Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's unrealistic to achieve it, but not stupid. The reason I wrote it is because someone here pretended that a one time event of 30,000 Muslims from the world over was a major event against Islamic extremism.

By way of comparison, for every Muslim that rallied againt Islamic extremism in a one time event, over 60 travelled to Mecca on a yearly event of neo-paganism. If that doesn't demonstrate their priorities are a bit off, what would?



The said rally was a wordwide event. Why do you only count European Muslims when Muslims from all over the world attended? By that standard we would be talking about over 2 million people. Yes, that would be significant and it would be a major achivement. If it were done yearly, as Woodstock is (right?), then it would work wonders over a decade or so.



I already addressed that, but since you did show some interest, here I go again. The main danger of Islamic terror isn't the death toll, but the fact every attack drives Muslims further away from Muslims. This isn't due to bigotry, but because the attacks are in the name of Islam, justified by Islamic scriptures and often done by people otherwise not seen as particularily problematic. They decide to read the Koran a bit more, and a little later they drive trucks in festuve crowds. Non-Muslims examine the teachings and find that the justifications are indeed there, clear as they can be. Islamic response to the attacks ranges from "don't blame Islam" to "yes, but Israel..." to "Muslims grievances", it never addresses the teachings, history, context or anything else that explains the attack. In this light more and more peoplw grow suspicious of Muslims. How many welcome the attacks, but wouldn't carry them out themselves? How many are cheering the dead kaffir, and are planning to emulate the attackers?

It's not bigotry, and it's certainly not racism. Muslims have shaken the confidence in them, shaken it badly, and should now work to restore that confidence, for the good of us all. They would benefit the most from it, incidentally, since incidents od what you might call bigotry and islamophobia would fall and might eventually even disappear altogether - irrespective of terrorist attacks. The terrorists lose in this scenario even if the attacks continue unabated. A major, consistent and severe Muslim rejection of the attackers can defeat the terrorists. Nothing else can. I therefore call for a major, consistent and severe pan-Islamic rejection of Islamuc terrorism. What we see now is a minor, inconsistent and mild, before you ask.

I ask again, how on Earth is this controversial??

McHrozni

Yet again you jump from terrorists to Muslims and then proclaim its not bigotry or racism. If you cant see thats controversial you are beyond hope.

Lets take your points though.

1. If something is unrealistic to achieve its stupid to suggest it as a solution. Its dishonest and suggests you are not in the least bit interested in actually changing your mind. Demanding others do something unrealistic isnt useful. In fact its exactly the same behaviour you dismissed as unreasonable when Muslims do it in respect to their grievances.

2. The event was a global event in name but it was held in a place. I dont think its reasonable to expect a poor African or Pakistani muslim to fly to London to protest something. Woodstock was a global event too so you would have to scale their population up to 5bn or whatever to then be fair. That would only improve the significance of the Muslim protest. Im talking about sixties woodstock by the way. That one time significant cultural event.

3. Assuming you mean non muslims are driven away from muslims? If we accept this as an argument then we agree that protests will have no effect on actual terrorism? Its purely for show?

First off thats incredible bigotry. Requiring someone to take action to counter your own prejudices based on their religion. Guilty until proven innocent

Secondly the very bigotry you think is ok is driving muslims and non muslims apart just as much if not more. If thats really the issue then you should be vehemently opposed to right wing propaganda against muslims and to the constant stream of crap poured out against muslims. You should be castigating white guys for not gathering in huge anti islamophobia rallies and fighting the deplorables at every step. But you arent.

When you say Muslims have shaken the confidence in islam at least youve given up the pretense that you are criticising the religion and not the people. Thats why you get accused of bigotry. Because you consistently assign responsibility to people who have done nothing wrong for acts carried out by others.

Eta Thirdly theres no reason to believe it will work because bigots and racists will simply ignore dismiss or reinterpret the protests. Like they have done so far.

 

[Craig B]

The said rally was a wordwide event. Why do you only count European Muslims when Muslims from all over the world attended? By that standard we would be talking about over 2 million people. Yes, that would be significant and it would be a major achivement. If it were done yearly, as Woodstock is (right?), then it would work wonders over a decade or so.

