Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Thursday »

Koran in the Toilet

Paula Zahn's Now Show transcript. Christopher Hitchens, Dennis Prager, and Ibrahim Hooper on hate crimes and Islamaphobia. Dennis Prager on Islamaphobia


Part 1



Quicktime Video 8.2 MB | Duration: 06'46
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


Part 2




Quicktime Video 11.4 MB | Duration: 07'59
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

What a silly conversation and waste of time for Prager and Hitchens. This reeks of anti-flag burning ideology and Hooper deserves to be flushed along with my feces.

To use one of my favorite quotes about abstraction and symbolism: The map is not the territory.

"There is no Christiania phobia."

I beg to differ. Those guys scare the crap out of me because they actually look forward to the end of the world.

Why does religion always get a free pass from criticism? If I criticized someone's political views (dem or rep) it's perfectly well and fine to do so. But the second criticism of religion comes from one's mouth, they are somehow stepping on another's toes. Religion deserves as much criticism as anything else in this world.

Plain and simple...some people in today's world are pussies with glass egos. Get over it, no one is going to like everyone, there will always be people who hate others and any attempt to suppress it is futile.

And now we understand why the First Amendment creates a paradox. It says that everyone has freedom of speech and such, and everyone also has the right to whatever religious beliefs they want. Well, we can't have both, because they clearly infringe upon each other.

Not only that, but it First Amendment says that the U.S. is a secular state, but because religion cannot be confronted, there hasn't been a secular presidential administration to date -- all of them have been predominantly Christian, and it has (and will) played into decisions and policy, which affects everyone.

it First Amendment -> the First Amendment

My mistake.

Why is this desecration? Is the de-purifying ability of the common public toilet that great that it trumps the majesty of the infallible word of god? Don't people carry their holy books to protect them from the plague, repel bullets during combat, exorcise demonic forces, and hoisting it in the air as you call on it to perform worldly miracles despite being rooted firmly in reality? It can perform all these feats but is defeated by the lowly porcelain throne? How can you be offended if you're the type of person who actually believes in the transformative power of one's holy texts? People read these books for the drastic change it causes, turning their life around, getting off the crank, can't we not say that toilet water is no longer toilet water but a well of religious goodness that springs from a divine fountain! Surely the transforming power of holy texts are more than capable of defying the slight murkiness of fresh toilet water? bah, I'd consider it as dignified as any tabernacle.

/I'd still poop in it if I had to go bad

user-pic

hooper is the very definition of disingenous. pragers' point about fearing/hating islam, as opposed to muslims, is a good one. and hitchens is much too intelligent to be sitting there with any of these weenies. i'm surprised some corporation hasn't snapped him up as a p.r. bulldog. maybe he's too smart for that. as much as i often dislike his personal "style", i found myself symathizing with him as an educated intellectual in a world of weenies. and i admire his courage, liquid or not, and whether he is well paid for it or not.

user-pic

nashimoto- funny AND true-just the way i like it. :)

Dennis Prager and Christopher Hitchens are two peas in a pod.

This is their living -- thinking of ways to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. Even when I agree with Hitchens' conclusions I can't support the guy's methods; he's such an unscrupulous media whore. His whole, "I'm not an atheist, I'm an anti-theist" entertainment routine is a perfect example. I can just picture how proud he must have been with himself after coming up with that strategy to whore attention from the media. brilliant nonsense!

But this whole 'debate' was one of the most painful displays of intentional nonsense I've seen in a while. They might as well have asked Ann Coulter to chime in with her opinion on the matter.

Unfortunately, I'm particularly interested in this topic of hate crimes vs liberty, and I really wish there were people talking intelligently about the topic in a public forum.

Here's what I have to offer up. Consider the following two scenarios:

scenario 1) Someone has their 100 lb. dog take a crap on my front porch.

scenario 2) I'm the only black and the only atheist in my neighborhood. Someone plants a cross on my lawn with "go home atheist nigger" written in blood on it.

The physical damages associated with scenario 1 seem greater - it would smell awful and probably leave a stain. As far as the wood steak in my lawn, I could probably make good use of the wood for a project.

Scenario 2 however involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate. I think people deserve some protection against threat and intimidation. It would be hard to draw the line of when it becomes a criminal matter, but I would certainly put threats and intimidation involving the use (or abuse) of property not your own on the criminal side of that line.

Reminds me of the time Conan tried to get one of his staff members to flush Paris Hilton's book down the toilet. The guy stepped on it, shoved with all his might but the book just wouldn't go away.

Maybe Paris should declare that a hate crime and an act of intimidation. Conan vs. Paris - the bitch slap contest. I'd pay to see that.

I've given up on Hitchens... The fact that I agree with him about religion has worn off on me. I've realised he's just a pompous libertarian ass who simply cannot see the world through anyone else' eyes.

as a legal scholar, what disturbs me most is the enactment of hate crime laws. They serve no purpose. If for example the man stole a Koran, then charge him with larceny, if he he destroyed it upon flushing it down the toilet then also charge him with conversion of chattel. If a man threw a Koran into a window, then charge the man with disturbing the peace and if he shattered, the window, then also change the man with vandalism and destruction of property. Our existing laws are more than sufficient. If a crime was motivated by hate, then the jury has the option of weighing this fact in its deliberations. Just as 1st degree vs 2nd degree murder is based on mitigating circumstances, so too can other crimes and their punishment be weighed by the intent of the person committing the crime. these "hate crime" statutes are notoriously ambiguous in their language. Much like defining porn, its one of those issues of "ill know it when i see it". hate crime cant be defined as neatly as larceny or mayhem or murder, no doubt politicians believed that the existing sentencing laws were not sufficient, and that they as politicians must "legislate", instead what they have created is a Pandora box that no one in the legal profession really understands. to now include the destruction of a holy book as a "hate crime" would not only set a very bad precedent on 1st amendment issues, it would also expand the use of "hate crime" into uncharted territories. Anything from flag burning (political hate crime?) to throwing out some old boyfriends old laundry out a window could be re-caregorized as a new and more heavily punished offense.

I agree 100% with Rob. These hate crime laws are bogus. From what I understood, the guy was pissed off at some people who happened to be muslims and he wanted to get back at them in what was actually a pretty non-violent manner.
If I get into a fight with a black/homosexual/asian/republican guy at a bar and we exchange a few punches, will that suddenly be a hate crime too?
I guess it all depends on the language I use at the time or whether I then throw a copy of Roots/Death in Venice/Tao te Ching/Patriot Act down the toilet. This is all born out of political correctness and tippy-toeing around people's feelings. I think it can't stand up in court. I hope not. It'd just be closing the door a little further on 1st amendment freedoms.

