Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment (debunked)

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment
From the event's website: "The gathering will be attended by over 1,000 community members, clergy, community leaders and public officials of all persuasions who continue to reject the messages of hate and Islamaphobia that have escalated in recent months and years, most recently with the production of the infamous film 'Innocence of Muslims.' " Photo Credit:Facebook

Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You can't make this stuff up.

Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech. Protesting the film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has sparked protests in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the religious feelings of Muslims."

This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.


9/30/12: This blog/article is clearly an attempt to aggravate people. Thanks to a great discussion and multiple contributions "we" have come to the conclusion that this article it bullshit.



by on Sep. 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Replies (481-490):
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM
1 mom liked this

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Look at the beginning of this conversation in the quote box.  You were replying to a response to me.  You implied to the PP that anyone who agrees with the OP article was bigoted.

I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have made the case for why the gist, the title, of the OP article was still correct.  I have acknowledged that the rally was mutipurposeful, but also shown that restriction of free speech was advocated. 

Go back a few posts and you will see another speaker at the rally in question saying that freedom of speech does not protect the film in question.    The "Innocence of Muslims" is not more nasty than "The Godmakers," which is an old, old anti-Mormon cartoon movie that's been distributed for decades. 

With any well-informed understanding of legal history in this country, it is obvious that the anti-Islam film is protected by the First Amendment.

I don't assume that one person speaks for the rest.  The point is that speaking against the First Amendment was indeed a topic, atleast one of them, of the rally. 

I mentioned the international situation because it shows this to be credible.  I certainly hope that people can see through the bigotry whether it is on one side or another.  To do that we have to acknowledge what is being said and what is really going on, both the good and the worrisome, and that is the real purpose of me getting so involved in this post.  ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

The original quote was incomplete and was only found in a biased source.  Yes I know about the minister.  Global leaders calling for anti-blasphemy laws is not something this country can do anything about.  We here in the US have free speech, not all countries do.  Each country has differing laws and applications of the laws, so there's no kind of generalization you can make.  The UN pushes free speech as a human right and I agree with their efforts wholeheartedly.

If the Iranian leader calls for some UN law to sue Obama or this country, do you really think that is anything but a divisive political ploy?  What it is, is rhetoric and bullshit.  Iran isn't known for freedom of speech, luckily the US doesn't have to pay attention to what Iran says about free speech.  Put it in perspective.

If you don't think there are pp's that are bigoted I encourage you to read the thread again.  I stand by what I say.  Why is it, when there is a religious figure calling for free speech, in this case a Methodist minister saying something vague about the government taking a stand, the immediate reaction is that the rally is about passing a law against free speech?  What is YOUR answer?  You wouldn't suppose that it is one speaker's idea?  Furthermore, the only semi-reliable quote was from a Christian, who said the guy who made the movie should be locked up.  Did he say why?  Was he talking about the actual fact that the guy was actually arrested for fraud unrelated to the movie?  Was he talking about using the "fighting words" restriction that currently exists against free speech in this country?  Or was he saying straight up that people should be arrested for blasphemy?  We don't know.  And THAT particular guy is a Christian, so why aren't people bitching about Christians restricting free speech?  Because it is easy for people to say, "well that's just one guy's point of view."  Yet when a Muslim says something, well then that Muslims is a representative of ALL Muslims.  You can see that in this thread.

Do you assume they are all in agreement, the few hundred people who came to this rally?  What about the tens of thousands in the area who DIDN'T attend?  Are they against free speech, too?  What about the Muslims in all the other areas of this country who didn't say anything about it?  Are they also calling for blasphemy laws?  Notice that no one said "blasphemy laws" except the biased article in the OP.  Maybe they were calling for hate speech laws.  Who freaking knows. (not that I agree with that, either, but you have to admit that is a little different.)

