Not really, Jeff. Sally didn't vote for that constitutional amendment and it would affect her anyways because she's baptist. And Sally doesn't hate Muslims. She just wishes everyone would act like reasonable people.

French press reports that Parisian authorities banned a planned rally against "islamistes"(radical Islamists), similar to Pegida in Germany. Parisian authorities said that the rally had a "clear islamophobic nature" and didn't authorize it.

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, we have to send drones over there to take out Muslim extremist thugs. It's not our fault they like to take over villages and use human shields. It's that part of jihad? Seems like it's their MO.

And again, that shit doesn't affect Sally and her family in Oklahoma.

Feel me, Sista?

Yet, Sally and a majority of her fellow Oklahoma residents passed a state constitutional amendment that forbade its courts from considering Islamic law in judicial decisions. That amendment was ruled unconstitutional. So, "that shit" is affecting Sally -- at least on the paranoid psychotic level. Do you feel that?

Sadly, we have to send drones over there to take out Muslim extremist thugs. It's not our fault they like to take over villages and use human shields. It's that part of jihad? Seems like it's their MO.

And again, that shit doesn't affect Sally and her family in Oklahoma.

Feel me, Sista?

Muslima said:

That's where you are wrong. You think the US foreign policy doesn't impact your national security? The effects of of our foreign policy is the best advertisement for Al-Quaeda & IS. You think that drones unilaterally sent in some parts of the world killing innocent civilians will not come to haunt you when those children grow up and come to "avenge" their country? families? A drone strike kills your entire family and someone from a cell contacts you promising you revenge for your entire family , how easy would it be for someone who has nothing to lose to fall for this?

???now it's OUR foreign policy--and before it was YOUR.........Muslima is a fake people.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I realize that. But I stand by my statement. I'm not a fan or defender of Saudi Arabia...and I can't imagine any American would be. My point is that our little bubble here in the States IS a shining beacon of freedom...and most Americans are primarily concerned with their own little world and their own rights and security.

The fact that our government is in bed with dictators, oppressors and thugs is disappointing, but it doesn't have an obvious impact on the daily lives of Americans.

More specifically: Americans don't have to adhere to bizarre religious laws; people aren't stoned or flogged or beheaded or crucified (and the death penalty is thankfully on it's way out the door); women aren't property (and we can drive!); gay people aren't incarcerated or thrown off buildings (that just happened the other day thanks to ISIS). I could go on and on, but I think you catch the drift.

Again, I hear what you are saying about our international allies and politics...but I think some of those unfortunate partnerships are necessary for American interest until the rest of the world is capable of accepting societal norms and living peacefully despite religious differences.

That's where you are wrong. You think the US foreign policy doesn't impact your national security? The effects of of our foreign policy is the best advertisement for Al-Quaeda & IS. You think that drones unilaterally sent in some parts of the world killing innocent civilians will not come to haunt you when those children grow up and come to "avenge" their country? families? A drone strike kills your entire family and someone from a cell contacts you promising you revenge for your entire family , how easy would it be for someone who has nothing to lose to fall for this?

What Americans do not often remember, I think, is that there was a time when the United States was well loved across the Middle East. Granted, it was before 1948, but there are still important lessons to be learned from that. The United States was seen across the Levant as a former colonial subject, who had thrown off the yoke of their British oppressor. The US was seen as an example of what Middle Eastern states could some day become, as evidenced by the findings of the King Crane Commission during the summer of 1919. It really wasn't until the United States was the first country in the world to recognize the new state of Israel, in face of the displacement of millions of Palestinians and the destruction of their hopes for an independent state, that support for the United States began to wane. Even after 1948, opinions of the US were still relatively high. It would take decades of the United States arming Israel, blocking United Nations Security Council Resolutions, supporting Israeli settlement policies which would continue to weaken Palestinian hopes of ever reaching a state of self-governance,before Arabs in particular and the Middle East in general began to turn against the United States. The plight of the Palestinians has long been the central call to justice for fundamentalists from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Assad regime in Syria, the Iranian regime and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini in particular, the Mujahhadin in Afghanistan, Al-Quaeda in the Maghrib and the list goes on. I truly believe that the unconditional support of the United States for Israel and Israeli policies has been the single biggest undermining factor of US national security, it continues to be, and will continue to be for as long as the status-quo remains intact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, who here has said they don't "understand" the terrorist's grievances? That's a red herring. Even the occasional right wingnut who says they should go home if they don't like free speech laws isn't questioning the basic fact that they were offended. Everybody, absolutely everybody, feels victimized about something. FWIW, in France, you're free to abuse Hindus, Christians and Buddhists just as much or more as you can abuse Muslims. I can "understand" why gays want marriage rights even if it's not a personal issue for me. The "understanding" thing is a red herring, and a lazy red herring, that takes us away from the main issue about the whys and wherefores of vigilante justice vs. working within the system to change laws you don't like.

Agree. And the Charlie Hebdo issue had nothing to do with the killings in the Kosher grocery. This is about hatred-not hate speech. The cartoons were an excuse for killing.

It's also about getting attention among their own followers. Maybe, incidentally, about hate and about getting rapid change to France's laws.

That's why, although we might agree that change is needed, we need to keep the onus squarely and firmly on the aggrieved groups themselves. I think that's why I so strongly dislike the argument that "well, they have a point, so we should fix it." Otherwise, what message does that send to that other aggrieved groups, for example gays who want to marry, who are working for slowly and patiently and within the system for change the las?

And the fact that anyone feels like violence or terrorism is a legitimate response to *anything* (including cartoons) is beyond comprehension...and is a distinguishing factor between civilized people and evil extremists and their apologists.

Anyway, who here has said they don't "understand" the terrorist's grievances? That's a red herring. Even the occasional right wingnut who says they should go home if they don't like free speech laws isn't questioning the basic fact that they were offended. Everybody, absolutely everybody, feels victimized about something. FWIW, in France, you're free to abuse Hindus, Christians and Buddhists just as much or more as you can abuse Muslims. I can "understand" why gays want marriage rights even if it's not a personal issue for me. The "understanding" thing is a red herring, and a lazy red herring, that takes us away from the main issue about the whys and wherefores of vigilante justice vs. working within the system to change laws you don't like.

Agree. And the Charlie Hebdo issue had nothing to do with the killings in the Kosher grocery. This is about hatred-not hate speech. The cartoons were an excuse for killing.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ and check the two side-to-side cartoons posted in the other thread -- one for the Jews, one for the Muslims. The "Jewish" cartoon was titled "Shoa Hebdo" -- Holocaust Hebdo -- displaying your typical Jew stereotype. That can be rightly considered extremely offensive, as it was using the Hebrew word for "Holocaust" in a mocking way. The "Muslim" cartoon was called " Charia Hebdo" -- Sharia Hebdo.

Both were offensive. Both were deemed legal, as they didn't purposely incite hatred against a group.

I am actually the one who posted the "Shoa Hebdo" cartoon. When I posted it, I wasn't aware of French laws regarding the Holocaust. Once I learned, I was surprised that cartoon was not found in violation.

The example of the French journalist is interesting. Though one wonders if simply backtracking would have been enough to avoid arrest by a Muslim in similar circumstances.

As was mentioned in the CBS article to which I linked, hate speech laws are a minefield because so much is subjective and uneven application is seen as unfairness. There are plenty of folks eager to exploit any resentment caused by perceived unfairness.

Yes, of course there is unevenness in hate laws. This is no surprise. There are many reasons for this. One reason is that peoples' limits vary, and one person's hate speech is another person's sophomoric cartoon, while meanwhile *everybody* can get on board with the idea that the Holocaust was a very bad thing. A second reason is historical: there has always been a somewhat substantial Jewish minority in France, and France recognized its role in persecuting Jews in WWII, so it passed these laws. While there have always been North Africans in France, especially in places like Marseilles, the Muslim population has grown very rapidly since I lived there in the early 1980s, and laws may not have caught up. So history is a factor.

You yourself have different standards, and you're in a position to do something, at least on DCUM. (You mentioned the "report" button once. I tried that a few times, but saw zero response. On another thread a troll was derailing a non-Islam religious discussion, and you did nothing and even removed jpegs mocking the poor troll. Yet you intervene on Islam discussions all the time.)

Anyway, who here has said they don't "understand" the terrorist's grievances? That's a red herring. Even the occasional right wingnut who says they should go home if they don't like free speech laws isn't questioning the basic fact that they were offended. Everybody, absolutely everybody, feels victimized about something. FWIW, in France, you're free to abuse Hindus, Christians and Buddhists just as much or more as you can abuse Muslims. I can "understand" why gays want marriage rights even if it's not a personal issue for me. The "understanding" thing is a red herring, and a lazy red herring, that takes us away from the main issue about the whys and wherefores of vigilante justice vs. working within the system to change laws you don't like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914307/The-terrifying-beauty-standards-pre-rush-week-California-sorority-girls-adhere-want-remain-popular.html

I take back everything I said about America being a shiny beacon of freedom. After reading this, I feel we are no better than Saudi Arabia when it comes to equality for women.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He's not saying they shouldn't have the right to publish those comments. He's saying they should have chosen not to. There's no free speech implication there. People object to what magazines publish all the time. Unless there's an actual prevention of it or violence for it, this is just disagreement with that choice. That's what free speech is supposed to be.

You are tying yourself in knots. Again, he is not saying that he disagrees with what is said but defends the right to say it. He is saying that he disagrees with what was said and that it shouldn't have been said. Whether it shouldn't have been said due to law or choice doesn't really make a difference. Do you think that he would have accepted the suggestion that Charlie Hebdo should have chosen not to publish the anti-Muslim cartoons? Haven't we been told over and over again that a right that is not exercised is lost and that is why it was so important to publish offensive cartoons?

In simple terms, the lawyer defended publishing offensive material when Charlie Hebdo was publishing it, but criticized the publishing of material that offended him. The fact that he has the freedom to express his criticism doesn't relieve him of being a hypocrite. Neither does the fact that he chose to use words rather than guns to present his criticism relieve him of being a hypocrite.

Sure it does. He's stating his opinion that they shouldn't have said it. If you said something really racist, I would say you shouldn't have said it. That's not an attack on your free speech. It's criticism. Unless he attempted to actually block that speech or violently retaliate for it, it's not about free speech. Also, he's Charlie Hebdo's lawyer, not the other guy's lawyer. Of course he advocates for Charlie Hebdo and not the other guy. That's not what lawyers do.

The balance of power in the Middle East wasn't as awesome as you think it was.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you referencing the past? Slavery? Indians? It's 2015. And comparatively speaking, America is a shining beacon of freedom...today (except for gay rights, but we will fix that issue soon).

Here's the real deal: Muslim extremists want to drag the world back to the Middle Ages, complete with beheadings. They are evil, violent and crazy right this very minute. By comparison, America is an enlightened Utopia.

So here and now (as the great Luther Vandross sang) in 2015 we have a world where civilized countries are having to deal with completely uncivilized countries that don't accept reasonable, commonsense societal norms. And that's beyond frustrating.

We are a shining beacon of freedom that kicked off this shitstorm by breaking the balance of power in the Middle East.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I realize that. But I stand by my statement. I'm not a fan or defender of Saudi Arabia...and I can't imagine any American would be. My point is that our little bubble here in the States IS a shining beacon of freedom...and most Americans are primarily concerned with their own little world and their own rights and security.

The fact that our government is in bed with dictators, oppressors and thugs is disappointing, but it doesn't have an obvious impact on the daily lives of Americans.

More specifically: Americans don't have to adhere to bizarre religious laws; people aren't stoned or flogged or beheaded or crucified (and the death penalty is thankfully on it's way out the door); women aren't property (and we can drive!); gay people aren't incarcerated or thrown off buildings (that just happened the other day thanks to ISIS). I could go on and on, but I think you catch the drift.

Again, I hear what you are saying about our international allies and politics...but I think some of those unfortunate partnerships are necessary for American interest until the rest of the world is capable of accepting societal norms and living peacefully despite religious differences.