• Atheist assaulted by Muslim, case dropped, victim criticized by judge for offending religious belief
    337 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;34914663]no it's simple logic. if you really think that the Holocaust happened because someone invented the term Nazism then you are completely misguided and historically ignorant. Ultimately, unless you believe that religion and the concepts behind them are super-natural, religion comes from the ideas put forward by people.[/QUOTE] and everything reduces to fundamental quark interactions, so really there's no such thing as people either we don't live in this super ideal world where we can just remove all human irrationality and barbarism in one fell swoop, we have to choose our battles. religion is a high-value, high-impact target.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;34914600]Doesn't mean we're not allowed to call him an asshole.[/QUOTE] I'll agree that he's an asshole too, and that he should have expected some religious fanatic to do something like this. That doesn't in any way legitimize the assault, legally or morally, I'm just saying that it was not the most intelligent thing to do. However the assault was an unprovoked (in a physical sense) act of violence that cannot be justified in any way. So basically, it doesn't matter if you're offended, you don't get the right to strike another person unless in self defense. This judge totally did the wrong thing by basically saying "it's okay to attack someone because they offended your religious beliefs."
[quote]Oct 11 2011 in the Mechanicsburg City Parade I was attacked by a violent muslim IN AMERICA! [b]This is proof that muslims want Shria Law in America.[/b][/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXz60f0HLU[/media] Yeah right, next time you tell me Christians want God to achieve a physical form by building a gigantic gate made out of obsidian so they can summon him through the portal as some massive blob... thing. While I don't hate religion, it's unbearable how much stupidity is caused by gullible, extremist douchebags through their apparent obsession over a scripture designed to make life more civilized, and then completely missing the point of said scripture by slaughtering other people and subsequently defending their actions by throwing around the word "Religion" like it's the magic "Press-here-to-win" button.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914711]and everything reduces to fundamental quark interactions, so really there's no such thing as people either[/QUOTE] you're really going for some elaborate strawmen here. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914711]we don't live in this super ideal world where we can just remove all human irrationality and barbarism in one fell swoop, we have to choose our battles. religion is a high-value, high-impact target.[/QUOTE] battling religion is stupid and useless because you won't solve anything once everyone stops being religious. if you really have to choose battles then battle capitalism, oligarchy, or status quo.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914711]and everything reduces to fundamental quark interactions[/QUOTE] leptons and elementary bosons
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;34914600]Doesn't mean we're not allowed to call him an asshole.[/QUOTE] It just seems suspicious that there are so many types that have to clarify their disapproval with "now don't get me wrong, the atheist was being total asshole but..." as if avoiding looking hostile to religious types deserves special care that avoiding looking hostile to atheists doesn't.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34914674]Okay that is provoking someone, which is not protected under freedom of speech. I don't think the ruling was unjust, if the news article was "Westburro baptist church member punched by atheist at protest of soldiers death, case dropped" the thread would be completely backwards, it is all point of view but those people were obviously provoking hate.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. You absolutely do not get the right to attack another person because you're offended by their words or expressions. You [b]never[/b] have the right to strike another person other than to defend yourself or others from physical harm.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34914501] except it doesn't. the religion isn't going to kill you or ostracize you from society, people are. and the horrible wacky customs of the middle east existed far before any conception of Islam did.[/QUOTE] Nooo, quite the opposite. The Muslim world was civilized, technologically advanced, and one of the greatest and most fair societies for a long while, before the Mongols came and raped them so hard they fell hundreds of years behind. The customs of today have to do with extremists running shit, not necessarily with the religion itself.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34914763]battling religion is stupid and useless because you won't solve anything once everyone stops being religious.[/quote] are you actually serious holy shit this is denialism [quote]if you really have to choose battles then battle capitalism, oligarchy, or status quo.[/QUOTE] religion is the status quo, ty
Everyone is at fault here. The asshat who incited shit (and also making atheists look bad), the Muslim who assaulted him (and also making Muslims look bad), and the judge for just throwing it out without actually dealing proper punishment to the guy for assault. Also, I came in here expecting most of Facepunch to blindly defend the atheist. I was surprised to see not everyone was retarded, which actually made me feel better for some reason or another.
I can't believe that less than a year ago anyone who said DESTROY ALL RELIGION got laughed out of Facepunch. Now anyone who asks for coexistence gets harassed. You are all fucking dumb
[QUOTE=Noble;34914785]Absolutely not. You absolutely do not get the right to attack another person because you're offended by their words or expressions. You [b]never[/b] have the right to strike another person other than to defend yourself or others from physical harm.[/QUOTE] Where did I say he was in the right to strike him, or right I didn't... The judge probably looked at it like this "Oh some punk is provoking people and some one shut him up, both are at fault here so I will just dismiss it". I don't think a dismissal was unjust in this case.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34914674]Okay that is provoking someone, which is not protected under freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Fighting words are not protected- it was not provocation as much as it was intentional defiance, which is protected. 'Provocation' is only illegal so far as it has no substance to it. Regardless, the assailant is always charged as well.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34914501]the religion isn't going to kill you or ostracize you from society, people are.[/QUOTE] ...because the people follow the same religion that provides a handy belief system to codify and justify all their various prejudices and legitimises their idiotic beliefs kind of like in the crusades - it's easy to say that religion was only used as a cover for the real motives behind the campaign (and it probably was) but even so, it [I]still acts as a cover.[/I] remove that cover and the grotesque machinery of the real motives is revealed.
[QUOTE=D-Roy;34914827][B]Everyone is at fault here.[/B] The asshat who incited shit (and also making atheists look bad), the Muslim who assaulted him (and also making Muslims look bad), and the judge for just throwing it out without actually dealing proper punishment to the guy for assault. Also, I came in here expecting most of Facepunch to blindly defend the atheist. I was surprised to see not everyone was retarded, which actually made me feel better for some reason or another.[/QUOTE] people who say this are stupid there's an order of magnitude difference between the "badness" of what the atheist and the muslim did
[QUOTE=D-Roy;34914827]Everyone is at fault here. The asshat who incited shit (and also making atheists look bad), the Muslim who assaulted him (and also making Muslims look bad), and the judge for just throwing it out without actually dealing proper punishment to the guy for assault. Also, I came in here expecting most of Facepunch to blindly defend the atheist. I was surprised to see not everyone was retarded, which actually made me feel better for some reason or another.[/QUOTE] Nonono, the atheist has every right to do it. There is no legal reason for him to be at any fault. He's not at fault at anything.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34914808']The Muslim world was civilized, technologically advanced, and one of the greatest and most fair societies for a long while[/QUOTE] i said the middle east, not the "muslim world" in which i assume you mean the Islamic Caliphate. and not all of it was civilized and great.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34914877']Nonono, the atheist has every right to do it. There is no legal reason for him to be at any fault. He's not at fault at anything.[/QUOTE] No legal reason indeed but a moral one? Oh hell yes.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34914848]Where did I say he was in the right to strike him, or right I didn't... The judge probably looked at it like this "Oh some punk is provoking people and some one shut him up, both are at fault here so I will just dismiss it". I don't think a dismissal was unjust in this case.[/QUOTE] Both are not legally at fault because the atheist was legally in the right (covered by the first amendment) and the Muslim was in the wrong (assault). You could argue that the atheist was an asshole for what he did but his actions were legally protected.
I'd like to point out that Snyder v Phelps covered this issue lightly, with the roles reversed. Court says they can say whatever they want as long as it isn't inciting violence and isn't trespassing or harassing/enacting libel/slander, which they don't.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914824] this is denialism [/QUOTE] uh what exactly am i denying? it's pretty much a historical fact that the more prosperous and well-over people become the less religion becomes a part of their lives. this is why the west is a little bit less crazy about religion than say the run-down parts of africa.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34914917]uh what exactly am i denying? it's pretty much a historical fact that the more prosperous and well-over people become the less religion becomes a part of their lives.[/QUOTE] you're denying that the converse is also true in fact you're wrong as a matter of simple fact - the USA has become more religion-ised over the last century or so. (though this may be exclusive to the USA, I'm not aware of a similar phenomenon in the rest of the civilised world)
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;34914902]No legal reason indeed but a moral one? Oh hell yes.[/QUOTE] Hell no. At what point does it become morally acceptable to assault someone because they're offending your beliefs? Your statement is offending my beliefs, it's moral for me to kick your fucking ass.
Why can't religious (or lack thereof) people in general just.. you know... live and let live? I mean, really.
It wasn't morally justified either. It was an unprovoked act of physical violence. (unprovoked as in the atheist did not physically hit him)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914931]you're denying that the converse is also true[/QUOTE] getting rid of religion isn't going to remove the unjust institutions or make poverty any less. at most i'll just give people one less reason to do something.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914931]in fact you're wrong as a matter of simple fact - the USA has become more religion-ised over the last century or so. (though this may be exclusive to the USA, I'm not aware of a similar phenomenon in the rest of the civilised world)[/QUOTE] Okay sure whatever you say buckaroo
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34914932']Hell no. At what point does it become morally acceptable to assault someone because they're offending your beliefs? Your statement is offending my beliefs, it's moral for me to kick your fucking ass.[/QUOTE] Deliberately offending their beliefs in the way this guy was for the sole purpose of offending them and evoking a reaction is different from making an idle statement that you honestly believe to be factual and happening to offend someone along the way.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34914931] in fact you're wrong as a matter of simple fact - the USA has become more religion-ised over the last century or so.[/QUOTE] religion-ised? the word you're looking for is religious. and no, not even by a long shot.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34914932']Hell no. At what point does it become morally acceptable to assault someone because they're offending your beliefs? Your statement is offending my beliefs, it's moral for me to kick your fucking ass.[/QUOTE] At what point does it become morally acceptable to be a total scumbag towards someone for no other reason than for giggles? It doesn't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.