Previously you said it only had to be done once. Now it's two million people yearly for a decade "or so". And they have to do nothing less than denounce the text of their own sacred scriptures.

I ask again, how on earth Earth is this controversial?

If that is an honest comment, you have a strange view of controversy. Now the Israeli ambassador has been waving the Bible to justify illegal land grabs in Palestine. Does the holy text of the Tanakh justify these usurpations? Yes it does. Now I want to see a big demonstration of Jews here every year for ten years, or I'll treat them, one and all, as being in breach of UN resolutions, and as simple thieves. If they can steal land, where will it stop? They could easily start stealing people's cars. So they need to prove they won't.

There's a simple solution. They all get out into the street en masse and publicly declare every year for ten years "or so" that the Law of Moses is an incitement to crime, and they reject it. How on Earth is this controversial?

 

[McHrozni]

Previously you said it only had to be done once. Now it's two million people yearly for a decade "or so".

I've said, repeatedly, 300 million for once and only once, a couple of million (maybe more) for a decade or so to solve the issue.

And they have to do nothing less than denounce the text of their own sacred scriptures.

Can you please elaborate on this? For example why is hate speech fine, if it's considered sacred? Can I (ab)use this to violate various laws too?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Yet again you jump from terrorists to Muslims and then proclaim its not bigotry or racism.

Muslims must explicitly, loudly and en masse reject Islamic terrorists and extremists. How is that bigoted again?

Lets take your points though.

1. If something is unrealistic to achieve its stupid to suggest it as a solution. Its dishonest and suggests you are not in the least bit interested in actually changing your mind. Demanding others do something unrealistic isnt useful. In fact its exactly the same behaviour you dismissed as unreasonable when Muslims do it in respect to their grievances.

That's why I presented numerious other options, one of which is in the post you quoted above. Can you stop pretending the only solutions are unreasonable?

2. The event was a global event in name but it was held in a place. I dont think its reasonable to expect a poor African or Pakistani muslim to fly to London to protest something. Woodstock was a global event too so you would have to scale their population up to 5bn or whatever to then be fair. That would only improve the significance of the Muslim protest. Im talking about sixties woodstock by the way. That one time significant cultural event.

Well, you made the 200M population estimate. Yes, it is unrealistic to expect poor Pakistanis to fly to UK to attend a demonstration, which is why I also proposed mass demonstrations all over the world as a way to address that issue. You haven't even acknowledged that, please do so.

3. Assuming you mean non muslims are driven away from muslims? If we accept this as an argument then we agree that protests will have no effect on actual terrorism? Its purely for show?

I believe they would have an effect, but that's secondary. The main benefit would be in driving the communities closer together and stopping actual bigotry, as opposed to imagined bigotry you see all over the place. Reducing the number of attackers would come later, when Muslim youth would come to their senses and see there is more to life than becoming a walking bomb for your god.

First off thats incredible bigotry. Requiring someone to take action to counter your own prejudices based on their religion. Guilty until proven innocent

I have proven bigotry inherent to Islam several times over. Islam is guilty, this is not debatable, and Muslims must reject those parts that make it guilty of bigotry. If they don't they apparently agree with them. How do you call someone who agrees with bigotry?

Secondly the very bigotry you think is ok is driving muslims and non muslims apart just as much if not more. If thats really the issue then you should be vehemently opposed to right wing propaganda against muslims and to the constant stream of crap poured out against muslims. You should be castigating white guys for not gathering in huge anti islamophobia rallies and fighting the deplorables at every step. But you arent.

This is being done above and beyond what is deserved. Yes, some fringe media spout anti-Islamic propaganda, what of it? Most media are doing their best to defend Islam. On the other side holy books of Islam call you and me worse than pigs and cattle, and there is practically no effort against that. It's high time they step up to the plate as well.

When you say Muslims have shaken the confidence in islam at least youve given up the pretense that you are criticising the religion and not the people.

I criticize both, but one of them is able to fix it.

Thats why you get accused of bigotry. Because you consistently assign responsibility to people who have done nothing wrong for acts carried out by others.

The only responsibility I assign is to Muslims not rejecting obviously problematic stuff in their religion loudly, massively and clearly. Usually because it's "sacred" or some such crap.

Koran 7-179: And surely, We have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones.

Do you remember what happened to the last people who were called "cattle" in Europe? Do you remember what we eventually did to those that presented such crap? Please explain why should Islam be treated differently.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've said, repeatedly, 300 million for once and only once, a couple of million (maybe more) for a decade or so to solve the issue.



Can you please elaborate on this? For example why is hate speech fine, if it's considered sacred? Can I (ab)use this to violate various laws too?

McHrozni

Seriously stop saying 300m it makes you look ridiculous. Or simply finding an excuse to perpetuate bigotry and prejudice.

Hate speech is not fine. Under any circumstances. Being a Muslim is not hate speech though. Just as being a Jew or a Christian isnt hate speech.

Do you require Christians to constantly prove that they dont think the world is flat and 6000 years old?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Muslims must explicitly, loudly and en masse reject Islamic terrorists and extremists. How is that bigoted again?



That's why I presented numerious other options, one of which is in the post you quoted above. Can you stop pretending the only solutions are unreasonable?



Well, you made the 200M population estimate. Yes, it is unrealistic to expect poor Pakistanis to fly to UK to attend a demonstration, which is why I also proposed mass demonstrations all over the world as a way to address that issue. You haven't even acknowledged that, please do so.



I believe they would have an effect, but that's secondary. The main benefit would be in driving the communities closer together and stopping actual bigotry, as opposed to imagined bigotry you see all over the place. Reducing the number of attackers would come later, when Muslim youth would come to their senses and see there is more to life than becoming a walking bomb for your god.



I have proven bigotry inherent to Islam several times over. Islam is guilty, this is not debatable, and Muslims must reject those parts that make it guilty of bigotry. If they don't they apparently agree with them. How do you call someone who agrees with bigotry?



This is being done above and beyond what is deserved. Yes, some fringe media spout anti-Islamic propaganda, what of it? Most media are doing their best to defend Islam. On the other side holy books of Islam call you and me worse than pigs and cattle, and there is practically no effort against that. It's high time they step up to the plate as well.



I criticize both, but one of them is able to fix it.



The only responsibility I assign is to Muslims not rejecting obviously problematic stuff in their religion loudly, massively and clearly. Usually because it's "sacred" or some such crap.

Koran 7-179: And surely, We have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones.

Do you remember what happened to the last people who were called "cattle" in Europe? Do you remember what we eventually did to those that presented such crap? Please explain why should Islam be treated differently.

McHrozni

Deary me. Are we going to play this find a quote in the book of stupid game?

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

How many hundred million Christians do we need to denounce that before its not ok to keep them on a register?

 

[McHrozni]

Deary me. Are we going to play this find a quote in the book of stupid game?

We could, but it wouldn't be a contest. No, you wouldn't win.

Suffice to say there are many Muslims who kill due to the Koran, but not many Christians who do so due to the Bible. At that point your false equivalence falls apart completely.

Now can you please address the points I made? Because if we want to defeat Islamic terrorism, my way is the only way I know of. You don't have to like it.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Do you remember what happened to the last people who were called "cattle" in Europe?

...says the guy who threatened me and every Muslim in the West with being put in a gas chamber.

 

[Craig B]

We Because if we want to defeat Islamic terrorism, my way is the only way I know of. You don't have to like it.

My bolding. Why don't you get to know some other ways. Maybe we'll like some of them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We could, but it wouldn't be a contest. No, you wouldn't win.

Suffice to say there are many Muslims who kill due to the Koran, but not many Christians who do so due to the Bible. At that point your false equivalence falls apart completely.

Now can you please address the points I made? Because if we want to defeat Islamic terrorism, my way is the only way I know of. You don't have to like it.

McHrozni

So we will use the books when it suits us and ignore them when it suits us? Great scepticism there. Not bigotry at all.

Actually im tired of this now your points are worthless and dripping in prejudice. Give me a reason to believe you are in the least bit interested in sensible discussion or willing too change your mindmind and I might consider engaging on your terms.

