Hello Peter,

I would like to jump in once in a while. Not to object of course but to question the word “Freedom” as you put it freedom of speech. I do not wish to sound facetious either for we know that freedom of speech can mean two things. One it means physical freedom to speak and it also has the bearing of an opinion whether political or opportune. Obviously you are talking of the second.

Not bearing to any spiritual beliefs (even though they are as such when faith corresponds to reason) freedom or let me say the real freedom is agreed to by all when it corresponds to reality. Any conversation proves this, (the irrational is always cast off). So, my question is whether speech can be freely exercised without endangering peace or welfare? Said differently, can you authorize free speech when it is to harm? Can you freely proclaim that 2 plus 2 equals 5? In that sense 2 plus 2 can equal anything you wish but the reality is that this comes to a dead end very quickly. It can be fun to say as we have recently with our “Mad Cow Disease” jokes in your other post that “your cow believes that he is a helicopter” or whatever but, there are limits to human freedoms in speech. Go beyond that boundary and you are either having fun, (and humor is best when it is a caricature of what reality has to portray) or you are willingly or not proposing disorder, disorder that can be limited to insignificance but also to all out confrontation of the worst sorts. Now you might (as well as others J) say who is to say what right is from wrong opinions, and I would obviously say that someone else asked that 2.000 years back. No, he was not Greek he was Roman.

Freedom in anything speech, movement, travel, business, whatever can only be free when in unison to truth, and truth is such when it is in unison towards common reason. To conclude on my basic theological blabla I would say that freedom of speech should be for the providing of truth if it is public, and for normal communications for when it is private or for general purposes. Speech was not given to humans by the creator to swear and fowl and provoke. Speech is for communicating, helping and for self-confining humans into the truth that in itself provides for more freedom than words can ever express.

Hope that makes fore a little verbal sense! And not too off the object of the forum, but to make sure it does not I will say that Islam has NO right to even speak, or breath (I did not say Muslims!)

Friendly yours,

Robert.

Hello Geketa,

I fully grasp your point, and do not intend differently but, in French we have such a more thorough tensing of verbs that we sometimes (especially with official letters) need to have more specifics when they are in English. So I simply tried clumsily to stress my point from the very basics. So, Yes I agree we can all talk and openly express our opinions, but similarly as in a classroom there does need to be some order and also for the naughty boy at the back seat by the radiator to shut up and listen. The whole classroom would not progress where it otherwise. (Sometimes we read nowadays that in a school that kids simply massacred the teacher.) Is that not having given too many rights to the children? And in the adult life these principles are they not similar? I hate speed limits, but without them would there not be more hooligans speeding crazily? Society does need to establish limits, and these should also go to public speaking. In the UK in London I believe there is a park where anyone can speak publicly on Sundays about all and any subject except, yes except … against the Queen. Not a bad principle! Very British if you ask me, but had they known in those days about today’s problems I am sure the limits would have been set a spot higher by Jove. Obviously today it’s already too late for that, but it does not unreal the principle that there are limits to free speech even if it is simply for peace and calm in the family. That is why I say Islam should not be aloud to benefit from civilized advantages, because it is Islam and therefore not a civilized and freedom searching mentality. I do not say (free to you to dream about it! Hehe!) that you should shoot a Muslim who is talking or even shouting, because he is an other human being, but I do not agree in no way of “them” enforcing their garbage and slaughtering of our sheep and the list is very long indeed.

I am sure you agree, J

Friendly yours,

Robert.

Hi Mattias,

I was a bit worried when I posted the article about Malmo and the Muslims violent "protest"that you might be offended. Your response shows me that you were indeed offended but by the actions of the extreme Islamic fanatics and not by the article itself.

I thought the situation in Malmo where 25% of the population is Muslim is an excellent example of what will happen in the rest of Europe and in fact is happening right now.

Thanks for bringing up the Swedish Democratic Party and their fight to curb the massive immigration of Muslims into Sweden. I am not all that familiar with this party but it appears they realize the inherent dangers and the possibility of losing their way of life if this continues. I wish there were more parties like them in the rest of Europe.

Shalom,

Peter