Will Scientology respond to the Nation of Islam's call to kill people?

[CommunicatorIC]

Will Scientology respond to the Nation of Islam's call to kill people?

Mike Rinder: Scientology & Nation Of Islam

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-nation-of-islam/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

I could not help but be struck by the news from the recent sermon delivered by the head of the NOI, Louis Farrakhan in Miami last week.

This is quoted from the Final Call, the official newspaper of the NOI, founded by Louis Farrakhan:

Later in his message, the Minister called for 10,000 fearless men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice rather than live under tyranny. There comes a time in the life of every people who yearn for freedom where death is sweeter than to continue life under oppression, he said. Blacks must protect their lives if the federal government refuses to intervene when Black lives are unjustly and the principle of a life of a life is laid out in scripture, the Minister explained. “Death is sweeter than to continue to live and bury our children while White folks give the killers hamburgers. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400-year-old enemy. Death is sweeter. The Qur’an teaches persecution is worse than slaughter then it says, retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. If the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us, stalk them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling,” said Min. Farrakhan. The crowd rose to its feet and gave another standing ovation.

Where is this marriage going to end?


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

 

[Enthetan]

Re: Scientology and the Nation of Islam's call to kill people

Meanwhile, Armed Black Panthers March in Texas: ‘Off the Pigs’ (VIDEO)

WALLER COUNTY, Texas — A group of armed members of the New Black Panther Party marched on the Waller County Jail Wednesday afternoon chanting “The revolution is on… Off the pigs,” and “Oink Oink… Bang Bang!” The group of about fifteen Black Panthers exercised their First and Second Amendment rights. The group was met in Waller County by a large contingent of Harris County (Houston) Sheriff’s Office deputies.

In order to avoid a repeat of last weekend’s disturbance where protesters invaded the Sheriff’s Office foyer and engaged in disruptive behavior, Waller County Sheriff R. Glenn Smith called the Harris County Sheriff’s Office to request assistance under a regional assistance agreement. Harris County sent in about seventy-five deputies including about ten horse mounted crowd-control deputies and approximately thirty crowd-control deputies in riot gear.

I saw this linked to on drudgereport.com

Between Calypso Louie and the Black Pampers, I have a feeling there is an effort to spark a major conflict.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

I just don't get it. Where is the fix, to the religious clause of the 1st amendment. Surely it was to prevent oppression, yet as it stands now it is being used as a wall to protect those who not only have faith in oppressive doctrines, but who are preaching and practicing oppression. Yet, THE silence is deafening and will seems to be on vacation ..ohh ....when they, who oppressed while we don't cry out.. and the oppressor finally comes for you.....arggghhhh. Are we so distracted by symptoms as in allopathy, that we cannot or will not focus on isolating and preventing the more underlying cause?

 

[CommunicatorIC]

I just don't get it. Where is the fix, to the religious clause of the 1st amendment. Surely it was to prevent oppression, yet as it stands now it is being used as a wall to protect those who not only have faith in oppressive doctrines, but who are preaching and practicing oppression. Yet, THE silence is deafening and will seems to be on vacation ..ohh ....when they, who oppressed while we don't cry out.. and the oppressor finally comes for you.....arggghhhh. Are we so distracted by symptoms as in allopathy, that we cannot or will not focus on isolating and preventing the more underlying cause?

I saw an article today about how the Justice Dept. spoke on this. The religion clauses of the First Amendment don't have anything to do with this. What protects Farrakhan is the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Apparently, what he said does not reach the threshold for an unprotected "true threat." It is still protected speech.

 

[Churchill]

Ever hear of R2-45?

Scientology came up with it over 45 years ago.

 

[degraded being]

.
.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Big thanks to both of you.

I saw an article today about how the Justice Dept. spoke on this. The religion clauses of the First Amendment don't have anything to do with this. What protects Farrakhan is the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Apparently, what he said does not reach the threshold for an unprotected "true threat." It is still protected speech.

.
.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech

 

[Enthetan]

I saw an article today about how the Justice Dept. spoke on this. The religion clauses of the First Amendment don't have anything to do with this. What protects Farrakhan is the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Apparently, what he said does not reach the threshold for an unprotected "true threat." It is still protected speech.

What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him.

Somehow, I don't think a white religious leader who openly advocated killing black people would last long before swarms of federal agents descended upon him, "free speech" or not.

 

[degraded being]

What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him.

Somehow, I don't think a white religious leader who openly advocated killing black people would last long before swarms of federal agents descended upon him, "free speech" or not.

"Missouri KKK: We will use ‘lethal force’ against Ferguson protesters"
http://www.rt.com/usa/205735-kkk-lethal-force-ferguson-protests/

Sarcasm:
Don't worry, whites get more than equal opportunity for hating in the USA.
Check out the Hate groups in Missouri .
They have a branch of NOI listed as a hate group there too, so you'd have to detract that one from the total to see that whites are ahead by heaps.

Also: In some cases you could say "actions speak louder than words".

