Even a Leftist must not criticize Islam
We read:
"Marty Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic and a former Harvard professor, has come under attack for a blog post he made on Sept. 4 in which he wrote: "Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims," and questioned whether Muslims deserved protection from the First Amendment.
Peretz apologized for the posting nine days later, saying he deeply regretted the statements and that he was genuinely embarrassed. But that did not stop Harvard students, faculty and alumni from writing an open letter to Harvard President Drew Faust in which they protested Peretz's appearance, scheduled for Saturday, at a Harvard anniversary ceremony.
Source
9 comments:
Islam is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution because the concept of replacing every other governmental system with Islam is one of Islam's core principles. That makes it an enemy of the Constitution. I simply cannot imagine that the First Amendment was somehow intended to provide cover for any ideology which is attempting to destroy that Constitution. That would be essentially making the First Amendment "the supreme Law of the Land", superior to all of the rest of the Constitution.
Furthermore, given that Islam itself is opposed to the very concept of freedom of religion—that is, any religion other than Islam—the free and complete practice of Islam would undermine even the First Amendment; a self-contradictory position.
Therefore, it seems that First Amendment protections cannot be rationally applied to Islam.
The First Amendment applies to everyone, no matter how hateful, no matter how vile their views may be.
The issue with Muslim extremist is not that they express themselves, but that they want to stop everyone else from doing the same.
"The First Amendment applies to everyone…"
"Muslim … want to stop everyone else from doing the same."
How do you reconcile these two? Let the First Amendment protect them even as they work to destroy it?
" You cannot protect freedom by destroying it."
Those who commit murder lose their right to their own life. Those who commit lesser crimes lose their right to freedom. (They wind up in prison.) Would you argue that those actions somehow harm the right to life and liberty?
You cannot protect freedom without actually defending it. How do you propose to defend freedom without harming those who would destroy freedom?
In other words, how do we defend the Constitution from its enemies without… well… defending it from its enemies?
The original intent of the First Amendment was to protect those who wished to criticize any government official not to permit just any kind of offensive speech. At the time of the Revolution all government officials were agents of the King and criticism of an official was criticsm of the king and subject to severe punishment.
It's all about Sharia Law.
We need to start a grass-roots campaign to introduce legislation that would amend the Constitution to prohibit the establishment of any legal system other than what the united States Constitution and its supporting documents define. Preventing the establishment of Sharia Law should be the first and foremost concern to any freedom-loving American.
"---By following Glen Beck's example, he calls progressives a cancer yet he doesn't advocate violence against them."
So, Beck is merely just another name caller. I am shaking in my boots.
'So, Beck is merely just another name caller. I am shaking in my boots.'
Don't say you weren't warned. It is people like you that allow the cancer to spread.
After I read "Bobby said besides what the alternative, kill all the muslin's? Ban islam?" Bobby I think your on to something. Stormewaters
Post a Comment