The problem is that these two statement are not necessarily compatible. Of course, if one's way of life, religion, ethnicity, etc., is insulted, one has a right to speak against it. That speech, in my view, does not include death threats.

But if one is going to live in a free society with freedom of speech, at the end of the day, one has to tolerate hate speech (whatever that is -- it seems to me to be a catchall phrase for "speech that offends me" without having any real, objective meaning). Free speech works both ways.

Yeah, this is pretty spot-on.

You're telling me ME countries don't sponsor terrorism? Hahaha. This is a joke no? You probably don't think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

As for the dashboard figure, who cares. People have dashboard J.C.'s and it doesn't bother me. Go ahead. I don't like it, but sure, make a cartoon about Christianity. I'll be upset, but I don't think I'll burn a flag, or kill a nun, or anything like that...

Yeah, I agree that death threats are very very bad. But uh, that's not the kind I was talking about.

And it's a shame that you can tolerate hate speech. I believe it should never be tolerated.

I'm not that surprised that you agree.

That I agree that the 'downside' of free speech is that you have to tolerate hateful speech as long as it doesn't violate the constitutional freedoms of others?

Yes, that's not surprising at all.

"Tolerate" in this case refers to the legal right of others to free speech - this is what MysticCat and I are discussing. I actually deleted a post similar to his just to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that I support the right of the Muslim community to speak out and protest these kind of characterizations as offensive - in that sense, I don't expect "tolerance" in the sense of non-response or laziness.

You're in law school, no? Seriously - this is a basic tenet of the founding ideals of the US. It sucks because we have to deal with bigoted idiots - but it's FAR better than the alternative, no?

I'm a Catholic living in Oklahoma. Needless to tell you, I've been told many times how my religion (sadly) will send me straight to the firey pits of hell, etc. I've heard it. It's intolerance, ignorance, etc. I ignore it or I try to educate depending on the situation. Heck.. the ignorance being spewed by certain Muslims regarding the Pope is as idiotic and ignorant as anything the Pope himself has said -- moreso IMHO.

My civpro prof would have me strung up by the toenails for uttering such an abomination. They = ignorant Muslims making death threats (and in some cases following through) because their dumb asses were offended.

As long as you're not making death threats or killing people who disagree with you, you're well within your rights. Otherwise, what are you suggesting? That the U.S. allow Muslims to make death threats and commit violent acts because they are offended while they compel people with offensive bobblehead dolls to remove said dolls from sight? WTF?

What does law school have anything to do with anything?

If the KKK were in my vicinity preaching hateful speech, I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either.

In any case, I still don't understand what this ex-marine's business venture has to do with radical Islam?

You did not specify who "they" were. I was talking about OTW's post, and you went right to the riots over what the pope said. BTW, there were riots in remote areas, mostly areas where there is conflict. It should not surprise you that people over there would act. Have there been riots in your general area? I live near the largest Arab/Muslim population in the US, and I should didn't hear about them. Like I said, next time please do specify because like 99% of the muslim people do not riot and make death threats.

I think your problem is when you hear the word muslim, these "certain" images pop in your head, just based on the way you post.

Bobblehead Mohammed is offensive to me because it is a disrespect to ME. I have right to say something about it, and not tolerate other people walking all over something I believe in. I would do the same thing if it were about my skin colour, as well. But I guess I should tolerate it, eh? Because this is an acceptable discrimination.

Ok there!

Amazingly, you knew who "they" were. I was pretty sure there was no need to spel it out.

No one is saying you can't speak out against it.

As others have said quite well, that's the cost of living in a free society with freedom of speech. I think it's a shame anyone seems to be suggesting that "intolerable" speech can be punished.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between speaking out against that which offends you and not tolerating it. What would you do to show you will not tolerate that which offends you?

I don't care if it rains of freezes
'Long as I got my Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my Plastic Jesus I'll go far.

Plastic Jesus! Plastic Jesus,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
I'm afraid He'll have to go.
His magnets ruin my radio
And if I have a wreck He'll leave a scar.

\musical interlude

I didn't mean it as any sort of pejorative, just to note that I'm framing this as a 'legal' discussion, and trying to direct you back there.

Again - we're now in a semantic trap where we're using "tolerate" to mean two different things.

Speak against it, but recognize they have the right to say it. That's the entirety of the point MysticCat and I are promoting.

Agreed completely - it's very suspect in this thread.

er, I never said anything about punishment or doing anything illegal.

How would I show my distaste? I already have, buddy.

I never once suggested that they didnt have rights under free speech legally because I agree.

Yet you have said things like, "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." These statements suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it. And since the primary definition of "tolerate" is along the lines of "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit," it follows that "not tolerating" something means either not to permit it or to impose retribution for it.

We're just trying to figure out exactly what you mean when you say hate speech or offensive speech should not be tolerated. If we're misunderstanding you, just say so. If you have "already shown" how you would show your "distaste," you must have done it somewhere other than in this discussion.

No, tolerating could mean that you voice your opinion against hate speech. I will give you an example, there was a KKK rally where I live in the beginning of summer. While the KKK had a right to rally in the steps of the Capitol, there was also counter-protests. Is this illegal? No. It just shows that people living here will not tolerate hate speech in their neighborhood. Now, I am not a fan of rallies. Alot of the time, people are not on the same page. I avoid it.

And I meant that I already showed my distaste by pointing out, in this thread, that it is hateful speech. What did you think I meant? lol. I bet you wouldnt ask me that if you thought I was christian or jewish. :) But I forgive you.

Cool. Then we're on the same page. However, I stand by the questions, since as I said, your earlier posts do clearly suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it.
I didn't know what you meant, hence the question.
You would lose that bet. My questions had nothing to do with your religion and everything to do with your statements and my attempt to understand them.

But I forgive you for assuming prejudice as the reasons for my questions. ;)

What do you think I was suggesting? Look, all I said was hate speech should not be tolerated. End of story. How is that suggesting more than speaking out.

As I said four posts up:

Yet you have said things like, "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." These statements suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it. And since the primary definition of "tolerate" is along the lines of "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit," it follows that "not tolerating" something means either not to permit it or to impose retribution for it.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable to understand your statement -- "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." (my emphasis) -- to suggest that "not tolerating" is more than, or at least different from, speaking out. Otherwise, no need for "and" or "either."

But as I pointed out in my four or five posts, I mean essentially the same thing. Maybe I was being redundant.

Or maybe you weren't being as clear as you thought you were. ;)

No, I was clear. Just redundant. Maybe you read too much into it.

Well, seeing as how I'm not the only poster who apparently "read too much into it," I'm going to go with "not as clear as you think."

yeah but apparantly those posters implied I was talking about death threats and people trampling over each other. so go figure. Wish I could continue going back and forth with you, but I got Civ pro to attend. Have nice day :)

I feel for you. Go have yourself a good time and Pennoyer some Neff. :D

If you aint International Shoe you aint sh*t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html

Islam’s Silent Moderates
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2)


IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror.

A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called “mingling”: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.

Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the “girl from Qatif,” as she’s usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her “crime” has tarnished her family’s honor.

We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.

Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen’s visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?

Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam. The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable. A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted.

But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now.

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up.

Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land. But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme.

If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate?

When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Infidel.”



-Rudey