I agree 100% with Rob. These hate crime laws are bogus. From what I understood, the guy was pissed off at some people who happened to be muslims and he wanted to get back at them in what was actually a pretty non-violent manner.
If I get into a fight with a black/homosexual/asian/republican guy at a bar and we exchange a few punches, will that suddenly be a hate crime too?
I guess it all depends on the language I use at the time or whether I then throw a copy of Roots/Death in Venice/Tao te Ching/Patriot Act down the toilet. This is all born out of political correctness and tippy-toeing around people's feelings. I think it can't stand up in court. I hope not. It'd just be closing the door a little further on 1st amendment freedoms.

First of all this debate format is horrible. Any show where people can come on and try to talk over each other is bound to descend into a shouting free for all. The situation is exacerbated further when the debaters appear by satellite and so sometimes might even talk over each other unintentionally, or not be sure whether their interruption attempts have been successful. Highly annoying.

Anyway, this issue is extremely scary to me. I don't see how this guy's actions could possibly be a hate crime, but this exemplifies why I am against hate crime laws: they are dangerous and they don't help matters at all.

There are extreme cases where people have been tortured for being different in some way, but you don't need a law that says it's extra-illegal to torture someone for being different. Just make it extra-illegal to torture someone in the first place!

Sorry about the double posting.

1- There was only one person who repeatedly talked over. It was the muslim nutcase Hooper.

2- Not all presidential administrations have been predominately xian. 5 of the first 6 presidents were at most deists, not xian. Jefferson was accused by his opponents of being an atheist.

Xian quackery didn't come to the fore until after the Civil War. Even then, I wonder if you could call people like Grant or Cleveland or some others could be called xian.

Isn't it funny that these people can have a debate without ever bringing-up the relevant facts of the case being debated? what a waste.

I basically agree with the points that've been made above, but I don't know if any of them particularly apply to this case of the Korans in the toilets (because I know so little of the details). That's why I made up my own case scenario. How do you think my scenario 2 should be handled?

Susceptor et al, what makes this issue more problematic than other types of sliding-scale misdemeanors I think is that these acts usually either involve groups of people or by their nature inspire groups of people to get similarly involved. The result is "mobbing".

case study: American white supremists.

When it's occurred, I think our laws have shown themselves to be pretty ineffective thus far at dealing with this type of criminal phenomena.

Scientific American MIND had a great article on the psychology of mobbing which I thought was a great read and is related to this issue I think:

Power-Hungry Predators

user-pic

This was really painful to watch.

Hitchens did a great job here, as red meat athiests and anti-theists (even though I no longer support him on account of his neocolonialism).

However, Hitchens' case against religious extremism was lumped in with Dennis Prager's xenophobic tribalism.

So the case against all religious extremism was simply replaced to a "my religion is better than yours" cockfight.

That Hooper guy was a complete idiot, however I did end up feeling sorry for him because he was essentially dog-piled by 3 people for the entire show.

Whats up with the pointing fingers/hand with those muslims?

One should not be afraid of criticising anything, including religion. In fact, especially religion, and to be afraid of doing so is cowardly.

Look what happens when you criticise Islam - Salman Rushdie has a death warrant on his head.

Islam in particular has to find a bettr way of dealing with criticism in the 21st century.

Perhaps this is what ought to be the real discussion point.

But in this case, you should never go out of your way to deliberately offend somebody - the guy at college obviously intended to offend his fellow students in a very purile way.

That is hardly a felony! The University should have dealt with it internally to resolve the matter.

Clearly, all parties involved in this incident lack maturity.

Andy.

How about if I threw Paula Zahn and CNN in the toilet? Could I get in trouble for that? Quite possibly the dumbest fucking CNN segment I've ever seen—and that's saying a lot. Does anyone, anywhere think for a minute that this segment is going to promote any sort of understanding or further anyone’s knowledge of the topic at hand (whatever the hell the topic was—no on even really touched it)?

To retards like Dennis Prager, all I can say is this: Let's get rid of two stupid words in our post 9/11 vocabulary, "Islamophobia" and "Islamofascism" because both are really stupid and highly inaccurate word coinages.

  1. Hitchens in wrong. this isn't any more freedom of speech then painting a swastika on Synogauge.

  2. Susceptor, there is a reason for Hate crimes. Some crimes are designed to victimize and intimidate entire groups of people and the perpetrators need to be held accountable for scope of their crimes. If this guy had thrown a copy of some random book he would have committed a significantly smaller crime.

As athiests it is important to protect everyone from crimes based in religious persecution.

As a athiest i want a law banning "Extreme" shizofrenic religion..

It's more likely that religious people will ban Atheism, then the other way around.

user-pic

You could put a bible or the book of Mormon in the toilet and be charged with nothing unless you stole the book. The Koran is a piece of shit that belongs in the toilet with the rest of the so called holy books.

No matter what fanatical believers want to think, it is just a friggin' book.

So it's OK to hate all infidels but it's a hate crime if I should express my belief that's a shitty idea coming from a shitty book. That makes perfect snese, in Bizarro land.

In all seriousness... leftbanker, why the dislike of the term Islamofacisim? Is the term completely wrong or do you just not like how it's applied across the board? Just curious.

So if I reference someone's mother in an argument is that a hate crime because it victimizes the entire group called mothers?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I agree with Hitchens 100%. Either this Ukranian student is released with prejudice, or we must immediately outlaw works of art such as the classic "dung on the virgin mary".

This sort of discussion is the very definition of "slippery slope". A lot of people on this board are self-proclaimed Atheists, and say many critical things about all religions, and in specific Christian Fundamentalism. Those of you supporting Hooper may one day find yourself persecuted by these same standards.

It's fundamentally simple: when it comes to religious opinion, either everything is ok, or nothing is ok. The latter is the preferred standard of all fundamentalists, Moslem, Christian or other.

Also, as a psuedo-Jew let me say that a swastika is a FAR CRY from a holy book in a toilet. Until an organized national force uses a "submerged holy book" as an icon of religious persecution, and kills 6 million people practicing a particular faith, these aren't in ANY WAY comparable. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

See that? I just got offended by a statement by Reed. Even so, I will defend to the death his right to repeat that comment again and again.

Why? Re-read the beginning of this post. Twice.

You tell me: who is the real progressive here?

P.S. Preach Susceptor! Preach! Hallelujah! Shalom! Amen! Peace be upon him! (I strongly agree with his prior comment).

I'm not trying to be controversial at all. In fact, what could be LESS controversial than our Constitution?

Also: Firi, I see no contradiction here. I am free to criticize Islam, and equally free to practice it and shun criticism.

Should a Fatwah be protected under the 1st Amendment? Now that's a more interesting question, and more akin to a paradox.

Reed: It's spelled 'than' not 'then'.

I've always heard phobia refers to an irrational fear. I consider my fear of the religious quite reasonable.

Still, the real threat is the coincidence of corporate domination with religious fundamentalism. I 'believe' we have a far better chance defending against the masters 'then' the meatheads.

zaphod2016

Frightening, this is the sort of logic that Justice Alito used when he called Cross Burning a "Prank". You think if a homosexual has never been beaten up they aren't still the victims of intimidation.

Norm

Only if it was part of a larger effort to intimidate and discriminate against mothers.

mickleby Then our first line of defense is our rights and rights only exist if they are everyones rights. IF this guy was trying to intimidate athiests through some manner we found offensive, you would think it was a larger crime?

BTW: there is nothing in this story that implies this guy was trying to make social commentary, or criticize Islam. He seems to be trying to intimidate Moslem's whom he had a history of some disagreements with.

I think religion is silly and I am not afraid to say so. That is very different then starting fights and defacing books.

make sure I gots my spellins rights micky.

Reed:

I am no fan of Alito or ad hominem, so please, enough with that.

If you came to my house a burned a cross in my lawn, you are guilty of trespass, harassment, illegal open-fire (uncontained fire), extortion, and assault.

Why do we need another crime? That's enough for any competent DA to lock you up for 15 years.

If you decided to pull me from the back of your truck because I am a homosexual, that would be premeditated murder- 25 to life, not to mention vehicular assault, assault with a deadly weapon and reckless driving.

Again, why do we need more laws? I say we need more competent DA's instead.

If you walk up to me and say: "You are a neo-nazi asshole, and I hope you die a horrible death"- hey, that's your right. Yes, you have a constitutional right to hate me. And I have a constitutional right to ignore you.

Why mess with a perfectly good system?

Reed:

My mistake- I misread your point on homosexuality.

Assault- 1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger.

Illegal.

Harassment- 1) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

Also illegal.

Technically, calling me a neo-nazi asshole would be illegal, assuming I were afraid of you, which I'm not.

Either way, I'm not the sort of guy who presses charges recklessly. I would far rather discuss the issue and resolve it myself.

zaphod2016 wrote: "Also, as a psuedo-Jew let me say that a swastika is a FAR CRY from a holy book in a toilet."
I don't see much difference. Both are symbols that in context can be used to intimidate and encourage the mobbing of a minority.

You don't need to wait for a million people to get killed to recognize and treat the symptoms that can lead to a million people getting killed.

We need Hate laws because there is a larger crime.

A guy that beats some up because he is drunk only victimizes the guy that he attacks.

A guy that beats someone up because the victim is gay, victimizes the individual but also the minority group that is intimidated by the action.

There are plenty of crimes that take into account the intent of the perp. In the case of crimes based on bigotry, there is real reason to have more serious penalties for people that intend(and succeed) to victimize a larger group with their actions.

I don't believe in thought crime, but this is about crimes done with intent to discriminate and intimidate.

Its counter to democracy and civil society.

Riley:

Here is the difference: precedent.

The swastika has been used directly to advertise the murder of a religious people. It really happened. People really died.

A book in a toilet might be interpreted as the same, but until someone has DONE IT, it remains a thought crime at best.

Reed:

I agree with everything you just said. Please allow me to reiterate the legal definition of harassment:

n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

If I attack a gay man because I hate all gays, I have committed an assault and battery against one specific man, and arguably, harassment against the entire gay community.

Failing that, you are attempting to prosecute motive sans event. In other words, the motive of murder IS very relevant- but only AFTER I have taken the ACTION of murder.

Anything less IS thought crime.

Another definition:

thought crime: In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling unapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".

zaphod2016

So you think there is no difference between burning a cross in a black person's lawn and say just burning a bush or a other random object. And you think that the African American family next door to a cross burning is not at all victimized?

Also, in case I am coming across as a true lunatic, any form of discrimination is unacceptable in a proper society. All humans deserve HUMAN RIGHTS, irrespective of the specific clicks they might belong to.

I have been persecuted as a man, as a Jew, as a conservative. Do I deserve special rights over gays, blacks and New Zealand kiwis? No. Vice-versa? No again.

We ALL deserve the SAME rights. That is the true definition of equality under the law.

zaphod2016 | wrote: "If you came to my house a burned a cross in my lawn, you are guilty of trespass, harassment, illegal open-fire (uncontained fire), extortion, and assault. Why do we need another crime?"

So zaphod2016, If I spray-paint a swastika on the sidewalk entrance to a synagogue ... what law handles that non-violent crime?

Misdemeanor vandalism? a $100 fine? a few hours of community service?

Like I said above. History tells us that our laws have done a poor job of mitigating the problem of "mobbing" before it gets out of hand. By the time a conspiracy of mobbing has reached the point that someone thinks it's alright (much less something worth bragging about) to drag a gay guy behind their pick-up truck -- it's too late. We've failed.

zaphod2016

Frightening, this is the sort of logic that Justice Alito used when he called Cross Burning a "Prank". You think if a homosexual has never been beaten up they aren't still the victims of intimidation.

Norm

Only if it was part of a larger effort to intimidate and discriminate against mothers.

mickleby Then our first line of defense is our rights and rights only exist if they are everyones rights. IF this guy was trying to intimidate athiests through some manner we found offensive, you would think it was a larger crime?

Reed:

Great question.

Let's say the cross is burned in front of a black family's house. Next to them lives a white family, and a Puerto Rican family.

Do the blacks deserve extra protection under law? YES! Why? PRECEDENT. Consider my prior swastika example. The burning cross HAS been used to incite violence against blacks.

However, I still argue that both blacks and jews are already protected by existing laws, laws which address the issue of bias and discrimination, and thus, specific "hate crime laws" are moot.

Take it the other way: say I get drunk in a bar and beat up a black guy. Not because I'm racist, mind you, but because he picked a fight. In real life, such cases have fallen under the banner of "hate crime". A dangerous precedent.

For example: how do you PROVE that I attacked someone BECAUSE of a specific group/race/religion? Maybe I'm just a jerk who likes to fight.

With the swastika and burning cross we have a specific history of related race/religion-based discrimination. With a book in a toilet, no such precedent exists (as of yet).

If people started dunking Korans, and then attacking Moslems, you would have a stronger case. But until this happens, we are stuck in the land of hate crime.

Just like a burning cross pre-KKK, or a swastika pre-NAZI. It is TERRIBLE that we must wait until AFTER horrible crimes are committed, I agree. But what's the alternative? To assume a person's motive. I think that's even more dangerous.

Good point Zapho,

I'm not sure why we are so stuck up on this idea of intimidation? This is the same problem with this whole CNN segment. Paula had started off asking the right question but when Hooper wouldn't answer her, it got changed into a question of intimidation. As Paula pointed out, what defines felony hate crime is not intimidation -- it's stated right there, hate crimes do MORE than threaten the welfare of citizens. A hate crime goes beyond mere threat and intimidation by actually "inflicting on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage" and "tears at the very fabric of free society." Intimidation or harassment alone is not immediately grounds for felony hate crime.

Interesting how the least cool and composed of the three, the most prone to reaction was the "spiritual" one.

sorry for the repost. i hit something and it backtracked.

I was trying to write about conspiracy as a crime and how "hate crimes" have a more ominous intent then harrassment. And after a minority group is driven from a community or demeaned and felt unwelcome, isn't that a crime and who do you go back and charge?

Sure, the name is chose to stigmatize the crime and perhaps a stronger group harassment penalty would be just as good, but that doesn't make it less needed.

Only if it was part of a larger effort to intimidate and discriminate against mothers.

And how do you know? Is it enough that mothers say hey I read the story about how someone insulted Johnny's Mom and I feel intimidated.

How is that words sans any action are discrimination? They may be rude, they may be unkind, but unless they contain some threat they are nothing but a bit of nastiness.

Riley:

As a psudeo-Jew, I think "defacing public property" is a fair charge for spray-painting our local temple. As a matter of fact, I think public opposition to hate crime laws encourages such acts.

For example: this recently happened in Brooklyn NY. The perp was a 13 year old kid, looking to cause trouble. He was not a neo-nazi, or related to any such group. He was, however, perfectly aware that such action would get a BIG REACTION, and that was exactly what he was looking for.

No one is directly hurt by spray paint. A burning cross is more dangerous. Actual violence is absolutely unacceptable, and already illegal.

Now, say a neo-nazi group did the spray-painting, while plotting a violent attack against local jews. VERY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. Now you are guilty of conspiracy to commit lewd acts, and the list goes on from there.

Let me be clear: I am NOT defending these terrible crimes. I am suggesting that our existing laws can handle them quite capably, and without reverting to though crime.

uhhhhhh

Koran in toilet = Guantanamo bay a few years back + Moslems Attacked = Iraq

You think this guy didn't know that he was reenacting the acts of American intelligence officers torturing Moslems when he did this?

zaphod2016,

Out of no personal disrespect I want to say "duh" to your last post. Of course there has to be history of past group conflict (precedent if you will). By definition a hate crime relies on history. The use of symbols as a subversive means of intimidation more often than not relies on the use of symbols, but sometimes people get creative with the symbols they use!!!.

Your argument seems to rely on the erroneous claim that there is no precedent of Muslim hatred in this country, no precedent of Christians killing Muslims, and no historical bases for interpreting a Koran in the toilet of a public bathroom as a threat.

You're really off the mark with this line of argument.

..

It's not a thought Crime if you do it.

Let's be clear here. Just because it is called a Hate crime, doesn't mean you are being convicted of hate. You are being convicted of actions intended to intimidate and inspire violence against a minority group.

If someone had been inspired to burn down your temple after seeing the boys paint, you would still think a hate crime would draw too much attention to him?

correction zaphod, post before last having to do with precedent.

Reed:

Another damn-fine point. You could argue a precedent here, couldn't you?

However, as the defense I would point out that the Ukranian is not a member of the U.S. war machine. I would also point out that he has no direct ties to any violent group, and has no history of violence against Moslems (I am assuming this).

Back to the spray painted swastika, perhaps the better solution would be to sue the perp in civil court for all associated damages (cost of repair). This would also give you a chance to discuss if and why the perp hates Jews, and ideally, help educate him and remove his fallacies.

Returning to school- same solution can apply. Moslem anti-defamation groups could sue the school in civil court for violations of federal anti-discrimination laws. This would force the school to be accountable for such actions, and provide an opportunity to openly discuss the anger and fear BEFORE it devolved into violence. Ideally a cash penalty would be awarded to the Moslem group and used to run a PR campaign in the school to help educate and quell the phobia of other students.

Looking at the past ~40 years since the Civil Rights Act of '64, it looks to me as though most of the great successes have been achieved in civil court. From the boycott of buses up to the removal of race-based zoning laws, money talks.

However, I do feel that there is a double-standard, and that some groups demand more sensitivity than others (Jews are notorious for this). I think such action backfires, and creates MORE resentment, MORE ill-will.

Thus, I think specific "hate laws" end up defeating themselves in the court of public opinion.

On this I am pretty sure we agree: no one should be discriminated against. No one should be the victim of violence. The real question is, how do we, as a society, best achieve these goals?

Riley:

Duh indeed!

9/11 has been used as the justification for outright racism. It is a sad state of affairs.

However, I think clips like this, and the notorious "Mohammed Cartoons" example serve to set a double-standard, which in turn causes more people to dislike Moslems.

I think I've made every point I could make on this issue. Feel free to disagree. Sorry to hijack the thread, Norm.

Riley:

What about a swastika on a T-shirt? What if a man puts a swastika on his face. Throw him in jail for intimidation? It's his face, are we going to start regulating personal expression?

Why is a crucifix in urine ok, and not intimidation, but a book in a toilet is? I'm confused.

zaphod,

A 13 yr old in a Jewish stronghold like New York is a different situation than an adult who acts in a town where the community is not sympathetic to the minority being harassed. THAT IS the context in which mobbing occurs and THAT IS the instance where a hate law can and should apply.

Let's replay the scenario brought up above in a community that is unsympathetic to the Jewish group being harassed: what happens if there was no proof of a violent plot? What happens if the perpetrators are just some loosely affiliated group that's united by an irrational hatred of the Jewish group? Fines and misdemeanors would just fuel the fires of their hatred -- classic bully psychology.

Without a hate law, I don't think there exist a legal mechanism suitable to prevent in this scenario the very real threat posed by mobbing.

We actually seem to agree more than not so I'll go back to the point I was arguing before as to why I think we need a new law:

Historically speaking, we have not been effective at preventing "mobbing" of unsympathetic minorities in this country. In fact we've been outright horrible at it.

..

Oh, and i feel this video is relevant again, (this is my first introduction i ever had of Hitchins, which impressed me).

I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire

"the Ukranian is not a member of the U.S. war machine."- are antisemities in America all german Nazi soldiers? No.

Regardless. I think there is real value in having laws against victimizing minorities for reasons on intimidation. And how is it fair to allow the school to be sued for the effects of hate crimes but not allow them to have a law they can enforce.

That said, In this particular case. this guy is not supplying commentary on Islam or the Koran.

Is there anyone here that thinks that ridiculing one's religion is a hate crime while ridiculing their politics is not?

Is there anyone here that thinks that ridiculing one's religion is a hate crime while ridiculing their politics is not?

Bingo. I believe this falls under the "don't criticize my religion" umbrella.

Willey wrote: "What about a swastika on a T-shirt? What if a man puts a swastika on his face. Throw him in jail for intimidation?"
Almost certainly not, but that might be used to establish a pattern of intent. The issue has to do with intent and relies on context.

The context being: a vulnerable minority

The intent being: to intimidate and threaten.

I think showing intent is a very difficult thing to do ... but in some cases it reaches the point where it's obvious. I don't know the details of the "koran in the toilet" case so I don't have an opinion as to weather or not a hate crime is applicable -- but it certainly warrants a looking into.

zaphod wrote: "Looking at the past ~40 years since the Civil Rights Act of '64, it looks to me as though most of the great successes have been achieved in civil court."
Good point, but I remain skeptical of that solution given the recent surge of grass-roots violence and intimidation against individuals who happen to practice the Muslim faith (and I don't understand the reasoning of some people on this thread who have suggested that: 'their' response to the Mohammad cartoons, or "their" response to Salman Rushdie means that "they" have no right to complain -- or something irrelevant like that. mindless group think.)

..

Norm wrote"Is there anyone here that thinks that ridiculing one's religion is a hate crime while ridiculing their politics is not?"
I wouldn't consider either to be a hate crime.

I wouldn't consider either to be a hate crime.
So... this isn't ridiculing a religion? What is it exactly then, what IS the hate crime in throwing a book in the toilet? Who is receiving the hate, if not those who practice that religion?

Further, If i take a math book and throw it in a toilet, are math teachers going to come after me for a hate crime? What about Huckleberry finn? Are Clemens-ists being discriminated against? What about if i threw the satanic verses in the toilet, Is it a hate crime against Salmon Rushdie? I'm sure the satanic verses was burned in the US before now, why aren't those people being prosicuted for hate crimes? When a fatwa is out against a man, and you burn his book, why isn't that intimidation?

Willey wrote: "So... this isn't ridiculing a religion? What is it exactly then, what IS the hate crime in throwing a book in the toilet?"
I haven;t claimed that there was necessarily a hate crime involved here, re-read my posts. I do think that the Korans in the toilet provide justification for investigating to find out weather or not the Korans in the toilet were part of a systematic attempt to intimidate and threaten a vulnerable minority. If it was, then I would consider it to be evidence of a hate crime, yes.

Ridicule their beliefs all you want ... but they have the right to believe what they want without being systematically intimidated and subversively threatened for having them.

Willey wrote: "When a fatwa is out against a man [Rushdie], and you burn his book, why isn't that intimidation?"
Who said it wasn't considered intimidation!!!!

..

Willey - "Further, If i take a math book and throw it in a toilet, are math teachers going to come after me for a hate crime? What about Huckleberry finn? Are Clemens-ists being discriminated against? What about if i threw the satanic verses in the toilet, Is it a hate crime against Salmon Rushdie?"

If you were doing these things in a concerted effort to intimidate a group you would be guilty of a hate crime. If you just do them with no context, then no.

Salmon Rushdie is an individual not a group. Certainly people are guilty of threatening and intimidating him.

I don't think the you tube videos of people cleaning up dog crap with a bible is a hate crime. I think they are political statements, that essentially say, "This book is not a sacred cow, we are free to criticize it ."

Now if this Kid was trying to make that statement he did it badly. One he did it in a Library, where a Koran should be as a historical work of fiction. Two, he reenacted the actions of American Torturers. Three, he did so anonymously and in an area where it could have been staged for Muslims to see. All these thing make it look pretty suspect.

I support the idea of Hate Crimes legislation. Intent is considered in a great many legal cases (murder, for example), so why not for "hate crimes?" And not just intent, but also the perpetrator's capability to cause physical violence, and the perpetrator's power within society to harm the entire group.

Examples:

Someone brought up a punk kid painting a swastika on a synagogue. That punk kid may or may not have intended to try to intimidate the community of jews, but he has no power within society to harm the jewish community, and barely the physical capability to harm even one. I think reasonable people would conclude it's not a hate crime.

Another example:

Philidelphia, Mississippi, 1964. One black kid and 2 jewish civil rights workers are murdered and buried in a ditch a couple of weeks after a synagogue was burned to the ground. The entire town, including the cops are in on it. Even the governor of the state was sort of in on it, implying that the victims were probably in Cuba (i.e. "niggers and kikes are nothing but dirty communists")

This isn't just a random triple homicide, it's a loud and clear message to all black, jews, liberals, yankees, etc: Stay the fuck out or we'll kill you. And to the local black population: we're really going to fucking kill you.

In this case, the perpetrators have the intent to intimidate entire communities, and they have the power and means to follow through (which they did, through the muder of 3 kids).

That's a hate crime, and any reasonable person, and any reasonable juror can see the difference in those examples.

As for this koran in the toilet case, that's obviously not a hate crime. It's fucking stupid to think it is. Again, reasonable people can tell the difference.

Just to clarify my thought above:

"any reasonable person can tell the difference in those examples"

By that I meant intent and the power and capabilities of the perpetrators, not the obvious difference that one involved a murder and one vandalism.

The Koran in The toilet is not obviosly not a hate crime. It isn't obvoiusly a hate crime either. Hate crimes are not limited to murder. Certainly not so clear as to be Fucking Stupid. I think it is clearly Hateful and perhaps bigoted. Whether it approaches the level of a crime is pretty unclear.

I will have to agree with Mr. Hooper on this one. Take the religion out of the equation and still this is a hate crime. If you doubt this try reading the definition again.

This is another example of the hypocrisy of the American media. On one hand the media condones burning of flags because it intimates and offends others and on the other hand they try to justify an act of intimidation which you know will provoke and offend a lot of people.

I know it is a hard concept to digest for most people here but try to understand. Why can't we just live together in peace and harmony? Why can't we just mind our own business? Why do we have to do something that offends someone ?

user-pic

zaphod,excuse me but you mentioned it at least twice: what's a "pseudo jew"? i certainly know what some people mean by that term, i was wondering what you meant. respectfully.

"Get used to it."

A lot of you seem to be missing my point. The point is not that we should not punish those who commit crimes in the name of hate should not be punished less harshly, but rather that our existing laws can already take into account the reason for which a crime was committed. If a person commits a battery because he wants to intimidate an entire group of people of a particular race/religion/etc, then the court can take that into account in passing sentence. In the vast majority of criminal cases the maximum sentence is not given. So when a crime involves hate the judge can use his discretion to elevate the sentence, make it harsher then it would otherwise have been. This requires no changing of the laws! We dont need more or newer or somehow better laws. What we need is a less biased jury and judges willing to enforce the rule of law, which is not always the case.

Susceptor

What is the difference between hate Crime legislation and increasing the sentences of people whom commit crimes based on hate. Except that you can't do too much to a kid that is guilty of defacing the door of a synagogue. And we can't make judges do anything they don't want to do.

How do you propose we do what you are saying? We all have a national campaign to ask judges to please give Bigots and racists longer sentences?

What is the reason for not just having a new law that gives prosecutors another tool to increase the sentences of those whose crime is truly bigger then the simple violation they committed?

the reason for not giving a new law is that the law on this issue is too ambiguous. read the statutes language in this case for example. A statute that is too ambiguous. We dont have a definition of porn in the law with good reason, the standard is impossible to establish, which is why the supreme court infamously stated that "it will know it when it will see it". The same can be said of hate crime. A good statute must narrowly define the act that it seeks to criminalize, my personal opinion is that a hate crime statute will inevitably be too imprecise. This imprecision will lead to the same problem you alluded to spoke of anyway, that judges will do as they will. my thinking is that as hate crimes become less and less tolerable in our society, the justice system will catch up with this feeling and issue harsher sentences on those who commit those crimes, but it will be in the context of the existing system and existing criminal laws.

I guess my warning is an old one: the law of unintended consequences. We should not open the door for potential abuse of the legal system if we can do with existing law. Does that mean that sometimes a criminal will get away? yes, but fact check for you, only about 10% of all crimes are ever prosecuted, and thats just of those reported.

let's make it short :

isn't a "phobia" a psychiatric condition, requiring treatment in most cases ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phob-

A few more things:

Why not stop using such loaded words as "hate crime", when "premeditation" would work? If I conspire to commit a crime, either against a person or a group, what I do before I actually commit the crime can be entered into evidence of my intent. Such things as putting a book in a toilet can be used to show what my intent was, for any subsequent crime. Many people are making this point, and it makes sense.

It's a book, that's all it is. If it's his copy, he can do whatever he wants with it. The most he should be charged with is vandalism of a public restroom.

If you start limiting what I can say (an act like this is defined as "speech", in the current legal definition), who decides what is hate and what is not? If I call christians "the child molesting church", is that hate speech? what about if i take my bible, write "child molester manual" on it, and leave it in a public place, is that hate speech? Hate speech should never be outlawed, or prosicuted. This is not saying that such speech won't be used against you if you do commit a crime, but only as intent, and not as a crime itself.

Now if you can take my words and show that they have done you direct harm, either financially or otherwise, take me to civil court, and prove it and take my money.

Don't outlaw speech. Ever. We need to be having these discussions in an open forum, either to point at the outliers, such as neo-nazis, or to have a discussion about such things as religion. It's like only teaching abstinence in sex-ed classes, and we can see how well that's working in Texas.

Hate Crime legislation does not outlaw Hate speech.

Islam is a religion of peace? Islam is the next world religion? I cannot piss on a Koran that I bought? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

--Why not stop using such loaded words as "hate crime", when "premeditation" would work?--

Because Premeditation does not work. The reason for Hate crime legislation is there is a larger crime not covered under the original statute. The Crime in question does two things. One its original crime and two it intimidates and oppresses a minority group. the second part is the hate crime part.

Jack, I can list a million propaganda websites here about anything and everything you believe in. But hey what is the point? You and I both know it is propaganda.

I have said it in the past and I will say it again, don't assume the entire basket is crap just because of one rotten tomato.

Islam is a religion of peace. Stay with me here. There is nothing wrong with the religion itself. Problem is with the people who think they are Muslims but don't act like Muslims.

Now getting back on the subject. If I know something will provoke you and make you angry, I shouldn't do it. Simple. If I start my lawn mower at 2Am knowing and with the intention that it will provoke you, it is wrong. (and by law is a crime for disturbing others). Do whatever you want to do with your copy of Quran for your personal satisfaction, but if you want to do it in public just to intimidate Muslims, then my friend it is wrong and a crime.

I will say this again. Take the religion out of the equation, try substituting it with something you know will provoke you and then judge. This is not a religious issue. This is a moral issue. I hope I cleared some confusion but do let me know if you still disagree.

Reed, You are right on some points. If you want to piss me off and all your neighbors, start your lawn mower at 2AM and watch. Even if I was taking the religion out of the equation, it still stands that Mohammad was a warrior and a killer, that he conquered arabic tribes by killing and raping women and children if they did not submit to Islam. That's not me who says that, it's in the history books. Furthermore, in the Koran, it spells clearly that muslims are allowed to kill you if you do not renounce your current religion and adopt islam, and that you have to believe in God or else. This site and others are not all propaganda. Read the Koran for yourself and you'll understand that muslims are a crazy and dangerous bunch of outlaws. Outlaws because they do not and never will accept the laws of any country, except if it is based on the Charia.

Islam is a religion of peace??? I was not aware that any of the Abrahamic religions were religions of peace....they all preach genocide, conversion by the sword, etc....could it be that it is modern society and modern sentiment that wishes these religions to be peaceful but that the original message is actually one of violence?

Also, this is totally random, but since we were talking about law enforcement i thought I would post this link here: http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol3is1/perceptions.html

Psudeo-Jew:

n. one who was born to a Jewish family, brissed at an early age, but became an agnostic before reaching adulthood and stopped practicing any specific faith.

Being Jewish is a tad unique in that it is a religion, but also a culture. Spending a few thousand years in a state of constant migration causes a bit of an identity crisis.

For example, I also have German and Irish roots. But the Jew-side of my family fled from Odessa to Germany to the USA all before WWI. Even though I eat cheeseburgers, and LOVE pork, I also use Yiddish slang and exhibit other "Jewish behavior", even though I am an agnostic in regards to Yaweh.

Hope that makes sense.

I don't also call myself a psuedo-Christian because the Irish and Germans have been occupying the same general landmass for a few thousand years.

I also feel that calling myself a full-fledged Jew is an insult to those who are dedicated to the faith. Many of my friends and family have made great sacrifices for their faith. I haven't, and so I forfeit the title.

Kosher?

Islam is a religion of peace. Stay with me here.

Ha!

Hate Crime legislation does not outlaw Hate speech.

So, what is throwing a koran in a toilet exactly? is it speech or is it a hate crime? The line is really f**kin blurry right now for me, and i don't see what the distiction is between hate speech and crimes, and why throwing a koran in the toilet is a hate crime and not speech.

I totally agree with the assertion that "hate-crime" laws are rediculous but let's take the language of them at face value. A hate crime is supposed to cause the receiver to feel intimidated. Who is really intimidated here?? Seems that the non-muslim community are the intimidated ones. "Hey, say whatever you want here tonight but whatever you do don't say anyting to Tony about his big nose or he'll go berserk and beat the shit out of you." Substitute Muslims for "Tony" and you have the present situation. Hate crime laws were intended to protect the helpless and vulnerable from an oppressive majority, not to placate a powerful, potentially deadly and violent group from flaring-up and seeking retribution. Salman Rhushdi had a death sentence placed upon him for writing a book that a person would have to make a very conscious and volitious act to either buy or borrow from the library. Saying that an anti-Islam action is a hate crime is like saying an anti-nazi act in 1937 Germany would have been a hate crime! I'm sorry but I have admitted that I hate Christianity since I first learned about the crusades and missionaries in Sophomore High School world history. In light of that fact I have no problem now in saying that, while at times I thought it impossible, I have actually found a major world religion that I hate more than Christianity. The name is Islaam and the only thing I fully agree with in their theology is the first 4 words of the 5x daily call to prayer. "There is no God but the one God Allah and his Prophet Mohammed......".

Reed, You are right on some points. If you want to piss me off and all your neighbors, start your lawn mower at 2AM and watch. Even if I was taking the religion out of the equation, it still stands that Mohammad was a warrior and a killer, that he conquered arabic tribes by killing and raping women and children if they did not submit to Islam. That's not me who says that, it's in the history books. Furthermore, in the Koran, it spells clearly that muslims are allowed to kill you if you do not renounce your current religion and adopt islam, and that you have to believe in God or else. This site and others are not all propaganda. Read the Koran for yourself and you'll understand that muslims are a crazy and dangerous bunch of outlaws. Outlaws because they do not and never will accept the laws of any country, except if it is based on the Charia.

Reed, You are right on some points. If you want to piss me off and all your neighbors, start your lawn mower at 2AM and watch. Even if I was taking the religion out of the equation, it still stands that Mohammad was a warrior and a killer, that he conquered arabic tribes by killing and raping women and children if they did not submit to Islam. That's not me who says that, it's in the history books. Furthermore, in the Koran, it spells clearly that muslims are allowed to kill you if you do not renounce your current religion and adopt islam, and that you have to believe in God or else. This site and others are not all propaganda. Read the Koran for yourself and you'll understand that muslims are a crazy and dangerous bunch of outlaws. Outlaws because they do not and never will accept the laws of any country, except if it is based on the Charia.

I didn't say anything about a lawn mower.

Islam is stupid. I don't necessarily believe it is more stupid or destructive then Christianity, but I am not a religious scholar.

I think you are stereotyping Muslims pretty badly. Not all follow the Koran word for word.

Kelly

  • the story says that individuals were leaving this college because as muslims they did not feel welcome
user-pic

zaphod: thanks for your honest and detailed answer to my question. it's more or less what i had guessed you meant, i just wanted to make sure you didn't mean "crypto-jew", which is something else altogether.

as for your question "kosher?"- you obviously don't need my seal of approval, brother. (i too, oddly enough, have german/irish roots. sicilian, too.) ah, the great melting pot.

i don't want to drag the thread further off topic, so you may regard this question as rhetorical: what is "jewish behaviour"?

and for the rest of yer honors: i REALLY don't want an answer to that. :)

the story says that individuals were leaving this college because as muslims they did not feel welcome

So, when I feel uncomfortable as an athiest in my college, why is "under god" still in the pledge, and being added to Texas' state pledge? A book in a toilet is no more threatening than someone chanting at me "one nation under god, if you don't like it, leave"

I am atheist too here bud.

Why are you being so thick?

Are atheists the victims of descrimination? Hell yes.

Does them mean we should go to war with the nut jobs? No.

Should we seak lawsuits and press charges when activites reach the level of hate crimes? Hell yes!

Taking the rights of religious people does not make our situation better.

And nowhere in the story does it say the perp is an atheist. Its likely a Christian hating Muslims. This is some of the insanity Richard Dawkins is saying is the downside of religion. It promotes discrimination, fear, and hatred.

What's your excuse?

Hitchens was an a-hole to the other guy. As the Muslim guy said he wasn't in Iraq and had nothing to do with Iraq. The person stole a Quran from somewhere (a store or another student) and that is theft. Hitchens also ignored the fact that Muslim's are harassed everyday at that school and many of them ended up leaving because of the harassment and they couldn't do their studies. I suggest people really do the research on how Muslim's are treated in this country and I don't buy this bogus "oh people are afraid of them because of 9/11." So what about a white person who is a Muslim? It's sterotyping and racism pure and simple. The religion has nothing to do with it but they're using the religion as a way to bait and harass another person. Isn't harassment against the law?

I think the Muslim guy would have more of a case with the guy stealing the Quran and harassment towards other students than anything else. Descreting the Quran isn't anything but it's the fact he stole it from somewhere. If this guy went and bought one and it was his he could do whatever the hell he wants with it for all I care but the fact is he stole it so it wasn't his property to begin with.

The only reason in my opinion when should have hatecrime laws is if it's against a person and not some object. If a person destory's an object that clearly belongs to someone else (like a Quran or something else) than the person who did the destroying should just have to pay for it to the person the object originally belonged to. I'm getting tired of all this "it hurt my feelings" nonsense. The only time that should come into question is in cases such as abuse, rape etc. and not destroying an object no matter how important it is to you even if it can never be replaced it's just an object and we're all going to die sooner or later.

I agree with Reed about trying to get a long and I think that is the point Mr. Hooper made at the end. This person obviously was going after one particular group of Muslim's whom he had contact with before so it was directed at those particular students. Mr Hooper also brought up the point a good number of Muslim's left the school because of harassment. The last time I checked it was against the law to do harassment. However in my opinion the most this person should get is a suspension of a couple of weeks since nobody appeared to be harmed and he should pay back the money for the Quran from wherever it came from since Mr Hooper pointed out it was stolen property.

There is a post I made about Hitchens being an a-hole where it says instead a person named Reed made the post. Why?

Never mind about my previous question about the post. It's been a good long while since I've been here so I just forgot that the autor of the post comes under their post instead of above it. Sorry for that.

user-pic

And what do you call a person who is afraid of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.?

And what do you call a person who is afraid of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.?

A student of history? :)

Or...depending on what "etc." entails, a misanthrope.

the phobia language is an attempt to equate anti Muslim sentiment with Homophobia. There are some parallels but one difference is obvious. Islam is clearly not an inborn behavior difference. Its all Nurture and zero nature.

As for this...

"I'm getting tired of all this "it hurt my feelings" nonsense."

I think we officially posting in circles.

this is hardly about hurt feelings. If this story was about how public debate on Islam and its flaws was making Muslims feel unwelcome, I would agree. Instead,this is about harrassment and intimidation and public speach designed not to criticise but instead to demonize and intimimidate.

We just shouldn't tolerate this crap. Atheists don't win holy wars.

How can you people possibly defend this kid at Pace University? He is little more than an animal and should be charged with assault. Wait a second...I thought it said he threw a Korean in the toilet.

what?

user-pic

This conversation is one of the least "silly" conversations I've ever seen. Flag burning? Huh?

But (no mask, backward or other):

If you are Muslim, I've got News for you:

Salman Rushdie is a Prophet. Say anything about Him, much less, threaten him, you're toast.

Stanislav Shmulevich is also a Prophet. Say anything about Him, much less, threaten him, you're ass is Ganja-weed, janja-weed.

The Twin Towers WTC whatever, are a Holy Site to me, blow 'em up, fly planes into them, I'm with Tancredo (much as I hate his ilk otherwise), we're coming after Mecca (Medina, Jerusalem, any other of your Bullshit Holy Places). [I can't bring myself to say the Pentagon is Holy to me. Although the Pentagram is.].

I'm Leftist, Anarchist, Pissed, I guess I could never be a Liberal, like some of you Tolerators/Enablers.

I know what I am now. I am a criminal. A hate criminal. An intimidator. An Islamophobe! I am so ashamed. Of taking so long to realize it. And say it:

Islam is deeply offensive to me. Burqas, Korans, Mosques, Mecca, Bowing down before Nobody (Muslims, not atheists, worship Nobody). These are all deeply offensive, and now, intimidating to me.

And as for the Quran? Stoning? Sticks and Stones:

If you are Muslim, stick it up your ass*!

.

.

.

.

*Or smoke it, for all I care, print it on Hemp-notizing paper. Underneath, I don't think there are ANY Muslims, just poor mass-psychotically deluded brainwashees, drunk on the poison kool-aid of their Crutch/Church, wasting away. Religion is an intellectual gutter.Islam is the Thunderbird Wine of the Desert's stone cold un-sufi-stick-ates. :{

user-pic

Stone cold un-sufi?

Stick it!

:{

What's the Word?

What's the Price?

How's it served?

Ok, trying to boil this looong thread down, here's what we get

1) Theft is wrong, and if the Koran was stolen, the guy should be prosecuted for THEFT.

2) Vandalism is wrong, and since it wasn't his toilet, he should be prosecuted for VANDALISM.

3) The last point is who has more rights, and where so much differentiation is coming from. Do you think it should be one persons' right to have free speech to criticize religion in public, or do you think that one person should be able to believe whatever they want without being harassed. Both are equally protected by the constitution, so which one is MORE constitutional.

Those who say freedom of speech seem to be tired of religion pulling the "harassment" card on us so that we cannot criticize their religion openly in public (like myself).

Those who feel that the muslims have more rights to not be harassed is also valid (like Reed).

Both of these stances are perfectly understandable. The big devide here is deciding whether a Koran in a toilet is free speech, or if it's intimidation. Either side could be seen, and with the facts we have, nobody knows yet. The fact that the muslims feel "harassed" at school go further than this one guy and his one Koran in a toilet prank. So do you prosecute this one guy for something that's happening nationwide? I don't know, none of us do. Do you make an example of him, or do you stand up for his freedom to say what he wants about religion? Such fine lines.

Pretty close.

i wouldn't say "More rights"

I think every body has the same right not to be persecuted for their beliefs.

That said, I think that there is little evidence here that this individuals acts were intended to be social commentary.

Is a swastika on a synagogue and a burning cross in a yard, social commentary on Jews and Blacks?

I know those examples are pretty extreme in comparison to a book in a john, but the principle is the same. and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

But this guy catches blame for all the harassment because he committed a related crime.

This case will be determined in a court as it should be.

That said, I think that there is little evidence here that this individuals acts were intended to be social commentary.

I feel the same about the statement that this is harassment. There is little evidence that this is aimed at "all muslims" on campus, or all muslims everywhere, or if it was just him angry at his friend he was having a discussion with about the book (wait a minute, this sounds familiar)...

actually there is some of that

user-pic

Christopher Hitchens is an utter embarrassment to atheists everywhere. I don't need a racist and sexist libertarian loser to talk for me.

user-pic

Should we look at Hitler as a person who killed millions of people or someone who killed millions people for a reason? Is the reason important? I suppose to some it's not.

I'm guessing you just read Catcher in the Rye and feel the need to rebel against anyone and anything just for fuck's sake? lol

Hitchens is an ass. I did really get the impression that his views on Iraq made him less then rational in this discussion.

user-pic

"Christopher Hitchens is an utter embarrassment to atheists everywhere. I don't need a racist and sexist libertarian loser to talk for me."

Of the Trinity (Dawkin Hitchen Harri), Hitchen's the MOST inspiring. By the Way (al Tariq, al Tariq Aziz, the Glorious Way):

I "believe" in sexes, not just posmodernlinguisticalistical "genders".

Races too, however abstract they seem to some stupidississimo simpletons. The genetic differences between hairy and naked apes are tiny in number, great in consequence. Why is the very idea of salient and notable racial differences so out of fashion? Because some simpletons, NOT just creationists, don't really believe evolution applies to them, their human "race", species-with-subspecies. It is a cultural atavism, like a vestigial yet ample and prehensile tail/tale in/of the mind.

As long as corporations aren't "persons", any Liberal is libertarian by definition ( Ayn know, the word has been corrupted in this country by wrong-wing think tanks).

If you aren't a Loser many times over, you've never competed at anything worthy of yourself ("become who you are"). I'm proud to fail. And somewhat bored by success. It is so boozhwaa, conventional*.

Islam is the most "religious" of religions. It is extortion and murder and cult-on-steroids dressed up as holiness, it claims to be 42 when it is really 0, zilch to the power lazy eight (al-little al-Gebra about "al-Jabbar").

.

.

  • assuming one isn't sick, old, hungry, or stupid.

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson