cods wrote on Feb 11
th, 2015 at 8:43am:
me and pansi in particular said all along..
draw the cartoon at your PERIL...
....
....
[i cods] still think that had CHarlie Hebdo stopped drawing the cartoon that upset the mad terrorists
maybe 17 people would still be alive????...
But would those 17 people still be
Frenchmen ?
And would they be still enjoying
the liberty and freedoms which
Frenchmen assume to be theirs
by right of French law ???
e.g.
The freedom to express their [political] opinions ?
So cods, my right
as not a moslem as a Frenchman, ...is to be able to freely publish a cartoon which uses truth combined with ridicule,
to satirise corrupt and foolish men, is a right which is NOT,
NOT curtailed by ISLAMIC law, if i am a French man/woman.
But cods is stating [above] that cods is of the opinion [as a free thinker!], ....that moslems also have
THEIR right [as ISLAMIC law gives a right, to 'the moslem'] -
IN FRANCE - to threaten a Frenchman with destruction, if a Frenchman draws a cartoon of Mohammed.
Well cods, in response i say this;Almost everyone in the world today, must know that 'the moslem' is offended, by the drawing of cartoons [which satirise aspects of ISLAM].
Well again, i say this;
If 'the moslem'
threatens a man with destruction, because a man chooses to do a certain thing/action which may offend a moslem, but which is a certain thing/action which the 2nd man [not a moslem] feels is not offensive to himself [to that man who is not a moslem], then it is 'the moslem' [because of the threats he makes against the person, of the 2nd man] who is is putting himself [i.e. 'the moslem'] in a state of war with that [2nd] man.
AGAIN; Make no mistake,
it is 'the moslem' [and not the 2nd man] who is imposing a state of war, upon that 2nd man.
Quote:
"16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
17. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e. make me a slave..."
Of the State of War
John Locke (1632-1704)In the circumstance of the
Charlie Hebdo atrocity, it is 'the moslem', who is [by virtue of his natural 'right' and his natural 'superiority' -
imagined] seeks to bring the life of that [2nd] man, under the power of 'the moslem'.
+++
THE KORAN"
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day,
nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission,
and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29
Forum
Pages: 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.. (Read 56490 times)
