Forum: pol
Page 2117
Subject: Political "Freedom" around the world


  Posted by: Myboyjack - [06141920] Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 16:58

I just want a place to catch all the crap. We had a thread that discussed free speech issues in Canada but i can't seem to find it.

Belgium court effectivle outlaws most popular political party in Flanders

The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party.

The Blok was appealing against a court ruling which stated that it was guilty of violating anti-racism legislation.

Recent opinion polls suggest the Vlaams Blok is the most popular party in the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders.

It garnered almost a quarter of votes in regional and European elections in June.

The party campaigns on an anti-immigration platform.

It also wants independence for Flanders, home to five million Flemish speakers.

 
1Myboyjack
ID: 06141920
Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 17:03
Dutch police deem "Thou Shalt Not Kill" artwork to be racist and sandblast it from existence

 
2sarge33rd
ID: 551056914
Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 17:13
so in the eyes of the Dutch court then, Muslim is a 'race' and not a religion?????
 
3Myboyjack
ID: 06141920
Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 17:20
I don't think that evens matters to them. The salient point is that a disfavored party holds an impolitics view and the party in power, due to the PC speech laws in place throughout most of western Europe has the weapon it needs to banish them from the arena.

the whole point of these sppech laws is to keep those with compelling but not yet popular views in check. The limits on speech are hardly necessary for those without something interesting to say - nobody's listening tothem anyway.
 
4soxzeitgeist
ID: 6104917
Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 18:48
Stupid sexy Flanders.
 
5biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Nov 09, 2004, 18:49
he he. D'oh!
 
6Myboyjack
ID: 06141920
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 18:10
People carrying "Stars of David" not allowed to march in Norway parade commemorating Nazi purge of Norwegian Jews

Norwegian anti-racists yesterday were marking the 66th Kristallnacht anniversary, in memory of the brutal beginning of official Nazi-Germany's genocidal murder of Europe's jews.

In our capital Oslo, the organisation SOS Rasisme refused Jews to participate in the march because they carried jewish symbols and Israeli flags.

Yes, you read that right.

The "anti-racist" organisation insists it did the right thing despite widespread criticism, including from Norway's Justice Minister Odd Einar Dørum (Liberals) and Progress Party leader Carl I. Hagen.

Technically, it was the police that refused people carrying jewish symbols from participating. The police has come in for criticism, too, but argue they could not guarantee the security of jews among the leftist "anti-racists." Which probably says a lot.

The Kristallnacht in Norway is widely used by organisations protesting Israel's war against Palestinian terrorism, and frequent comparisons of the murder of 6 million jews with Israel's acts of self-defence are totally unchecked in Norway's press. For example, a recent editorial in local Bergensavisen praises the "anti-racist" kristallnacht memorial march in Bergen (not to be confused with the Oslo arrangement which refused jews access). The article points to what happened in Nazi-Germany and writes:

 
7biliruben
ID: 3110231016
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 19:42
MBJ - I know little about the politics of Belgium but as conservatives are eager to point out regarding stem cell research and abortions, defunding does not mean disbanding. In this country it would, defacto, mean that, but perhaps that isn't so in a parliamentary system? Also, it looks like that in the last election the Blok only garnered 9.4% of the vote, the sixth largest total. The article exagerates their importance, though perhaps not in Flanders. I hate when articles distort the truth. Given that they are called a "Blok" suggests to me that they are a conglomeration of multiple parties to begin with, so perhaps they will devolve into their parts and continue on.

All that said, this is a horrific ruling. I don't like racism in the least, but removing the voice for anti-immigration feelings will not solve the problem. It often simply channels those feelings into actions outside the system of government. Such marginalization often takes violent forms. It's better to let them spout, and marginalize them within the system. That's a better way to castrate such behavior. Give them a voice and then make them look foolish. Don't make martyrs out of them.
 
8Myboyjack
ID: 06141920
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 19:55
It often simply channels those feelings into actions outside the system of government

That's very true. Look at what's going on in Holland right now where similar speech/expression restrictions are in place. Mosques and Muslim schools are being burned to the ground literally daily in response to the Van Gogh murder this week. They've had a more violent racist reaction to that one murder than we had in response to 09/11. Anger is like steam; it's going to vent somewhere.

I don't know that the Blok party was in any way what I'd term racist; the specific pamphlet that resulted in this ruling was a n argument against genital mutilation. Is that racist. It's pretty obvious to me that the power elite in Belgiium saw Blok as a threat as the most important Flemish seperatist party and took the opportunity to get rid of them.

I think it's funny that Belgium sent "observers" over here this year.
 
9biliruben
ID: 3110231016
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 20:21
I have a hard time distinguishing ethnic nationalism from racism, but perhaps there is a difference.
 
10Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 20:24
A former salesman of mine was over last night helping me with my computer. He is Dutch-Indonesian, although he grew up in almost entirely in the US. His parents were born in Indonesia, emigrated to the Netherlands and then to the US.
Franz is a good, conservative Utah Mormon, and we had a discussion about the the immigration situation in the Netherlands, since he visited there in August. He is of the mind that all Muslims should either convert to Chritianity(preferably Mormonism) or be sent back to whatever hell hole of a country they came from. According to him, Muslim immigrants are ruining the Netherlands.
He did his Mormon mission in Indonesia about 30 years ago, and believes that eventually all Christians there will be slaughtered by the Muslim majority. His world vision is that this is the beginning of a global religious war between Christian and Muslim factions. Much as I hate to admit it, it seems we might be headed in that direction.
 
11Baldwin
ID: 5210501020
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 21:50
I agree with his assessment. That is where we are headed. Europeans are going to rue the day they opened the immigration doors wide open. They are already cutting off the heads of Christians in the far East. We just don't hear about it unless they belong to our religion and we find out that way.

I'd like so much to believe that the average muslim would never fall in line with these radicals but I don't see much help coming from the mullahs and the Arab media. Then there is the fact that the terrorism is as much directed at terrorising muslims into line as it is at the west.
 
12nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 22:15
Funny isn't.

The reason the Muslims are so upset and commiting these acts of terror is because they believe we are threatening their religion, culture and way of life. They believe we are trying to crush their religion.

The reason America is attacking Muslims is because they say they believe that radical Musilms won't be happy until they change our culture, our religion, our way of life.

It's like the cat chasing the tail and an arguement can easily be made that both sides are justified in their concerns.
 
13Baldwin
ID: 2610291021
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 22:29
It's all a funny game of 'pin the tail on the west, no matter how counterintuitive' for you Nerve. Until it's your neck with a knife to it.
 
14Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 22:41
personally speaking, i don't see any difference between the radical muslim fundamentalists and the radical christian fundamentalists, except for the fact that the christians are becoming more of a threat to me, personally.

they both kill people who they feel are treading upon their beliefs. but the radical christian fundamentalists are also slowly stripping away my rights and freedoms in this country.

they scare me more than any muslim does.
 
15Baldwin
ID: 3310381021
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 22:54
That is exactly the false comparison Satan intends to make out of the muslim world war brewing.

Expect to see the religious herded into a worthless meaningless heavily controlled state run religion. Something the communist power-elite have a century of experience producing. I'm sure the global government will find their advice helpful.

 
16sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 22:59
ahhhhhh, Satan is it?

Always thought that was amongst the best of SNL, "Church Lady" and "....was it, SATAN, hmmmmmmmm?..."

For my money, I rank Satan alongside the Boogeyman. A scarey tale used to frighten people into line.
 
17Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 23:00
baldwin, it's not a false comparison.

it's religious zealots murdering people in the name of their religion, and trying to deny freedoms in the name of a God.

you can try all you want to excuse one lot of them because they claim to be christians, but the fact remains, their actions have spoken.
 
18Baldwin
ID: 3310381021
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 23:06
If you think you have anything to fear from me, besides your being exposed as a total lightweight loon...
 
19Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 23:10
Baldwin - iirc correctly, you're always the one on here who flees from battle, citing either your game du jour, or simply dismissing people. i'm not the lightweight loon.
 
20Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 23:17
That is exactly the false comparison Satan intends to make out of the muslim world war brewing.

If there's a Muslim world war brewing, George W Bush is initiating it as much as anyone in the world.
As I succinctly pointed out in the "What's Really Happening in Iraq" thread, the whole al-Zarqawi-based jihad in Fallujah is just a government propoganda campaign to gain sympathy for our genocide of the Sunnis. Please explain to me why in every picture of Marines in Fallujah, not a one is wearing a gas mask. Wouldn't it be a real possibility that an enemy who's expertise is sarin and other forms of chemical warfare would use those to protect himself and his minions from defeat at the hands of the infidels.
Of course it would, but nobody seems to asking the right questions, for fear that they'll be deemed the liberal media and banned to writing for some conspiracy theory web site.

Bush's concept of kill them over there instead of over here is about as disingenous as it gets. How about, don't let them in to the country by securing our borders, and kill the ones that are here and mean us harm. But then, that would be national defense, a term so distorted in the last 50 years that it no longer has a meaning.
 
21sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Wed, Nov 10, 2004, 23:24
as for why PV, the troops are not wearing the masks 24/7, its a simple matter of functionality. At the first sign of a toxic agent, troops are trained to don the mask and hood in 15 seconds total. (9 for the mask, 6 more for the hood.) Not having bothered to look, but I'd imagine 100 deg temps are fairly the 'norm' in the area. Ones ability to perform physical tasks is already semi-degraded by the heat. Add the mask and its intensifying affect on the heat, and you'd have multiple heat-stroke casualties if you tried to keep the guys in masks all the time. Not sure anymore how prolific they are, (but would have to think they'd be fairly well dispersed), many vehicles can be equipped with mobile sensors which will constantly sample and evaluate the air for the preence of toxic agents. The armored vehiecles of today, are I believe almost all 'pressurized' capable. ie, they canb be sealed with the troops inside and then pressurized to keep contaminated air, OUT of the vehicle.
 
22nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 01:42
Baldwin
It's all a funny game of 'pin the tail on the west, no matter how counterintuitive' for you Nerve. Until it's your neck with a knife to it.

I'm sure the Muslims feel the same way, unfortunately you have a closed and one track mind.

A bit too much of the Christian wine I'm afraid gives you rose colored glasses to look through.
 
23nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 01:44
Baldwin That is exactly the false comparison Satan intends to make out of the muslim world war brewing.

So if we think that satan is the equivelant of a fairy tail then it becomes impossible for us to have an intellectual political discussion.

I feel like I am discussing the issue with someone who believes in the tooth fairy. What are we to do?
 
24nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 01:57
They are playing you like a deck of cards Baldwin.

They get the Christian soldiers suckered into believeing they are fighting against Satan.

They get the fundamentalists at home to say "It's just prophecy, don't fight it it's God's will, all Muslims are evil."

Again I was told all this 12-14 years ago and I now realize Baldwin your purpose is to show me just how correct Copper's description of this was.

He said the fundamentalist Christian's would be neutralized because they would go along with dreams of the end game in sight, prophecy fulfilled.

In war you always have to demonize the enemy. To hear you talk Baldwin all Muslims are Satanic.

You're ready for another Crusade.

It's just Black Magic...and they are playing you like a deck of cards.

 
25bibA
Donor
ID: 261028117
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 11:32
IF what Baldwin says is true, that "They" are cutting off the heads of Christians, then I guess he has a point when he asserts that all Muslims are Satanic.

 
26Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 12:59
It's like the cat chasing the tail and an arguement can easily be made that both sides are justified in their concerns.

Yes, we export a culture that promotes the equality of women, separation of religion from the state. The case can easily be made that this culture attacks their religion because it exists.

That doesn't mean, obviously, that a case could easily be made that both sides are morally justified in their concerns, only that they are logically justified.
 
27sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 13:23
wouldn't "moral justification" be entirely dependent upon your point of view? ie, OBL felt within the framework of his mores, justified in attacking the WTC at least partially because the American political machine is put in place by the American civilian population. Hence, a 'war' with that machine is by definition, a war with that populace.

WE, would not see justification in that since it means deliberately and willfully targeting non-copmcbatants not only specifically but intentionally.(a bit redundant, I know.) But our disagreement over the moral justification stems from our point of view. An outreach of our societal norms and mores.

IOW, morality, is like beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
 
28Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 14:05
IOW, morality, is like beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

This is one of the big reasons why Kerry lost, of course.
 
29Baldwin
ID: 510561112
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 14:05
I have not said all muslims are satanic. I think you can make your points without mistating mine. I especially don't understand why Nerve has to do that when he should understand what I am saying more clearly than that.

If Cooper thot most people claiming to take the Bible very seriously would be politically nuetralized there seem to be enuff voting to drive the left nuts.

On the other side of the coin as far as my religion goes, we aren't being played. We've been non-voters for a century. It's not a reaction to what they are doing.
 
30nerveclinic
ID: 88592016
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 14:25
Madman Yes, we export a culture that promotes the equality of women, separation of religion from the state.

Madman you’re taking the benign examples and ignoring the more insidious.

Bin Laden sited the bombing of Lebanon, the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Then there's the perception that we are trying to export a secular humanist agenda to the world (Something I personally clearly have no problem here or abroad being a secular humanist myself but I’m not a fundamentalist Muslim)

The corruption of their culture through the same thing American mothers complain about, MTV, Gangsta rap, the whole American culture of sexuality, Women wearing next to nothing in popular culture. The whole sexual agenda that the Hollywood establishment exports.

Personally I have no problem with any of the culture aspects, but clearly it threatens their way of life and their religion so they lash out at what they perceive to be a kind of American imperialism.

Bin Laden claims the attack on the world trade center was pay back for all the acts of violence Amercia has inflicted on others, how does that equate to your over simplification Yes, we export a culture that promotes the equality of women, separation of religion from the state. ?

 
31Madman
ID: 43410119
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 15:08
Bin Laden claims the attack on the world trade center was pay back for all the acts of violence Amercia has inflicted on others, how does that equate to your over simplification

Bin Laden has claimed all sorts of things; the claim doesn't equate at all. The rampant and deep disagreement about culture, however, is what allows us to be Satanized.
 
32nerveclinic
ID: 88592016
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 15:34
Bin Laden has claimed all sorts of things; the claim doesn't equate at all.

What does that mean?

So the acts of war and violence that the US commits abroad are all illusions?

The brutal dictators we have propped up over the years are no big deal?

I realize you can justify all of these acts but not everyone on the receiving end may feel the same way.

There's no possible rational of why Muslims might feel they are under attack?

 
33Myboyjack
ID: 06141920
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:17
I think this is the last thread I'll ever start. Seven or eight posts on topic and then the "who hates whom more" competition breaks out.

Thanks Baldwin. Thanks tree. Carry on.
 
34sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:20
MM, would you truly deny that morality is relative to ones point of view, life experiences and the social norms and mores taught as one grew older? It has nothing to do what-so-ever with Kerry or the election.

A less difficult to digest comparative perhaps? In most parts of Europe, prostitution is a legal profession and those who practice it are not looked down upon by society as a whole. Yet in this country, prostitution is viewed as immoral and its practitioners are scorned by 'the good people' of society. (until that "good person" is out of town for the week on business that is.) One society views it as immoral, another does not. Point of view my friend.
 
35Sludge
ID: 54692111
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:24
I find it somewhat humorous, sarge, that you seem to believe that a "right" is absolute, but that a "moral" is not.
 
36sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:27
they are not the same things Sludge.

Rights, IMHO, are what one should be entitled to, simply by virtue of "being". Morals on the other hand, are guides we each use in the course of living our life. Aids in the decision making processes we go through.

Rights and morals are two entirely different critters.
 
37Sludge
ID: 54692111
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:33
In your viewpoint, yes. But there are plenty who would disagree with you who believe that morals are more than "guides", that they are the very thing (besides our superior intellect) that separates us from the baser animals. Then there are some who believe that people are only entitled to those rights that organized society grants them, and that in the absence of that society, there is no such thing as a right. And they are no more correct than you are.
 
38sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:46
and I always thought it was our opposing thumbs which seperated us. :)
 
39Razor
ID: 4195479
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:48
You're both wrong. Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals...except the weasel.
 
40sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 16:54
and it IS our thumbs which seperate us from the weasel. So there! pffffffffffft :)
 
41Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 17:10
Then there are some who believe that people are only entitled to those rights that organized society grants them, and that in the absence of that society, there is no such thing as a right. And they are no more correct than you are.

If the word entitled were omitted, then I would count as one of those persons. Rights and morals are the result of whatever organized society dictates. An 18 year old girl can be sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria for adultery, where in Beverly Hills she is thought of as a liberated woman. Society makes the rules for rights and morals, even though it's been fashionable for centuries to use terms like God given rights, God's laws and God's justice. These terms are meaningless unless taken into the context of whatever a certain society's interpretation of them means, so they are created by societies, not gods.
The closest thing to God's law, rights and morals would be someone stranded on a desert island or in the wilderness, where the influence of an organized society would play no part.
 
42sarge33rd
ID: 321037918
Thu, Nov 11, 2004, 17:13
note that in my post ref rights-v-morals, I indicate that IMHO rights are what should be granted...

I had really thought that qualifier would suffice, but apparently not.
 
43Myboyjack
ID: 1727913
Wed, Dec 08, 2004, 12:38
Poke fun at Bible-bothering snake-wranglers (or some other religious belief) in England - Do seven years in prison

Christ - even Mr. Bean's against this prohibition on free expression.


The star of the BBC's Blackadder television series lined up with leading barristers, writers and politicians to oppose the proposed law.


'There should be no subject about which you cannot make jokes'
Ministers say the Bill will protect faith groups - particularly Muslims.

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which will have its second reading in the Commons today, anyone judged to have stirred up religious hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, would be liable to a maximum of seven years in prison

 
44Baldwin
ID: 17114795
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 07:30
The Home Office said, "There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group." and certainly there is.

My many posts about the Wahabi religious threat are meant as logical criticism of a specific religious theory which explicitly calls for violence against us in particular. They are obviously not hate speech or even worse an incitement to violence against muslims.

You can however judge how reliable the Home Office's words are by Tree's take on my ever post involving Wahabi'ism. Any criticism of muslim thot is hate speech as far as 'ultra-sensitive to offense' liberals are concerned and so these laws would be applied sooner or later.
 
45nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Sat, Dec 11, 2004, 03:09
Any criticism of muslim thot is hate speech as far as 'ultra-sensitive to offense' liberals are concerned and so these laws would be applied sooner or later.

What are you talking about Baldwin, your boy just won the election. Maybe you haven't heard, there are no liberals in office to silence you...8-}
 
46Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Sat, Dec 11, 2004, 10:01
nerve - you should read the thread before commenting. Try to follow along with the group. The home office is in England. Refers to the opst before it.
 
47Baldwin
ID: 61141111
Sat, Dec 11, 2004, 13:00
Back to the initial point of the thread, it's just amazing that we have Jews prohibited from participating in an anti-kristallnacht commemoration, and the countries who form the original heart of christendom silencing any official mention of christianity so as not to offend the pagans.

When the Nazi's return, they will come as anti-Nazis - Governor Huey Long

Oh so tolerant ones.
 
48Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 19:09
My favorite all-time leftist guerilla
 
49Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 09:20
Free speech meets the "Home Office"

In a letter to the Guardian published on January 6, Mr Rushdie wrote: "The continuing collapse of liberal, democratic, secular and humanist principles in the face of the increasingly strident demands of organised religions is perhaps the most worrying aspect of life in contemporary Britain."

In response, Ms Mactaggart wrote a letter to the Guardian in which she said: "Free speech is a crucial right for everyone, faith groups as well as artists. For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred of others on the basis of their race.

"Now we are seeking to offer the same protection to people targeted because of their faith. This is not religious appeasement, but a responsible reaction to the tactics of those, especially from the extreme right, who would foster community tension by stirring up hatred of members of a faith group.


If you're not frightened by a government official telling you who you can and can not "hate" (read: criticize), you should be.
 
50bibA
Sustainer
ID: 261028117
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 11:54
Isn't there a difference in merely hating, and voicing your hatred of a race or religion in a manner to cause harm?

Many would not define mere criticism as hatred.
 
51Baldwin
ID: 6018150
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 11:58
In an ideal world maybe. I've been called a hater entirely without basis more times than I can count so you can be sure this movement will define hatred overbroadly in favor of those they want to favor and on the other side of the coin this movement is actually meant to incite hatred against christians.
 
52bibA
Sustainer
ID: 261028117
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 12:12
So let me get this straight. If a movement exists that desires to make an attempt to keep people from criticising Christians in a hateful or harmful manner, you would claim that this movement is actually meant to incite hatred against Christians?
 
53Baldwin
ID: 6018150
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 15:07
It will never be applied to defend christians from hate crimes. It will only be used to label christians as haters by expanding the definition of hate to include whatever the PC executioner finds convenient.
 
54bibA
Sustainer
ID: 261028117
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 16:40
Either I am obtuse (likely), or just confused. You say that if they are attempting to offer protection to people targeted because of their Christian faith, that this statute would not be used to defend Christians, but to label them as haters?
 
55Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 16:42
Baldwin, I believe, is wearing his "Christians + Martyrs" hat on, bibA. Christians are, of course, continually put upon (ironically, both as the under and overdog) and could never, therefore, benefit from such legislation.
 
56Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 17:53
PD: "Christians are, of course, continually put upon (ironically, both as the under and overdog) and could never, therefore, benefit from such legislation."

Look no further than the report Brian Williams displayed on the NBC Nightly News earlier this week on how the evangelical right is gaining influence on the vote for President.

Whether that report is right, wrong or indifferent does not matter in this case. It is signaling out a specific group and portraying them (via the left wing run media) as the catalyst for how Bush got into office.

Just like how Hitler blamed the Jews for everything, the Democrats blame anyone who believes in God for all their self loathing woes.

Had Brokaw's replacement done a report on the influence of the Jewish/Black voter, he would've been labeled (and rightfully so) an anti-Semite or white supremicist and been summarily fired from his job.

Because he's targeting the religious right that helped to get Bush elected, then that behavior is acceptable to those in the liberal media and to those liberal extemists that just drool at the mouth to find anything to harass or make fun of those with Faith.

I say let's do a report on atheists. Cast them in the same light and show how they push the liberal far left agenda. The talking heads would be all abuzz for weeks.

 
57Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 18:14
Evangelicals were a key to Bush's success. They were specifically targetted by the Bush/Cheney team. And, as a result, they have greater influence in the Administration. Which part of that do you believe is false, CCP?

You're mistake is somehow believing Brian Williams is blaming anyone for anything.
 
58bibA
Sustainer
ID: 261028117
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 18:29
"Evangelicals were a key to Bush's success. They were specifically targetted by the Bush/Cheney team."

There you go again Perm, being just like Hitler blaming the Jews for everything.
 
59sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sat, Jan 15, 2005, 20:44
the anti-gay marriage state constitutional issue is what I believe galvanized the evangelical right and got them out in droves. (at least in 11 states) As the 'push' continued, the movement grew, and the turnout in states w/o that issue on the ballot also climbed from historic averages. hence, contrary to common belief, the dems were actually hurt by the high voter turnout since many of these additional voters broke republican and I dont seriously think anyone would dispute that.
 
60Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 08:21
PD: "You're mistake is somehow believing Brian Williams is blaming anyone for anything."

He's not?

Brian Williams: As Left As They Get

"Many see the "big three" nightly news shows as dinosaurs in the face of vibrant cable alternatives. But who anchors them remains relevant for two reasons: First, the anchor is the face of the network during special coverage when millions tune in, such as on Election Night or a Sept. 11th. Second, while those with a great interest in the news watch cable, the broadcast networks reach a far larger audience of less politically aware viewers who are more susceptible to any bias. Though the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts continue to lose viewers, each still individually attracts an audience about three times greater than the primetime audience of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC combined.

Any hope, however, that the next generation of network-news anchors might nudge the evening newscasts away from the liberalism which is driving viewers to cable was dashed, at least by NBC, when the network announced that Brian Williams will slide into the NBC Nightly News anchor seat after the 2004 election.

Williams, now anchor of a nightly newscast shown on both MSNBC and CNBC, and the primary NBC Nightly News fill-in for Tom Brokaw, is a case study in Bernard Goldberg's observation that it is the "inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart" of liberal media bias.

Indeed, to Williams neither Al Gore nor Bill Bradley were liberal presidential candidates. On his MSNBC show in July of 1999 he lamented how "there is no true liberal to be found in this race. There's no Harkin, there's no Kennedy, there are just two centrists."

Bill Bradley a "centrist?" Ted Kennedy has earned an 88 percent lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). The ADA's lifetime rating for Bradley: A barely differentiable 85 percent.

While he doesn't see any liberals in America, he has no problem tagging conservatives as "far right" extremists. In February of 2000 he pleaded with guest Laura Ingraham: "What do you do to convince, if you are John McCain, to convince the far right, 'No, really, you have to listen to my point of electability'?" Opening the December 22, 2000 NBC Nightly News, Williams asserted that in picking John Ashcroft for attorney general, President Bush "calms the far right politically."

Being pro-life made Bob Casey, the former governor of Pennsylvania, an "ultraconservative" to Williams. When Casey passed away in May 2000, Williams warned that Casey was "a Democrat, but a devout Catholic and thus was ultraconservative on the topic of abortion."

Standing up for conservative principles seems to really annoy Williams. Following a January 2000 GOP debate, Williams denigrated the positions taken by the six candidates, bemoaning how "it's red meat for conservatives, the positions rather strident tonight: anti-gay, pro-Jesus, and anti-abortion and no gray matter in between."

Back in 1996 Williams followed the Clintonista script as he scolded Bob Dole for daring to mention how the Clinton White House got caught with hundreds of FBI background files. Williams set up a Nightly News story: "The politics of Campaign '96 are getting very ugly, very early. Today Bob Dole accused the White House of using the FBI to wage war against its political enemies, and if that sounds like another political scandal, that's the point."

Matching the environmental lobby's spin, Williams regularly condemns SUVs. He demanded in January this year: "With the U.S. locked in dependence on foreign oil, is it downright unpatriotic to drive an SUV?" In early March he rued: "Gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks were big winners on Capitol Hill today, but there's concern tonight the environment could be the big loser."

A classic example of the contrasting way Williams treats liberals versus conservatives was illustrated by how he approached interviews with Janet Reno versus Ken Starr. He delivered a love-fest with Reno in May of 2001. Asking her "what do your days consist of these days" elicited the response that she likes to kayak and "walk in the grass in my bare feet." Now there's an image.

Williams empathized with how Reno was the target of criticism: "Did any of it make you want to scream?" When she insisted that if Orrin Hatch walked into the room she'd give him a "big hug," Williams was astonished: "But he said some terrible things about you on those Sunday talk shows." Williams even wondered: "How would you like to leave this Earth?"

But quizzing Starr 18 months earlier on MSNBC, in November 1999, Williams had demanded that Starr identify "a moment of zealotry, two moments of zealotry" in his "hunt" for the president. Williams also wondered if Starr realized that his case was perceived as being "about a middle aged man telling kind of run-of-the-mill lies to protect a non-intercourse sexual affair"?

On the upside, Williams is at least sometimes cognizant of the mainstream media's slant. On September 21, 2000 Williams opened his MSNBC program by conceding: "A series of small mistakes have taken their toll on the Gore campaign. There was the campaign event where Gore forgot the word mammogram, called it a sonogram, before asking some nurses in the audience for help. No big deal, mind you, but had that happened to Bush the news media would have used it to further the theme that the Texas governor has a troubled relationship with the English language."

Now, if only he would do more to correct the bias than to perpetuate it."

I suggest you read this one...

New Anchorman, Same Old Liberal Bias


An Oldie But Halfway Goodie
 
61sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 08:53
CCP, sourcing from an avowed Conservative site, is hardly going to gain any credibility to your allegations of mainstream news leaning left.(I would counter btw, that cable news tends to lean to the right.) The very people you are using as references, are saying the things you are simply echoing.

Try finding an independent source, one without an agenda.


CCP's 2 links above; New Anchorman... and An Oldie but.....go to Media Research center.

Disinfopedia comments regarding Media Research Center
 
62sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 09:15
Systemic problems with Media Research Centers methods of 'research";

link
 
63Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 10:11
Do you pretend to believe that a site run by the liberal media (Which you unbelievably seem to be in denial about in #61.?) would run a report blasting the new golden boy of Nightly News?

Why would they cut their own throats?

Please list some sites that meet your approval then?

You're making a feeble attempt to grab me into a Catch-22. If I quote anything anti-liberal, you say the site has a conservative agenda. Now if I quote from a "neutral" (per your definition), then you'll decry that they are simply lambasting their competition.

That then leaves NBC itself, which is by no means idiotic enough to run a negative piece on Williams.

Either way its the old liberal trick of "heads win win, tails you lose".

I'm not one of the idiots that walks into your the dealership you work at Sarge that one of your salesman gives a full rodgering to.
 
64sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 10:59
In an email to the Washington Times in response to my criticisms, an MRC spokeman says: " Only someone with absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the ABC, CBS and NBC newscasts could suggest that conservatives were discussed four times more often than liberals." In other words: "Um, well, we didn't actually count the disparities in mention between liberals and conservatives."

Well, let's see if we can help. In one of the few claims that does in fact give enough information to be checked proportionately, the MRC study reports that the conservative label is applied to Supreme Court justices 49 times while the liberal label is used only 24 times, a two-to-one discrepancy. But now consider how often the names of justices on both sides have been mentioned on NBC news broadcasts over the past five years, using figures from the same Nexis database that the MRC claims to have used:

Mentions of liberal justices: Breyer (8), Stevens (16), Ginsburg (7), Souter (7): Total mentions: 40

Mentions of conservative justices: Rehnquist (104), Thomas (40), Scalia (50), Kennedy(14), O'Connor (40). Total mentions: 248.

Ratio of mentions of conservative to mentions of liberal justices: 6.2 to 1.

Ratio of total number of conservative labels to total number of liberal labels applied to justices: 2 to 1.

In other words, if we take the NBC figures as roughly representative of the networks as a whole, the MRC study shows that liberal justices are proportionately labeled three times more frequently than conservatives are. Bias indeed.

(With a six-million dollar budget, can't these guys hire a statistician?)


just in case it slipped your attention CCP, it is quite clear that MRC has an agenda to fill. They drew a conclusion and seek now to find evidance in support of that conclusion. If the evidance fasils to support their predetermined conclusion, they simply 'play' with the numbers until they do provide support. (Via omission it would appear.)

with that reality, how can anyone honestly place any credence behind anything else they say?
 
65Baldwin
ID: 6018150
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 11:21
But now consider how often the names of justices on both sides have been mentioned on NBC news ...

I thot we were counting labels. Wouldn't the only test that would prove the point be one where we detirmined the ratio of times justices were labeled to the number of times they were mentioned without labels?
 
66Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 11:44
Sarge: More liberal tricks. You grab at one link that I put a cursory reference to for reading purposes and then go on some tangent. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the rest of the posting.

Are you then saying that you've NEVER linked to any site at all that has no agenda whatsoever?

Just like a transportation and docking charge, that is a load of BS.

Baldwin: "Wouldn't the only test that would prove the point be one where we detirmined the ratio of times justices were labeled to the number of times they were mentioned without labels?"

They'd take away his key to the liberal debating executive bathroom if he did that.
 
67sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 11:55
indeed Baldwin. And using that criteria, the liberals are labelled FAR more often than are the conservatives;

24 'liberal' labelings from 40 mentions = 60%

49 'conservatice" labellings from 248 mentions: 20%

hence the nest to final line from my link above:

In other words, if we take the NBC figures as roughly representative of the networks as a whole, the MRC study shows that liberal justices are proportionately labeled three times more frequently than conservatives are. Bias indeed.


so CCP, wrong yet again. (isnt it getting tiresome for you yet?)
 
68Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 14:36
Sarge: I think you would best be suited to be a professional dodge ball player. You cannot address the things I discussed in #60 and you continue the BS I outlined in #66.
 
69sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 14:44
primarily due to your apparent inability to acknowledge post 62. (which you deride in post 66 along with Baldwin inpost 65, despite the two of you seemingly calling for the type of 'study' which my link in post 62 uses to debunk the MRC.)

ie, your links been shown to deliberately draw erroneous conclusions, you call for a totally different type of 'reading' (one done by the link I provide) however that "reading" disagrees with your predetermined conclusion, hence you ignore it.

ie, my link in 62 demonstrates the error of the claims made by your post 60. a fact which you conveniently remain unable to admit. with your post 60 debunked, I have no need to acknowledge it, as it is erroneous in its conclusions. Much like saying, the sun rises in the south. why would I even care to bother addressing such a blatantly false claim?
 
70sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 14:44
me thinks CCP, you picked up the keys to the ladies room. obviously, your keys have been taken from you.
 
71Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 15:30
Regarding #60, wonder why CCP didn't just link to
MRC's Dishonor awards, and cut to the chase.
 
72sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 15:56
Diane Sawyer: “I read this morning that he’s [Saddam Hussein] also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he’s been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years.”
Dan Harris in Baghdad: “He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a hundred percent margin recently.”
-- ABC’s Good Morning America, March 7, 2003.


Winners of the MRC "Baghdad Bob Award" for "spreading propoganda".

As I read what Sawyer and Harris said (and are being derided by MRC for), neither is stating that what Saddam says is a point of fact. Each is stating, "this is what Saddam has to say..." ie, each is REPORTING the news! And for this, a conservatively motivated political front sees fit to deride the two reporters as "Baghdad Bobs"?????

Would be equivalent to attempting to convict a reporter of arson, for covering the story of a fire in a vacant warehouse.
 
73Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 18:38
I'd like to see the ratio between the mention of the term 'far right' and the term 'far left'. Even corrected for this alleged scarcity of coverage of lefties.
 
74sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 18:51
well Baldwin, you'd have to lay your hands on the data from MRC to see those numbers. Of course, IF they resembled at all the numbers for liberal/conservative, you would most likely still decry the data and ask to see the numbers for the terms ultraliberal/ultraconservative.

Here's your (and MRC's problem) with that however;

MRC claims to intend to prove liberal bias in the media by using sound scientific principles and practices. Guess what the study shows? It DISPROVES that very allegation. In order to prove something scientifically, (ie Pythagoreum Theorem for ex), that proof must be set out in such a fashion as to disallow ANY exceptions. The data collected by MRC, showing a 3:1 relative frequency of labeling liberal vs conservative, disproves the notion that the media is biased against the conservative. The one exception which is requisite for disproving the allegation has already been brought forth. No further study is required according to established scientific principle. The theory has been disproven and is no longer strong enough to even warrant the title of theory. It is now, so much B.S.
 
75Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 18:57
Yeah, right...I've listened to Dan freakin Rather you know. Listen to MSM and let me know the next time you hear the scare phrase 'far left'. I've got better things to listen to now that there is FOX.
 
76Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 19:02
 
77Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 19:40
Media Research Center has a nice innocuous ring to it, but it really is no different than moveon.org.
When their special "suprise" guest is Rush Limbaugh, any pretense of objectivity is long since abandoned. Linking to MRC in an effort to support an opinion is one thing, linking to them as a credible research outlet is absurd, as would any similar link to moveon.org. One is far right and one is far left. Both are scary to me.

That brings me to a level of confusion about typecasting. I've been typecast as a leftist, even though I abhor huge government, generous welfare programs and most labor unions. As a small business owner, I am an adherent to the free market forces(capitalism), but am in daily competition with the Walmarts of the home improvement business - Home Depot and Lowes - who receive government incentives in their efforts to put me out of business.
As a father of young children I think hard pornography should be severly restricted and that public education should be free to an extent. In Utah, where large families are the norm, a family with 8 kids pays a lot less for education than a young childless couple. There is the same inherent unfairness that there is in urban areas where single moms with 5 school age kids pay nothing for education, but assuredly all are getting a subsidized free lunch.
I am somewhat of an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and feel our armed forces should be used for defensive purposes almost exclusively.
I have a hard time understanding why 20 million Iraqis need our military to help free themselves from what is considered a small contingency of Sunni insurgents. If an 80% to 20% majority need our military that badly, maybe they aren't as hungry for freedom as those who fought the British on our soil over 200 years ago.

So if anyone finds the time, please explain to me why I'm a leftist, even an ultra-leftist in some eyes.
 
78Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 19:58
Sounds like you are still in mid 'mugging-by-reality'. The problem is you pretty much sing with the liberal chorus. I've seen some commendable open mindedness and interesting posts on your part tho.
 
79sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 21:45
understood PV.

"Big Government": Nice general term that really doesn't say much.

For ex, I'm opposed to the government coming into ones household and saying the couple can or cannot be married. I'm opposed to government regulations, which occupy so much of a persons time with "make work" (ie paperwork) that 3 clerks need to be hired for compliance reasons. I'm of the opinion, that governments first obligation, is to the defense of it's citizenry. Secondly, to advance social/scientific agendas which benefit the society as a whole. (ie education, infrastructure, social safety nets, medical research) I'm opposed to unlimited welfare, but honest enough to see the catch-22 involved. If you terminate the benefits, how do the children in the home affected, get fed? To that end, I favor governmental supplementation for daycare and graduated reductions in benefits as wages are earned. I favor term limits, flat taxes and the elimination of MANY of our current tax deductions. (mortgage interest on ANY home after the primary residence for one example.) In most states I'm in favor of the death penalty, though with extensive (ie liberal) appeal rights. (I say most states because in Iowa for instance, life means LIFE. No 7 yr parole opportunity as in some states. Liberal appeals, because the sentence once carried out, is so absolute. Too often, DNA has shown a convicted person to have been innocent, despite the continuing testimony of "eye-witnesses".) I'm absolutely opposed to granting tax abatements and other incentives, to "lure" corporate America into an area. When those run out, inevitably the same company "goes shopping" for the next city to offer free land, free money for construction etc etc, and those who punched the clock and built the company, are now without employment while senior management provides itself with golden parachutes to ensure their continued financial freedom. I'm opposed to raising the minimum wage, but in favor of requiring companies BY LAW, to provide profit sharing to its employees; such profit sharing to be scaled to senior level bonuses so that a CEO who runs a company into red ink, does NOT get paid 7 figures salary + bonus. I'm a HUGE and staunch defender of the Bill of Rights. One of the most liberal documents ever written in the history of mankind.

What does all of that make me? Here, I'm called a liberal as though it were a bad thing. I view myself however, as a conservative Democrat. I'm middle of the road on alot of issues. Not undecided mind you, but I see both sides, think in many cases that each has merit, and I look for the compromise. A term which R Limbaugh did much to turn into a "bad" word. Yet compromise, is the very cornerstone upon which our government was designed to operate.
 
80Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Sun, Jan 16, 2005, 22:11
Let's address the claims in CCP's post 60. Held up to the light of day, I think we can come to the same conclusion.

Indeed, to Williams neither Al Gore nor Bill Bradley were liberal presidential candidates.

Al Gore and Bill Bradley were not liberal candidates. Not by a mile. Ralph Nader was the liberal. Maxine Waters, Paul Wellstone, these are liberals. Give me a break.

Opening the December 22, 2000 NBC Nightly News, Williams asserted that in picking John Ashcroft for attorney general, President Bush "calms the far right politically."

Not even MRC could claim that Ashcroft is anything by "far right". He was the most ideological, underqualified buffoon in a Cabinet position since the Reagan presidency. Williams was right on.

Being pro-life made Bob Casey, the former governor of Pennsylvania, an "ultraconservative" to Williams.

Made Casey ultraconservative to 60% of this country, not just Williams.

Following a January 2000 GOP debate, Williams denigrated the positions taken by the six candidates, bemoaning how "it's red meat for conservatives, the positions rather strident tonight: anti-gay, pro-Jesus, and anti-abortion and no gray matter in between."

This is perhaps the first point scored for MRC. Here is the definition of "strident" - Loud, harsh, grating, or shrill; discordant. There is two ways to read his sentence. First, you could argue that he means that "anti-gay, pro-Jesus, anti-abortion" positions are in and of themselves "strident" and he would be guilty of bias. Or you could argue that the "positions" of the candidates that night were "strident" as they were loud and shrill in believing that there is no "grey matter"(I would have said "grey area") in between. Half point to MRC.

Williams set up a Nightly News story: "The politics of Campaign '96 are getting very ugly, very early. Today Bob Dole accused the White House of using the FBI to wage war against its political enemies, and if that sounds like another political scandal, that's the point."

I remember the FBI file "scandal" as yet another example of a Republican-created smoke screen with no fire. Williams was right.

"With the U.S. locked in dependence on foreign oil, is it downright unpatriotic to drive an SUV?" In early March he rued: "Gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks were big winners on Capitol Hill today, but there's concern tonight the environment could be the big loser."

What the hell is wrong with you people. SUV's ARE unpatriotic and a pathetic example of how selfish Americans can be. Mass props to Williams!

Asking her (Reno) "what do your days consist of these days" elicited the response that she likes to kayak and "walk in the grass in my bare feet." Now there's an image.

Disgusting. How can anyone be allowed to get away with this? Disparaging a woman because she doesn't fit into his narrow definition of feminine beauty? How patethic. No matter how much he blathers on about Williams supposed liberalness, he has exposed himself as nothing more than a pig.

Williams had demanded that Starr identify "a moment of zealotry, two moments of zealotry" in his "hunt" for the president. Williams also wondered if Starr realized that his case was perceived as being "about a middle aged man telling kind of run-of-the-mill lies to protect a non-intercourse sexual affair"?

He was far too easy on Starr. I'm not surprised that Starr agreed to be interviewed by Williams, only a self-deluded megalomaniac like Starr would be so oblivious to the fact that YOU SHOULD HIDE YOUR HEAD IN SHAME. How many millions did you spend hounding Monica Lewinski? And for what?

So, CCP, I gave your article a fair chance and I have to think that it failed miserably. MRC has had thousands of hours of Brian Williams speaking on the air and the best they can do is point to his use of the word "strident". LAME!
 
81Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 04:29
You didn't think Al 'I'm so into worshipping trees and banning the internal combustion engine that you can't tell me from Ted Kazinski' Gore, was liberal enuff? He's a far left loon barely able to hide his Che T-shirt and roaches in his ashtrays.
 
82Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 09:17
Yet he was able to do what no Republican Administration has done: Shrink government.

I know it sticks in your craw that the Clinton Administration, from the perspective of federal government managers, kicked ass at the job, doing far better than any Republican Administration (and certainly better than this current one). And it was more than "peace dividend" cutting, as you know.
 
83Baldwin
ID: 500121617
Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 03:37
While Bush has totally betrayed conservatives on this issue, Clinton botched it too. I don't concede it was more than the peace dividend.

The tragic part is that instead of simply refusing to replace retiring workers, Gore who was in charge paid off his labor union friends by reducing manpower by buying people's retirements thus cheating the government and the people out of most of the savings that should have been realized.
 
84Myboyjack
ID: 108231015
Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 13:38
First of all, I know this is very off topic, as it has nothing to do with sarge's Army doings or CBS news or cuts in government spending, but.....

Broward County Park boots anti-war group

A group promoting an anti-war rally was asked to leave a Broward County park Saturday morning after the park manager said political statements were prohibited on park property


It continues to amaze me how little local public officials understand about our basic civil liberties.

..political statements were prohibited on park property ???? WTF? First of all, I suspect there is absolutely no such law. If there was such a blanket prohibition, it would be clearly and absolutely unconstitutional. The nice thing is that here, the anti-War group could clearly fight such an ordinance in Court. No such speech right exists in many of the countries discussed, supra.

Now, back to what this thread's really about - bickering.
 
85sarge33rd
ID: 711271021
Wed, Jan 19, 2005, 07:45
picky, picky, picky lol ;)
 
86Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 03:45
How Bush beat Putin's coup in the Ukraine with cases of vodka.
"Eastern Ukraine is heavily ethnic Russian. The main industry is coal. The miners are rough, tough, and hate Yushchenko for wanting to take Ukraine away from Russia and toward the West," writes Wheeler. "It was arranged for more than a thousand of them to be taken from Donetsk, the capital of the coal-mining region, by bus and train to Kiev, where, armed with clubs and blunt tools, they would physically beat up the Orange Revolutionaries. Such mass violence was not only to disperse the demonstrators but serve as an excuse for the government to declare martial law, suspending the Ukrainian Parliament (the Rada) and elections indefinitely."

Now comes the secret weapon: vodka.

"When the miners got on their buses and trains, they found to their joy case after case of vodka – just for them. When they arrived in Kiev, trucks awaited them filled with more cases of vodka – all free provided by 'friends' of the Donetsk coal miners. Completely soused, they never made it to Independence Square. Too hammered blind to cause any violence at all, they had a merry time, passed out and were shipped back to Donetsk."

To the Point, Wheeler's column goes on to explain who provided the liquor: teams of Porter Goss' CIA working with their counterparts in British MI6 intelligence.

Writes the intel expert: "Just take a moment and reflect on how stone-cold brilliant this was. The forethought and planning it took, the innovative thinking. Bush doesn't send the Marines – he sends the vodka! – and achieves a democratic revolution. This is the sort of thinking, these are the sorts of tactics, that are going to be applied now for 'ending tyranny in our world.' Military force will be used only as a necessary resort."
This reminds me of another Bush family/CIA operation where they introduced marajuana to America's anti-American counter-culture and neutered that movement to the point many of them are still wearing their greying braided hippy hair down their backs as they show up to their near minimum wage jobs fifty years later instead of becoming movers and shakers of society or inventors of history.
 
87nerveclinic
ID: 34757310
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 04:31
This reminds me of another Bush family/CIA operation where they introduced marajuana to America's anti-American counter-culture and neutered that movement to the point many of them are still wearing their greying braided hippy hair down their backs as they show up to their near minimum wage jobs fifty years later instead of becoming movers and shakers of society or inventors of history.

The problem with your "theory" Baldwin is that there are many pot smokers who are movers and shakers.

I've met many people in corporate America with high paying jobs who smoke pot.

Your confusing people who simply chose a differant lifestyle (Hippies) with marijuana being the reason they chose the lifestyle.

The current President of the United States was a coke head.

Besides I thought the Bush Klan introduced Crack not marijuana.
 
88Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 10:54
Nerve
Look around me - I can see my life before me
Running rings around the way it used to be
I am older now - I have more than what I wanted
But I wish that I had started long before I did
And there's so much time to make up everywhere you turn
Time we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away
Oh, when you were young, did you question all the answers
Did you envy all the dancers who had all the nerve
Look around you now - you must go for what you wanted
Look at all my friends who did and got what they deserved
And there's so much time to make up everywhere you turn
Time we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away
And there's so much love to make up everywhere you turn
Love we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away
Let the water come and carry us away - Wasted On The Way by Graham Nash
IMHO [he said for legal reasons] the Bush drug dynasty goes back to before the Boxer Rebellion so I don't limit them to any particular one drug invasion. They take their toll.
 
89Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 18:29
JKP linked to this story over at DPS. Our education establishment and civl leaders should be pilloried for this

The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.
 
90sarge33rd
ID: 440332322
Mon, Jan 31, 2005, 22:19
read that earlier today and was utterly appalled. I fond it hard to believe, that our youth place such little value and thus show such little comprehension of, Freedom of Speech/Press.
 
91Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Tue, Feb 01, 2005, 10:18
Conservatives keep warning you that they are dumbing down our kids, but no one believes it till it's too late.
 
92sarge33rd
ID: 612919
Tue, Feb 01, 2005, 10:34
this has as much if not more to do with cuts in education spending (relative to inflation) than with liberal theory. Fact is, liberals are the staunchest defenders of the 1st Ammendment. (re ACLU for ex)
 
93Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Tue, Feb 01, 2005, 11:13
Oh, our educators are all about the first amendment all right. Thus the speech codes on campus.
 
94Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 20:30
Václav Havel on the EU and Cuba and Freedom

A must read, really
 
95sarge33rd
ID: 612919
Thu, Feb 03, 2005, 08:50
re 93, seems the Gov of CO is in favor of free speech too. Calling for the resignation of one Prof who dared to make his opinions public.
 
96Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Thu, Feb 03, 2005, 10:07
Oh, this link is goood. The governor of Colorado isn't the only one who just wants Churchill to just shut it. The American Indian Movement had Ward Churchill kicked out for being a complete fraud and a liar.
After years of activism within AIM, Churchill was a ringleader of a breakaway "self-styled radical" faction that associated with extremists such as Noam Chomsky and Winona LaDuke, according to AIM records.

"They use publications like Houghton-Mifflin, Random House Publishers, South End Press and Speak Out Speakers Bureau, who allow Ward Churchill and others to perpetuate their literary, academic and Indian fraud on the unknowing public," said a 1999 AIM report.

Churchill was first expelled from the International Indian Treaty Council Sept. 23, 1986. Seven years later, on Nov. 24, 1993, he was expelled from AIM. Later, on Nov. 3, 1999, AIM leaders officially called for educators to remove his books from their curricula and libraries.

But AIM didn't stop there. Even more relevant, perhaps, to the current controversy was this recommendation from the group: "We request that organizations such as the National Indian Education Association and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium create a watchdog-type agency to review what books are being published by these literary, academic, and Indian frauds so that their revisionist writings are not finding their way into our education curriculum. This problem is of epidemic proportions, and must be stopped."
Why would Ward Churchill who is probably not an indian, pose as an indian for many years while attacking America? Self-loathing perhaps? The American Indian Movement has their own theory. They point out with great suspicion that WC was a misinformation specialist for the Government in Viet Nam, became a staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, taught a college course in a college explaining the inner workings of the American Indian Movement to police, and has had many movement acquaintences die in police raids almost as if he were a police informant.

More on Churchill's claims to be Indian...
Finally he discovered, or invented, his Indian heritage. In 1978 he took on the new role of professional Indian. By 1983, he was "director of Planning, Research and Development for Educational Opportunity Programs at the University of Colorado/Boulder." In plain English, he was an affirmative-action bureaucrat, a paid racemonger. He made the most of the gig, and very possibly wrote himself a job description to jump into academia. So he is now, without even possessing a doctorate, a tenured ethnic-studies professor at the university in the posh resort town of Boulder. (Does he still think all white babies are pigs? That might have some bearing on the JonBenet Ramsey case.) Along the way, Churchill has been inconsistent about his own ethnicity. In 1983 he was claiming to be "Creek/Cherokee." By 1992, he more modestly claimed to be "Creek/Cherokee/Metis" (303). This too is misleading, but we are finding the range. Strictly speaking, Metis are Canadians of mixed French and Indian ancestry – which Churchill is not – but in a broader sense, a Metis is someone of mixed white and Indian ancestry. Churchill thus qualifies, but only barely. The expression "Creek/Cherokee/Metis" is both odd and deceptive. Odd, because it is like saying someone is "African-American/mulatto," a mulatto being someone who is African-American/white, so an African-American/mulatto is an African-American/African-American/white, and a Creek/Cherokee/Metis is an Indian/Indian/white. Do I detect some reluctance on his part to include the W-word in Churchill’s heritage? Besides being bizarre, the identification is deceptive. It leaves the impression that Churchill is mostly Indian, whereas he is mostly white. By his own estimation, which may be generously self-serving, he claims he is one-sixteenth Creek and Cherokee. That means Churchill is four generations removed from even one Indian ancestor. By 1996, however, Churchill reverted to full dishonesty, again calling himself Creek/Cherokee. In any sense of the word that makes any sense, Ward Churchill is not an Indian. He is not an enrolled member of any tribe. He did not grow up on, and has never resided on a reservation, the only place where anything like traditional Indian culture persists. He prefers life in the tony, almost all-white resort town of Boulder ("you don’t get older in Boulder," the locals like to say – JonBenet sure didn’t). He draws a good salary from the State of Colorado, whose volunteers carried out the Sand Creek massacre; to qualify for it, he took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Colorado. He disparages "the stark, pathetic emptiness" of Western religions, but he nowhere hints in any of his writings that he practices any Indian religion. Thus he is not an Indian in any political, cultural or lifestyle respect. The only criterion he might satisfy is a racial one. Except that he doesn’t. Tens of millions of whites, blacks and especially Hispanics have more Indian ancestry than Churchill (I may be one of them) but they do not consider themselves Indians and neither does anybody else. Tom Giago, an enrolled Oglala Sioux born and raised on the Pine Ridge reservation, the publisher of Indian Country Today, considers Churchill a "white profiteer, a police agent and a terrorist." The infiltration of New Left/New Age ersatz Indians like Churchill has bitterly divided the American Indian Movement, an organization which, despite its small size, the U.S. Government once genuinely feared. Churchill was expelled in 1993, but continues to bill himself as Co-Director of Colorado AIM and as "a member of the governing council of the American Indian Movement." As Carole Standing Elk, a Dakota and director of the San Francisco Bay Area AIM chapter, says: "It’s obvious he has no spiritual base. He’s trying to subvert the movement." David Bradley, a Chippewa artist, observes that Churchill "is a white man, posing as an Indian" who "is victimizing Indian people, politically, morally and spiritually." According to Carole Standing Elk, Churchill is out "to exploit the American Indian Movement in order to further his personal career objectives."


 
97Baldwin
ID: 40022277
Thu, Feb 03, 2005, 10:09
Ward Churchill supporters are all for 'free speech' as long as it is their own. They are also all for lying naturally. They appear posing as republicans when they are really democrat activists.
Most of the counter-protesters had signs urging free speech. There were at least two students who claimed to be College Republicans supporting Churchill. But the College Republican group told me they had discovered these people were actually members of the College Democrats who were posing as Republicans.

Isiah Lechowit of the College Republicans spoke to the crowd with a bullhorn. Since their group sponsored the protest, they received the bullhorn from the university. The majority of the time, the counter-protesters drowned out his words with their loud screams. He offered to answer any questions and did answer a few, but not many people asked questions. They yelled for him to hand over the bullhorn. But they were already louder than he was. Though they claimed to be for free speech, since they would not allow him to talk, they appeared to me to be for free speech only for themselves. A few of the counter-protesters got right in front of him, actually "in his face", interrupting Lechowit.
 
98Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 18:22
Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy

He meant it as a piece of religious satire, a playful look at the life of Jesus. But Gerhard Haderer's depiction of Christ as a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis has caused a furore that could potentially land the cartoonist in jail.
Haderer did not even know that his book, The Life of Jesus, had been published in Greece until he received a summons to appear in court in Athens in January charged with blasphemy.

"It is unbelievable that a person can write a book in his home country and be condemned and threatened with imprisonment by another," said Nikki Conrad, a human rights expert who organised yesterday's press conference. "But he is not going to just sit back and accept this injustice. He is prepared to take this to the European court of human rights. When Gerhard first got the summons he thought it was a joke. But now he is starting to get a bit nervous."


That's right through the magic of the EU, an Austrian cartoonist draws some tacky satire about Jesus in Austria violating no Austrian laws. A copy of his drawing is found in Greece, they convict of a crime - and the poor sap could really have to be deported.

Nice.



 
99sarge33rd
ID: 322471717
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 19:09
THAT is the very definition of b.s. If this is what the EU is in fact trying to do, they are going to find that they will have "cut off their noses to spite their faces" in the realm of world opinion and the world markets.

Would this mean that if I am a tourist in Germany and driving 130 mph down the autobahn (violating no German law), that I could be jailed because another EU country has an imposed limit of 90 mph????
 
100Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 19:14
No. But if you published something on the internet in Germany that offended the speech laws of France, you could lkely be prosecuted.
 
101sarge33rd
ID: 34251187
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 19:32
EVERYTHING offends the French. Thats why they are "the French".
 
102Baldwin
ID: 241292815
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 19:53
That's nothing, wait till they start being dragged before Turkey's courts for blaspheming Islam. Wait till they learn the penalty.
 
103Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 20:01
Something like offending the Christian Right here, eh?
 
104Pancho Villa
Sustainer
ID: 533817
Fri, Mar 25, 2005, 20:07
Turkey has a "new" book on their best seller list - Mein Kampf
 
105Myboyjack
ID: 121159118
Thu, May 26, 2005, 08:43
ROME (Reuters) - A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book.

The decision angered Italy's justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason).

Fallaci lives in New York and has regularly provoked the wrath of Muslims with her outspoken criticism of Islam following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.

In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."

 
106Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 17:30
British historian jailed for denying the Holocaust in 1989

British historian David Irving, known for his controversial views on World War Two, must stay in custody in Vienna while he is charged with denying the Holocaust, a court ruled on Friday.

Vienna's state prosecutor this week charged Irving with denying the Holocaust in two lectures he gave in 1989. Denying the Holocaust is illegal under Austria's law prohibiting the Nazi Party. It carries a sentence of one to 10 years in prison.


 
107sarge33rd
ID: 5110132116
Fri, Nov 25, 2005, 19:14
hard to refer to someone who denies the Holocaust as a historian. A moron would be more apropo IMHO. If however, people are to be jailed for 1 to 10 because they are morons, we're going to need ALOT more jails on this planet than currently exist.
 
108Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sun, Feb 05, 2006, 11:54
"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote Mr Momani.

Response? Arrest for an "abuse of freedom of speech."

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

Mr Khalidi, whose al-Mehwar newspaper had also reprinted the cartoons, was detained late on Saturday. Al-Mehwar had reproduced the cartoons over a week ago to accompany an article on the condemnation they had sparked.


 
109Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:49
This is sad. The Vatican doesn't believe in free speech.

The Vatican on Saturday condemned the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad which have outraged the Muslim world, saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person's religion.

"The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion," the Vatican said.

"Any form of excessive criticism or derision of others denotes a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation," it said in a statement issued in response to media demands for the Church's opinion.


This is, pretty much, the current Euro view on free speech: political subjects that make me mad can not be discussed. Keep the rabble calm at all costs - else they'll start asking to many question and interfere with profits, I guess.
 
110Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:52
"Any form of excessive criticism or derision of others denotes a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation"

Holy crap! This coming from the Church!
 
111Mark L
ID: 550172718
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:55
This is a welcome Muslim view: "I would strongly support deporting those people back to the miserable societies they came from."

Unfortunately, he is part of an extremely small minority.
 
112Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:59
saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person's religion.

I meant to directly address that statement, because that's becoming the crux of the free speech divide.

In the US, freedom of speech, defintely does mean freedom to "offend a person'd religion" or whatever else. Elsewhere, and the pull is being felt here; subjectively "offensive" speech is regulated - which is an effective way to ensure that the State controls all speech.
 
113Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:01
We see it most clearly here with college speech codes.
 
114Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:04
Unfortunately, he is part of an extremely small minority.

Indeed. I noticed that CAIR has come out with a statement saying that "free speech" doesn't permit the publication of cartoons that offend Muslims. They truly have no desire to adopt the bedrock beliefs of the country they live in.
 
115Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:07
Iranian Paper Plans Holocaust Cartoons

which is all well and good, not terribly newsworthy, since Arab newspapers have been printing anti-Jewish stuff since God knows when. i've got a few at home, and maybe i should post them.

this whole thing sickens me. because if my people had rioted everytime these morons did something anti-Jewish, the riots would have been continous for thousands of years...
 
116Dec
ID: 200262011
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:20
MBJ

Those cartoons were publish in Danmark and reprint everywhere else in Europe. Here in North America, we cannot see them so where is the free speech???
 
117Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:20
John Scalzi thinks like you tree:


A newspaper in Iran -- run by allies of that country's Jew-hating current president -- printing cartoons that might possibly be anti-Jew? Who thought we would ever see that day?

Christ, this is boring already. Speaking in my capacity as Official Spokesman for The West®, I think Iranian newspapers -- particularly ones run by pals of the current president of Iran -- should go ahead and run any sort of dumbass Holocaust cartoons they want to. Indeed, I celebrate the right of Iranian newspapers to run whatever the hell they want. This is, alas, more than can be said about the Iranian government, whose grip on the press in that country is so total that the 2005 Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press Freedom Index has Iran listed 163rd in a field of 167 (a field in which Denmark, incidentally, ranked number one).

One can hope that when the allies of Iran's president are enjoying their refreshing little taste of "free expression," they might consider asking their pal for a little more genuine freedom of the press while they're at it. But, you know. I'm not exactly holding my breath for that one. Because then the people who run the paper probably wouldn't remain pals of the president of Iran. And we all know how problematic that can be. But in my capacity as Official Spokesman for The West®, I certainly hope they give it a try.

And of course I certainly hope someone who actually is a spokesman for The West® remembers to ask Iran when it plans to give its newspapers the ability to run actual news, as well as Jew-hating cartoons.

 
118Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:24
Those cartoons were publish in Danmark and reprint everywhere else in Europe. Here in North America, we cannot see them so where is the free speech???

No law prevents American papers from printing those cartoons. And FYI the Philadelphia Inquirer has run at least some of them.
 
119Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:25
And, with the invention of this internet thingy, you can check it out directly.
 
120Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:26
Those cartoons were publish in Danmark and reprint everywhere else in Europe. Here in North America, we cannot see them so where is the free speech???

I don't understand what you're asking.

I have seen them; I know that a Montreal newspaper ran them; but again, I don't understand what you mean by we cannot see them so where is the free speech???

BTW, I was wondering if any added importance is conveyed by the extra ??? Am I missing something?
 
121sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:27

MBJ

Those cartoons were publish in Danmark and reprint everywhere else in Europe. Here in North America, we cannot see them so where is the free speech???


yes you can. see below;






caricatures in question can be seen here
 
122Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:34
The last one is the best.
 
123Dec
ID: 200262011
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:41
Ok, maybe I was wrong, I was beleiving they were shown (all twelve), only in Europe. I didn't see them in Montreal papers (well the french's one) and I didn't see anything in US papers about printing those cartoons.

Thanks sarge 121, my quest is over
 
124Phatlip24
ID: 255272218
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:35
The whole free speech debate is misplaced. I don't think the issue is the cartoons, there is something much bigger going on here. There is clearly a lot of anger in the Arab world right now and this is just one more piece in a growing chain... Escalation of violence in Afghanistan, riots in France, the people of Palestine electing Hamas, etc...

Do you think these cartoons would have caused this kind of outrage five years ago? There is a major can of worms open in the Middle East.



 
125sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:44
Unless and until the radical elements of the Muslim faith are brought under the umbrella of the majority of Muslims, then yes. this same reaction would be seen, regardless of timing. This portion of the Muslim faith, is adamant in their literal interpretation of certain portions of Muslim Law. This law forbids the portrayal of Mohammed in a less than flattering light. What they fail to accept, is that for those who do not subscribe to the Muslim faith, we are not bound by Muslim law.
 
126Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:46
This law forbids the portrayal of Mohammed in a less than flattering light.

That's not exactly true. I believe the law forbids any portrayal of the Prophet.
 
127Boxman
ID: 371178
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:47
I think there is a reason why Muslims are rioting all over the Middle East, but there is scarcely a problem here. Why? I think it's part sociology and part government enflaming a situation.

The power elite in the Middle East very much prefers (my opinion) to have their subjects get angry at the West for minute things like a cartoon. If the West is ignorant about cartoons then surely their ideology is also ignorant because it permits the cartoons, right? Democracy therefore stinks and the only way is to have the government pass out the cheese or whatever is the cheese equivalent over there.

Enflaming anger at a cartoon takes away the fact that the Saudi royal family lives literally like kings and so do many other prominent Arab oil men while the typical Arab struggles. That is the real problem. I'll hazard a guess that if these people were given 40 hours a week at a steady good paying job, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech that the only response would be a cartoon depicting Christ or Buddha in an offensive manner. That's certainly preferable to what's going on now.

With all the money (oil) over there, is there any excuse as to why the average Arab shouldn't have a standard of living probably even greater than ours? It's much easier and preferable to focus their anger on the West for drawing a cartoon than to have their anger focused on various Arabic governments.

If Muslims ever want to be fully integrated into Western societies then this kind of thing (cartoons) has got to be tolerated.

Dear God. If I rioted everytime an image of Jesus Christ was displayed without respect I'd be in jail for the rest of my life.
 
128Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:49
I found it difficult to read your post without turning it around in my head to be about this Administration, and the US.
 
129Boxman
ID: 371178
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:03
If you only aim it at this administration you are only 1/2 right.
 
130Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:13
If Muslims ever want to be fully integrated into Western societies then this kind of thing (cartoons) has got to be tolerated.

If you could find any who wanted that. Not only is becoming integrated forbidden but they exhorted in the Koran to slaughter the unbelievers. Which puts a lot of stress on the integration process.
 
131Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:32
Dear God. If I rioted everytime an image of Jesus Christ was displayed without respect I'd be in jail for the rest of my life.

not to mention, using the Lord's name in vain.. .;o)

i do believe the words of Kinky Friedman (running for Governor of Texas in 2006 with the campaign slogan "Why The Hell Not?" are in order here. in fact, like never before, we need to look towards Big Dick for guidance...

I saw a picture yesterday
In a men's room near L.A.
Lying on the floor beside the throne.
Had I not recognized the cross
I might have failed to know the boss,
I thought, "Lord, you look neglected and alone."

I picked it up with lovin' care,
I wondered who had placed it there,
When l saw there was no paper on the roll.
I said, "Lord, what would you do
If you were me and I was you,
Take a chance, save your pants or your soul ?"
 
132Mark L
ID: 4314712
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:35
The ensuing Ringo Starr part is priceless.

" . . . I'm gonna have to dance."
 
133soxzeitgeist
ID: 911541714
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:38
And in various places the Bible exhorts us to stone and burn unruly children, forbids women to learn, from adorning themselves, speaking in church, teaching or visiting friends. It urges us to kill our enemies with swords, stones, slingshots, arrows, or by crushing them. We are exonerated from flaying off their skin and whipping them to death with an animal bone and an axe - if we take it literally.

I know it's more fun for you to be a xenophobic demagogue and to write off Islam as a violent and evil religion, baldwin, but the fact is christianity has a history just as bloody and the Bible can be translated and twisted just as horrifically as the Koran.

Don't get too smug just because you sit warm and safe a few hundred years from the last time christians raped, killed, pillaged and plundered "unbelievers" and each other routinely. You're merely witnessing the struggle for the direction Islam will take. Their methods were crude and their weapons less destructive perhaps, but there was just as much fervor and fanaticism in their hearts. You and I have the benefit of the seperation of time, and the fact that nobody kept a record. But if you were around 500 or 100 years ago, the same things were endemic to the folks fighting over the direction of christianity.
 
134soxzeitgeist
ID: 911541714
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:40
err...500 or 1000 years ago.
 
135Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 15:57
Backing Off Hate by Sam Smith
 
136Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 21:59
Really shoddy Sox. Hardly a true word in your accusations. No women aren't prohibited from learning, only from usurping headship. In fact in a time of true repression of women the Bible was reminding men that women upon resurrection were going to be in authority even judging angels and so to accord them respect.

When God had a physical nation and government then yes they had an army and war is harsh. In the Christian era they were told not to live by the sword. Jesus wouldn't even permit his followers to use a sword in defense of Jesus' own life. That nominal christians ignored what was in the Bible is not God's fault or true christianity's fault either.

The distinction that you always seem to miss is that the Koran explicitly says to do the kind of savagery and genocide we see Al Qeada and Hamas and various other outrageous Moslem groups committing. While nominal christians can be a problem, we can only hope for more nominal Moslems in the world because real Moslems...living by the book, are bloodthirsty savages.
 
137Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 22:26
Very slippery. The Bible is even more bloodthirsty than the Koran. Those "nominal Christians" (which you you are using only as a pejoritive, since you mean it to be variously "following the Bible" and "not following the Bible") are hardly the problem.

It would be tiresome for me to call up the old discussions of what the Koran actually says and what it does not; suffice to say that this is another example of you wanting to believe what you want to believe.
 
138Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 22:54
PD

It is a simple matter of fact that the Koran tells Muslims that in the last days Allah wants them to genocide the Jews and he wants them all dead so badly that it will be as if he has the rocks and the trees call out and expose their location so that Muslims can better carry out this genocide.

Find me some analogue in the Bible for the conduct of Christians in the last days. You cannot do it.

That you, PD, a professed Catholic, think you have a duty to slander Christians accusing them of being morally equivalent to Al Qeada, speaks volumes. Think about it, PD. Where does this spring from?
 
139Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 23:17
Again, nicely slippery.

Love your enemies, Baldwin. "Anklebiter?" Is this a biblical term? WWJS?

It isn't slander to insist on the truth, B. Demand it, in fact. Are you saying that the Christians don't teach that 25% of the earth's people will die when the fourth seal is opened? Or that the Christians of the Early Church and Middle Ages believed that Jews conspired to kill Christ and acted accordingly?

If you are going to compare Islamic treatment of Jews you should know that the Jews were treated a hell of a lot better under Islam than under medieval Christianity.

Unlike Christianity, Islam teaches that Allah gave Israel to the Jews and will restore them to it at the End of Days [Koran, "Night Journey"].

Are some Muslim leaders distorting the Koran to pledge hate against Jew? You betcha. Just as they invent the concept of a jihad being a physical uprising rather than a spiritual journey.

[You might find this difficult to believe, but there are some Christians who do the same thing to people they don't like!]
 
140Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:04
That's just flat out false.

It is not some distortion of Islam. It says...
Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Ok, it's in a haddith, not the Koran. These are the reported words of Mohammed.

So is it some distortion or are those leaders teaching what their 'holy' writings actually say?

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think Muslims would be more peaceful if they were just more faithfully Muslim.

 
141Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:07
Oh one more thing. Just because the Bible teaches that God will bring Armageddon, Christians have no part in that war. That is strictly God's angels executing God's judgement on a wicked world.

You cannot refer to that and accuse God's people of being violent. It just isn't true.

 
142Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:12
Unlike Christianity, Islam teaches that Allah gave Israel to the Jews and will restore them to it at the End of Days [Koran, "Night Journey"]. - PD

After faithful Muslims kill them all in the last days. I see. Very benevolent.
 
143Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:14
And what does your version of Christianity teach what will happen to the Jews in the End Days, Baldwin?
 
144Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:36
The Bible teaches that anyone who grabs onto the skirt of spiritual jews [follows them], [that would be true christians] will be spared destruction at Armageddon. It makes no distinction between nationalities. All have this opportunity.
 
145Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:37
Oddly, that's the same thing the Muslims teach. All have an opportunity to convert.

 
146Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:38
Now I have shown you exactly where Muslims are literally and unmistakably instructed to commit genocide. You show me where Chistians are ever instructed to take up a sword in the Bible.

There is no equivalence.
 
147Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 00:38
New York Press publisher kills cartoons, editorial staffers all quit
 
148Tree
ID: 314185
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 07:01
The Bible teaches that anyone who grabs onto the skirt of spiritual jews

i'll bite. define "spiritual jews". my guess is that it means "Jews who have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour," which means, to real Jews, they aren't Jews at all.

i'm i correct here Baldwin?
 
149soxzeitgeist
ID: 199531715
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 07:52
*laughing*

Pearls before Baldwin.

Typical though, your complete disregard for anything that doesn't fit into your narrowly defined worldview. Christians never behaved badly, killing, raping, pillaging or committing any number of sins in the name of their faith.

I guess that explains the actions of this short list of "nominal Christians" in action; Martin Luther during the peasant revolt of 1525 when he condoned the slaughter of around 100,000 people. Or the "nominal Christians" who carried out the Inquisition which by some estimates killed a million people who wouldn't comply with Christian dogma. How about those fringe Christians who participated in the Crusades? At Antioch crusaders "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. There's the systematic persecution and execution of the Albigensians - a christian sect that refused to accept Roman Catholic rule and taxes - who became the first victims of a crusade intended to slay other Christians. At the command of Pope Innocent III all the Albigensians were slaughtered. The estimated umber of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their "heretic" neighbors and friends) is estimated to be near 70,000. The extermination of the Hugenots in France at Papal fiat. All the Jewish population (~2000) of Basel and Strasbourg burned in 1348. The sacking of Magdeburg where an estimated 40,000 fell. The 30 Years War between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century, fought mostly in what is now Germany, Austria and Poland where 40% of the total population was killed - a higher percentage than those killed by the Black Plague. The Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain for...not being Christian. And even up to today there are examples of missionaries participating in the Rwandan genocide. Pope John Paul II said the priests who were convicted of murder must be made to account for their actions. It's telling that the Holy See didn't fight the legal actions at all. And in that vein should we (can we) even explore the millions of native peoples around the world who were either forcibly "civilized" or killed by Christian missionaries and armies and purposeful infection? (The first form of biological warfare.) By the 1860's that august group of folks had killed off 90% of the native population of our very own 50th state, Hawaii.

Yeah, it's just the Muslims.

Like I said earlier, don't let the comfort of your seperation by time and history let you get too smug in your "Christian" superiority, Baldwin. There's plenty of atrocities committed in Christ's name by plenty of well known and mainstream Christians. Both in spreading the word and in fighting for the direction and reform of the faith, there has been oceans of blood spilled by Christians. And as you pointed out, they didn't even need to be urged to it by the Bible. To deny that fact is, put simply, lying about it.
 
150Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 08:18
Please take the Anti-Baldwin Crusade to another thread.
 
151Tree
ID: 1411442914
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 10:02
MBJ - not sure if you were addressing me or not. hopefully not, as i feel like i'm asking a legit question...
 
152soxzeitgeist
ID: 199531715
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 10:24
It's not as much "anti-Baldwin" as it is "pro-honesty".

I'll be happy to drop the subject if that request is directed at me, but it's important to note that it's our resident xenophobe uberchristian who started the tangent. And I'm not comfortable letting his bigotry go unchecked.
 
153Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 10:54
Actually, the "tangent" began in post 125, by the Father of Off-Topic posters and nothings's been on-topic since. But that's neither here nor there.

It was me who brought up the cartoon business; maybe I hoped for too much to expect a discussion of differing views of freedom of expression without a pissing contest about which religios tradition harbored the worst louts.
 
154biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 10:59
I think more than democracy, what many of these muslim nations need is liberalization.

Sure the cartoons are inane and insensitive, but the proper response is not to go out and kill people over it.
 
155sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 10:59
my post 125, directly addressed the question posed in 124, and you consider it to be off-topic????????
 
156soxzeitgeist
ID: 199531715
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:07
Probaby, but the cartoon business seems to be about little else to much of the world anyways. That the western world enjoys a much greater degree of freedom of expression (and freedoms in general, as we would define them) is a given. Separating the religious fervor from the political or social implications of the cartoons is most likely impossible for a people who have been under the yoke of either secular tyrants (for whom the mosque is the only outlet for expression where they're "free" from the government) or religious ones (for whom the mosque is the government and religious salvation) for so long.

The bigger point that I was unable to articulate in the tit-for-tat with baldwin was that we might very well be seeing the latest flashpoint in the struggle for the Reformation of Islam, but without the benefit of the long view of history, we can't know. And to simply dismiss the rioters as "bloodthirsty savages" is both wrong and by definition brings to a halt any further discussion on the topic.
 
157Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:21
Separating the religious fervor from the political or social implications of the cartoons is most likely impossible for a people who have been under the yoke of either secular tyrants (for whom the mosque is the only outlet for expression where they're "free" from the government) or religious ones (for whom the mosque is the government and religious salvation) for so long.

Very much yes. Yousee this kind of mindless violent reaction almost exclusively in tyranical societies where free expression of political differnces is limited. It's the preferred outlet of the tyrants whether they be mullahs, kings or dictators.
 
158Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:33
I think you also see it in places where the protests are orchestrated. The cartoons came out months ago--I don't think there is any real doubt that the protests were set off by governments.

I don't blame the protesters--they almost certainly had no idea of the cartoons before they were told about them. But the leaders of the protests knew.
 
159Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:37
Agreed. They didn't incite themselves into this fury.
 
160Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:45
I don't think there is any real doubt that the protests were set off by governments.

It appears that a group of radical Danish Imams went on some kind of tour, publishing the cartoons, along with some more offensive ones that they may have fabriacted themelves, stirring up the radical elements around the world. SEE VOLOCH CONSPRIACY.
 
161biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:46
NPR interviewed one this morning. He takes cheerful responsibility for Afghanistan and Lebanon.
 
162Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 11:54
It was an orchestrated effort. They must be very proud of, not only the response in Iran Syria and Afghanistan - but also at the response in America by CAIR and the NY Press


The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group -- consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

 
163Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 12:04
Beat ya! (see #147)
 
164sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 12:11
Unfortunately for all of us the kind of moxy it takes to genuinely hold to your professional principles to the degree those staffers have done, is all too rare a trait.
 
165Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 12:11
Heh. Yeah, I got lost in there amongst those posts.
 
166Seattle Zen
ID: 3415339
Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 22:50
This thread was awful. There are a lot of very interesting issues at play here.

1) I believe that the publishers of these cartoons are making a mistake. I do not believe that Islam or the Profit is above criticism, but I do believe that everyone should respect the most basic rule: You don't create images of Mohammad.

As an undergrad, I wrote a paper about a feminist Islamic scholar who used historical facts from Mohammad's life as reasons behind some of Islam's strictures. The fact that Mohammad was divorced by a woman in his early twenties, she argued, left him bitter and led to him to proclaim that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands. This is an extremely blasphemous statement (and she is probably dead now) but one that she has every right to make. Let the marketplace of ideas determine if her theory holds water.

That is much different than creating an image of him, whether flattering or mocking. There are lots of things you shouldn't do: don't touch a Hassid during the Sabbath if you are a woman, don't urinate in the Holy water during a baptism, etc... You can make your point without making an image.

2) Blasphemy in the internet age. For years no one dared print blasphemy in Islamic countries because the penalty was harsh, much like Europe in the Middle Ages. Now everything that anyone says or prints can instantly be blasted around the world for all to see. A newspaper makes what I think is a mistake, one that really should have minimal impact, but draw attention to it and it turns into a conflagration. I can understand the Islamic leaders' concern that insulting mockery of their sacred tradition is alienating, but I also agree with many here that clowns dressed in imam robes playing to fears of the Arab world are disgusting. They are playing a a role in the game that MBJ aludes to, let the young men riot in the street against the West, not the autocrats they should be overthrowing.
 
167Boxman
ID: 1612195
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 06:24
Here is Ann's take on the matter...

CALVIN AND HOBBES — AND MUHAMMAD
February 8, 2006


As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims — for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.

The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.

The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.

Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey — maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.

Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates — that's disgusting.)

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?
 
168Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 251116277
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 07:04
Ann's off her game this week. Not nearly as much venom in that one as I'm accustomed to. Especially given the topic.

But as usual, I don't see how her perspective on the matter at hand is useful. Its probably me.
 
169Boxman
ID: 1612195
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 07:23
"But as usual, I don't see how her perspective on the matter at hand is useful."

9 out of 10 times, that's the problem in this country. The other guy's perspective isn't "useful".
 
170soxzeitgeist
ID: 199531715
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 07:41
While I would usually concur Boxman, with AC (and others like her on both sides) it's just not the case. Her perspective is so skewed from anything that might be considered constructive ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.") that her generally vicious and often ignorant screeds contribute nothing to the real discussion. They pander to a specific audience, looking to incite and enflame - making her little different than the radical Muslim clerics who "toured" the cartoons looking to stir up trouble.

And I doubt very seriously you're looking to excuse their perspective as "useful".
 
171Stuck in the 60s
Dude
ID: 274132811
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 07:50
For what may be the first time in my life, I agree with Ann.

Sort of.

Every religion has its share of fanatics, but only Islam seems not to have a "core" or center of its faith to repudiate the fanatics.

For example, Meir Kanahe's notion of a "greater Israel," complete with its notion that Jewish law should dictate the running of a Jewish state, was rejected by the center, as was his notion that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. And when he insisted on trying to legitimize the use of violence as a tool of policy, he was rebuffed by his own country.

Similarly, when Pat Robertson called on the government to assassinate Hugo Chavez, members of his own faith roundly rebuked him. And when members of the Christian right call for uniting all societies under the rule of the law of God, they too are rejected.

But the Muslims, especially in the Middle East, have no center to repudiate the calls to violence that routinely emanate from mosques and streetcorners alike.

While Ann uses her own unique blend of sarcasm and bigotry to rail against most things to the left of Louis XIV, the fact remains that mainstream Islam seems unable to reign in its own worst instincts.
For that, it deserves condemnation.

Don
 
172Toral
ID: 541029611
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 08:25
Which members of the Christian right have called for "uniting all societies under the rule of the law of God"?

Toral
 
173Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 08:46
Pious II?

Gregory?
 
174Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 09:02
I do believe that everyone should respect the most basic rule: You don't create images of Mohammad.

Does it matter that this "basic rule" is a rule only of a particular radical subset of Islam?

In your opinion, how should the press decide which religious rules should be observed and which shouldn't? If John Jones has a religious rule about the press publishing stories about his compound, should that rule be respected?

Does this rule also apply to the radical Muslims who draw images of Mohammad and then falsely claim that those images were published in the press in an attempt to stir the passions of their followers? (take, for one example, the drawing with the pig nose)

Does this mean that you are withdrawing support from the various museums and other cultural centers that hang paintings of Mohammad? (paintings like this one)

Obviously everyone has to determine where they draw the line. If you want to draw the line very narrowly, forcing radical Muslims to find or create other grievances to hold against you, then you are free to do so. Just as a Danish paper is free to publish offensive images of Mohammad. Or virtually anything else.

By now, however, for my money, this has become a big news story, and news agencies would be irresponsible if they only ran stories describing the offenses.
 
175Boxman
ID: 4314897
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 09:28
Soxzeitgeist: The Christians are not going away and the Muslims are not going away anytime soon. We have to learn to coexist. Part of the problem is that these people (Muslims) live in a bubble where it's Muhammed's Way or the highway. If they want (which I doubt they do) to integrate with the rest of the world, cartoons (remember we're talking about cartoons) are just going to have to be tolerated.

Proof positive is look at the Muslim reaction or lackthereof in this country. Where are the riots and flag burnings here? There really aren't any to speak of especially in comparison to what's going on over there.

Why?

The answer is because the Muslims in this country are at least partially (if not fully) assimilated into how we do things over here. Yeah the cartoons are offensive and classless, but so are the hundreds of offensive and classless depictions of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. It's part of a free society.

When you quote Ann, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.". How much of that do you chalk up to sincerity versus exaggeration or sarcastic desperation?

When she says things like that, yes it would be an obvious solution but it is not the correct solution nor even the appropriate solution. I view it like right wing sarcasm.

If Coulter and the like wanted to encite and enflame then you'd see the streets of downtown NY, Chicago and LA look like the Middle East right now everytime they did something offensive.

Coulter does make a valid point. Why the psychotic predisposition to violence? It's not necessary. We're discussing cartoons. Why do these people feel this is the reaction that is appropriate?

I believe because religion is all they know, at least John Q. Arab. If someone has spent significant time in the Middle East, correct me if I am wrong on this. I don't envision the typical Muslim child going to school in the morning, taking the bus home, eating dinner, doing his homework and then playing ball outside or busting out his XBox for some gamer time. Then on the weekends he goes to the park district to play in a baseball league. I can't imagine there being much time for free expression when mandatory prayer occurs six times a day.

I envision something with a TAD more religious brainwashing and hardcore 2 minute hates coupled with clerics who either sincerely or under fear of reprisal from the local dictatorship chant the Anti-West mantra until the crowd is worked up into such a froth that they'll tie dynamite around their waist because some Dane drew a picture.
 
176Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 09:47
9 out of 10 times, that's the problem in this country. The other guy's perspective isn't "useful".

Well I certainly don't see Ann and her comments in the pasted column as 'on the other side' of any of the greater issues of the topic. Ann and I both think the riots are a very bad thing and that the rioters are doing very bad things and that their behavior is quite contradictory of what one would expect from folowers of a religion of peace.

And to be fair, Ann does make some good points.
The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.
So allow me to amend my previous statement: Aside from a few ideas within a couple of excerpts, I don't see how her perspective on the matter at hand is useful.

Ann's biggest problem (not that it hurts her readership), is that sarcasm rarely accomplishes anything fruitful. Ann and people who resort to sarcasm to express their arguments aren't interested in persuading anyone to see the validity of their opinions. They're only interested in inciting people who already agree with them, through ridicule of the opposition. At almost any point in almost any Ann Coulter column, you can insert the sentence, "Can you believe what utter imbiciles these people are?", and it won't change the meaning or tone of the piece one bit, just make it more straightfoward.

Boxman, you're point in post 169 is that we'd be better off if more people were more open to opposing perspectives, right? If that's true - and if its true with regard to readers of an Ann Coulter column, then shouldn't Ann present her perspectives in a manner that will be palatable to people of opposing views?

Tell me, when was the last time you disagreed with someone and they were able to change your mind with sarcastic attacks on your character and intelligence?

I will concede that this column isn't as applicable an example to illustrate my points on sarcasm because it is a rare one where she focuses most of her ire on something that actually does qualify as a true enemy of our way of life. OBviously, she isn't going to persuade Muslim extremists with sugar and spice.
 
177Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 10:29
which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence...

You would think a "satirist" would get satire.
 
178The Treasonists
Donor
ID: 171572711
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 10:54
166 Seattle Zen: I do believe that everyone should respect the most basic rule: You don't create images of Mohammad.

I have enough trouble following the rules of my own religion. Now I have to follow the rules of every two-bit religion that comes down the pike? I'll get right on that.

And where did this basic rule come from? What chapter or page # is that found on? Apparently it's a recent development.
 
179Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 14:19
Two-bit religion? And you want written confirmation from their own two-bit religion in order to justify it?

That whole "respect" thing has flown right by you, hasn't it?
 
180Phatlip24
ID: 255272218
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 14:34
There are a couple of points being left out here, both made link by Clarence Page from the Chicago Tribune.

1) The Danish newspaper editor in question solicited these cartoons as a test to see if people were "self editing" in fear of Muslim reprisals. Doesn't that seem like kind of a stupid experiment? I did this kind of thing when I was 6 - Why don't we throw rocks at this bee hive and see what happens?

Yes, the reaction is over-the-top, but who thought that it wouldn't be?

Yes, people can make a painting of Jesus and Mary out of elephant poop (I think this happened about 10 years ago in NY…) and the reaction is not violent, but, in general, Christians do not currently feel isolated and persecuted by the rest of world, which brings me to

2) This is not a reaction to the cartoons only. Muslims feel the hate. See the AC article posted earlier and various posts on this thread for evidence of that sentiment.

The cartoons are just a political touchstone, much like how a traffic stop in South Central LA in 1965 led to 6 days of violence in Watts or a small protest at the funeral of Hu Yaobang led to Tiananmen Sq. History is full of this kind of thing…

The sad part is that this is an increasing cycle. Young Muslims react violently because they feel persecuted by the world for being violent.
 
181soxzeitgeist@work
ID: 361143289
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 15:07
And who'd a thunk it it's Hamas, of all groups, calling for calm regarding the cartoon business.

Two-bit radicals that they are. Nice to see where you're coming from, Treasonists.
 
182sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 15:52
I disagree entirely, with the camp saying that the rest of the world needs to "respect" the laws of Islam. Respecting them is one thing, following them is another. What of Islam, respecting the laws of the rest of the world? We in the west, enjoy the right of free speech. That by definition, precludes the disallowance of speech simply because said speech may/will offend someone. Same problem I have, with some cities having passed ordnances banning swearing in public, because it will "offend" someone. So what? Tell that anonymous "someone" to grow some thicker skin, because there is alot in this world that will cause more discomfort and trouble, than mere "offensive speech" could possibly accomplish.
 
183Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 15:57
Free speech isn't the same as trampling what some people hold to be sacred. (Just as respect for others' beliefs isn't the same as saying you agree with everything they say).

Also, we shouldn't get into a "they act a certain way so they are not worthy of rights" argument.
 
184Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:01
Phatlip24 -- ok, let's talk about how this all started, and the general cultural context that defines it.

The author of a children's book couldn't find an illustrator because people literally feared for their lives. Eventually someone agreed to illustrate, but only anonymously. The paper in question ran a story.

This came within a climate of similar violence. For example, at the University of Copenhagen in 2004, a lecturer was assaulted because he dared read from the Koran during his lecture (the crime, of course, is that non-Muslims were in the audience).

The newspaper was trying to attack this sort of mutually degrading self-censorship, because they feared where it could eventually lead. Of the 40 artists to capture the essence of who Mohammad is currently perceived to be, only 12 accepted, and the rest is history.

The entire reason for "throwing rocks at the bee hive", as you put it, was to attack censorship and stand up for free speech. If you refuse to express yourself for fear of personal physical violence, then eventual reconciliation with others and broader understanding is impossible.
 
185sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:06
The fact that "some people", hold "some image" sacred, does not give that group the right to dictate to the remainder of the world.

As MM rightfully points out, this entire debacle, was started by an entirely unreasonable stance on the part of "some people" within that aforementioned group.

Christians for example, hold any number of images as being "sacred", yet they dont run into town and burn buildings in protest over a caricature in a political satire of those same images. What i'm demanding from the Muslim, is that they acknowledge the simple fact: Their laws, apply only to those who follow their belief. Those who believe differently, are not and cannot be held, to those specific behavioral laws. IOW, Islam is not the entirety of human civilization.
 
186Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:10
What i'm demanding from the Muslim, is that they acknowledge... Their laws, apply only to those who follow their belief

I've yet to see evidence that the majority of Muslims don't agree - at least to the extent of any earthly enforcement of their "laws".
 
187sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:16
Agreed MM. So I must refer back to SITS post 171. The mainstream Muslim need to "take control" of their faith, and reduce drastically the influence of these fringe elements.
 
188sarge33rd
ID: 480323118
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:17
sorry...that should have been addressed to MITH. My mistake.
 
189Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 16:20
No argument, Sarge. I do believe many among them do work to temper the radical elements. Surely not enough, however.
 
190Stuck in the 60s
Dude
ID: 274132811
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 18:37
Re:172
Toral: Check these guys out

Reformed theology resource center:
1. That God, as the supreme moral Governor of the universe, introduced the human race into existence as an order of moral creatures, under inalienable and perpetual subjection to an all-perfect moral law, which in all the elements thereof binds man's' conscience and requires perfect obedience.

Don
 
191Seattle Zen
ID: 3415339
Thu, Feb 09, 2006, 19:48
Madman

Does it matter that this "basic rule" is a rule only of a particular radical subset of Islam?

It's true that the prohibition of expressing images of Mohammed is a rather recent addition to the Islamic cannon, but I'd no sooner declare those who profess adherence to these "new" rules a "radical subsect" than I'd describe Protestants a "radical subsect".

Have you become a spokesman for the Counter Reformation?
 
192Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 13:10
SZ -- Have you become a spokesman for the Counter Reformation?

No, but I am a spokesman for the right of Catholics to abide by the rules of their own faith. Catholics shouldn't have to abide by the edicts of Protestants, anymore than any of us should have to abide by the edicts of Wahhabis.

It is apparently part of the religious code of certain Muslims to get offended when non-Muslims draw Mohammad, read from the Koran, or, in some cases breath air.

I don't respect those elements of their code, however. If they are offended, that is their problem, to be frank. And unless they can get over their own problems on this dimension, there will continue to be all sorts of conflict. And yes, perhaps we will be physically attacked as a result. So be it.

In the meantime, I plan to continue to breath air, draw what I want to draw, and publish what I want to publish. Given this, I can hardly criticize others who act similarly, even if it does create a murderous rage in certain Muslims.

The blunt truth is that this hatred on their part is borne out of brute ignorance. You can't justify it. And if you can't justify it, then you shouldn't bother to respect it.

I will close by suggesting that this really isn't about Islam, drawing Mohammad, or even Wahhabi-ism. It is really about Middle Eastern politicians: radical clerics who need a bogeyman to encite hatred and resentment to fuel their own personal agendas. This entire thing wouldn't be an issue if a number of radical clerics had let the issue lie where it should have -- in Denmark, on the pages of a newspaper itching to increase its circulation.
 
193Toral
ID: 541029611
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 13:20
190 is missing a link and any case has nothing to do with politics. It states there is a moral law applicable to mankind, which is a belief common to all Christians I know of. It doesn't say that government should enforce this law.

Toral
 
194Phatlip24
ID: 255272218
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 13:44
MM - The entire reason for "throwing rocks at the bee hive", as you put it, was to attack censorship and stand up for free speech. If you refuse to express yourself for fear of personal physical violence, then eventual reconciliation with others and broader understanding is impossible.

I'm not sure about that. Please excuse my crude analogy, but I find it a little easier to think in terms I can relate to from personal experience… If your goal is reconciliation and broader understanding with an angry, unreasonable person, you don't reproach them when they are fired up - you wait. When they are calmer, then you talk to them, and try to find common ground.

If the Danish newspaper in question wanted to attack censorship and stand up for free speech, they could have put out an article about the issue, stating facts and making logical points. Instead they chose to commission a series of cartoons they knew would be offensive to an angry group of individuals. I don't think the Danes should be surprised at this reaction.
 
195Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 13:49
If the Danish newspaper in question wanted to attack censorship and stand up for free speech, they could have put out an article about the issue, stating facts and making logical points.

You don't stand up for free speech by having a censored discussion about it. You stand up for free speech by speaking freely.
 
196Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 16:07
If anyone here seriously insists the west continue producing 'piss-christ' art without repercusions while at the same time demanding self-censorship where it concerns muslims, I am gonna be pissed.
 
197Tree
ID: 1411442914
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 17:13


shiny, ain't it?

actually, that is some seriously orange urine. someone needs to drink a LOT more water..
 
198Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 17:20
Why?
 
199Tree
ID: 1411442914
Fri, Feb 10, 2006, 17:25
i'm thinking if your orange is that dark, you're a tad dehydrated...
 
200Boxman
ID: 17110105
Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 09:02
"If anyone here seriously insists the west continue producing 'piss-christ' art without repercusions while at the same time demanding self-censorship where it concerns muslims, I am gonna be pissed."

Look at how the MSM is portraying these cartoons. Or are they portraying them at all?

Swap out Muhammed with Christ in those cartoons and it wouldn't surprise if it made The New Yorker.

The MSM is afraid of only one thing; actual physical restitution. Last time somebody defamed Christ, 1 billion Christians didn't pour out into the streets demanding blood. Heck I bet there wasn't even a serious boycott.

What this is teaching Christians is that maybe the best reaction isn't nonviolence after all? Maybe we ought to burn down the New York Times building the next time they publish an offensive image of Christ since physical fear is the only thing they respect?

Of course I don't advocate that, but the double standard is frightening.
 
201biliruben
ID: 531202411
Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:09


Now this is something I'll fight over (hat tip Volokh).
 
202Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:30
Baldwin, you can't chide "MSM" for both extensive PC self-censorship (brought on so that no one is offended by anything) and a pervasive and widespread anti-Christian message (which would result in offending a large majority of Americans).

By doing so, you are practically defining the act of cherry-picking to support an otherwise untenuous argument.
 
203Boxman
ID: 17110105
Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 16:42
I posted #200. Please do not comment to Boldwin on it. I was typing a response in a word processor and I screwed it up somehow. I apologize to Boldwin and anyone else who got confused because of it.

If a Moderator can correct this please do so.
 
204Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 17:00
will do. give me a minute.
 
205Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 17:40
PD

It's simple to explain. Multiculturalism PC has them convinced any alternative culture deserves respect and our own culture must continually be demeaned in the interests of multiculturalism.

There is the other explanation that they are afraid to get their throats slit and are only brave enuff to insult those who will turn the other cheek.
 
206Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 18:15
I'm seeing very little turning of the cheek by US Christians. Particularly those who cheer on Ann Coulter.
 
207sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 18:19
re 201...How odd. An Islamic protest, ostensibly to preserve Islamic values...with signs written in English.

I find it odd. The Dutrch were the first to print the illustrations in question, then the French I believe. So it begs the question, if they indeed are protesting those actions, why are their signs in English vs Dutch and French?
 
208Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 18:41
PD

Unlike those noble souls in the 'religion of peace'.

You are a prisoner of multiculturalism, PD. [not to mention your smothering servitude to the zeitgeist]
 
209Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 19:15
It's not about comparison, Baldwin. Whenever someone points out that you (or those you profess to admire) are not living up to their own stated standards, you try to change direction by talking about how others are either not measuring up to your standards or their own.

When you answer before your God, ask yourself if he'll accept wickedness by your pointing to the Muslems.

Multiculturalism, at its heart, is the respect for the differences in people that make things like this country great. The Islamic countries that you like to slam are easy to "turn" because they aren't multicultural.

I dare say I'm afraid to think of what this country would be if it had only people like you and Ann Coulter. It's people who at least respect other peoples that keep you and this country from being the home country for a Christian jihad.
 
210sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 19:39
Peace between differing group can only come about via 1 of two means. Either;

1) accept each others right to believe differently or
2) one group subjugates the other. (exterminates would also fit)

Tell me boldwin, which would you have happen?
 
211Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 01:09
Oooohhh SZ is gonna love thiiiis answer. 8]

3) God's Kingdom

God's rule rather than man's, genuine love rather than PC thot control.
 
212Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 251116277
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 01:14
God's Kingdom...

genuine love


Funny my impression is that the Old Testament tells it a little differently.
 
214Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 06:58
That was in fact the purpose of that stage of God's revelation. That stage proved simply having the right laws [without the proper motivation] was not sufficient. The current stage has revealed that love is not sufficient without law.

God's kingdom will have laws with penalties but only include people with proper motivation.

If you are evil of course the future is not all sweetness and light for you...
 For the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it. - Prov 2:21,22

 
215Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 07:03
And this discussion also touches on the real reason human government must always be a failure.

No human government has ever been able to inspire genuine unselfish love nor could it ever, no commune experiment, not left, not right, no synthesis of the two, it's just not possible.
 
216Stuck in the 60s
      Dude
      ID: 274132811
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 07:24
So if human government cannot inspire unselfish love, it must fail?

All governments eventually fail, but I'm not sure how much love has to do with it.

Don
 
217sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 08:16
Your implication Boldy, is that man must fail. I ask you then, How do you know you havent filed, when you assign your belief and faith, in a centuries old fairy tale?

That is the difference between us, in a nutshell. I think its more important how I treat my fellow human now, here on earth, in this life. You OTH, seem to think it more important to believe in a story. I'll not chastise youo for that belief. Your entitled to it. But you'll chastise me for mine. It is that air of superiority, which accompanies most organized religions, which causes man to fail.
 
218Boxman
      ID: 17110105
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 08:55
Sarge: "It is that air of superiority, which accompanies most organized religions, which causes man to fail."

I'll take it that you're an atheist with the way you've been referring to religion. Which is your right, no judgment to you on that. Just extend me the courtesy of manners in reference to Jesus and the Bible and I give you my word to do the same for your beliefs.

You would find that the typical person who is religious doesn't feel superior to you. Of course there are elitists as there are in any group (such as those who refer to Holy documents as "fairy tale" ;) ) who walk around like their stuff doesn't stink.

If we are discussing an "air of superiority" then let's not limit it to the religous. Most people on the high school football team (myself included) think they're better and more manly than say the people in chess club.

Religion is not the problem. There are billions who practice religion that don't want to blow themselves up in the name God or walk around and burn flags and buildings down over a drawing.

The "air of superiority" is the problem, not religion. More specifically, the fiery clerics and spokepeople of a religion that incite violence and promote the "air of superiority" are the problem.

The fact that royal families and dictators are in charge of the area of the world should come as no surprise. Keep the regular guy doped up with too much religion, point the finger at the Jews, and their eyes won't be gazed on the fact that in a region that controls 60% or more of the world's energy, people starve and don't have a pot to pee in.

That is why I believe the Middle East makes such a big deal over what I consider small stuff like cartoons. With enough things like that happening normal people over there don't have the time (and dare I say the guts?) to ask why people in that region are poor and why their government and industrial structureis seemingly failing them to provide a lifestyle comparable to or greater than the West.

I've often wondered how religions function, including my own, without an absolute figurehead. Like the Catholics with the Pope to issue doctrine. With no central message, people are free to cherry pick whichever message of the Koran or the Bible suits them that day for their own benefit. While I do admit to doing this, I think you'll find religious extremism primarily in sects without some form of large figurehead to "call of the dogs" if you will.

 
219sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 09:19
I disagree Box. Not to the extent that the majority of religious are a problem. Thery are not. The extremists however, are the proboem. Be it those in the RC and Protestant wings of christianity in N Ireland, or Judeo-Christianity and Islam. It is, and always has been, the extremists who cause the probolems. Unfortunately for humanity, it tends to be the extremists, who with their seemingly unending energy and enthusiasm (also called fanatacism), somehow find control. As long as we as a species, continue to trust in the leadership of extremist fanatics, be they christian, jew, islam or faithful of the 19th hole, then we are in trouble.
 
220Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 19:29
For all the atheism and pretentions of peacefulness coming from Sarge the odd thing is that sooner rather than later the future will see Katie and Sarge assisting in the foisting of this false religion over mankind and it won't be all that peaceful and bloodless.
 
221Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 19:35
C'mon Baldwin. When pressed, all you can do is give misleading and false predictions.

I do agree with sarge that it's extremists in every religion that are the problem. These people not only don't actually follow what they profess, but use the exclusiveness of their religion to justify cruelty on others.

But those who actually follow what their religion demands of them (and religion is an obligation, not a freedom, as you know) find that the social outlook it brings about to be at worst enlightening.
 
222Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 19:52
I know that everyone from my religion from whatever nation, gets along just fine.

BTW freedom from God's ethical constraints is slavery to the bad consequences that follow.
 
223Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 20:02
Lucky that your religion is so small, I guess.
 
224Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 20:09
Heaven forbid everyone get along, huh PD?

I swear you and Sarge are from some bizzaro universe where everything is backwards. Call in the cosmologists.
 
225Tree
      ID: 421291219
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 20:32
I know that everyone from my religion from whatever nation, gets along just fine.

unfortunately, that doesn't carry over to other people, because you've got a lot of hate for people here.
 
226Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 20:38
I've had it up to here with trolls if that's what you mean.
 
227Tree
      ID: 421291219
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 21:12
I've had it up to here with trolls people who have differing opinions, if that's what you mean.
 
228sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 22:34
I know that everyone from my religion from whatever nation, gets along just fine.

With each other, I have no doubt. With the rest of the world? I have sincere doubts.
 
229Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 22:42
Baldwin, I cannot imagine any religion where everyone, in every nation, gets along with everyone.

Given the hateful language you've spilled on this board (whether justified or not) I suspect that your religion will soon have it's first angry person when you stop posting here.

Hard to believe that there's a person out there who can't distinguish between sarge and me on matters of religion (sarge, we'll have a good laugh over that with a beer in a few weeks).
 
230sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 23:42
roflmao indeed we will PD. 2 Catholics, me and 3 beers. :)

and FTR boldwin...I'll never espouse any religion. Psuedo or otherwise. I know of only one thing where I am in agreement with Karl Marx, and that is rleigion. I do in fact see it as "the opiate of the masses". Used to numb the pains of a poor life here with the promise of eternal joy to follow. In the meantime of course, those in power wont have a miserable life here, since they are taking the wealth of the people and keeping it for themselves. (Halliburton and 8 billion unaccounted for dollars ring a bell?)
 
231Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 02:42
Baldwin, I cannot imagine any religion where everyone, in every nation, gets along with everyone. - PD

Yes we have it unimaginably good. Thank you. Visit one of our conventions sometime just to soak in the atmosphere. You'll be surprised.


 
232Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 02:47
I'll never espouse any religion - Sarge

Considering that outside the UN you will find the claim [made by a UN insider] that the UN will fulfill Isaiah's prophecy can I have your assurance you will never back the UN?
 
233sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 08:01
The UN, is not a religious organization. It is a political one. So that, would be a "no".
 
234Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 09:04
As a Catholic, Baldwin, I think I'll decline your offer to get into that nest of snakes, Baldwin.

Your religion's history of hate, lies, and slandar against my religion hits just a little too close to home for me to ever consider willingly meeting a group of your happy-go-lucky members. With all due respect.
 
235Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 13:48
Sarge

So why are they claiming that they are fulfilling the prophet Isaiah's prophecy?

PD

Torquemada would be proud of the way Catholics have treated us, PD.
 
236sarge33rd
      ID: 480323118
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 14:26
Jim Jones claimed to be a prophet. Didnt make him one.
 
237Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 20:35
It didn't make him a true prophet but it sure made what he was doing religious in nature.

Same as claiming to be fulfilling Bible prophecy.
 
238sarge33rd
      ID: 541052519
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 21:30
Lets see boldy...across the street from the UN is a park.
In this park, is a staircase.
This staircase is named in honor of a Soviet dissident.
A plaque quoting a biblical passage is put onto this staircase.
You now alledge that the UN to be claiming to fulfill a biblical prophecy.

bullshit. Your claim, is a patently empty, as most of your recent postings have been.
 
239Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 22:41
I can't find it quickly but that Bible verse was also on a plaque right in front of the UN for decades. It is also quoted prominently in the museum or library just down the stairs from the entrance. It has been associated with the UN from the inception.

The goal of the UN is to create a [false and pagan] version of God's Kingdom and it is in fact the modern day realization of the Biblical phrase "the disgusting thing that causes desolation standing where it ought not [in the role only God's Kingdom can perform]."

“And when they see how the wild beast was [League of Nations], but is not, and yet will be present[UN], those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life
 
240Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 22:46
The League of Nations is different from the UN. Are you saying the same groups had the same Biblical plaque in front of their buildings?

This doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.
 
241Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 22:53
The UN is just a continuation of the same movement that begun as the League of nations. Surely you are aware of this.
 
242Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 22:55
I'm aware of important distinctions of which you are not.

So, what's with that Biblical quote story? Snopes material?
 
243sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 23:30
I'm fairly certain boldy, that any nr of bible verses have been on any nr of plaques, in front of any nr of "public" buildings, for quite some time over the years. Doesnt bother me, and I'm an athiest. Why the hell should it bother you, a christian, that bible verses are displayed in public??
 
244bibA
      ID: 521111323
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 00:16
Because, sarge, these quotes are obviously blatant evidence of an Opus Dei/Scientology plot to ram a one world govrernment down our throats. Don't tell me you can't see that.
 
245Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 07:24
Sarge

I understand you and Katie are convinced your biggest influence is not a religion but nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
246Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 07:32
I'm aware of important distinctions of which you are not. - PD

Oohhh well when you put it like that you just sound so darned authoritative. I'm all a'shiver. Lol!

When the euthanasia society of America realized they had a bad reputation to dodge they went thru a series of name changes to wash the stink off and try and plant new connotations to their organization.

When the precursor to Planned Parrenthood actually worked with Hitler to build the 'final solution' well after the war a name change was obviously in order to wash the stink off.

When the League failed monumentally to bring peace to the world a name change was in order to wash away the smell of failure. But it is the same damn organization, the same backers, the same inspiration, nothing significantly different.

Admire away at your peril.
 
247Stuck in the 60s
      Dude
      ID: 274132811
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 07:36
I think the verse in question is
"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

But I'm not sure the quote by itself means anything, when the only thing nations are concerned with is their own political self-interest.

Don
 
248Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 07:42
I'm not a Sarge 33'd degree mason but if I only wasn't an athiest I sure would be one

When a quasi-governmental body hangs out a scripture shingle as if to say, "Hello, I'm here to carry out this prophecy", then I don't let you get away with saying your favorite organizaton isn't religious. That's what is bothering me.
 
249sarge33rd
      ID: 541052519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 07:59
No boldy, what is bothering you, is your own inability to see past your nose.
 
250Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 19:11
Sorry to interupt...

From the Spectator comes the paradox of outlawing subjectively offensive speech:

One of Britain's top Muslims, the ever-entertaining Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is in trouble for having expressed the wholly orthodox -- and even, by his religion's standards, moderate -- view that homosexuals are 'not acceptable' and 'immoral' and that 'same-sex relationships damage the very foundations of society.' For having come up with this stuff on the BBC's 'PM' programme, he has been investigated by the police for the thought-crime, or, as the police put it these days, hate-crime, of homophobia.

"...If Sir Iqbal -- and adherents of the Muslim faith in general -- believe homosexuality to be repugnant, then that is their view, and it is not the business of the government, or the police... to divest them of it. But the Old Bill are scurrying around to Sir Iqbal's house with a view to prosecuting him for merely articulating one of the fundamental tenets of a religion whose strictures will soon be protected by law. This is, quite literally, madness. The two laws -- one proposed and one already on the statute books -- are in direct, unequivocal opposition. One day we will surely see the prosecution of a gay person for suggesting that Islam is ludicrous and, by dint of its opposition to homosexuality, illegal. And where will we be then?"

 
251biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 19:19
I agree that these sort of thought crimes will end up being a real problem.

I can imagine myself getting a triple sentence for beating up some conservative jerk-off, not because he's conservative, but because he's a jerk-off.

Prosecute deeds, not hypothesized thoughts or theoretically protected speech.

This is one area where, at least for now, we are a bit better than Europe.
 
252Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 15:58
1,000 Muslims held a peaceful rally and prayed in a park near the United Nations today to protest the dozen caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad

I may not agree with their message but they should be commended for showing the Muslim world how to peacefully voice their opinions in protest.
 
253soxzeitgeist@work
      ID: 361143289
      Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 16:16
Iranian Freedom Fries anyone?
It's amazing how similar people around the world actually are.
 
254Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 07:28
"Holocaust denier" gets three years in prison for thought crime

DAVID IRVING, the far-right British historian, sat stunned and open-mouthed yesterday when an Austrian court found him guilty of denying the Holocaust and sentenced him to three years in jail.....

“I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” he told the court.

But the judge and jury were unswayed. One hundred and fifty-eight people have been convicted of Holocaust denial in Austria between 1999 and 2004, but only a handful other than Irving have been imprisoned.

Lord Janner of Braunstone, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, was pleased by the conviction.

He said: “It sends a clear message to the world that we must not tolerate the denial of the mass murderers of the Holocaust. The Nazis tried to wipe out an entire people . . . We must learn the lessons of the past to build a decent society for the future.”

The verdict came amid a furious debate in Europe over freedom of expression, with many defending the media’s right to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The Arabic television station al-Jazeera broadcast the verdict to its Islamic audience.

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, was recently acquitted of making speeches inciting racial hatred. Abu Hamza, the radical Islamic cleric, was sentenced last week to seven years in prison for inciting racial hatred and soliciting murder.

In Britain there was alarm at the sentence. “Anyone who denies the Holocaust is off their rocker,” Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot, said. “But to send a man to prison for three years for something that he said sixteen years ago and has since changed his view — what are we coming to?”


Want to encourage the kind of ignorance and hatred that led to the Holocaust? Here's one good step: make martyrs out of people for their thoughts.


 
255Tree
      ID: 36141216
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 07:54
MBJ - not agreeing nor disagreeing with your sentiment, rather adding to the discussion here.

as i understand it, Austria is VERY weird about the Holocaust, anti-semitism, and all that.

when my brother spent a year or so travelling around Europe in the mid 90s, he found Austria to be very disturbing, and very anti-semetic. in his first cab ride, he told the driver where he wanted to go, and the driver responded with something akin to "that's where they keep all the Jews, why would you want to go there?" and it only went from there with a good portion of the people he encountered...
 
256Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 08:01
Well, obviously they have an atrocious history and a stigma they are trying to contain; keeping their indigenous anti-Semitism bottled up by regulating thoughts doesn't make those thoughts disappear. Like steam, foul thoughts will out eventually.
 
257Tree
      ID: 36141216
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 08:09
I don't disagree with you in regards to the potential of making martyrs here. personally, i'd much rather just punch the denier in the face, but i've already made that clear elsewhere.. ;o)
 
258Tree
      ID: 1411442914
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 11:55
Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly

LAGOS, Nigeria - Christian mobs rampaged through a southern Nigerian city Tuesday, burning mosques and killing several people in an outbreak of anti-Muslim violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend.

Residents and witnesses in the southern, predominantly Christian city of Onitsha said several Muslims with origins in the north were beaten to death by mobs which also burned two mosques there.


looks like Muslims can share that "religion of peace" moniker with the Christians...
 
259Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 18:00
SCOTUS discovers that 1st Amendment outweighs the War on Drugs

In its first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said the government cannot hinder religious practices without proof of a "compelling" need to do so.....


Well, duh. In other news the sky is blue.

Anyway, I haven't read the decision or any reviews of it by someone who knows of what they speak - but this would seem to be a roll back from the "peyote" case a few decades ago...... a case decided before the Religious Freedom Restoration Act....

Roberts, in writing the opinion for the court, said the government had failed to prove that federal drug laws should outweigh the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Congress passed in 1993 to prohibit burdening a person's exercise of religion.

The Bush administration had argued that the drug in the tea not only violates a federal narcotics law but a treaty in which the United States promised to block the importation of drugs including dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT



 
260biliruben
      ID: 531202411
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 18:09
Kleiman was an expert witness in the case.

Good on 'em.
 
261Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 18:17
Bummer. Looks like a very limited decision based largely on the fact that the government couldn't make a strong case that the church's practice would hamper general enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (unlike the "peyote" opinion, which, if I remember correctly, Scalia wrote).

Oh well.

Why do I have the feeling that the government's insistence at pushinf this case has prolly made this the use of halucegens in "religious" services a lot more popular.
 
262Seattle Zen
      ID: 3415339
      Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 21:15
Religions started here...



and more of them should have ended up drinking the "tea" from above and not promising 78 virgins to martyrs.
 
263Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Wed, Feb 22, 2006, 01:11
That was SZ trying to talk himself out of joining a peyote cult.
 
264Tree
      ID: 18158225
      Wed, Feb 22, 2006, 06:59
better than being in a religious cult...
 
265Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Feb 23, 2006, 18:47
OK. Say I want to express my outrage at the Islamist bombing of a London bus and subway by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and selling the paper on EBay (I didn't say I was particularly clever aty expressing my outrage)

In which of these countries would I NOT be convicted of "an offense against Islam" and given a jail sentence:

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Iran
3. Germany
4. United States

Not so fast Germany
 
266Boxman
      ID: 8124235
      Thu, Feb 23, 2006, 18:55
Replace the word "Koran" with Al Qaeda or Islamofascism and you'll have at least one bidder. ;)
 
267Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Fri, Feb 24, 2006, 00:10
Actually that guy was onto something. If you wanted to show Islamic radicals that they were pursuing a counterproductive course you could hardly do better, until Germany went dhimi on him.

It's really discouraging that western art is all about offending western sensibilities. If you took that away from some artists they'd be entirely out of ideas. So where is the intellectual consistancy? We are really gonna deliberately allow a double standard based on threats?
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Fri, Feb 24, 2006, 00:22
In Bawer's view, Western Europe is becoming a "house divided against itself." On the one hand, the educated European elite maintains an unshakable "belief in peace and reconciliation through dialogue," a faith (their only remaining faith) that every issue can be resolved without violence.

On the other hand, Europe's unassimilated Muslim communities are led in many cases, Bawer contends, by "fundamentalist Muslims" who seek "the establishment in Europe of a caliphate government according to sharia law." Such leaders, often imams and elders, see "Islamist terrorists as allies in a global jihad, or holy war, dedicated to that goal."

According to Bawer, liberals in Europe, even more than their American counterparts, want to believe that most Muslim immigrants share Western middle-class goals: a safe place to live, opportunities for their children, and the like. That accounts, Bawer argues, for the odd mix in their attitudes to Muslims: joy in the "multiculturalism" that makes their previously homogeneous societies more "colorful," and a nativist desire to keep Muslims in their place as exotica.

Bawer asserts that the reality - confirmed for him by the resistance of European Muslims to assimilation, and the marked presence in their communities of honor killings, homophobia, polygamy, marital rape, forced marriage, and intolerance of democracy and pluralism - is that European Muslim leaders, with demographics on their side, still harbor the millennial hope of taking power in Europe, and see the European attitude as both weak and hostile. It is "political correctness," Bawer writes, that has "gotten Europe into its current mess."
It never ceases to amaze me that the west cannot take their enemies at their word.
 
269Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Fri, Feb 24, 2006, 00:47
If you don't think Europe is awakened to the Isalmofascist problem within their societies, you aren't paying attention.

Muslims at risk not only in Europe but Canada and the US as well.
 
270Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Fri, Feb 24, 2006, 01:38
Awakening and awake are two different things but still a great find. That will be a tipping point well worth watching for where realism trumps PC wishful thinking.
 
271Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 18:06
Now I love the World Baseball Classic

While Cuba played the Netherlands in the World Baseball Classic, a spectator in the stands raised a sign saying: "Down with Fidel," sparking an international incident that escalated Friday with the velocity of a major league fastball.

The image of the man holding the sign behind home plate was beamed live Thursday night to millions of TV viewers _ including those in Cuba. The top Cuban official at the game at Hiram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan rushed to confront the man.

Puerto Rican police quickly intervened and took the Cuban official _ Angel Iglesias, vice president of Cuba's National Institute of Sports _ to a nearby police station where they lectured him about free speech.


"We explained to him that here the constitutional right to free expression exists and that it is not a crime," police Col. Adalberto Mercado was quoted as saying in El Nuevo Dia, a San Juan daily.

The brouhaha gathered steam Friday when Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma, called the sign-waving "a cowardly incident." Cuba's Revolutionary Sports Movement exhorted Cubans to demonstrate in Havana late Friday, saying U.S. and Puerto Rican authorities were involved in "the cynical counterrevolutionary provocations."

The Cuban Baseball Federation, in a statement released Friday in San Juan, said authorities failed to provide security and preserve the spirit of the sporting event, and "evidently had no intention of doing so."

The Cubans considered withdrawing from the tournament because of "the lack of security and respect" but decided to remain after Puerto Rican promoters made guarantees, the federation said in a statement without elaborating.

An anti-Castro Web site, therealcuba.com, identified the protester only as Enrique, and carried his own account of the incident.

Enrique said that during the warmup before the game, he flashed another sign denouncing Castro _ this one saying "Baseball players yes, Tyrants no" _ to the Cuban leader's son, Tony Castro. Tony Castro is the Cuban team doctor.

"He looked down and kept walking and I shouted 'Eso es para tu papa' (That is for your dad). ... I know he heard that," Enrique said, according to the account in the Web site.

Mercado said the spectator, and a second one who also waved signs, had tickets for the section behind home plate, but had moved out of their seats closer to the view of the TV cameras. Cuban state TV was showing the ESPN signal and the anti-Castro signs were briefly visible on television in Cuba.

Police later told the pair to return to their seats, Mercado said, adding that Iglesias was never under arrest.

"The Cubans were upset with the incident that happened last night, and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again," said John Blundell, spokesman of Major League Baseball, which helped establish the tournament. "We are doing everything that we can to ensure the safety of fans and the delegations."


I love the "here it is not a crime [to disagree with your government] line. Sweet.

 
272Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 18:21
I see that MLB is now "guaranteeing" the Cubans that there won't be any more anti-Fidel messages. The Cubans had threatened to withdraw from the tournament. If this is truly going to be MLB's stance, then I have spent my last penny on MLB product.
 
273Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 08:21
Heh. Yesterday at the the Cuba/DR game no posters or signs were allowed, so some enterprising free speech advocates wore anti-Castro t-shirts which they unveiled during the game.

Officials made them remove the shirts. MLB baseball is not my friend.
 
274sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 22:26
Welcome aboard MBJ. I havent attended a game, watched a game or spent a dime on MLB since the strike of 93.
 
275Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Mon, Mar 20, 2006, 08:54
This really belongs in a "Religious Freedom Around the World " thread.

Afghan faces execution for converting to Christianity

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman converted back to Islam, but he refused.
''He would have been forgiven if he changed back. But he said he was a Christian and would always remain one,'' Wasi said. ''We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty.''


Think many Americans are aware of the type of freedom we have brought to Afghanistan?
 
276Boxman
      ID: 26245246
      Fri, Mar 24, 2006, 08:04
Just curious what the response in the worldwide Muslim community would be if, say, one of the European countries they like (both of them) executed a man for converting to Islam from Christianity and backed it up from the Old Testament (assuming you could)?

They'd give the WTO protestors something to work up towards.

Yet I'm fairly confident that the Christian world will take this laying down. I'm not advocating storming Afghan, Iranian, or Syrian embassies, but if you don't speak the language the clerics, Wahabbis, and glorified gas pipeline managers like the gov't in Afghanistan speak, then they'll never understand a word you say.
 
277Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Mar 24, 2006, 08:28
Think many Americans are aware of the type of freedom we have brought to Afghanistan?

PV -Like you, I am, very concerned about Rahman's fate;
I am hopeful of a solution.

Rahman is still alive though. Obviously, Afghanistan has a long way to go before she is a liberal democracy. Did you think it would happen overnight, considering the starting place?

What are the chances that Rahman would still have is head today had we never gone into Afghanistan? The one liberal value they honored was that of a speedy trial for the condemned..er..accused.
 
278Stuck in the 60s
      Dude
      ID: 274132811
      Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 06:59
Is liberal democracy what we're after in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thought we were in both places because of perceived threats to the national interest.

We need to stop assuming that our form of government is the answer everywhere in the world, and especially we need to stop invading other countries.

Because of the Iraq invation,it'll be awhile before America again is able to persuade any other country to alter its foreign policy.

And that's a shame, because there are lots of trouble spots in the world that need attention.

Don
 
279Boxman
      ID: 26245246
      Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 08:04
"We need to stop assuming that our form of government is the answer everywhere in the world, and especially we need to stop invading other countries."

So then what is the preferred form of government in various regions?
 
280sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 08:12
whatever one the people of that region, have chosen.
 
281Boxman
      ID: 26245246
      Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 10:37
Sarge: "whatever one the people of that region, have chosen."

How do we know that until they actually choose? You know the list of countries past and present that live under totalinarianism as well as I do and I don't think they were the "people's choice" unless if you count gunpoint as a choice.

As skeptical and cynical I am of the people of the Middle East, I cannot believe they have chosen this lifestyle. Perhaps they don't know any better. I don't have all the answers to that. It just dumbfounds me that people find theocracies and totalitarian lifestyles as an acceptable way of living.

The world is too interconnected now to allow governments to do certain activities. In Darfur, if the people were in favor of the slaughter there, does it make it OK? Should we turn a blind eye? I would hope not. So we do have a direct interest in how other governments conduct themselves which leads into how they are brought into power.

Same in the Middle East. It is my opinion, that a typical Arab in an oil rich Middle Eastern nation should have a standard of living rivaling ours. I can't believe they chose to let the Wahabbi and clerical madmen run the show.

Granted, if these people really want freedom, well then pick up a gun and go get some then. Like the saying goes Freedom Isn't Free. But just like how helping the poor and abused in this country is an obligation regardless of left or right (just a difference in philosophy), I think it's the duty of free nations to help obtain (not hand on a silver platter) freedom for those who seek it.

I still firmly believe that freely elected leaders is the way to go.
 
282Seattle Zen
      ID: 3415339
      Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 10:40
It just dumbfounds me that people find theocracies and totalitarian lifestyles as an acceptable way of living.

You're telling me! There are over 59,000,000 of them just in THIS COUNTRY.
 
283Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 09:26
Think many Americans are aware of the type of freedom we have brought to Afghanistan?

I think most Americans would, at the least, appreciate that we've brought about a government that will respond to it's own elected officials and to international officials.

A positive change. Don't you agree PV?
 
284Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 09:29
In case you don't want to open the link: Under pressure from Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the guy that the Afhgans elected in their maiden, imperfect effort at democracy, the charges against Rahman hae been dropped and he has been released.

Obiously, in perfect world he would not have been elected; however, in the world before 09/11/2001 his head would already be gone.
 
285Boxman
      ID: 40240265
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 09:37
It'll be interesting to see if any members of the Bush Administration get any credit on the Sunday circuit this morning.
 
286Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 09:50
Or the Pope, for that matter.
 
287Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 10:00
I do agree. Beyond that, I see the possibility of the Afghan Muslim clerics using this as an example to inflame the passions of their herds to violence as remote.

As opposed to the dominance of the clerics in Iran and Shia Iraq, the Muslim leadership in Afghanistan is disjointed and disorganized, with the Taliban and Shia sects weakened to the point of irrelevance, and the most clerics' influence does not stray beyond their local boundaries.
 
288sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 10:50
The Pope, the EU, The US, Canda et al...all were exerting political/persuasive/pleadings for this mans release under the ideal of a democracy. Shrub and co were far from the only ones working toward this resolution Box. I wouldnt be so eager to extend to them THAT much credit. Some yes...over done kudos though? No.
 
289Madman
      ID: 114321413
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 10:57
Think many Americans are aware of the type of freedom we have brought to Afghanistan?

We didn't bring this to Afghanistan; it was already there.
 
290Boxman
      ID: 40240265
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 11:33
Sarge: I caught parts of This Week on ABC and either I missed the coverage or there wasn't any. Did you manage to notice anything in the morning news?

"Shrub and co were far from the only ones working toward this resolution Box."

Absolutely correct, but I have a theory that there are those who would only say something nice about the President if done so at gunpoint. At times, I am in that group as well.
 
291Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 11:37
I think you can just tune into FOX and he'll get far more than he deserves. Should balance it out, yes? That's the FOX motto: "Fair and overbalanced to compensate for perceived liberal bias everywhere else" Or something like that...

:)
 
292Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 11:49
We didn't bring this to Afghanistan; it was already there.

That is correct, of course. My point being that the administration's boast of liberating the Afghan people rang rather hallow when this story broke. The conclusion has me requesting salt for the foot in my mouth, as Bush, and the rest of the international community who pressured for this outcome, are to be commended.
 
293Madman
      ID: 114321413
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 12:08
My point being that the administration's boast of liberating the Afghan people rang rather hallow when this story broke.

Just because they don't enjoy all of the freedoms that we claim we uphold doesn't mean that they aren't "liberated" relative to where they were before.

As to the conclusion, I'm glad for it. And I don't find it terribly surprising. However, if you were really concerned about religious freedom in Afghanistan to begin with, there's no reason to be searching for salt. This was largely symbolic. The real threat to freedom stems from the power of the Ulama Council and their insistence on following a barbaric religious code. We're not going to achieve a liberal democratic state in Afghanistan, we never were trying to.

The point was to curb at least some of the religious excesses and hopefully establish a cooperative government that would deny safe harbor to Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist operations. If we can do that, I'll be more than happy.
 
294sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 13:18
One of the central differences between the practice of Christianity and Islam, is that over the years, Christianity has somewhat at any rate, "morphed" to changes in society. Islam however, is still largely practiced according to the ancient codes in place at the time of its origin. Society under Islam, is to morph into compliance vs Islams evolving to fit society.

One has only to look at the devisive nature of birth control and the Catholic church, to see this battle raging within one branch of Christianity even today. By and large, the American RC, is a very different practitioner of Catholocism than is the Italian RC. I think to a degree, the same is true of the American Muslim vs the Middle Eastern Muslim.

Our society has led us as citizens, to hold an entirely different set of expectations than does that of the Mid-easterner. To the degree, that we refer to other societal structures as "barbaric". Those same structures, see our lack of discipline or leniency (what we call rights), and view it as weakness on our part. An inability to comply with strict "laws".

IIRC from my early Bible studies, there was a time where Christians also stoned those who committed adultery. Muslims in some countries, still do so today. A practice we now see as barbaric, though it was once followed by Christians as well. Did Christianity "out grow" such practice or is the Muslim correct in their practice? Its not for me to say. I find the idea of stoning reprehensible, but thats largely stemming from the norms and mores of my upbringing. Had I been raised in the Middle East, under a Muslim culture form childhood, odds are high that i would hold an entirely differing view of the practice.

Long story shortened to a not so simple question...Do we as a sovereign nation, truly possess the right to expect other sovereign entities to follow our laws, norms and mores?
 
295Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 13:23
IIRC from my early Bible studies, there was a time where Christians also stoned those who committed adultery.

Christians didn't stone adulterers that I've ever heard. Christ rebuked those Jewish leaders who would do so.
 
296Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 13:33
Remember "You who have no sin can cast the first stone?"
 
297Boxman
      ID: 40240265
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 14:12
Perm Dude: ;) And then the New York Times comes out and evens everything out. The rest of the MSM now tilts it where?

Sarge: "Do we as a sovereign nation, truly possess the right to expect other sovereign entities to follow our laws, norms and mores?"

Good one. This nation building garbage has got to stop. I will state that there are universal rights that all human beings should have and if there are people who are willing to fight for those rights, we must be called on to help them. I want to be clear though that we must not wrap it up for them like a Christmas present, but if they are willing to fight and die for universal human rights, we must help them.

Now, if your question means should every country basically copy/paste the U.S. Constitution as their form of government? Absolutely not. If someone does a copy/paste job, God help them, they'll be overtaxed to the hilt with nothing of substance to show for it. I think fundamentally our form of government is the best on the planet. Problem is the execution of that form in this country completely stinks and smells to high heaven.

I don't want Afghanistan and Iraq to have the same laws we do verbatim. Basic principles (such as not executing someone based on religion) should be applied, but down to micro-level details should be left up to the Afghanis and Iraqis. It is their country after all.

I think Christianity has evolved not because God's Law has changed, it is because the people themselves have changed. Walk around an average neighborhood today spewing Christian doctrine from the 1500s and you'll be laughed at. No one lives like that anymore and no one could live like that now. It evolves with the times.

The main difference with Islam, in my opinion, is that Middle Easterners have lived in somewhat of a bubble. Religous difference and disagreement is put down and put down harshly and immediately. One would learn quickly not to mouth off then.

I think that's a partial root cause of the anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world. Their people enter western societies and expect them to follow Shari(cs) Law. Ummm, don't think so. Then someone makes a cartoon and we have weeks of riots and murdering. Muslims don't "get it" and it's not entirely their fault. It's the maniacal clerics that are to blame because if they changed their tune, so would the Muslims.
 
298sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 14:21
Ahhh but Boxman, "those maniacal clerics" IMHO bear little difference from those maniacal leaders of 14th and 15th century Christianity.They're the ones holding the reins of power. To "change their tunes", means surrendering that power. (or some of it anyway.) Just as reform within the Christian church dodnt appear overnight, neither will the society wrapped in Islam, change overnight. I think it took a century or even abit longer, for the Bishops, Archbishops et al, to loose their deathgrip over western society. I doubt the evolution of the Muslim society, will be much shorter.
 
299sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 14:22
re 295/296...of ocurse I recall that phrase PD. And its origin? Was it not directly reference the then current practice of stoning an adultress?
 
300Boxman
      ID: 40240265
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 16:24
Sarge: "IMHO bear little difference from those maniacal leaders of 14th and 15th century Christianity."

Specifically the Pope and to a lesser extent his archbishops and those who carried the tithing carts around the towns, but yes go ahead.

"To "change their tunes", means surrendering that power."

Bingo. Back to wall, gone. What a terrifying concept it must be to all the Wahhabis-like madman and other radical clerics to allow Muslims truly free thought.

You're not a religious man and that's fine. I am. I can tell you that perhaps it is hundreds of years of Christian (Martin Luther inspired revolution although I am not a Lutheran.) evolution that have led to this. Now I'm not saying that Christianity is without it's present day barbarism (Pat "Killer" Robertson calling for Chavez's capping. Even though Chavez is a grade-A butthead and could one day wind up with a 9mm hollow point sized hole in his noggin courtesy of the Marines, I don't recall Christ calling for the murder of heads of state.), but it's nothing like Islam.

"I think it took a century or even abit longer, for the Bishops, Archbishops et al, to loose their deathgrip over western society."

Gotta dust off the history book on this one, but can anyone tell me what drove that? This change came way before globalization and worldwide free markets. Was it King Henry in England and his feud with the Pope?

I wonder how much of it was the clergy losing that deathgrip versus the populace's waking to the idea that the original standards beset by the Pope (in my opinion) versus Jesus Christ (the true messenger of God) were something that normal men could never live up to.

Ever read the Bible or listen to an old school priest preach doctrine? There's some hardcore stuff in there. My religion is pretty hardcore at times, but I realize that only Christ is perfect and I just do the best that I can.

This entire problem of the Middle East versus West can all be boiled down to religion. Even more so than oil because if Islam was 100% tolerant of Christianity and vice versa, we could all hammer out the madness in there and the panic attacks of the world oil markets would subside. But then we gotta argue whose God is better, which prophet makes the better BBQ, or some crazy rules which wind up with both sides breaking God's Law of not killing everybody.

"I doubt the evolution of the Muslim society, will be much shorter."

We don't have that much time. Gotta bust out the Cliff's Notes on this one and wrap it up ASAP before we murder each other. With nukular weapons, all it takes is one crazy Muslim with a suitcase bomb and goodbye London or Paris (God forbid, New York.) and then you watch it really hit the fan. You will see Iran, Syria or one of those countries glow in a hurry and then it'll end with all of us dead. Our one saving grace on this could be that the world is much more interconnected now that it ever has been and perhaps that could speed up the blending our cultures.
 
301Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 16:30
of ocurse I recall that phrase PD. And its origin? Was it not directly reference the then current practice of stoning an adultress?

Um, yes, sarge. A practice that was oppossed by Christians - not practiced by them.
 
302Boxman
      ID: 40240265
      Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 16:37
Here's what the Bible says, pretty massive posting so I'll just provide the linkage.

Stoning in the Bible
 
303Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, May 10, 2006, 12:57
In The Netherlands, under the EU accord on Human Right, you have the right to be a spineless chickensh!+, but apparently, not the right to live in an apartment free from death threats.

Here's the deal:

It concerns one of the more amazing people alive, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Somali refugee who refused to live in virtual slavery under sharia, immigrated, eventually, to Holland, got an education and is now, incredibly, an elected MP.

She has spoken out forcefully and eloquently against radical Islam and especially its violence and injustices against women immigrants in her adopted country. As a reward there have been numerous death threats made against her.

Here's where the courage of the Dutch people shines through:

After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent "Third World" spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether. This is not the only example that I know of a supposedly liberal society collaborating in its own destruction, but I hope at least that it will shame us all into making The Caged Virgin a best seller.


The Hague Court's decision, grounded upon the EU Cnstituiton's "Human Rights" guarantees, states, more or less, that the right of the other apartment dwellers to be free from the agravation and hassle of having a hero for freedom live in their midst trumps any right Ms. Ali might have to live in an apartment in the country she serves with some modicum of protection for her life.

Were I Dutch, I would not be proud to be associated with such people as live in that apartment building or sit on that Court.

 
304biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, May 10, 2006, 13:07
That blows.
 
305Toral
      ID: 541029611
      Tue, May 16, 2006, 18:12
More on Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 
306Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Tue, May 16, 2006, 18:43
Pathetic! I can only hope that a few Dutch take to the streets.
 
307sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Tue, May 16, 2006, 23:06
Saudi King cracks down on photos of women in the Saudi press

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, under pressure from Islamists to curb reforms, has warned local media against showing pictures of Saudi women, local newspapers reported on Tuesday.
 
308Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Wed, May 17, 2006, 08:24
sarge33rd -- yeah, I saw that. But did you see the edict a few days before that actually considered allowing women to sell lingerie to other women? A big moral victory for women in the workplace.

Of course, they are thinking about doing that because of their principle of "separation of women from men" in public, but you take progress where you can get it.

link

Oh yeah, and for you hardline Sunni Muslims out there, don't worry. Larger shops will have separate entrances for men and women, and windows will be blacked out or covered so that people on the outside can't look in.
 
309Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Wed, May 17, 2006, 08:27
I'm not entirely sure about the link in my 308 ... here's the original Reuters: Reuters.
 
310sarge33rd
      ID: 2511422414
      Sat, May 20, 2006, 09:10
and here at home too

The city's council drummed up support for the measure by citing studies on second-hand smoke, although critics question the validity of the research, especially on the dangers of second-hand smoke in outside areas.

But the state of California's Air Resources Board has now adopted a regulation that classifies second-hand smoke as a toxic pollutant.

"Like the kinds of things that come out of petroleum smokestacks and out of the tailpipes of cars," Calabasas city attorney Michael Colantuono told a local paper.

"That decision is the first time a state regulatory agency of any state in the nation has reached that conclusion."


Can we say.....bullshit!?
 
311Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 21:18
They have no right to be able to speak here.: Quote by student activist at Columbia after helping organize other liberal students in a Brown Shirt imitation, preventing some conservative speaker presentation.
 
312Tree
      ID: 54941617
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 22:24
yep, protest is anti-american.
 
313Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 22:31
Did you watch the video, tree? Protest is American. Assaulting those who have a different opinion than to prevent tham from speaking you is what?
 
314Tree
      ID: 54941617
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 22:34
they didn't assault him. they rushed the stage.
 
315Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 22:39
You didn't watch, just say so. He was knocked to the ground, the podium fell on top of him. Punches were thrown by the "stadium rushers" From the news account, his glasses were smashed.

But for the sake of arguement, you think that rushing the stage and physically preventing others from making a speech is all good in the name of "protest"? So, whichever side employs the baddest thugs..er..."protestors" wins. Yep, Brown Shirts. Nice "free exchnge" of ideas you have in mind there.
 
316Perm Dude
      ID: 50949610
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 22:53
I saw a bit of that video. Pretty clear anti-speech mob.
 
317Tree
      ID: 54941617
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 23:00
e was knocked to the ground, the podium fell on top of him. Punches were thrown by the "stadium rushers"

i did watch. i didn't see that. i recollect him standing there, looking bewildered.

but i'll watch again.
 
318Tree
      ID: 54941617
      Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 23:40
honestly, i didn't see that. 1:15 into the video, long after the initial rush, the podium is still standing.
 
319Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 00:07
It must have been reset. 26 seconds into the video, it's down and the speaker is getting up. (along with the chairs that the panel was sitting on)

Regardless, you really want to defend this thuggery - if they didn't push the podium onto the speaker, it's OK.

You agree with the organizer, who said: "They have no right to speak here" Honestly, I really didn't think my post about this fiasco would prompt comment, much less a defender.

If a pro-immigrant panel was trying to give a presentation and the "Minutemen" rushed the stage, knocked over the podium, tables and chairs and forced the speakers from stage, I suppose you'd call that good ol' fashion American protest. Right.
 
320Tree
      ID: 2094875
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 08:14
MBJ - i have to say i'm still not seeing it on that clip.

that being said, NY1 had it on the news this morning, with a different angle and much more clarity than the posted clip. i still didn't see him get knocked down, but it was clear that the protesters tried to do a bit more than shout him down.

i've got no problem with them storming the stage and being louder than he is. but, when it comes to knocking down the podium and physically accosting the speakers, that's another story.

the focus of the NY1 report was that apparently Columbia has has this problem before, and that even if they know there is a potentially volatile situation, they don't seem to be adquetely prepared, security-wisde. Mayor Bloomberg slammed the university, and it's president Lee Bollinger.

“Universities are supposed to be where you can express your views no matter how distasteful they may be to somebody,” said Bloomberg. “And from what I read in the paper, once again, Bollinger’s has to get his hands around this.”
 
321Pancho Villa
      ID: 366352418
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 09:39
i've got no problem with them storming the stage and being louder than he is

Are you serious?
 
322Perm Dude
      ID: 50949610
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 10:41
I think so. Tree is a shouter, and democracy, for him, is sometimes about who is loudest.

Mob rule, in other words, for the things he believes in.
 
323Tree
      ID: 3991079
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 11:13
the last decade of politics in this nation has been about who has been the loudest. the left has sat idly by, while the right has screamed, shouted, and forced their way into every aspect of American life.

sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.
 
324Perm Dude
      ID: 50949610
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 11:35
Sure, if you want to get burned.

The race to the bottom never gets a winner. If you lack the ability to articulate a vision, stand aside.
 
325Tree
      ID: 3991079
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 12:12
If you lack the ability to articulate a vision, stand aside.

and while you're standing aside, the other guy takes control, and wresting it back is even more difficult.
 
326Perm Dude
      ID: 50949610
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 12:33
A race to the bottom, then.

Yeah, that's the way to do it: Poorly imitate Republicans through your own reaction of what you think happened.

You ever think that people started voting Republican party because Democrats tend to get shrill? So your response: More shrill, please!
 
327Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Sat, Oct 07, 2006, 13:52
There is a time and place for storming the stage, for civil disobediance, for shouting down, but the marketplace of ideas is not it.
 
329Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 00:21
Here's one the MSM mostly passed over:

Guardian Unlimited Monday - Riots in Jerusalem over Gay Pride March
For several days ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere have attacked police officers, burned rubbish bins and blocked off roads in an attempt to halt the parade. Six policemen have been injured and 60 rioters arrested in the past week.

On Sunday, police warned that the risk of violence was too great, but stopped short of calling for a ban. "We understand that the potential danger to life and bloodshed is greater than that to free speech," said police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld


On Sunday night gangs of ultra-Orthodox Jews threw stones at buses in the town of Bet Shemesh because men and women were not separated on board. Ultra-Orthodox residents in the area want buses where men sit in the front and women at the back and the radio does not play.

There were riots at the weekend in Bnei Brak, an ultra-Orthodox town near the much more liberal city of Tel Aviv. Rioters blocked one of the country's main roads with burning tyres.
Today the Parade was cancelled - CBS
Organizers Thursday canceled Friday's Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem, and instead plan to hold a civil rights demonstration in a single location. They cited the 12,000 police needed for security —Ultra-Orthodox Jews had threatened a massive riot if the parade were held — when there are concrete terror threats. That provided "an honorable way to climb down from the tree," says Berger
I learned of it today because the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada staged a protest outside of the East Side building my wife works in, very close to the UN.

Here's their press release from Wednesday.

They claimed to expect 250,000. She said the size of the crowd was overwhelming but obviously if it was that big I wouldn't be having so much trouble finding news about it.
 
330Tree
      ID: 21044105
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 06:48
Here's one the MSM mostly passed over:

FWIW, CNN.com had something on it yesterday, but it was a video only.

i pretty much hate when religious zealots force their views on others. i hope the march goes on as scheduled.

 
331Boldwin
      ID: 189102715
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 06:57
They claimed to expect 250,000. She said the size of the crowd was overwhelming but obviously if it was that big I wouldn't be having so much trouble finding news about it. - MITH

LOL, who is your wife supposed to believe, the MSM or her own lying eyes?

It couldn't be that the MSM would play down anything that runs counter to the PC agenda?
 
332Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 07:26
LOL, who is your wife supposed to believe, the MSM or her own lying eyes?

MSM didn't make the claim. It came straight from the Rabbinical Congress in their own advisory. Further, if you insist on shooting the messenger, MSM didn't run it. I linked the only place I could find it - Christian News Wire.

Keep feeling around, you're bound to trip over an acorn soon enough.
 
333Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 07:32
It couldn't be that the MSM would play down anything that runs counter to the PC agenda?

I'm sorry, from reading your posts over the years I thought it was very much part of the MSM's agenda to prop up anti-homosexual stories and keep Israel looking bad. This one had all the elements - gays denied an expression of speech, rioting prompted by the religious orthodoxy. Based on your views this one is MSM's dream come true.



Must have been a pinecone. Keep feeling around.
 
334Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 07:34
Tree
i hope the march goes on as scheduled.

The cancelleation was announced yesterday.
 
335Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 08:18
I should add that she and I work in the same neighborhood. She's on 2nd Ave btwn 42nd & 43rd sts (across the street from the Israeli Consulate, which is at the UN HQ), I'm on 3rd btwn 39th and 40th.

Working this close to the UN for the past 8 years and with both Governor Pataki's NYC office and the Iranian Mission within 150 yards, I've seen plenty of protesting in the area. I know there's no way there could have been anything like a quarter-million protestors on the next block without everyone in my building knowing about it.
 
336Tree
      ID: 1411442914
      Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 08:44
The cancelleation was announced yesterday.

yea, i actually realized that after i posted, then had to dash off to work.

now, it's on the front page of Yahoo...

and give Baldie a break. the dude must be in a daze as he realizes that the party he rabid supports has slipped from the mainstream so badly and so quickly, and now it's like he's wandering, lost in the desert.
 
337Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Nov 25, 2006, 17:19
With love from WalMart's favorite trading partner.
 
338Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 21:28
OSU couldn't win the national championship; however they do have one superlative: Ilegal speech code of the month

The Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State’s residence halls can and cannot say. Students are instructed: “Do not joke about differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability, socioeconomic background, etc.” Of the many hundreds of policies FIRE has catalogued over the years, this is the first that flatly instructs students, “do not joke” about controversial topics. As anyone who has ever lived in a dormitory can likely attest, dorms are where some of the freest and most frank discussions among college students take place. And some of those discussions will almost certainly include—gasp!—jokes about controversial topics such as race, ethnicity, and yes, possibly even ability. It was my own personal experience that in my very diverse residence hall freshman year, humor—sometimes even quite offensive humor—was a common ground that brought together and forged friendships among people of very different backgrounds. But rather than embrace the type of frank expression that often characterizes college student communication—expression that can indeed lead to offense but can also lead to friendships based on greater understanding—Ohio State has chosen to squelch it in favor of a superficially polite and politically correct environment. Not only is that an unfortunate choice, it is also one that, at a public university like Ohio State, violates students’ constitutional right to free speech. There is no exception to the First Amendment for ethnic jokes or dumb blonde jokes.

The Diversity Statement also contains another, quite cryptic, prohibition: “Words, actions, and behaviors that inflict or threaten infliction of bodily or emotional harm, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard, are not permitted.” Could anyone at Ohio State actually explain what this prohibition means? How exactly does one threaten to inflict emotional harm? Would that mean shouting, “Hey you! Get out of here or I’m going to hurt your feelings…”? The problem with a prohibition like this one is that it is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that to avoid vagueness, a regulation must “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). It is safe to say that no reasonable person can figure out exactly what this sentence prohibits.

For these reasons, The Ohio State University is our September 2007 Speech Code of the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code.
 
339Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Sep 09, 2007, 23:31
Freedom - Turkish Style

DIYARBAKIR,(Northern Kurdistan): Turkish authorities have arrested nine members of a pro-Kurdish political party for referring to Kurdish separatist rebels as “martyrs”, security sources said on Sunday. The nine are members of the Democratic Society Party (DTP),which campaigns for more political and cultural rights for Turkey’s large ethnic Kurdish minority. The DTP won 20 seats in Turkey’s parliament in July general elections.

If convicted, they could face several years in jail under Turkey’s penal code for praising and supporting terrorism.

 
341Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 22:17
Turkish authorities seek to ban main Kurdish party :

ANKARA (AFP) - Turkish prosecutors on Friday started action to ban the main pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey, which has been accused of colluding with Kurdish rebels.

Supreme Court prosecutors asked the Constitutional Court to ban the Democratic Society Party (DTP), according to court documents.


The DTP was founded in 2005 and has its origins in another pro-Kurd party which was also ordered to disband because of alleged links to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).


"The party in question has become a base for activities which aim at the independence of the state and its indivisible unity," said the prosecution application, quoted in a Supreme Court statement.
The legal action came amid heightened tensions with Iraq caused by Turkey's threat to launch cross border attacks on PKK bases.
DTP deputy Sirri Sakik, and a militant Kurd activist, said the action by the authorities was "not really a surprise".
"It is a step backwards in the country's democratic process as well as the process of integration with the European Union," Sakik told AFP.
"Turkey is becoming a cemetery of banned political parties. Closing a group does not resolve the problem," he added.




 
342sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 15:40
Saudi court ups punishment for rape VICTIM

and these are our "allies"???? *cough cough*

A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a gang-rape victim after her lawyer won an appeal of the sentence for the rapists, the lawyer told CNN.

The 19-year-old victim was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male, a former friend from whom she was retrieving photographs. The seven rapists, who abducted the pair and raped both, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison.

The victim's attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, contested the rapists' sentence, contending there is a fatwa, or edict under Islamic law, that considers such crimes Hiraba (sinful violent crime) and the punishment should be death.

"After a year, the preliminary court changed the punishment and made it two to nine years for the defendants," al-Lahim said of the new decision handed down Wednesday. "However, we were shocked that they also changed the victim's sentence to be six months in prison and 200 lashes."

The judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," according to a source quoted by Arab News, an English-language Middle Eastern daily newspaper.

Judge Saad al-Muhanna from the Qatif General Court also barred al-Lahim from defending his client and revoked his law license, al-Lahim said. The attorney has been ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Justice next month.
 
343Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 16:03
So you would like to enter or leave England. Please answer the following FIFTY THREE questions.



Wow, now that would qualify as "getting all up in my business".

Travellers face price hikes and confusion after the Government unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain.

Personally, I love #45: Any other biographical information.

Hey, come measure it yourself!
 
344Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:00
If the UN were anything other than a sad farce this would likely deserve its own thread...

UN passes resolution against ideas

States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.
The resolution, supported by the Organization of the Islamic Conference [official website], passed Tuesday by a vote of 108-51 [press release, see Annex X], with 25 abstentions. Many Western nations and other democracies opposed the resolution.



Eugene Volokh points out ...
"[U]niversal respect for all religious and cultural values"? Surely this is patently impossible, and in fact contradicted within the same resolution by a provision that says, "Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling." Holy war against nonbelievers is a religious value. Racial segregation is to some a religious value and to some a cultural value. Lesser education for girls than boys is to some a cultural value that is at least imbued with religious tradition.

True, they are bad religious and cultural values — but unless one redefines "religious and cultural values" to mean "good religious and cultural values," they surely are religious and cultural values. So either the statement is patently impossible, or (if one does redefine the phrase the way I alluded to) tautological and thus lacking in meaning. But I suppose meaning is too much to expect in this context.


 
345Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, May 20, 2008, 13:41
London teen faces criminal prosecution for stating his opinion that Scientology is a cult.
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.


 
346Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 22:24
Kurdish Children Face Prison in Turkey....for singing

By Sarah Rainsford
BBC News, Istanbul
June 19, 2008

Members of a Kurdish children's choir face up to five years in prison as they go on trial in Turkey.

The choir - whose members are aged from 12 to 17 - is accused of spreading propaganda for the outlawed Kurdish guerrilla group, the PKK.

The charges were brought after the group took part in a world music festival in San Francisco, and sang a march in Kurdish.

The prosecutor's indictment claims the song is the anthem of the PKK.

In a statement on the case, Amnesty International argues that singing an historic anthem cannot be judged a threat to public order - and is therefore a matter of free expression. It warns that the children will be considered prisoners of conscience if they are found guilty.

The children's choir performed in America in several languages, but it is a march in Kurdish that has caused the controversy.

The prosecutor claims the song "Ey Raqip", or "Hey, Enemy", is the anthem of the PKK: the separatist militant group Turkish troops have been fighting for two decades.

The indictment also says PKK flags were displayed at the music festival - and accuses the children of making propaganda for "terrorists".

One of the singers told the BBC the lyrics to the march were in an old form of Kurdish, and he and his friends did not even understand them. He said the choir wanted to showcase Kurdish culture, not engage in politics - and they only sang the march in response to a request from the audience.

Three teenagers - aged 15 to 17 - will be tried in an adult, serious crimes court in Diyarbakir - in the mainly Kurdish south east of the country.
 
347Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:42
Italian comedienne faced years in prison for saying really mean things about the Pope
 
348Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 18:54
New Irish law has a provision to fine people 25000 Euros for criticizing religion.
 
349Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 22:45
That's just amazing. It obviously will have a huge impact on my people. Amazing given the timing. Globalists are becoming more antagonistic to religion not more protective. Perhaps this was a reaction to that. Researching...
 
350Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 22:50
Also wow...from MBJ's link...
Mr Berlusconi, who owns Italy's three main commercial television channels and as Prime Minister also wields influence over RAI, the state broadcaster, has been accused by the Left of using his media power to muzzle critics and satirists.
I can't believe there isn't more outrage that a leader would have that kind of media monopoly power.
 
351Boldwin
      ID: 609622
      Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:09
Equador, designated top nation for U.S., Canadian retirees.