Ultimately, the article in the OP wanted to stir some shit and succeeded.  Now we have a bunch of people who took the article at it's word, convinced that most Muslims want to restrict free speech, when the main point (stated by all the literature original from the rally) was about "anti-extremism" and peaceful responses to things like the Mohammed movie.  Yet people not only refuse to discuss that aspect, but there were people IN THIS THREAD who demanded to know why Muslims were "silent" on the violence against the US Embassies.  Yes this whole rally was exactly about that.  

So you tell me, WHY are people focusing SO MUCH on the words of one or two people, yet ignoring the people speaking out against violence and extremism, of which there are many more examples.  You tell ME why people would be so biased as to ignore the facts directly in front of their face.  They WILL deny it.  

Quoting Meadowchik:

I would love to see the statement by the event organizer debunked.  The most direct way is for someone to interview him or show that the original quote was innaccurate, yet no such evidence has been offered.

Furthermore, we have unfortunately seen other guest speakers at similar rallies speaking in support of limiting the First Amendment.  Rev. Ed Rowe of Central United Methodist blamed the filmmakers for the embassy attacks and said they should be locked up for the film. (LINK to Lansing State Journal)

Not to mention globally leaders calling for international anti-blasphemy laws:

(LINK to Examiner article)

Then we have the NYC Transit authority, a state entity, banning a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad poster. 

This type of anti-expression sentiment is not merely from one statement from one person, but from many.  It is in anti-blasphemy laws of many middle-eastern countries, and support for it is being seen in the West. Ireland adopted an anti-blasphemy law in 2010.  An Iranian leader recently claimed that a recent UN Resolution could be used to sue President Obama for the "Innocence of Muslims" film, Pakistan is among others calling for international anti-blasphemy laws.

I have looked at dozens of reports on this subject, and indeed I have seen many quotes from people condemning both the violence along with the film, many Muslims and people of other faiths at their sides calling for loving and peaceful responses.  However, there are still those calling for limits on existing First Amendment law.

Please don't start making rash judgments about PPs.  I would love for all of this to not be true. This is a debate that is happening all over the world, it is happening in America.   

 

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Bigotry is why it is unclear.  They want to believe the worst and they will.

That's why I came out swinging in this post.  There will be no reasoning with some people.  

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Meadowchik:

 It's right there in what you quoted, not just the Methodist pastor, but the organizer of the event in the OP, Osama Siblani, said: "There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence." He is talking about limiting free speech.

That doesn't mean that was the purpose of the rally.

Why is that so UNCLEAR to people?


 


 


Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM


Quoting Moniker:


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting 12hellokitty:


Actually the MTA has since revised it's rules on what type of ads they will accept along with requiring the ad to have a disclaimer. 

Likely a disclaimer stating that the thoughts of the ad don 't supprt that of the MTA or the city. IMO that's not an appropriate disclaimer. lol

And a disclaimer that the views expressed don't reflect the views of the MTA isn't an infringement on speech. Those types of disclaimers are widely used.

I didn't imply that

Moniker
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I agree but what if it's not that simple? What if it gets more complicated? Let's imagine, the climate towards Muslims in America turns very hostile. What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common? Would your opinion change? Would you support some limitations?

Quoting Meadowchik:

 


As for me I will continue to say that grown adults don't have a right to demand protection from a central authority from the thoughts and speech of others.  I will continue to say that Islam should not be condemned wholesale because of the actions of a few or some. 

We can hope that more people will take the entire issue in perspective, and not boil it down to a choice of either hating all Muslims or agreeing them with entirely, that they will pick "none of the above," then be reasonable.  :)


Moniker
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Moniker:


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting 12hellokitty:


Actually the MTA has since revised it's rules on what type of ads they will accept along with requiring the ad to have a disclaimer. 

Likely a disclaimer stating that the thoughts of the ad don 't supprt that of the MTA or the city. IMO that's not an appropriate disclaimer. lol

And a disclaimer that the views expressed don't reflect the views of the MTA isn't an infringement on speech. Those types of disclaimers are widely used.

I didn't imply that

Opps that wasn't inteded for you but for the poster who brought it up. 

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM


Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

I understand your passion and the way you express it.

Yes, often people can recognize BS when they see it. There are people who are looking for confirmation of their own ignorance, too.

However, IMO calling someone a bigot for not understanding bullshit when they see it doesn't help. = )

The people who are focusing on the words of a few people are probably looking for fuel to fire up their hate wagon. Those people are the obvious bigots. If 'those people' are who you meant, then disregard paragraph three.

= )


Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM
1 mom liked this

So you were straight up calling me a bigot? 

I can clearly see the hyperbole of the article, but the essential gist--that in the title--is still credible.  Notice in a PP that I quoted another speaker at the rally, quoted in an article published in the online newspaper of the rally organizer, saying that free speech does not protect things like the film.  According to precedent speech as in the film IS clearly protected by the First Amendment, so, in essence, the speaker was saying that current First Amendment law is wrong, or he does not understand it.  But the result is the same.

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, I didn't IMPLY that people who agreed with the OP are bigoted, I staight up said it.  Read that piece of crap again and tell me.  

"You can't make this stuff up!"  When something like that is written in an article you can be assured that it is certainly not a straight news piece.  The headline is a lie.  Really, Dearborn is the "epicenter to squelch free speech."  And how about this little gem:

his assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and state in the American Constitution.

That line in the red is straight up bigotry.  It is speading the notion that Muslim AMERICAN activists are a bunch of anti-free speech zealots.  Really, Muslim American activists do not understand?  Just what is the basis for that sweeping generalization?  The words of a Christian minister?

Furthermore the article that that one links to is even worse.  If you seriously can't see the bias and hyperbole in that article, I don't know what to say.  Seriously, I'm dumbfounded.  Do people do not even recognize bs when they see it?  I wouldn't trust anything from this article...it has a clear agenda, it doesn't link any actual reliable quotes, it paraphrases quotes in such a way that they are not supported.  So people who are on board with this are either very lax about fact checking, or don't care what the real facts are.  And then add in some of the replies in this thread and there you have a big steaming pile of bigotry.

Honestly I don't care if people consider me overly sensitive or too quick to call out bigotry.  I think SOMEONE needs to point it out.  People just go along with this crap every day.  Well I will not.  THINK people about what you are actually saying.

What if the situation was that a Muslim wrote this article about Christians?  You would feel unfairly maligned and consider the author a bigot, right?  So why is it OK for this to be written, and here people are giving it validity.  Like it has some kind of meaning.  It's bullshit.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Look at the beginning of this conversation in the quote box.  You were replying to a response to me.  You implied to the PP that anyone who agrees with the OP article was bigoted.

I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have made the case for why the gist, the title, of the OP article was still correct.  I have acknowledged that the rally was mutipurposeful, but also shown that restriction of free speech was advocated. 

Go back a few posts and you will see another speaker at the rally in question saying that freedom of speech does not protect the film in question.    The "Innocence of Muslims" is not more nasty than "The Godmakers," which is an old, old anti-Mormon cartoon movie that's been distributed for decades. 

With any well-informed understanding of legal history in this country, it is obvious that the anti-Islam film is protected by the First Amendment.

I don't assume that one person speaks for the rest.  The point is that speaking against the First Amendment was indeed a topic, atleast one of them, of the rally. 

I mentioned the international situation because it shows this to be credible.  I certainly hope that people can see through the bigotry whether it is on one side or another.  To do that we have to acknowledge what is being said and what is really going on, both the good and the worrisome, and that is the real purpose of me getting so involved in this post.  ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

The original quote was incomplete and was only found in a biased source.  Yes I know about the minister.  Global leaders calling for anti-blasphemy laws is not something this country can do anything about.  We here in the US have free speech, not all countries do.  Each country has differing laws and applications of the laws, so there's no kind of generalization you can make.  The UN pushes free speech as a human right and I agree with their efforts wholeheartedly.

If the Iranian leader calls for some UN law to sue Obama or this country, do you really think that is anything but a divisive political ploy?  What it is, is rhetoric and bullshit.  Iran isn't known for freedom of speech, luckily the US doesn't have to pay attention to what Iran says about free speech.  Put it in perspective.

If you don't think there are pp's that are bigoted I encourage you to read the thread again.  I stand by what I say.  Why is it, when there is a religious figure calling for free speech, in this case a Methodist minister saying something vague about the government taking a stand, the immediate reaction is that the rally is about passing a law against free speech?  What is YOUR answer?  You wouldn't suppose that it is one speaker's idea?  Furthermore, the only semi-reliable quote was from a Christian, who said the guy who made the movie should be locked up.  Did he say why?  Was he talking about the actual fact that the guy was actually arrested for fraud unrelated to the movie?  Was he talking about using the "fighting words" restriction that currently exists against free speech in this country?  Or was he saying straight up that people should be arrested for blasphemy?  We don't know.  And THAT particular guy is a Christian, so why aren't people bitching about Christians restricting free speech?  Because it is easy for people to say, "well that's just one guy's point of view."  Yet when a Muslim says something, well then that Muslims is a representative of ALL Muslims.  You can see that in this thread.

Do you assume they are all in agreement, the few hundred people who came to this rally?  What about the tens of thousands in the area who DIDN'T attend?  Are they against free speech, too?  What about the Muslims in all the other areas of this country who didn't say anything about it?  Are they also calling for blasphemy laws?  Notice that no one said "blasphemy laws" except the biased article in the OP.  Maybe they were calling for hate speech laws.  Who freaking knows. (not that I agree with that, either, but you have to admit that is a little different.)

Ultimately, the article in the OP wanted to stir some shit and succeeded.  Now we have a bunch of people who took the article at it's word, convinced that most Muslims want to restrict free speech, when the main point (stated by all the literature original from the rally) was about "anti-extremism" and peaceful responses to things like the Mohammed movie.  Yet people not only refuse to discuss that aspect, but there were people IN THIS THREAD who demanded to know why Muslims were "silent" on the violence against the US Embassies.  Yes this whole rally was exactly about that.  

So you tell me, WHY are people focusing SO MUCH on the words of one or two people, yet ignoring the people speaking out against violence and extremism, of which there are many more examples.  You tell ME why people would be so biased as to ignore the facts directly in front of their face.  They WILL deny it.  

Quoting Meadowchik:

I would love to see the statement by the event organizer debunked.  The most direct way is for someone to interview him or show that the original quote was innaccurate, yet no such evidence has been offered.

Furthermore, we have unfortunately seen other guest speakers at similar rallies speaking in support of limiting the First Amendment.  Rev. Ed Rowe of Central United Methodist blamed the filmmakers for the embassy attacks and said they should be locked up for the film. (LINK to Lansing State Journal)

Not to mention globally leaders calling for international anti-blasphemy laws:

(LINK to Examiner article)

Then we have the NYC Transit authority, a state entity, banning a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad poster. 

This type of anti-expression sentiment is not merely from one statement from one person, but from many.  It is in anti-blasphemy laws of many middle-eastern countries, and support for it is being seen in the West. Ireland adopted an anti-blasphemy law in 2010.  An Iranian leader recently claimed that a recent UN Resolution could be used to sue President Obama for the "Innocence of Muslims" film, Pakistan is among others calling for international anti-blasphemy laws.

I have looked at dozens of reports on this subject, and indeed I have seen many quotes from people condemning both the violence along with the film, many Muslims and people of other faiths at their sides calling for loving and peaceful responses.  However, there are still those calling for limits on existing First Amendment law.

Please don't start making rash judgments about PPs.  I would love for all of this to not be true. This is a debate that is happening all over the world, it is happening in America.   

 

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Bigotry is why it is unclear.  They want to believe the worst and they will.

That's why I came out swinging in this post.  There will be no reasoning with some people.  

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Meadowchik:

 It's right there in what you quoted, not just the Methodist pastor, but the organizer of the event in the OP, Osama Siblani, said: "There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence." He is talking about limiting free speech.

That doesn't mean that was the purpose of the rally.

Why is that so UNCLEAR to people?


