satire or hate speech?

[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?

Like any other private institution, it can change its mind. And it's composed of many different constituencies. Some may with an issue one day and lose it the next. I don't agree with their decision, but it has NOTHING to do with "freedom of religion". They are not a government entity.

[Anonymous]

The parallel universe is yours.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Muslima is obviously referring to the heat of passion defense, which allows cuckolded boyfriends to kill without repercussion, and also should apply to those who rightfully kill those who insult Mohammad.

[Anonymous]

16:14, all "heat of passion" gets you out of is premeditation. Hard to prove when you have to travel, with your weapon, from where you are to someone's office, sneakily get past security, and kill someone you don't personally know.

By the way, lack of premeditation doesn't mean you don't go to jail for life.

[Anonymous]

Wonder how many cartoons the owner of the Kosher deli drew? What is your excuse for that, Muslima?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Muslima is obviously referring to the heat of passion defense, which allows cuckolded boyfriends to kill without repercussion, and also should apply to those who rightfully kill those who insult Mohammad.

Yes, and you obviously support terrorism. FYI, in this country, "cuckolded boyfriends" are NOT allowed to kill without repercussion. Because this isn't the Middle Ages. They go to jail.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

Nice try. where'd you go? Went to Yale undergrad, fyi.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Muslima is obviously referring to the heat of passion defense, which allows cuckolded boyfriends to kill without repercussion, and also should apply to those who rightfully kill those who insult Mohammad.

No, that's not what I'm referring to......

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

I love it! Clearly, you know more about the American legal system than I do, having only attended the #2 law school in the country and practiced for 13 years. I bow down. Will go buy my niqab now.
You're a joke.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Muslima is obviously referring to the heat of passion defense, which allows cuckolded boyfriends to kill without repercussion, and also should apply to those who rightfully kill those who insult Mohammad.

No, that's not what I'm referring to......

Uh huh. I think you can see what you're supporting, can't you? That's the kind of person who agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

There is a logic fail here.

Conservatives blame Obama for ISIS. But that does not constitute "making excuses" for what ISIS does.

Therefore Muslima can condemn them but also recognize what problems contribute to terrorist attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a logic fail here.

Conservatives blame Obama for ISIS. But that does not constitute "making excuses" for what ISIS does.

Therefore Muslima can condemn them but also recognize what problems contribute to terrorist attacks.

No, conservatives blame Obama for not stopping ISIS. I disagree with them, but let's not be ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a logic fail here.

Conservatives blame Obama for ISIS. But that does not constitute "making excuses" for what ISIS does.

Therefore Muslima can condemn them but also recognize what problems contribute to terrorist attacks.

I also think that "recognizing what problems contribute to terrorist attacks" is not all Muslima does. She forthrightly says that "they shouldn't be surprised at the reaction if they draw offensive cartoons". That's a step further.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

I love it! Clearly, you know more about the American legal system than I do, having only attended the #2 law school in the country and practiced for 13 years. I bow down. Will go buy my niqab now.
You're a joke.

You are proof that sometimes, one should just stay at the local community college. Your inability to engage in simple comprehension is quite frankly disturbing......