Your way has been pointed out to be ********.

Till then im quite happy to point out your nonsense and prejuduce and let others decide who makes the most sense.

If we are just going by bodycounts then right wing idiots have much more to answer for than muslims. Heal thyself.

 

[Craig B]

I've said, repeatedly, 300 million for once and only once, a couple of million (maybe more) for a decade or so to solve the issue.

Can you please elaborate on this? For example why is hate speech fine, if it's considered sacred? Can I (ab)use this to violate various laws too?

McHrozni

That is not the issue that you have raised. No, you can't use holy books, however holy you think them to be, as an excuse to violate the laws. If you obey the laws nothing more is required of you. If Muslims or Christians or Jews obey the laws nothing more is required of them. The preposterous nonsense in ancient holy books is not "hate speech" for which law abiding adherents of the ancient religions are to be held responsible.

The Israeli ambassador to the UN waved a horrible example of early Iron Age "hate speech" which he states, correctly, supports the Zionist land grab in the occupied territories. That is not "hate speech" on his part, merely bigotry; or possibly the hypocritical abuse of an ancient text to impress the knuckleheaded American fundies on whom his government relies for support. But he is not thereby made personally guilty of the mass murder, usurpation, enslavement, despoliation, desecration and rape attributed to the commands of God in the Tanakh.

Still less are my next door neighbours guilty of what may be in Muslim scriptures, particularly as they never wave copies of that text at me when I meet them on the landing. They obey the laws, take their turn at cleaning the stairs, and that's that.

 

[McHrozni]

My bolding. Why don't you get to know some other ways. Maybe we'll like some of them.

Why don't you present them?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

...says the guy who threatened me and every Muslim in the West with being put in a gas chamber.

Really, A'isha? I explicitly told you several times I want to prevent that, and you still continue this character assasination?

Apparently criticizing Islam in any way is an unforgivable sin, even to a non-practicing quazi-Muslim. And yet you deny Islam is a problem

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So we will use the books when it suits us and ignore them when it suits us? Great scepticism there. Not bigotry at all.

We're discussing what is relevant. A book that doesn't inspire people to kill is not relevant.

Actzally im tired of this now your points are worthless and dripping in prejudice. Give me a reason to believe you are in the least bit interested in sensible discussion or willing too change your mindmind and I might consider engaging on your terms.

My discussion is entirely sensible and rational.

Your way has been pointed out to be ********.

Really? It was questioned for effectiveness once, I explained why and how it would be effective and there wasn't a substantial answer to that. In which reality does this equal it being ******** or whatever it was you wrote?

If we are just going by bodycounts then right wing idiots have much more to answer for than muslims. Heal thyself.

Maybe, but I don't see the rights of those ideologies defended and their right to promoting hate vigurosly protected because they're a major benefit to society.

Basically you're saying we should wait until the Islamuc death toll reaches into tens of millions of people, and act then. Failure to learn is not a recepie for success.

Oh, and chances are we won't have to wait very long. SA could go bust in under a decade, unleashing pent-up Islamic supremacist rage currently kept under wraps with petrodollars. That's a cheering thought, isn't it?

McHrozni

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That is not the issue that you have raised. No, you can't use holy books, however holy you think them to be, as an excuse to violate the laws. If you obey the laws nothing more is required of you. If Muslims or Christians or Jews obey the laws nothing more is required of them. The preposterous nonsense in ancient holy books is not "hate speech" for which law abiding adherents of the ancient religions are to be held responsible.

How many times have I said that it's not about personal responsibility or guilt by association? Five? Six?
Somwthing like that. And yet you keep it up. Can't you at least try to set up a new, different straw man? This one is getting mouldy

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We're discussing what is relevant. A book that doesn't inspire people to kill is not relevant.

How have you reached the conclusion that one book inspires people to kill while the other doesn't without first assuming your conclusion?

History disagrees with you and even today people are being killed by Christians ostensibly because of their beliefs/teachings.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...s-and-kills-atheist-for-not-believing-in-god/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary

But that's not even the point.

The point was that you selected a passage from the Quran. For a reason presumably? To demonstrate something important and meaningful. And then when shown that exactly the same sentiment is expressed in the Bible rather than acknowledge it you moved the goalposts to still blame Islam and Muslims for something.

Even if you are correct that one inspires violence and the other doesn't then given the two passages are not different in any particular meaningful way then it stands to simple logic and reason that the problem is not in the text but in those who commit violence.

My discussion is entirely sensible and rational.

It really isn't. And as I said, you show no willingness to change your mind when presented with counterarguments. You twist yourself in knots to excuse everyone and everything except Muslims. Your arguments are textbook examples of prejudice. You have already reached your conclusions and are trying to justify them.

Really? It was questioned for effectiveness once, I explained why and how it would be effective and there wasn't a substantial answer to that. In which reality does this equal it being ******** or whatever it was you wrote?

You yourself said what you are asking for is 'unrealistic'. So apart from them never going to happen and not working even if they did happen (which you didn't actually explain but merely further expounded your assertion). You have even gone further and admitted that you are only interested in Muslims putting on a show for Non-muslims regardless of whether it would have any effect on the actual problem of terrorism.

Maybe, but I don't see the rights of those ideologies defended and their right to promoting hate vigurosly protected because they're a major benefit to society.

You don't?

Trump just got elected on a right-wing idiot ticket
Brexit just happened on a right-wing idiot ticket
You are expounding on France, Netherlands, moving towards a right wing idiot ticket.

Right wing idiot ideologies are being defended daily. Their right to promote hate hugely protected and their benefit to society being lauded by the people you refuse to condemn.

And you are saying it's justified. And that Muslims are to blame.

Basically you're saying we should wait until the Islamuc death toll reaches into tens of millions of people, and act then. Failure to learn is not a recepie for success.

No I'm not. I'm saying that when we examine arguments we should establish the facts and whether they support the conclusions. If we are assessing ideologies for dangerousness, for bodycount, for threat to peace, for driving a gap between Muslim and non-Muslim then right-wing idiocy trumps Islam every time.

Oh, and chances are we won't have to wait very long. SA could go bust in under a decade, unleashing pent-up Islamic supremacist rage currently kept under wraps with petrodollars. That's a cheering thought, isn't it

Under a decade? Pent up right wing idiot rage is being unleashed in the UK and US right now. You really think we'll have ten years to wait before Trump and his deplorables do something right-wing idiotic extremist enough to damage far more lives than anyone in SA ever could?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How many times have I said that it's not about personal responsibility or guilt by association? Five? Six?
Somwthing like that. And yet you keep it up. Can't you at least try to set up a new, different straw man? This one is getting mouldy

McHrozni

Yes you keep saying it but then you keep going back to the same argument that clearly does point the finger at Muslims.

If you don't think they have any responsibility to do anything then why are you annoyed at them for not doing anything? Why Muslims specifically rather than cyclists or Lithuanians?

See if I'm not responsible for something I don't see why I should be required to clean up the mess.

 

[Craig B]

How many times have I said that it's not about personal responsibility or guilt by association? Five? Six?
Somwthing like that. And yet you keep it up. Can't you at least try to set up a new, different straw man? This one is getting mouldy

McHrozni

You can say it's not guilt by association not five times but five hundred times and that will still be a delusion, as long as you require law abiding coreligionists of the criminals to assemble and publicly denounce the holy texts of their religion every year for ten years. That is guilt by association.

 

[McHrozni]

How have you reached the conclusion that one book inspires people to kill while the other doesn't without first assuming your conclusion?

Primarily by the fact people kill in the name of one holy book, and not in the other. You're mistaking past for present. A common mistake of apologists.

History disagrees with you and even today people are being killed by Christians ostensibly because of their beliefs/teachings.

Maybe, but at least three orders of magnitude less often than they do due to Islamic beliefs - even though Christians outnumber Muslims by a notable margin.

Not that existence of Christian terrorism has any meaningful impact on the legitimacy of an effort against Christian terrorism.

The point was that you selected a passage from the Quran. For a reason presumably? To demonstrate something important and meaningful.

Yes, to show problems are inherent to Islamic holiest teachings, and not a result of taking things completely out of context, as you do when you quote the Old testament to construct your false equivalency.

You had a point to make, perhaps?

Even if you are correct that one inspires violence and the other doesn't then given the two passages are not different in any particular meaningful way then it stands to simple logic and reason that the problem is not in the text but in those who commit violence.

Or maybe there is more to the story than one passage.

In reality there is a whole lot more to the story, of course. Not that you'll be likely to listen to it.

It really isn't. And as I said, you show no willingness to change your mind when presented with counterarguments.

Well, since most of your counterarguments are against straw men that demonstrate you rarely (if ever) read my arguments in the first place, my refusal to change my opinion is entirely justified.

Your whining about it on the other hand is not.

You yourself said what you are asking for is 'unrealistic'.

Yes, it is unrealistic to expect one single rally to change the opinion of Islam in any meaningful way. The thing is, one measly rally of 30,000 Muslims is supposed to do that. If it were 300,000,000 it could do a significant job, but someone here whined that 30,000 should be enough.

And now this someone whines that my estimate is unrealistic and that I'm being unreasonable for not changing my mind? Unbelievable.

Trump just got elected on a right-wing idiot ticket
Brexit just happened on a right-wing idiot ticket
You are expounding on France, Netherlands, moving towards a right wing idiot ticket.

Actually this is precisely what I'm talking about. Right-wing idiot tickets win because a significant portion of the sane electorate is dissuaded by the meager and ineffective approaches to combat terrorism - specifically Islamic terrorism.

The right-wing idiot tickets of France, Netherlands, Germany, USA, and many others have one common theme: we must destroy everything we've built in the past 60+ years in order to protect ourselves from Islamic terrorists, that are hiding in every Muslim community, protected by the community.

The extent of which this is true or false is immaterial. The fact is the only people who can effectively combat this narrative are non-crazy Muslims themselves.
How would you fight it? By telling the parents of murdered children their losses were statistically insignificant? By telling them their beliefs could inspire the same thing? Well, this is being done and the result is that right-wing idiot tickets are winning. But you sternly refuse to do anything about it, due to reasons unknown.

Cherry on cake: you then claim everyone else is unreasonable for unwillingness to change beliefs

Right wing idiot ideologies are being defended daily. Their right to promote hate hugely protected and their benefit to society being lauded by the people you refuse to condemn.

And you are saying it's justified. And that Muslims are to blame.

I'm saying Muslims - and only Muslims - can effectively counter it. Whether or not they are to blame is immaterial.

You're free to show me a similarly effective strategy. If you can demonstrate why it would be better (either easier and similarly effective or just as hard and more effective), I'll change my support to that.

No I'm not. I'm saying that when we examine arguments we should establish the facts and whether they support the conclusions. If we are assessing ideologies for dangerousness, for bodycount, for threat to peace, for driving a gap between Muslim and non-Muslim then right-wing idiocy trumps Islam every time.

Guess which ideology would suffer the most from massive and regular Muslim rallies against extremists

I'll give you a hint: it's not Islamism. Too hard? Here's another hint: you claim it's much more dangerous than Islam.

Under a decade? Pent up right wing idiot rage is being unleashed in the UK and US right now. You really think we'll have ten years to wait before Trump and his deplorables do something right-wing idiotic extremist enough to damage far more lives than anyone in SA ever could?

You think what we see now in UK and US is bad? That's rather naive. The worst of what we will see from US and UK will be a gentle breeze compared to the fifth-category hurricane that will come if (when?) SA disintegrates.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You can say it's not guilt by association not five times but five hundred times and that will still be a delusion, as long as you require law abiding coreligionists of the criminals to assemble and publicly denounce the holy texts of their religion every year for ten years. That is guilt by association.

Just so you know, you're claiming they should consider texts that call for your and mine decapitation as holy, even though they do result in regular decapitations of people like you and me.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of conscience and speech, but even that has it's limits. The law agrees with me too, hate speech is a form of non-protected speech that can get you penalized. But apparently you think the law should be different if you consider it sacred, and treated differently. Can you justify this position of yours please?

McHrozni