Christians Attacked In Michigan!

[Atomic Playboy]

How many people have died from seeing a pigs head on a spike vs being repeated hit by hard objects?

Equality not found in the effects.

No one has ever been killed by repeated poking either, but go to your local biker bar and start poking one of them repeatedly and see what the cops say when they're wheeling you into the ambulance; "well, you probably should have stopped poking him." The courts have repeatedly ruled that speech that is intended to provoke immediate, violent action is NOT protected by the first amendment. Whether that's the case in this specific incident is up to a judge to decide, but based on the evidence I've seen, it seems the protestors were actively trying to start a riot, in which case, their speech is not protected.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No one has ever been killed by repeated poking either, but go to your local biker bar and start poking one of them repeatedly and see what the cops say when they're wheeling you into the ambulance; "well, you probably should have stopped poking him." The courts have repeatedly ruled that speech that is intended to provoke immediate, violent action is NOT protected by the first amendment. Whether that's the case in this specific incident is up to a judge to decide, but based on the evidence I've seen, it seems the protestors were actively trying to start a riot, in which case, their speech is not protected.

Not a good comparison. The guy with the head was kinda looking to anger people, but in no way does SHOWING someone something justify physical harm.

 

[Nintendesert]

clearly, in today's battle for "civil rights," that would be MLK with a pig's head on a pike, attacking a particular culture and attempting to incite violence.

No, but feel free to compare the burning of an American Flag to a pig on a pike. Do you feel protestors that burn an American flag can be stoned?

 

[Nintendesert]

No one has ever been killed by repeated poking either, but go to your local biker bar and start poking one of them repeatedly and see what the cops say when they're wheeling you into the ambulance; "well, you probably should have stopped poking him." The courts have repeatedly ruled that speech that is intended to provoke immediate, violent action is NOT protected by the first amendment. Whether that's the case in this specific incident is up to a judge to decide, but based on the evidence I've seen, it seems the protestors were actively trying to start a riot, in which case, their speech is not protected.

Sorry, but poking is a physical act. And poking a police officer will get battery charges. Crossing the physical contact barrier opens you up to a whole lot more than speech does.

 

[zinfamous]

How many people have died from seeing a pigs head on a spike vs being repeated hit by hard objects?

Equality not found in the effects.

i'm talking about the mentality of those committing the respective acts. Pretty much the same level of cognitive maturity in my estimation.

 

[PingviN]

the more I think about it...the more I think they are pretty much equal. Pretty much the same level of savagery.

Granted it's immature to provoke a response like that, but still, they're not equal. Responding with violence just because you do not approve of the message is unjustifiable. The Muslims could've ignored it. They could've looked away. What the bunch of redneck Christians did was legal, the response wasn't.

The actions are not on the same playing field. It's not even the same sport. Resorting to violence just because you get provoked is savage. The act of provoking is immature. There is a difference.

 

[Incorruptible]

Granted it's immature to provoke a response like that, but still, they're not equal. Responding with violence just because you do not approve of the message is unjustifiable. The Muslims could've ignored it. They could've looked away. What the bunch of redneck Christians did was legal, the response wasn't.

The muslims should have ignored them not get angry and bring new meaning to the "religion of peace"

 

[cybrsage]

i'm talking about the mentality of those committing the respective acts. Pretty much the same level of cognitive maturity in my estimation.

Oh, sorry. Yes, I agree.

 

[PingviN]

The muslims should have ignored them not get angry and bring new meaning to the "religion of peace"

This would be the civilized response to a pig's head on a spike, yes.

 

[Infohawk]

Granted it's immature to provoke a response like that, but still, they're not equal. Responding with violence just because you do not approve of the message is unjustifiable. The Muslims could've ignored it. They could've looked away. What the bunch of redneck Christians did was legal, the response wasn't.

The actions are not on the same playing field. It's not even the same sport. Resorting to violence just because you get provoked is savage. The act of provoking is immature. There is a difference.

Yes.

People are too quick to think violence is appropriate. Violence is only a legitimate response to violence. Someone insulting you, accosting you at night, etc are not enough to justify violence.

 

[LumbergTech]

Yes.

People are too quick to think violence is appropriate. Violence is only a legitimate response to violence. Someone insulting you, accosting you at night, etc are not enough to justify violence.

I agree, but I don't begrudge someone for being fearful of harm when people are going around with pig's head on spikes taunting them. It is an implied threat of violence.

 

[PingviN]

I agree, but I don't begrudge someone for being fearful of harm when people are going around with pig's head on spikes taunting them. It is an implied threat of violence.

No, it is not. It's an insult to the Muslim faith, it is not implied threat of violence.

 

[Infohawk]

I agree, but I don't begrudge someone for being fearful of harm when people are going around with pig's head on spikes taunting them. It is an implied threat of violence.

Nope. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. At all.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No one has ever been killed by repeated poking either, but go to your local biker bar and start poking one of them repeatedly and see what the cops say when they're wheeling you into the ambulance; "well, you probably should have stopped poking him." The courts have repeatedly ruled that speech that is intended to provoke immediate, violent action is NOT protected by the first amendment. Whether that's the case in this specific incident is up to a judge to decide, but based on the evidence I've seen, it seems the protestors were actively trying to start a riot, in which case, their speech is not protected.

Best post of the thread.

More on the subject.

 

[blankslate]

Yes.

People are too quick to think violence is appropriate. Violence is only a legitimate response to violence. Someone insulting you, accosting you at night, etc are not enough to justify violence.

You're right it isn't enough to justify violence... however, if you go around provoking people at a religious gathering in such a manner a reasonable person would figure that they are running the risk of encountering violence.

I mean c'mon what are the things that you wait a while to bring up in conversation with a new acquaintance? Politics and Religion...

The fact that they brought a video camera makes me suspicious because it wasn't the first time they've done this. They certainly take advantage of what happened and are happy to imply that this group has the support of President Obama with the video bookends.



Accost a minority (in this country) religion or a couple, make public any video of a violent response while in that same video playing down how much of a provocative fv$!-tard you were and get people (like us) talking about it.

Profit...

 

[alzan]

The muslims should have ignored them not get angry and bring new meaning to the "religion of peace"

So exactly what was the intent of the Christian group by carrying a pig's head on a pole to this gathering of Muslims? Was it the Christians belief that this pig on a pole would open up a meaningful dialogue with the Muslims? Were they hoping to plant the pole in the ground and join hands with the Muslims and hum or sing "Kumbaya"?

If a group of Muslims with a crucifix that was bathed in feces and urine walked amidst a large gathering of Christians and started protesting; what do you suppose the reaction of some of the more extreme Christians would be? How about a burning crucifix?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

At least Incorruptible is consistent.

Everyone remembers his passionate defense of the Occupy movement.

 

[hal2kilo]

At least Incorruptible is consistent.

Everyone remembers his passionate defense of the Occupy movement.

Lol. I've been thinking the same thing through this whole thread.

F'n hypocrites.

 

[Incorruptible]

No, it is not. It's an insult to the Muslim faith, it is not implied threat of violence.

Your 100% right. Its an insult which is still freedom of speech and they have the right to do. The violence by muslims was wrong and against the law

 

[zinfamous]

Granted it's immature to provoke a response like that, but still, they're not equal. Responding with violence just because you do not approve of the message is unjustifiable. The Muslims could've ignored it. They could've looked away. What the bunch of redneck Christians did was legal, the response wasn't.

The actions are not on the same playing field. It's not even the same sport. Resorting to violence just because you get provoked is savage. The act of provoking is immature. There is a difference.

there is provoking, and there is provoking by carrying around a severed pig's head on a spike.

This is a very savage manner of provocation.

 

[cybrsage]

No one has ever been killed by repeated poking either...

Yes, many people have died by being poked just once with a spear, arrow, sword, etc.

 

[cybrsage]

I agree, but I don't begrudge someone for being fearful of harm when people are going around with pig's head on spikes taunting them. It is an implied threat of violence.

If they were attacked by pigs, I would agree with you. You are not claiming the people at the fair are pigs, are you?

 

[SagaLore]

Several hundred muslim youths surrounded and pelted a group of Christians with rocks, bottles and other objects, this was at an arab festival in Dearborne Michigan and the Christians went to peacefully protest

Peacefully protest what?

 

[Incorruptible]

Peacefully protest what?

Why does it matter? The Christians along with the arabs have the right to protest, it doesn't matter what its about as long as they dont get violent or use force.

The occupy people had the right to protest PEACEFULLY so as long as they aren't getting violent or using force they have the right even though people disagree with them

 

[blankslate]

Peacefully protest what?

Peacefully protest the fact that the Muslims were there to celebrate a "religion of murder" according to one of the signs the protesters were carrying.