satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

I am not surprised at all, the Catholic church has a very long history of strict control of the press and total intolerance toward anything that goes against the teaching of the church or that it may be considered blasphemous. in the middle ages the death penalty was normally administered. Galileo had to recount his scientific publication on heliocentrism after being tried for heresy and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. if he did not recanted, he would have been executed (and for a scientific paper). the Church State (the area of Italy under control of the Pope) had the death penalty until around1860, when it was conquered by Italy's king and the Pope lost control of the land except for the Vatican, and offending the Church was a crime. Changes on the Church have been forced from the outside society. The Church certainly does not advocate the execution of somebody for blasphemy (although it happily did it in the past), but on the limitation to the freedom of speech and expression as far as religion is concerned, it is fully aligned with Islam

Seems to me that this paradigm might be changing fast. For the first time in well over 1000 years, there's finally a Pope who actually seems to be following the Gospels as opposed to one who's just caught up in playing and pandering to various factional and partisan politics.

By not pandering or playing politics, he's very unpopular with the church establishment and is unlikely to make any signficant lasting change to the church. I have been very impressed with many of his speeches, but he's had zero impact on the church itself.

He's already purged many senior leaders from key ranks in the church establishment who he felt were taking the Catholic church down the wrong path. But that said, I can't wait til he starts purging some of the right wing Catholic bishops here in the US as well. I certainly hope they are getting the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

[Anonymous]

^ And, oh - let's not forget that the Pope's about to release an encyclical on Climate Change making it the responsibility of all Catholics worldwide to lessen man's impact on climate and the environment.

Hoping that will flush out all of the fascistic phonies who presume to hold up "my Catholic faith" in defense of their right wing beliefs that go against the Gospels - folks like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich Antonin Scalia...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

Then you are opposed to freedom of religion, and you are opposed to equity and equality and have no problem being a hypocrite, saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander."

Ok, gotcha. Clearly no further deep thought or intellectual grasp to be had from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

Then you are opposed to freedom of religion, and you are opposed to equity and equality and have no problem being a hypocrite, saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander."

Ok, gotcha. Clearly no further deep thought or intellectual grasp to be had from you.

Georgetown is a Catholic university. Duke and Northwestern are/were historically Methodist Episcopal universities, among others. Are they public universities now?

[Anonymous]

Are we all trading religious houses? Will we have the passion of the Christ enactment around the kaaba? Get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

Then you are opposed to freedom of religion, and you are opposed to equity and equality and have no problem being a hypocrite, saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander."

Ok, gotcha. Clearly no further deep thought or intellectual grasp to be had from you.

You don't get something: Duke is not a public institution. It is a private institution. As such, it can be a Methodist school if it wants to. Or a Jewish school, or a Muslim school. That's not about freedom of religion. Personally, I'm fine with them doing Muslim call to prayer. If they have enough Muslim students for that to make sense, go for it. But there's no "freedom of religion" element to this. Maybe you should learn basic constitutional law before you spout off on it.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

Then you are opposed to freedom of religion, and you are opposed to equity and equality and have no problem being a hypocrite, saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander."

Ok, gotcha. Clearly no further deep thought or intellectual grasp to be had from you.

You don't get something: Duke is not a public institution. It is a private institution. As such, it can be a Methodist school if it wants to. Or a Jewish school, or a Muslim school. That's not about freedom of religion. Personally, I'm fine with them doing Muslim call to prayer. If they have enough Muslim students for that to make sense, go for it. But there's no "freedom of religion" element to this. Maybe you should learn basic constitutional law before you spout off on it.

Duke CHOSE to host a Muslim Call To Prayer, but have now backed out of it because of public outcry from right wing nutjobs. So apparently they have no say in it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALLOWING ISLAM ON THE DUKE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS!

Wait a minute... wasn't the Muslim Call To Prayer being proposed for the Duke bell tower, which is a Methodist chapel, whose bells have been used (and which continue to be used) to call Christians to prayer services going all the way back to the 1930s?

If you allow Christian services and calls to prayer on campus, how can you then in good faith NOT also allow other religious services and calls to prayer?

See the problem here? (If you don't see the problem there, then just label yourself "hypocrite" and move on until you figure it out someday because you will have nothing relevant to offer)

Sorry, don't see the problem. While Duke is an independent school, it has ties to the Methodist church including members on the board.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church

Then you are opposed to freedom of religion, and you are opposed to equity and equality and have no problem being a hypocrite, saying "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander."

Ok, gotcha. Clearly no further deep thought or intellectual grasp to be had from you.

You don't get something: Duke is not a public institution. It is a private institution. As such, it can be a Methodist school if it wants to. Or a Jewish school, or a Muslim school. That's not about freedom of religion. Personally, I'm fine with them doing Muslim call to prayer. If they have enough Muslim students for that to make sense, go for it. But there's no "freedom of religion" element to this. Maybe you should learn basic constitutional law before you spout off on it.

Duke CHOSE to host a Muslim Call To Prayer, but have now backed out of it because of public outcry from right wing nutjobs. So apparently they have no say in it?

AKA the Board of Trustees. Just like every other private school.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

Hah! Honey, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. I understand how courts work far better than you, clearly. Try selling "she asked for it" to a judge as a defense to murder. Go for it. And if a judge DID buy that argument, he is a terrible judge. The parallel universe is yours.