Bazz I am unaware of much editing,some posts have been removed of late without any note it has taken place.
I am aware on this subject our views are on shaky ground.
Not that we hold them but that we could without intending to bring problems for OLO I willingly let my posts be deleted if that is the case.
Morgan is again mounted on the high moral horse but I question the other sides actions too.
NOW not every one ,on ANY side,but who highlights without some contempt filled mud being thrown at them.
Those who condemn us from within our western country's.
As hurtful as it is for Christians, and the best of them are among the best of us, should we, ANY COUNTRY be subject to control in every walk of life by what truly is a fantasy.
Remember please it is much more than probably the worlds biggest religion is not Christianity.

I absolutely oppose any law that makes religious defamation a crime or implies it as a hate crime- and that has been overwhelmingly what Wilders has been careful to stick to in debates about Islam/Muslims.

Oh, really, King Hazza?

>>I absolutely oppose any law that makes religious defamation a crime or implies it as a hate crime- and that has been overwhelmingly what Wilders has been careful to stick to in debates about Islam/Muslims.<<

Free speech is immensely important, and extremely valuable to a fair and just society.

Using the concept of free speech as a defence for Wilders' actions and words is a travesty.

Here is what the fuss is about:

"[Fitna] the movie shows selected excerpts from Suras of the Qur'an, interspersed with media clips and newspaper cuttings showing or describing acts of violence and/or hatred by Muslims. The film attempts to demonstrate that the Qur'an motivates its followers to hate all who violate Islamic teachings. Consequently, the film argues that Islam encourages — among other things — acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of "infidels" and against homosexuals and Islamic universalism." (from Wikipedia).

If you don't believe Wikipedia, watch the movie for yourself, it is on the Internet.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4vj81_fitna-english_news

This is not the sort of "free speech" that we should be defending.

It is merely purposeful nastiness, designed to incite and inflame hatred by one group of people of another. Calling it "free speech" debases the concept itself, and the knee-jerk reaction "he must be allowed to say what he thinks" is pure expedience.

Apart from all that, he should also be locked away for sporting one of the worst hairstyles in history.

That hair, just in case anyone was wondering...

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/media/images/medium2/afp20110523185006575.jpg

Iam not getting into how one defines "free speech" Geert Wilders is standing up for what he thinks.....and once religion gets a full legal stances on your lives, dont come crying to me. Religion is not consider as truth in any-shape-or-form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly62n36nn0k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASqJAT1W3r0&feature=related

People take religion like its true or something. The world is tearing its self apart over religion..lol.....and I just sit here and watch......Iam telling you.....its better than cable:)

Go! and fools of yourselves, I wont mind:)

but the rest of the normal people are watching you.

Peace and all that jazz.

LEA

Pericles, that was what I was talking about:

Fitna's insinuations are directed at the religion and its text itself; and this makes it a case of defamation of religion; and this act of criticizing and highlighting abhorrent passages and doctrines in a religion most definitely should not be illegal in Western society.

If Wilders were to explicitly make these statements about Muslims, it would indeed make a credible ethnic vilification case;

The fact that he would most likely be attacking Muslims through criticism of the Quran and tiptoeing along the line of legal free speech to get away with it; doesn't change the fact that what he is doing is legally legitimate unless:
1- defamation of religion be itself a crime
2- the author is to be judged on their motive for criticizing it (and therefore we separate Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Geert Wilders and Pat Condell's right to say the same thing based on if the judge considers an ethnic prejudicial motive along with a theological motive.