What is “Islamic politics” and how does it differ from “Jewish politics” and “Christian politics”?
Ok, since you seem to be opposed to “Islamic politics” even when supported by “democratic governments” does that also mean banning Zionists from serving in the US government or having anything to do with American governmental or foreign policy?
You think people who advocate for “hate speech” laws are Muslims?
The ADL has advocated for such things. Are you saying the ADL, the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and similar organizations aren’t “welcome” in discussions?
Does this mean that Israel has to treat the Arab citizens of their country equally?
Does it mean they can no longer forbid interfaith marriages or have racist immigration laws that privilege Jews over Muslims and Christians?
Does this also mean European countries have to treat the children of Muslim immigrants as equals and give them citizenship rather than refusing to give it to them as so many backward European countries refuse to do?
I nearly pissed myself laughing at the utter stupidity of this comment.
You do realize that roughly 10% of all Palestinians are Christian don’t you?
You do realize how many of the members of “Students for Justice in Palestine” are Christian don’t you?
Why are you so ignorant about a subject you feel so strongly to care about?
Are you by any chance related to poor dumb Damuri Ajashi?
In fact, the implications are far worse. His solution sounds a lot like censoring and suppressing pro-Islamic groups and ideas.
I believe in free speech. Where there is open discourse, justice prevails. It is up to Muslim countries to realize this and I would never prescribe the Western world seeks to impose our ideals on them. Our ideals are just, and will win. We do a disservice to see ourselves as “creating” democracy for other nations. It did not work in Iraq, because the people were not ready for it. When the Muslim world gets through the growth pains, secular democracy will take root.
No one should (or can) censor any ideas. The question is what ideas are legitimated by the mainstream of the progressive media. Right now there is this notion that anything short of beheadings is acceptable if done in the name of Islam and criticizing it isn’t allowed, if one is to take Salon or Huffpo or the left-wingers on this board as any indication.
“Hate speech” laws (aka “don’t criticize Islam” laws) are actual censorship, and no one should support them.
So you support making it illegal to say anything bad about Islam? But you’re definitely not sympathetic to the people who want Islam to run the world, no siree? Sure.
Yes, I would mind getting into an irrelevant tangent about Israel. This is typical Islamist nonsense – we can’t talk about the blogger we hacked to death because some other country did a thing!
If you aren’t willing to say that it should be legal to criticize Islam and that there should be no laws against speech, then you are on the side of the perpetrators of this deed.
As for whether there “should be no laws against speech,” can i ask whether you believe that threats of violence should be allowed? Should i be permitted by law to tell you that i’m going to beat your head in, or kidnap your child? Should i be allowed to conspire with another person to rob a bank, or assassinate the president? Because conspiracies constitute speech. Do you believe that we should only be allowed to arrest someone for a conspiracy if they are actually in the physical process of carrying out their intended actions?
And here’s where your argument is so retarded. Hate speech laws as we understand them in the west are NOT “don’t criticize Islam” laws. It is completely possible to criticize Islam (the religion in general, or particular Muslims), on the one hand, and still support hate speech laws, on the other.
Personally, i generally oppose hate speech laws, even though i think that there are many compelling arguments made in favor of them. But even if i supported hate speech laws, that would not be the same as supporting a law that criminalized criticism of Islam. The fact that you equate the two makes you a dishonest debater.
In addition, you seem to have very little idea about what hate speech and hate crime laws are about, at least in places like the United States. In the US, hate speech and hate crime laws are generally not laws unto themselves. Far more often, they are enhancements to existing laws. They don’t generally regulate speech alone; rather, they allow the legal system to take a person’s motivations into account when determining sentencing for a crime.
So, for example, hate speech laws in most American states don’t make it illegal for someone to call another person a nigger, or a faggot, or a raghead. But if you rob someone or beat them or kill them while calling them a nigger or a faggot or a raghead, your epithets demonstrate that your crime was motivated by hate, and therefore your penalty can be enhanced.
Thank you for the lecture on why killing people is bad. You might want to let huge swaths of the Muslim world know about this, as they have not gotten the message.
As for you weird belief that laws against killing people are laws against speech, or that the U.S. has hate speech laws, or that hate speech laws as they exist in Europe aren’t effectively “don’t criticize Islam” laws enforced out of fear, well, go read a book or something.
I’ll leave this here as perfect evidence of your dishonesty, or your stupidity. Not sure which, but it really doesn’t matter. I’m done with you, because you’re not worth engaging.
Now please explain why due to Islam the group Students For Justice in Palestine shouldn’t be allowed on campus even though many of their members and leaders are Christians.
Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a thoughtful, well-researched answer.
Who here was among the braying mob of appeasers crying for “hate speech” laws to shut down Charlie Hebdo after some anti-Islamophobia activists protested their hate speech the only way they know how?
I really don’t have time to do your research for you, but here’s a link to get you started:
There were of course multiple threads on the subject of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, but that’s the main one. I didn’t notice any surfeit of ‘braying…appeasers’ posting there, but feel free to name names if you find any.
So anyway are you going to explain what you meant by “Islamic politics” and how it contrasts with “Jewish politics” and “Christian politics”.
Since you’ve insisted that “Islamic politics” needs to be banned even from democracies does that mean that Zionists shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the US government.
Also once again, would you mind explaining why you stupidly declared due to Islam, Students for Justice in Palestine should be banned from campus governments even though they aren’t a Muslim group and have many Christian members.
Man, this post was some weak tea. After all that and it was just some lame political correctness enforcement? Why even bother? Where’s the red meat? I was expecting at least a discussion about banning all immigration from the Middle East, or at least making it exceedingly difficult.