Publishing offensive content about the Prophet

[Joe]

Today, Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law professor, published an article in The Tennessean (newspaper). In this article, she states that

Islam "is an absolute danger to us and our children"
Islam "is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs"
and that "If Muslims are to thrive in America, and if we are to be safe, then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets."

Now, this has brought about outrage from people who regard her statements as "hate speech," and there will be demonstrations against her on the Vanderbilt campus.

 

[Joe]

Jesus is one of the prophets, in Islam, I gather.

Just thought I should verify my earlier comment.

Muslims also believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.[3]

Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blobbenstein]

obviously they didn't think much of Jesus's position on casting the first stone.

 

[yakherder]

Jesus and Muhammad should both be ridiculed. I don't discriminate.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Jesus and Muhammad should both be ridiculed. I don't discriminate.

Paganism too?

 

[yakherder]

Paganism too?

Absolutely not. Leave Odin out of this, or I will bomb you.

 

[beancounter]

Odin is my second favorite deity after Zeus!

 

[yakherder]

Odin is my second favorite deity after Zeus!

If I were to live my life like a role-playing game and choose the religion that seems the most entertaining whether it makes rational sense or not, I'd choose Ásatrú. I'm all about Valhalla.

 

[FortyTwo]

part of the problem with the Je Suis Charlies thing is it looks like it just became another stupid meme trend, where no one questions it, and follow like zombies.

And if you're a celebrity it's the perfect opportunity to show how "socially aware" you are in three words without actually doing anything to back it up.

And if someone dares to criticize this position then how dare they. People were murdered. We can't have a rational dialogue about this, people! There was a heinous crime involved, so we could never say anything bad about the newspaper, like how blatantly racist and disgusting it was and continues to be.

That and I don't get the argument that French culture is so different that Americans can't have any valuable input about this. Do people think racism doesn't exist in Europe? Because, well, I think Africa and South America would have something to say about that.

 

[Andy_T]

Today, Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law professor, published an article in The Tennessean (newspaper). In this article, she states that

Islam "is an absolute danger to us and our children"
Islam "is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs"
and that "If Muslims are to thrive in America, and if we are to be safe, then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets."
.

Indeed. I fully agree with the idea.

Maybe we should think about passing some laws forbidding the murder of people with other beliefs.

Or what other kind of ground rules is she specifically talking about that will protect us?

 

[FortyTwo]

Indeed. I fully agree with the idea.

Maybe we should think about passing some laws forbidding the murder of people with other beliefs.

Or what other kind of ground rules is she specifically talking about that will protect us?

I wish there was a way to dislike posts on here.

 

[FortyTwo]

I wish there was a way to dislike posts on here.

Oooh ooh! I can do the thing now!

Thank you, Forum Gods!

 

[Andy_T]

Yes - seems Forum gods have upgraded the possibilities. Good to see.

Now for my question - which part of my message exactly do you disagree with?

1) That Carol Swain asks for additional "ground rules" required to make sure that muslims and non-muslims can live together? If you look at her article, she categorically claims that the Charlie Hebdo attack "proves" that Islam is different to other religions and poses a concrete danger to the United States.

What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?

In that article, Ms. Swain claims that this attack "vindicates" the "Tennessee Freedom Coalition" that is obviously warning of the very real danger of Islamic Sharia law being adopted in the United States (specifically in Tennessee) .
Read more about this here: Anti-Muslim Activists Gather In Tennessee to Warn of Shariah | Hatewatch

So what "ground rules" is she specifically talking about (as she is rather oblique on that)?

If Muslims are to thrive in America, and if we are to be safe, then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets. [Emphasis added]

That very clearly states her belief that "muslims to thrive in America" and "us to be safe" are two mutually exclusive goals (without adding further "ground rules")

How do you "protect the people" from those who "disdain freedom", and how can you achieve better monitoring of them than the current Obama administration can supposedly assure? (She seems to hint that the attacks in Paris were somehow correlated with negligence of the Obama administration)

There are some ideas that come to my mind, e.g. make them swear (best every year, in a public ceremony) that they publicly denounce whatever disdain of freedom their respective religions might advocate? (Should we then not also make sure that, e.g., Jains who want to visit the US or even live there publicly denounce their disdain of eating animal products, which is also a philosophy that is clearly incompatible with the American Way of Life? )

And of course, it might seem reasonable to some to take away some of Muslims' civil rights so that it is easier to monitor them and to prosecute them for whatever bad plans they might harbour? There are a lot of good ideas, I guess the "Guantanamo" approach already serves as good pointers here.

2) Or, do you disagree with my making light of Ms. Swains very understandable concerns by suggesting that the laws we already have (e.g. against murdering people) are already sufficient and thus implying that we do not need additional "ground rules" that Ms. Swain might think of (e.g. revoking of civil rights of muslims so that the NSA/CIA/FBI/Whatever can better spy on them) to make sure "muslims can thrive AND WE CAN STILL BE SAFE".

Best regards,
Andy

 

[Spang]

The problem isn't Islam, the problem is the male gender. Every year in the United States, at least a thousand women are murdered by a partner or former partner. Additionally, 90 percent of all murders in the United States are committed by men. That's just in the United States, and the majority of those men are not Muslims.

 

[Andy_T]

The problem isn't Islam, the problem is the male gender.

While I can see your argument, how exactly do you suggest this problem could be solved?

 

[Spang]

While I can see your argument, how exactly do you suggest this problem could be solved?

The media will often cover a story on a sexual assault or murder, but they'll frame it as if it were an isolated incident. Our top story tonight, a Florida man killed three women. But the reality is that it's an epidemic. Not because of some religion or race, but because of centuries of male superiority. We have to reverse that--"smash the patriarchy", some might say.

 

[Second Summer]

The media will often cover a story on a sexual assault or murder, but they'll frame it as if it were an isolated incident. Our top story tonight, a Florida man killed three women. But the reality is that it's an epidemic. Not because of some religion or race, but because of centuries of male superiority. We have to reverse that--"smash the patriarchy", some might say.

Well, then the problem isn't the male gender itself, but a culture which is hostile towards women. And on the topic of cultures that are hostile to women, those cultures that are heavily influenced by Islam appear to be particularly hostile to women. More generally, cultures that are heavily influenced by religion, or at least Abrahamic religions, appear to be hostile to women.

 

[ledboots]

In the mammal kingdom, it is usually the males who fight, rather than the females. The way our society is set up, people are well into adulthood before they choose their mate and reproduce. So the young man is like the lion who got kicked out of the pride for being male, but isn't strong enough to have his own pride. He fights with other males to try to establish dominance, or tries to sneak in and find a female.

I also think the schools are very frustrating for boys and young men, especially when they discontinue physical education and make the kids sit all day.

In addition, I think there are too few opportunities to actually fight with other males. Sports helps with this to an extent, and so does martial arts. I wish the schools taught martial arts to children.

 

[Spang]

Well, then the problem isn't the male gender itself, but a culture which is hostile towards women. And on the topic of cultures that are hostile to women, those cultures that are heavily influenced by Islam appear to be particularly hostile to women. More generally, cultures that are heavily influenced by religion, or at least Abrahamic religions, appear to be hostile to women.

Where is this magical place, where women are not victims of male brutality?

 

[FortyTwo]

Andy_T, my problem with her statements is that they are fear-mongering and Islamophobic.

There is not some menacing Islamic threat. That is hate and propaganda and the media latching onto instances of Islamic extremism while ignoring the constant barrage of Christian extremist hate crimes. Nothing more. They are insubstantial claims motivated by far-right racist ideology, and so I am going to disagree with any support for them, even if it's well-intentioned.

Of course we should strive for a society safe from terrorist attacks. But targeting Muslims does not help, and only hurts innocent people based solely on their religion - one which preaches peace, to no more or less of an extent than Christianity.