Across the US, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

[Meekychuppet]

I am fine with that.

I'm not.

Why?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I am fine with that.

I'm not.

Why?

Because we already legislate against "hate speech". So we don't have absolute freedom of speech anyway. So I'm good with adding others to the list. (Insert slippery slope argument here, I'm perfectly willing to ignore it.)

[Trolldor]

I've found my view has changed somewhat on this matter,
If all the world agrees, but one man, then the world has no more right to silence that single dissenting opinion than that one man has to silence the world.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've found my view has changed somewhat on this matter,
If all the world agrees, but one man, then the world has no more right to silence that single dissenting opinion than that one man has to silence the world.

"Kill all Australian children under the age of three!"

[Trolldor]

And they're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

If they at any point attempt to act on it I would gladly release Fenrir himself to stop them.

[Meekychuppet]

I am fine with that.

I'm not.

Why?

Because we already legislate against "hate speech". So we don't have absolute freedom of speech anyway. So I'm good with adding others to the list. (Insert slippery slope argument here, I'm perfectly willing to ignore it.)

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And they're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

Oh fucking really?

If they at any point attempt to act on it I would gladly release Fenrir himself to stop them.

Bring him on, then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater?

[Meekychuppet]

I've found my view has changed somewhat on this matter,
If all the world agrees, but one man, then the world has no more right to silence that single dissenting opinion than that one man has to silence the world.

"Kill all Australian children under the age of three!"

See, this is how discourse works. There is a simple rebuttal to that, and censoring it only weakens your position.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've found my view has changed somewhat on this matter,
If all the world agrees, but one man, then the world has no more right to silence that single dissenting opinion than that one man has to silence the world.

"Kill all Australian children under the age of three!"

See, this is how discourse works. There is a simple rebuttal to that, and censoring it only weakens your position.

If you are working with reasonable, intelligent people, yes. But . . .

[Posse Comitatus]

With the exception that the moderate and extreme Muslims are both reading from the same book, the extremists just take it more seriously.

Ludicrous oversimplification. Most egregiously ignoring the importance of commentary and varying supplementary texts in Islam in shaping the variations within the belief umbrella that doesn't have a clear parallel in Judaism/Christianity.

The 'nice, cuddly type' who still have female circumcision in their communities, and how are only 'nice, cuddly' types by practicing double-thought by actively adopting Western principles and ideals while still claiming to be true to Islam?

They aren't even remotely close to mainstream. The vast majority of muslims are subservient peasants in countries like Saudi Arabia who still devalue women, trade them like commodities, like property, and who treat them as perpetrators of a crime when they themselves are the victims of rape.

Mainstream meant in relation to Western soc. If it makes it clearer for you for 'mainstream' substitute 'moderate'. Also female circumcision is a cultural practice, surely, not religious- that there's a fair degree of overlap is neither here nor there. (Muhammad didn't have his daughters cut for example.) The practice firstly predates the religion, and I'm fairly sure it's virtually unheard of in a lot of muslim states- inc. the most in other respects overtly batty- Iran, Saudi Arabia. It's absolutely not in the Koran at all.

Really the only direct connection between Muhammad and female circumcision I can think of is an story (possibly from Hadeeth) in which he comes across a circumcision-in-progress and intervenes to stop them removing the clitoris. As far as I can tell that's it.

There is absolutely no religious obligation for female circumcision as far as I'm aware- the connection of specifically Islam to female circumcision is essentially wrong, and the clitorectomy and pharaonic procedure if anything is a violation of Islamic edict.

[Meekychuppet]

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater?

If there's a fire I'd say it is a good idea. If not then I am sure the management will ban the individual concerned.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater?

If there's a fire I'd say it is a good idea. If not then I am sure the management will ban the individual concerned.

False alarm, of course. You knew that. And how many dead? (Citing a case in Chicago where dozens died.) Free speech to say "Fire!" should be protected even if people die. Gotcha.

[Meekychuppet]

I don't need the slippery slope. It's good enough to know that two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater?

If there's a fire I'd say it is a good idea. If not then I am sure the management will ban the individual concerned.

False alarm, of course. You knew that. And how many dead? (Citing a case in Chicago where dozens died.) Free speech to say "Fire!" should be protected even if people die. Gotcha.

See, I knew you were going here anyway, so there's no point in pointing out to you that you're putting words in to my mouth. Let's indulge this rather puerile line of argument. Firstly, the right to speak freely does not mean that the use of free speech has no consequence. It means that the state does not have power of veto and the right to sanction any and all statements uttered by a citizen. I have no problem prosecuting people who cause death etc by inciting various acts.

You've also got quite a substantial task on your hands if you want to prove that banning yelling 'fire' would have prevented this. I am inclined to think that it was a spur of the moment thing. All that your token gesture restriction on speech would accomplish would be the legitimisation of absolute state control over every citizen's speech. What you seem to be advocating is preemptive regulation of free speech. The name for that is thought crime.

[Trolldor]

With the exception that the moderate and extreme Muslims are both reading from the same book, the extremists just take it more seriously.

Ludicrous oversimplification. Most egregiously ignoring the importance of commentary and varying supplementary texts in Islam in shaping the variations within the belief umbrella that doesn't have a clear parallel in Judaism/Christianity.

The 'nice, cuddly type' who still have female circumcision in their communities, and how are only 'nice, cuddly' types by practicing double-thought by actively adopting Western principles and ideals while still claiming to be true to Islam?

They aren't even remotely close to mainstream. The vast majority of muslims are subservient peasants in countries like Saudi Arabia who still devalue women, trade them like commodities, like property, and who treat them as perpetrators of a crime when they themselves are the victims of rape.

Mainstream meant in relation to Western soc. If it makes it clearer for you for 'mainstream' substitute 'moderate'. Also female circumcision is a cultural practice, surely, not religious- that there's a fair degree of overlap is neither here nor there. (Muhammad didn't have his daughters cut for example.) The practice firstly predates the religion, and I'm fairly sure it's virtually unheard of in a lot of muslim states- inc. the most in other respects overtly batty- Iran, Saudi Arabia. It's absolutely not in the Koran at all.

Really the only direct connection between Muhammad and female circumcision I can think of is an story (possibly from Hadeeth) in which he comes across a circumcision-in-progress and intervenes to stop them removing the clitoris. As far as I can tell that's it.

There is absolutely no religious obligation for female circumcision as far as I'm aware- the connection of specifically Islam to female circumcision is essentially wrong, and the clitorectomy and pharaonic procedure if anything is a violation of Islamic edict.

Female Circumcision doesn't come from Islam, it comes from previously existing tribal mythology and dogma. I am well aware of that fact.
I am also aware of the fact that Islamic Culture adopted the practice with frightening zeal.

If FGM is practiced at a rate of nearly 60 percent by Iraqi Kurds, then how prevalent is the practice in neighboring Syria where living conditions and cultural and religious practices are comparable? According to Fran Hosken, late founder of the Women's International Network News and author of groundbreaking research on FGM in 1975, "There is little doubt that similar practices—excision, child marriage, and putting rock salt into the vagina of women after childbirth—exist in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula and around the Persian Gulf."

http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-g ... ic-problem

It has been mandated upon by Imams, and enforced under theocratic regimes. It is still practiced in many migrant communities, and despite the absence of fact these communities still believe it to be religiously mandated.