U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

[bill777]

I agree, good christains woud never have confused Nazi control over their households with religious values. I agree with the main point of ideas greater than man being used to control, but the Nazi thing went to far.

 

[Shorebreak]

You did pretty well up to the point where you brought up Hitler,
He used a swastika not a cross he replaced the bible 2with Mien Kamph and he had church leaders thrown into concentration camps.
Jew you mischaracterize what Jw Does.

WHY JIHAD WATCH?

Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Why Jihad Watch? - Jihad Watch

The Federal government has made it clear Islam is not and never will be a threat to the way of life in the west.

Most of my thoughts on these boards come from my own assessment, or they come from an assessment that I find myself in agreement with. My religious perspectives from my post above are my own, based on personal study and observations, so when you challenged me I figured that you might be right about Nazism (since I'm not an expert) so I should do a little bit of research and see if an actual expert has come up with similar findings. The first link in my first search brought me the answer that I was looking for:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Revealing-Christ-Symbol/dp/0802435793]Amazon.com: Hitler's Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ Was Used As a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda (9780802435798): Erwin W. Lutzer: Books[/ame]
"

Erwin Lutzer has taken the lid off Nazi Germany and the life of Hitler, to show an immense knowledge and understanding of what took place prior to the Nazi's rise, as well as how it continued to the very end. Not only that, he writes with compassion and passion about where the Church of Germany stood in relation to Hitler, and how eventually, with the exception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller and a small handful of believers, the Church of Jesus Christ in Germany fell into the hands of the Fuhrer. Lutzer warns that the Church in the United States faces similar challenges and he shows some similarities between the two nations, and warns that we, too, in this country have to guard against unchecked nationalism and embracing one particular party over another because of the words of the particular leaders. Just because peace, prosperity, and the like is preached and promised, doesn't amount to squat, the Mr. Lutzer gives a stern admonition to those who might believe that our current political system is one which has been sanctioned by God. It was clear that the Nazi's believed that to be the case, and many sincere believers in Germany who believed they were doing God's work. Unfortunately, history showed them to be in error. Highly disturbing and sobering reading. And incredibly and magnificently recommended!!!!! "

If Jihad Watch had noble intentions, it would not be Jihad Watch. It would be "Religious Radicals" watch. It would probably include a video clip of George W. Bush saying that he talks with God prior to making his decisions, followed by clips of shock and awe over Baghdad and thousands of dead Iraqi children, along with millions of innocents who were forced out of their cities and towns with nowhere to go. I call that radical evil.

Yes, militant Jihad is evil, but when you start using another evil to justify your own heinous actions, you are no different then the ones whom you condemn.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You did pretty well up to the point where you brought up Hitler,
He used a swastika not a cross he replaced the bible 2with Mien Kamph and he had church leaders thrown into concentration camps.
Jew you mischaracterize what Jw Does.

WHY JIHAD WATCH?

Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Why Jihad Watch? - Jihad Watch

The Federal government has made it clear Islam is not and never will be a threat to the way of life in the west.

Most of my thoughts on these boards come from my own assessment, or they come from an assessment that I find myself in agreement with. My religious perspectives from my post above are my own, based on personal study and observations, so when you challenged me I figured that you might be right about Nazism (since I'm not an expert) so I should do a little bit of research and see if an actual expert has come up with similar findings. The first link in my first search brought me the answer that I was looking for:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Revealing-Christ-Symbol/dp/0802435793]Amazon.com: Hitler's Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ Was Used As a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda (9780802435798): Erwin W. Lutzer: Books[/ame]
"

Erwin Lutzer has taken the lid off Nazi Germany and the life of Hitler, to show an immense knowledge and understanding of what took place prior to the Nazi's rise, as well as how it continued to the very end. Not only that, he writes with compassion and passion about where the Church of Germany stood in relation to Hitler, and how eventually, with the exception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller and a small handful of believers, the Church of Jesus Christ in Germany fell into the hands of the Fuhrer. Lutzer warns that the Church in the United States faces similar challenges and he shows some similarities between the two nations, and warns that we, too, in this country have to guard against unchecked nationalism and embracing one particular party over another because of the words of the particular leaders. Just because peace, prosperity, and the like is preached and promised, doesn't amount to squat, the Mr. Lutzer gives a stern admonition to those who might believe that our current political system is one which has been sanctioned by God. It was clear that the Nazi's believed that to be the case, and many sincere believers in Germany who believed they were doing God's work. Unfortunately, history showed them to be in error. Highly disturbing and sobering reading. And incredibly and magnificently recommended!!!!! "

If Jihad Watch had noble intentions, it would not be Jihad Watch. It would be "Religious Radicals" watch. It would probably include a video clip of George W. Bush saying that he talks with God prior to making his decisions, followed by clips of shock and awe over Baghdad and thousands of dead Iraqi children, along with millions of innocents who were forced out of their cities and towns with nowhere to go. I call that radical evil.

Yes, militant Jihad is evil, but when you start using another evil to justify your own heinous actions, you are no different then the ones whom you condemn.

Documenting jihad crime and acts of submission by governing agencies is hienous and evil?

Since you are quoting reviews of a book why not use the next review

Einstein paid homage to the few believing Christians left in Germany by the time Hitler came to power. Hitler's Cross is the story of the Confessing Church, the remnant who stood against Hitler in the darkening days before WWII. It is also the story of a corrupted and humanistic institutional church that was all too ready to throw out the Cross of Christ for Hitler's "Twisted Cross" and earthly message of Aryan "salvation".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hitler was a liar who lied out of both sides of his mouth to pit groups against each other, Many institutions failed to act properly some where co opted .

"I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad."
Hitler 1939

 

[bill777]

Hitler was a liar who lied out of both sides of his mouth to pit groups against each other, Many institutions failed to act properly some where co opted .

"I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad."
Hitler 1939

Where did you find that quote? Not that I agree with Hitler, I really don't know much about him, but from what I do know he was very careful not to piss off the religious people in Germany. I find it difficult to believe that he would have said that in 1939.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The Church's Struggle with the Third Reich - Anti-Semitism and Holocaust

'LIKE A POISONOUS TOAD'

The best expression of Hitler's enmity towards Christianity appears in his comments on the "castle of the teutonic knights" Vogelsang: "I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad." The German general Groppe received a confirmation for the authenticity of this in April, 1939, during a fairly long private audience with Pope Pius XII.

They Holy Father confirmed the correctness of Hitler's words and added, the papal nuncio had sought out the Reich chancellor and asked him how such a statement could be reconciled with the concordat. Hitler supposedly gave him "his holiest word of honor" that he had never said any such thing. However, the Pope declared: "He had indeed said it."(5)

 

[RodISHI]

Hitler was a liar who lied out of both sides of his mouth to pit groups against each other, Many institutions failed to act properly some where co opted .

"I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad."
Hitler 1939

Many out there even today that think the same as Hitler thought then. It ain't happening a second time.

 

[Shorebreak]

The Church's Struggle with the Third Reich - Anti-Semitism and Holocaust

'LIKE A POISONOUS TOAD'

The best expression of Hitler's enmity towards Christianity appears in his comments on the "castle of the teutonic knights" Vogelsang: "I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad." The German general Groppe received a confirmation for the authenticity of this in April, 1939, during a fairly long private audience with Pope Pius XII.

They Holy Father confirmed the correctness of Hitler's words and added, the papal nuncio had sought out the Reich chancellor and asked him how such a statement could be reconciled with the concordat. Hitler supposedly gave him "his holiest word of honor" that he had never said any such thing. However, the Pope declared: "He had indeed said it."(5)

I have no doubt that Hitler despised Christianity. I also have no doubt that the Reich used religion and the peoples fears of external attack to motivate them to do the unthinkable.

In the end, many Germans considered Jews to be nothing more than a scourge on humanity, and it was easy for them to believe that Jews should be controlled - and for some to believe that they should be eliminated. I see direct parallels today with the way many people in the west have been indoctrinated into hating muslims. Sometimes the very same people who say that they would never allow history to repeat itself (religious/racist genocide) are the ones who are spreading religious and racist hatred. The blindness is amazing.

 

[garyd]

The real death knell of christianity in Europe began following WWI and has continued apace until this very day. While Christianity was still a force in Gemany when Hitler first came to power he actually accelerated its decline. Ein Kampf contains multitudinous references to how damaging Hitler thought Christianity was to Aryan Manhood. HItler was always running on about the old Teutonic gods and it was they more than Christianity he pursued though he certainly bastardized the hell out of them. Vitually all of Nazi regalia had to do not with Christianity but rather with Hitler's own peculiar notions regarding German paganism.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The Church's Struggle with the Third Reich - Anti-Semitism and Holocaust

'LIKE A POISONOUS TOAD'

The best expression of Hitler's enmity towards Christianity appears in his comments on the "castle of the teutonic knights" Vogelsang: "I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad." The German general Groppe received a confirmation for the authenticity of this in April, 1939, during a fairly long private audience with Pope Pius XII.

They Holy Father confirmed the correctness of Hitler's words and added, the papal nuncio had sought out the Reich chancellor and asked him how such a statement could be reconciled with the concordat. Hitler supposedly gave him "his holiest word of honor" that he had never said any such thing. However, the Pope declared: "He had indeed said it."(5)

I have no doubt that Hitler despised Christianity. I also have no doubt that the Reich used religion and the peoples fears of external attack to motivate them to do the unthinkable.

In the end, many Germans considered Jews to be nothing more than a scourge on humanity, and it was easy for them to believe that Jews should be controlled - and for some to believe that they should be eliminated. I see direct parallels today with the way many people in the west have been indoctrinated into hating muslims. Sometimes the very same people who say that they would never allow history to repeat itself (religious/racist genocide) are the ones who are spreading religious and racist hatred. The blindness is amazing.

I have seen no indoctrination to hate muslims or Islam.
I have seen a concerted effort to insist Islam is a religion of peace and that muslims are deserving of special treatment .

Islam does not get to appropriate any protection or privilege or freedom from examination because what was wrongly done to the jews through lies .
Many Nazis were muslims. Mien Kamph is a best seller in many muslim countries.
Ignoring Islam's genocidal doctrine of intolerance is a crime that leads to genocide.

Telling the truth about Islam is not a parallel as lying about Jews.

 

[PixieStix]

The Church's Struggle with the Third Reich - Anti-Semitism and Holocaust

'LIKE A POISONOUS TOAD'

The best expression of Hitler's enmity towards Christianity appears in his comments on the "castle of the teutonic knights" Vogelsang: "I will crush Christianity under my boot like a poisonous toad." The German general Groppe received a confirmation for the authenticity of this in April, 1939, during a fairly long private audience with Pope Pius XII.

They Holy Father confirmed the correctness of Hitler's words and added, the papal nuncio had sought out the Reich chancellor and asked him how such a statement could be reconciled with the concordat. Hitler supposedly gave him "his holiest word of honor" that he had never said any such thing. However, the Pope declared: "He had indeed said it."(5)

I have no doubt that Hitler despised Christianity. I also have no doubt that the Reich used religion and the peoples fears of external attack to motivate them to do the unthinkable.

In the end, many Germans considered Jews to be nothing more than a scourge on humanity, and it was easy for them to believe that Jews should be controlled - and for some to believe that they should be eliminated. I see direct parallels today with the way many people in the west have been indoctrinated into hating muslims. Sometimes the very same people who say that they would never allow history to repeat itself (religious/racist genocide) are the ones who are spreading religious and racist hatred. The blindness is amazing.

It is the words of mohammed that millions have not understood, nor took the time to understand. Hating Islam is not the same as hating a person. I hate mohammed, because of his examples. What he did and continues to do by proxy is evil and oppressive and should be exposed for what it is

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.

Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism

Obama Declares War on Free Speech - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC's demands and taken cognizance of that "responsibility" -- after years in which George W. Bush resisted such initiatives at the UN.

In October 2008, I wrote this in Human Events about early signs that Barack Obama had no great love for the freedom of speech: "If candidate Obama is willing to have people arrested when they say things about him that he doesn't like, will President Obama have the vision or courage or understanding to stand up against the OIC when it demands restrictions on freedom of speech at precisely the same time that he wants to build bridges to the Islamic world and demonstrate his power to restore hope and bring change to old stalemated conflicts?"

The answer is in. The answer is no.

 

[Gunny]

boy hitler sure was lucky that the above u.n. measure was not around back when he was aquiring power.


to conservatives this is a bad thing:

"any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Incorrect. Criminalizing expressing it is a bad thing. You're saying you advocate UN legislated thought control?

That's EXACTLY what it looks like from my porch.

Pushing hatred into the dark doesn't make it go away. It festers and boils until it explodes. If you allow the haters to have their say, at least you know who they are.

 

[Gunny]

boy hitler sure was lucky that the above u.n. measure was not around back when he was aquiring power.


to conservatives this is a bad thing:

Yeah that could never be open to interpretation or misused.

"incitement to violence" a terrible thing to outlaw, and this measure should have the anti israel nutjobs up in arms and not the anti islam nutjobs because this measure is obviously aimed at the likes of Ahmanijedad and other mid east leaders who put forth hate filled speech towards the jewish people and israel.

It's ALREADY against the law.

It's aimed at ANYONE who doesn't conform to cookie-cutter political correctness and actually wants to think for themselves.

It's aimed at the US. WE have the free-est speech. Alphabet and those other ME leaders don't give a rat's ass WHAT the UN condemns. Or did I miss where Iran has ceased to pursue enriching uranium?

 

[Gunny]

U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping."

And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the "Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn't that easy to dismiss this:

6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).​

U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN - Jihad Watch

This is wide open to authoritarian abuse. It's shit.

Of course it wide open to authoritarian abuse. THAT's what they want it for.

 

[Gunny]

RodIshi, yes I do. If there really were no hope, we would have gone full blown Fascist a long time ago. We didn't. People do matter.

It's a work in progress and we've only been this close a time or two, and at those times, our actual survival as a nation was at stake. The only thing at stake now is our freedom.

You must be young. People do matter? Go to Sudan and tell that to the natives.

 

[Si modo]

U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping."

And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the "Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn't that easy to dismiss this:

6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).​

U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN - Jihad Watch

This is wide open to authoritarian abuse. It's shit.

Of course it wide open to authoritarian abuse. THAT's what they want it for.

True, but it's not as if the UN has been much of an authority on anything. As long as they keep up that record of being feckless, all is good.

 

[KittenKoder]

This is wide open to authoritarian abuse. It's shit.

Of course it wide open to authoritarian abuse. THAT's what they want it for.

True, but it's not as if the UN has been much of an authority on anything. As long as they keep up that record of being feckless, all is good.

It does when we have a push over administration who will bend over backwards to keep them as allies.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

YouTube - The dollar under attack 4

Its not an accident