http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8237.html?PHPSESSID=c0287a81fd33e65dd225f5612c56320f

From the article:

"The controversy started in October 2006 when the College Republicans sought to hold a rally supporting the Iraq war effort. During the gathering, which the group dubbed an “anti-terrorism rally,” students stepped on the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas, thus angering some Muslim students and liberal members of the SFSU academic community.

As a result of their behavior, the College Republicans were hauled before a university tribunal on charges of harassment and forced to state their case as to why they should not be punished. At this point FIRE intervened, writing SFSU and informing the university that First Amendment rights were in play and the College Republicans could not be punished for engaging in free speech activity. The pleas fell on deaf ears, the trial proceeded and the College Republicans were compelled to defend their speech.

SFSU defended its policy by arguing that the speech in question may have been received negatively by the community and the university needed to show its commitment to the process.

Ellen Griffin, a spokesperson for SFSU, went as far as to tell the San Francisco Chronicle, “The university stands behind this process. I don't believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah.” FIRE was quick to point out that whether the complaint focused on the flag or the faith, it still targeted constitutionally protected speech.

Despite having the authority to halt the proceedings, SFSU dragged out the trial for five months until finally clearing the students."

So I happily stand by my statement that a public university brought up students on charges that they desecrated Allah. I think that is pretty interesting, as well as the question that few of you are addressing (on why the cartoons that insulted Islam were not republished in the States - and online ain't the same thing.)

As for Mona's comments, it may well be worth talking about how effective Muslims will be at imposing their absurd demands for superiority upon civilized people, but don't you think that we first have to agree that Muslims are doing so in the first place?

"-- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview"

GG

I don't believe that, and I hope you don't either. The Muslim Triumph is just a fear based minipulation they use.

You won't find a one of them who has significantly changed anything about their lives in order to lessen the danger.

Not if it would be inconvenient.

The-Muslims-are-coming also serves as a mantra, which they chant in order to reach the nirvana of fear they crave.

They fear the Muslims in the same way the fear Dracula, Frankenstein and Hannibal Lector.

Plus, you can imagine the Muslims killin all your enemies, how fun is that. I gues the Muslims will love them, you know, I bet they would love those guys. Ftom what I've heard they think very much alike.

As I said previously, I think liberal democracies should never bow to any sect, religion or creed. We should not tolerate intolerance, to paraphrase from Popper.

But you have not bridged the gap between making minor capitualtions to extremists (which I do not agree with and which take place mostly in Europe) and being TAKEN OVER by said extremists.

You need to bridge that gap, becasue "today we don't print offensive cartoons, tomorrow we're a giant caliphate" is not an especially convincing argument.

Roger Simon:

The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law –- gays, women, freethinkers -- are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it.

To some people, "defend" means physical, fight-to-the-death, confrontation exclusively. I consider this a narrow, primal, pre-enlightenment understanding of our relationship with other ideologies.

The way we defend against extreme islam is the same way we defended against communism. we excercised our freedoms, made allies, and led by example in the world. Soviet citizens saw us and wanted to be like us.

No doubt American military strength kept USSR at bay, but the actual defeat of communism was their envy of our system. That is why when the end for communism came, the buzz-word was not surrender, but Glasnost, meaning: openness.

Oh, there was more factor factor accelerating their demise: military adventurism in the Middle East.

We defend our way of life differently, Mr. Simon. We live it faithfully. We fight for our superior system here first.

3. Rather than call Hitchens a drunk, I suggest you read his columns. Salon columnists will not provide you with an alternate point of view. This is a way to get past your blinder problem.

-- NotOrbitBoy

I didn't know the bars of Salon were locked. We have no way out of here? Help! Will you, Notorbitboy, and Christopher Hitchens please come and save us? We're trapped in the musty Salon! Your refreshing sanity has me convinced.

I think that is pretty interesting, as well as the question that few of you are addressing (on why the cartoons that insulted Islam were not republished in the States - and online ain't the same thing.)

For the same reason that barely any newspaper questioned WMD claims or the bin Laden/Hussein link:

American journalism is full of useless wusses.

(They're repressing my hilarious "Jesus and Muhammed are Gay Lovers" cartoons, too, by refusing to publish them and pay me the vast sums I demand. It's an outrage, I tells ya!)

As for Mona's comments, it may well be worth talking about how effective Muslims will be at imposing their absurd demands for superiority upon civilized people, but don't you think that we first have to agree that Muslims are doing so in the first place?

Yes. Too a much smaller degree than certain types of Christians, who are more successful at it in this country anyway.

---

Look, you can be scared of Muslims all you want, and good luck convincing the rest of us, really.