disclaimer or a caveat that you're using the term "Islamic law" to mean a certain thing). Second, I can't take seriously the argument of a person who ostensibly believes it's okay to burn a Quran to make a statement, and that it is his "right" to do so within his freedom of speech. Spurious arguments like that provide all the reasons why unbridled free speech should never be in place - it leads to abuse, it leads to intolerance, it leads to hatred. Let's see if you'd make the same argument if a Muslim cleric is threatening to burn the Bible.
Of course, it's my bad if I've completely misconstrued your argument - I didn't bother reading the rest of your article because the utter intellectual poverty of the first sentence gave me no reason to do so. Have fun in your Islamophobic corner. Sadly for the world, and as evidenced by the hideous comments on this article, you're in good company.