 

[Enthetan]

"Missouri KKK: We will use ‘lethal force’ against Ferguson protesters"
http://www.rt.com/usa/205735-kkk-lethal-force-ferguson-protests/

Sarcasm:
Don't worry, whites get more than equal opportunity for hating in the USA.
Check out the Hate groups in Missouri .
They have a branch of NOI listed as a hate group there too, so you'd have to detract that one from the total to see that whites are ahead by heaps.

Also: In some cases you could say "actions speak louder than words".

I have a feeling that what they meant (and actually said) was more along the lines of "We will defend ourselves from any violent attack by Ferguson protesters".

In any event, what I meant when I said "What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him", is that there are already plenty of court precedents regarding liability for openly promoting violence, involving white supremicist groups. For example, Tom Metzger and his "White Aryan Resistance group were bankrupted when people affiliated with their organization murdered a black man, and the victim's family filed suit. A Klan group in Georgia was similarly bankrupted by the family of a victim.

Nation of Islam has been referred to as the "Klan with a tan", and it's an accurate description. The have a doctrine of (black) racial supremacy, and hatred against another race (whites), and several cases of people associated with NoI using violence. A lawyer could definitely make a case for going after the assets of NoI should some NoI member commit violence in response to the call to do so by Farrakhan, and a federal prosecutor could go after him on criminal charges.

The only things stopping that would be (1) Farrakhan has protectors in high places, (2) he has the funding to hire lots of good lawyers to drag the case out for years, and (3) anybody going after Farrakhan would be in fear of being killed.

 

[Bad Sign]

I have a feeling that what they meant (and actually said) was more along the lines of "We will defend ourselves from any violent attack by Ferguson protesters".

In any event, what I meant when I said "What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him", is that there are already plenty of court precedents regarding liability for openly promoting violence, involving white supremicist groups. For example, Tom Metzger and his "White Aryan Resistance group were bankrupted when people affiliated with their organization murdered a black man, and the victim's family filed suit. A Klan group in Georgia was similarly bankrupted by the family of a victim.

Nation of Islam has been referred to as the "Klan with a tan", and it's an accurate description. The have a doctrine of (black) racial supremacy, and hatred against another race (whites), and several cases of people associated with NoI using violence. A lawyer could definitely make a case for going after the assets of NoI should some NoI member commit violence in response to the call to do so by Farrakhan, and a federal prosecutor could go after him on criminal charges.

The only things stopping that would be (1) Farrakhan has protectors in high places, (2) he has the funding to hire lots of good lawyers to drag the case out for years, and (3) anybody going after Farrakhan would be in fear of being killed.

Dude your a racist.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Thank you degraded being for bringing in some truth into this discussion. Some people on this board seem to be wholly ignorant of anything happening around them, or have their heads up their asses. This is mystifying to me.

 

[AngeloV]

What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him.

Somehow, I don't think a white religious leader who openly advocated killing black people would last long before swarms of federal agents descended upon him, "free speech" or not.

C'mon E, you are smarter than that. If you think the president of the US has issued orders of some kind to law enforcement agencies and the justice department to lay off of Farrakhan, you have bought into some bullshit. Don't you think that if that ever happened someone would report it? Don't you see the conspiratorial implication of that statement?

I guess Obama has also issued orders to not 'bother' the leaders of dozens of militant white supremacist, neo-nazi, Aryan Nation, KKK, and skinhead organizations who spew the same hatred against blacks, Jews and Hispanics. Almost all of them have gone untouched.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

In any event, what I meant when I said "What protects Farrakhan is Obama not wanting to bother him", is that there are already plenty of court precedents regarding liability for openly promoting violence, involving white supremicist groups. For example, Tom Metzger and his "White Aryan Resistance group were bankrupted when people affiliated with their organization murdered a black man, and the victim's family filed suit. A Klan group in Georgia was similarly bankrupted by the family of a victim.

You are wrong. Neither of the cases you cited is controlling. Both cases are readily distinguishable.

First, neither case concerned prior restraint of speed.

Second, neither case was a criminal case. Both involved civil lawsuits for damages.

Third, and by far most importantly, both cases included action, conduct a result and damages. There was a victim in both cases.

If someone associated with Farrakhan kills someone or beats someone up, and there is evidence that Farrakhan ordered the assault, or told his associate to do the assault, Farrakhan can and will be prosecuted and/or civilly sued on the theory of conspiracy.

 

[Enthetan]

C'mon E, you are smarter than that. If you think the president of the US has issued orders of some kind to law enforcement agencies and the justice department to lay off of Farrakhan, you have bought into some bullshit. Don't you think that if that ever happened someone would report it? Don't you see the conspiratorial implication of that statement?

I'm guessing that you haven't spent much time in a large bureaucracy. I have. A lot of things happen without a written paper trail. A lot happens because of individual conversations. A lot happens on the basis of people knowing what their seniors desire, without need of the senior having to spell it out, and with people being promoted on the basis of their being smart enough to know what is wanted without needing to be told in detail.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

While not exhaustive (it is a broad subject), the following Wikipedia article on incitement of imminent unlawful action may help explain why: (1) Farrakhan's statements are protected by the First Amendment: (2) such protection has nothing to do with the religious clauses of the First Amendment; and (3) such protection is not result of (yet another) Obama conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[SUP][1][/SUP] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *