Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

Yeah thought so, just wanted to clear that up.

If that's your point to me then I guess we agree. I don't see the issue? No, I am well aware of the difference, I just don't care about someone deliberately going out to offend people, that's protected under freedom of speech/expression. I'm totally for that.It's how we react to that that I take issue with, because in the end, no matter what the means were, someone is left offended. Now, if I have to censor myself to not offend someone, then, no matter what it is that I find offensive, even if it's irrational to do so, the other person needs to censor themselves too.Or, better yet, no one is censored, whether they are trying to offend or not, and people's feelings can take a backseat to freedom of speech, expression and, in the case with the mosque, religion. Those who would not like to see the image of the prophet on TV, in a cartoon, etc.Those who Comedy Central considered when they pulled the episode. Those who Yale University considered when they originally censored the image from a book about the cartoons. But people have made that request, why did Comedy Central react the way they did if such a request wasn't made? Or at least implied in the reactions of those who saw the Danish cartoons. I'm using the term losely to refer to the media, the US, anyone who doesn't want to offend Muslims. But you won't see them "...set fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City." --- The reaction to some cartoons. To this day the cartoonist still gets death threats, and recently police shot a man in his house attempting to assassinate him.Both sides tend to act like a bunch of bitches when they don't get their way, or react irrationally.I get your point, though, and for the most part I agree with it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes...? What's your point and in reference to what that I said?- Oni

You said "Well that is the whole point of what I'm saying, and why I gave the South Park example. Either everyone's feelings are taken into account or no one's feelings are taken into account. "I am asking "Why?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you followed the debate, you'd notice some posts back that I said this was my friends position. I thought I'd throw it in the thread, and try my best to defend his position, to see where he was making his mistakes. So next time read the thread in its entirety before you open your yap. No, but it would surprise me if you had the evidence to support that assertion.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Because, I would think it shows favoritism to the feelings of any one side -vs- the other.- Oni

And where is the problem with that?Each incident should be examined based on the facts of that incident.Let's look at the two examples you present up thread, the building of the civic center versus placing a billboard across the street.In the former, people getting offended is not related to the object or purpose of the construction. The purpose is to create community resources in a currently vacant property.In the later, the purpose is to annoy and offend.Why should those two actions be judged as corresponding or equivalent?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I really don't see the relevance.The folk at Comedy Central got to choose whether to show that episode.
The folk proposing the Islamic cultural center in New York get to decide whether to build their cultural center.That freedom of choice is what America is all about.So now we see a ridiculous hullabaloo, with politicians fanning the flames of racism, bigotry and hatred, all for totally political reasons. They are using mob psychology in very dangerous way.

Because they are both protected under the Constitution.The issue is, if I purposely try to offend Muslims, I may not be allowed to because I am purposely trying to offend Muslims - (Here's here I agree with Huntard in that, we do so because we are scared of their reaction).However, if I purposely try to offend Christians, most of the time, not much will be done. Originally, Comedy Central didn't allow Matt and Trey to draw an image of the prophet. In the same episode, just to expose the hypocrisy, Matt and Trey showed Jesus taking a shit on Bush and the flag. That's bullshit, to allow one an not the other.Either we can offend everyone equally or we can't. The issue is, are Muslims trying to offend with the mosque/civic center? But that's only an issue to those who care. I don't care whther they are or not. Some people see it that way, they are offended. Wrongfully so, but offended none the less.- Oni

Rrhain asked me who were those considered. CC did pull the episode from their normal tv, you can see it on the website though. They considered someone's feelings. Comedy Central said they considered the feelings of Muslims who would get offended.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'm sorry but the evidence does not support that. Have you seen the signs being carried in the demonstrations or read all the copy published about the demonstrations or listened to the rhetoric of the demonstrators?They are being allowed to show and say very offensive things.Edited by jar, : lft aff the why in they

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It is more likely that they felt the heat coming from cable TV operators who were afraid of a negative reaction from their viewers.Edited by nwr, : typo

That's true, in this case they have. The news does show it when it is part of a protest or something along those lines.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

But not from thier Buddhist veiwers. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

The difference is in who's doing the allowing. The government has no ability to block offensiveness like showing an image of a prophet or a protest sign until the expression of speech crosses the line into inciting violence or other such issues. Comedy Central is under no obligation to air the offensive speech of their writers. They're even free to hold a double-standard, blocking images of Mohammad while showing offensive images of Jesus or other religious figures.Comedy Central became a poor supporter of free speech by censoring images and themes that it has otherwise allowed (and made fantastic profits from) based solely on the specific group that would be offended. I agree with oni that there is something very wrong about saying "it's okay to poke fun at a, b, and c, but hands off of d, treat them with total respect." Either all of it's okay, or none of it is...but Comedy Central is under no legal obligation to agree.For media outlets like Comedy Central or CNN, censorship is less about free speech or Constitutional rights and more about ratings and publicity and concerns about the safety of their employees.