 


 


 

LivingIslam
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM

 At face value I would agree with this point. 

However, this issue goes much deeper as the propensity for violence and backlash is very real. 

The movie, the ads are all meant to stoke the flames. 

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting LivingIslam:

 As a Muslim American I could care less about this trashy movie.  The issue has been spun once again to put Muslim Americans on the defense. 

Hate speech is violence within itself.  Who is violating who here? 

As for me I will continue to say that grown adults don't have a right to demand protection from a central authority from the thoughts and speech of others.  I will continue to say that Islam should not be condemned wholesale because of the actions of a few or some. 

We can hope that more people will take the entire issue in perspective, and not boil it down to a choice of either hating all Muslims or agreeing them with entirely, that they will pick "none of the above," then be reasonable.  :)

 

12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting LivingIslam:

 That movie and those subway ads are created to dehumanize, villianize and entice hatred towards people who are Muslim.  They are meant to cultivate a climate of dislike and hatred towards us.  There are groups behind this with big agendas.  Look at the timing:  right during the week of 9/11 they bring out the movie and the subway ads.  There is a real agenda to keep the hate, distrust and dislike of Muslim Americans going. 

 

Have you seen the movie?  Other then a 13 minute clip on youtube, I'm not aware of this movie having been marketed in the US.  Other then a handful of people no one had heard of the movie until it was used as propaganda by not only extremist, but sadly the Obama administration. 

I have watched the 13 minute youtube clip and it's stupid.  People who find humor in mocking religions think the movie was stupid and not funny.  In fact I'm not aware of ANYONE who found the movie to be the lest bit funny or cleaver.  So I find it hard to believe this movie could be viewed as inciting people to react violently towards Muslims.

As for the timing, the movie was made and had been on youtube since July, and the subway ads were submitted a year ago and just recently approved and put up by the MTA.   

Have you ever thought that perhaps the Muslim extremists engaging in violence are the ones who benefit the most in promoting an atmosphere of hate, distrust and dislike of Muslims? 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM
1 mom liked this

 I won't play hypotheticals, but I will say that crimes and violence have to be met with as swiftly and decisively as the law allows. Incompetence and lack of enforcement will only breed further distrust and chaos.

IMO what we are seeing todayin our complicated world is the state-run Islam of past and present crashing head on with the secular Islam of the present and future (future, I hope.) It's a painful process. We have to get beyond the point of laws that criminalise blasphemy and infantilize grown adults.

Right now, we need most Muslims to deny "the right to not be offended" and most non-Muslims to not judge based on religion.

Quoting Moniker:

I agree but what if it's not that simple? What if it gets more complicated? Let's imagine, the climate towards Muslims in America turns very hostile. What if it turns from words to actions and people begin to get attacked and the attacks become common? Would your opinion change? Would you support some limitations?

Quoting Meadowchik:

 


As for me I will continue to say that grown adults don't have a right to demand protection from a central authority from the thoughts and speech of others.  I will continue to say that Islam should not be condemned wholesale because of the actions of a few or some. 

We can hope that more people will take the entire issue in perspective, and not boil it down to a choice of either hating all Muslims or agreeing them with entirely, that they will pick "none of the above," then be reasonable.  :)


 

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Moniker
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Again, I agree but those are simply said but not so simply done. For people who come from a background that have only known theocracy, I imagine it's not  an easy transition to get to the point where they accept they " don't have the right to not be offended". They very much have the right in their culture. To get people to not judge others based on their religion? How are we really going to do that? 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 I won't play hypotheticals, but I will say that crimes and violence have to be met with as swiftly and decisively as the law allows. Incompetence and lack of enforcement will only breed further distrust and chaos.

IMO what we are seeing todayin our complicated world is the state-run Islam of past and present crashing head on with the secular Islam of the present and future (future, I hope.) It's a painful process. We have to get beyond the point of laws that criminalise blasphemy and infantilize grown adults.

Right now, we need most Muslims to deny "the right to not be offended" and most non-Muslims to not judge based on religion.



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN