Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

[Kasandra]

Is your bubble really THAT small that this is the first you've heard of it?

It's not my bubble, but one that contains facts and honesty. Yes, it's pretty small.

Can anyone other than Lassandra tell me that the phrase "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" isn't blood curdling?  Doesn't sound like a justification for murdering blasphemers?  I don't think he meant us to take it that way, but dann.  Way to scare white Christians.

Perfect example of people holding Obama to account for their own willful misinterpretations and biases. A plurality of Republicans still think he's a Muslim and a similar number "blame" him for stores saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. And don't forget how many people are convinced that Hillary is running a slave trade through a pizzaria.  Yes, of course the pair of them are just as bad as Bush II, of course they are.

[Pete at Home]

Sorry for misspelling your name -- that was a cell phone botch.  That's why I shorten names on the phone -- less mischiefl.

Perfect example of people holding Obama to account for their own willful misinterpretations and biases.

The fact that he's using the word "slander." in the exact same way that murderous sharia-heads use it when calling for murder, is neither "willful misinterpretation" nor "bias."  That's fact, Kassandra.  I have argued against the whole Obama is Muslim meme since before he was elected, sometimes against fellow Democrats, one of whom had told me he was going to be an unfaithful elector and vote Hillary instead because he had it in his pointy little head that Obama was Muslim.  But Obama's use of the phrases future MUST not belong and slander the prophet of Islam, are plainly Islamist kool aid, and probably written for him by some CAIR plant.

Oh, but it gets better.    Do you even know where and when he said it?  To the United Nations, in the freaking aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo mass murder.  Talk about insensitive!  Talk about hateful!  What the hell was he thinking?  Honestly I think that's way beyond Trump's "grab them by the pussy"

In the original context, he could have said, "the future should not belong to those who provoke Muslims' sensitivities about their prophet."

[Pete at Home]

Here's some more leftist political correctness that borders on Islamism: http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/articles/?a=9486

Germany rules that torching a synagogue in Germany is a justifiable act to "raise awareness" about Israeli aggression in Palestine.  Watch Obama say nothing about it.  Seriously, are you really with him on the UN abstention?  Because this is the firstfruit.  Germany saying that killing Jews isn't antisemitism but justifiable awareness raising.

[Wayward Son]

A politics based only on anger -- one based on dividing the world between "us" and "them" -- not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it.  All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.  On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained.  The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans.  It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos.  In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.  And extremists understand this.  Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant.  They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind.  On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past.  And we cannot afford to get it wrong.  We must seize this moment.  And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one."  The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  (Applause.)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.  Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
 
 The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.  It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi:  "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."  (Applause.)  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace.  Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.  The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.  (Applause.)  Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.  If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.  And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision -- a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed -- Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians.  That’s what America stands for.  That is the outcome that we will work for -- with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute, and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.  Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and the legitimacy to lead.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, I know the textual context is redeeming, but the wording, "slander", is right out of the Sharia kill the blasphemer textbook.  Also, the stuff taught in that horrid movie was exactly what millions of Muslims teach about Muhammad in order to justify their depravities.  While the claims themselves are almost certainly garbage, they don't come from anti-muslim sources, but from Muslim sources.  "Slander" is therefore inaccurate in the American context, and it's deeply disturbing for an American president to be using a key word like that in a sense that flouts constitutional protection.  Not to mention that echoes the Sharia court.  almost other word.  Why not demean?

[Wayward Son]

Yes, I know the textual context is redeeming, but the wording, "slander", is right out of the Sharia kill the blasphemer textbook.

Except that book was written in Arabic (or whatever).  So they don't use the word "slander."  That's just a translation of the word they use.

Why not demean?

Because that is too weak a word for what he was going for.  "Derogate" or "disparage" might be better alternatives, although they seem weak, too.  "Slander" gives the connotation of a deliberate lie specifically intended to ruin someone's reputation.  Perhaps "desecrate," although that refers to a physical object, not a person.

And, of course, "provoke Muslims' sensitivities about their prophet" would have gutted his rhetorical rhythm.

Which is to demonstrate that there may not have been a good alternative for what Obama was trying to say and the way he was saying it.  Sure, when that particular sentence is taken out of context (as his enemies are wont to do) it makes it sound like he is echoing terrorists, but in context and seeing what he is trying to say and how he is trying to say it, he's not.

So if the word "slander" is "blood curling," it is because people are taking the word out of context, assigning it a meaning that it doesn't necessarily have, and then using it as "proof" that Obama is/was sympathetic to terrorists if not actually in bed with them.  The typical nitpicking and then blowing out of proportion that we've seen for the last 8 years.

AKA, "slander."

It was not meant to scare Christians, and wouldn't have, except for those who want to use it to scare Christians.

Which is why we should stop listening to criticisms of Obama and Hillary to justify Trumps actions.  Because most of them are taken out of context and blown out of proportion to begin with.  And because they no longer have any significant influence to what happens in the future.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, I know the textual context is redeeming, but the wording, "slander", is right out of the Sharia kill the blasphemer textbook.

Except that book was written in Arabic (or whatever).  So they don't use the word "slander."  That's just a translation of the word they use.

So?  The speech follows that translation, not vice versa.  And they do use the word "slander" when speaking in English.  Obama was handed that line from Islamists like CAIR.

Why not demean?


Because that is too weak a word for what he was going for.  "Derogate" or "disparage" might be better alternatives, although they seem weak, too.  "Slander" gives the connotation of a deliberate lie specifically intended to ruin someone's reputation.  Perhaps "desecrate," although that refers to a physical object, not a person.

And, of course, "provoke Muslims' sensitivities about their prophet" would have gutted his rhetorical rhythm.

Which is to demonstrate that there may not have been a good alternative for what Obama was trying to say and the way he was saying it.  Sure, when that particular sentence is taken out of context (as his enemies are wont to do) it makes it sound like he is echoing terrorists, but in context and seeing what he is trying to say and how he is trying to say it, he's not.

So if the word "slander" is "blood curling," it is because people are taking the word out of context, assigning it a meaning that it doesn't necessarily have, and then using it as "proof" that Obama is/was sympathetic to terrorists if not actually in bed with them.  The typical nitpicking and then blowing out of proportion that we've seen for the last 8 years.

AKA, "slander."

There you have a decent argument going, but then you say:

It was not meant to scare Christians, and wouldn't have, except for those who want to use it to scare Christians.

That's crap, Wayward.  I don't want to use it to scare Christians, and it scares me.  I'll bet you it scares a number of Muslims who realize that Obama's coddling the Islamists as usual.  And the primary victims of Islamists are Muslim.

Which is why we should stop listening to criticisms of Obama and Hillary to justify Trumps actions.

I never used it that way.  I used it to excuse and mitigate those who voted for Trump.  Ah, you mean the "grab them by the pussy" phrase?  There's no reasonable way to interpret that he was bragging about "sexually assaulting" women, whereas your interpretation requires that we give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  That doesn't "justify" Trump.  Simply stating that his crime is being an entitled billionaire celebrity, like Madonna, not a rapist.  He was saying that women consent to him grabbing them that way. 

Because most of them are taken out of context and blown out of proportion to begin with.  And because they no longer have any significant influence to what happens in the future.

Yes, they do.  Since Obama has a few more days in office in which he can choose whether to treat Islamism as a threat, or he can continue to talk like he did after Orlando, living in a delusion, and make many Christian and Muslim feel that Trump's the only one who will respond to the islamist threat.

After all the ways that the media is slicing and analyzing the election results, a few they aren't telling us.  How did gays vote?  How did American Muslims vote. I suspect the answer might surprise you.

[cherrypoptart]

Even taking it completely in context, Obama is telling a large portion of the Democrat party, the millions of them who are proud atheists and love art if it involves excrement on various religious symbols, and who also are all about making fun of all religious figures, that the future must not belong to them. How do they feel about that?

If they listen to Obama, are they supposed to just shut up now? What if they don't?

The defense of Obama asserting that he was telling everyone who insults any religion that they have no future rings hollow because though it's true enough that is exactly what he said, that doesn't represent the values of his party at all which is very much anti-religion.

That can be debated to some extent because of course there are millions of religious people who are Democrats, but it can't be denied completely because a significant portion of Democrats detest all religion. How does Obama get away with insulting all of those people and none of them calls him on it? That's the mystery to me.

Take Sarah Silverman, for example. She specifically says she's happy to make fun of any religion except for Islam. And why not Islam? She's very honest about why not, because she doesn't want to get murdered for "slandering the prophet of Islam", as Obama puts it. I agree Obama told her to stop making fun of all religions. I'm just curious as to why she, and other staunch liberal Democrats like her, don't seem to have a problem with that.

So what should Obama have said instead?

How about, "Anyone anywhere in the world should be able to make fun of any religion they want to as much as they want to in any way they want to and the people who have a problem with that need to be put in their place and stopped cold. The future must not belong to those who kill people for ridiculing the prophet of Islam."

Basically, the exact opposite of what he did say.

Perhaps that may get me in trouble with people who oppose making fun of religion but I'm not one of those people. I'm all for making fun of all religions. I don't even care about the stupid "art". That's not my style and I don't find it amusing or thought provoking, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the future must not belong to the people who make it. The future can belong to all of us together and we'll all offend each other sometimes and we just have to shrug it off. The only place I draw the line is having the taxpayers pay for that crap, sometimes literally.

[cherrypoptart]

To sum it up, the problem with what he said wasn't that he didn't say anything to protect other religions from being mocked.

The problem is that he didn't say anything to defend our Constitution and our First Amendment right to mock every religion.

[Pete at Home]

The Egyptian girl who posted provocative photos that attacked DAESH, on her site, she claimed the maker of Innocence of Muslims was Atheist, not Christian as the Obamist/Clintonian press has told America.  Interesting.

[Kasandra]

Even taking it completely in context, Obama is telling a large portion of the Democrat party, the millions of them who are proud atheists and love art if it involves excrement on various religious symbols, and who also are all about making fun of all religious figures, that the future must not belong to them. How do they feel about that?

If they listen to Obama, are they supposed to just shut up now? What if they don't?

The defense of Obama asserting that he was telling everyone who insults any religion that they have no future rings hollow because though it's true enough that is exactly what he said, that doesn't represent the values of his party at all which is very much anti-religion.

I stopped reading your post after I forced myself to get that far.  But thanks for revealing your real thoughts about Democrats.  To think that you once (and maybe still) think of yourself as the fearsome Libdisemboweler, but you're just a cartoon hero in Sick Comics.

[DJQuag]

Oh well if one random woman said so, I guess that proves it.

Also, telling Israel to quit annexing Palestinian land (and in the case of the US, not even that, more like not telling others not to) means a new kristalnacht? You really do get hysterical sometimes, Pete, and not in the funny way.

Have you ever stopped before you made a post, examined what you're writing, and contrasted it against your bias?

Do you admit you have bias, or is everything you believe and assume the Truth?

Cherry

I'll agree that freedom to disparage religion, which I very much enjoy, was sadly neglected from Obama's speech. Doesn't change the fact that the right's screeching about it, and taking one line out of context to make him out to be pro Islamic over other religions, was dishonest. So much so that when I first saw the headlines decrying it, I immediately looked for a transcript of the speech to see the context. Because right wingers taking something Obama said out of context would be just like them; Obama saying what they said he said would be incredibly unlike him.

[Pete at Home]

Oh well if one random woman said so, I guess that proves it.

Think harder.  Atheist movement icons don't generally claim hated Christian figures as their own.

Also, telling Israel to quit annexing Palestinian land (and in the case of the US, not even that, more like not telling others not to) means a new kristalnacht?

Are you completely ignorant of the context, or did you just call burning down a synagogue in Germany "telling Israel to quit annexing Palestinian land?"

If you meant to say that the resolution merely proclaimed that, you're still deluded.  The resolution demands that Israel give up lands it's used since the 1970s, some of which include hospitals and universities that serve Palestinians as well as Israelis. 

I would be all for a resolution for demanding that Israel stop annexing land.  Or even that it turn over the last 20 years of annexations.  But the resolution as written is a recipe for war.

[Pete at Home]

Also, you silly boy, I did not compare the resolution to Krystalnacht; I compared the German Judge's decision to treat the violence as "justified protest" to Krystalnacht.  Were you being intentionally obtuse?

[Wayward Son]

Obama was handed that line from Islamists like CAIR.

Wow.  That's pretty provocative, Pete.  Obama took the line directly from Islamists like CAIR. What is your source for that?  How do you know he (or his speech-writer) didn't come up with it himself?

I don't want to use it to scare Christians, and it scares me.  I'll bet you it scares a number of Muslims who realize that Obama's coddling the Islamists as usual.  And the primary victims of Islamists are Muslim.

The question is, do you and others have a good basis to be scared?  Was Obama really "coddling the Islamists as usual," or is that only an incorrect perception?

To me, it is an incorrect perception, and you are only scaring yourself over nothing.  But perhaps you have some better information that I do, that doesn't come from "those who want to use it to scare Christians," et al.

There's no reasonable way to interpret that he was bragging about "sexually assaulting" women, whereas your interpretation requires that we give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  That doesn't "justify" Trump.  Simply stating that his crime is being an entitled billionaire celebrity, like Madonna, not a rapist.  He was saying that women consent to him grabbing them that way.

IIRC, at least 7 women said he grabbed them and they didn't really consent (as in want him to or tell him he could do it).  So your interpretation certainly doesn't fit the facts.

But even if they did consent, that would still make him a sexist pig who felt his "success" entitled him to be able to grab acquaintances' privates.  I mean, how rich would you have to be before you'd think it was OK to grope strange women between the legs?

[Wayward Son]

After all the ways that the media is slicing and analyzing the election results, a few they aren't telling us.  How did gays vote?  How did American Muslims vote. I suspect the answer might surprise you.

Not that much.  Sure, three times the Muslims voted for Trump than Romney is somewhat surprising, but that still only came out to about 13 percent.  And less than 1/3 of gays voted for Trump as compared to Romney, down to 14 percent from 48 percent in 2012.

Less than 1.5 out of 10 voting for Trump isn't that surprising.  Do you think it deserves more reporting?

[Wayward Son]

Even taking it completely in context, Obama is telling a large portion of the Democrat party, the millions of them who are proud atheists and love art if it involves excrement on various religious symbols, and who also are all about making fun of all religious figures, that the future must not belong to them. How do they feel about that?

I think most of them are quite fine with what Obama said.  A vast majority of Democrats, and Liberals in general, aren't out to make fun of other people's religions.  As P.Z. Myers, well-known atheist who received death threats for ill-using communion wafers, said:

Long story short, Katti’s right [when he said that I "I wouldn't knowingly disrespect indigenous culture, tell tale for laughs"]. I wouldn’t do that...

Catholics are free to practice and believe whatever they want in their spaces.  Aside from finding their beliefs silly, I'm not going to outlaw communion or blow up churches (although I would like to tax them) or show up at church to disrupt their ceremonies...

Which is probably the reason Obama chose the word "slander" -- "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report" per dictionary.com.  They don't want people making false statements to defame Islam or any other religion.

So Democrats are against it when someone defiles a Koran for fun.  They also condemn Muslims who call for the death of people who draw images of Mohammed, and support people's right to draw Mohammed.  But they are also against those who create a showing of images of Mohammed just to see if someone will try to kill them for doing so.

Democrats believe in mutual respect.  We respect those who hold religious beliefs, but also expect the same respect from them when we don't hold their beliefs.  So we won't force atheisms on them, but we won't tolerate them forcing their beliefs on us.

So, yes, a majority of Democrats and Liberals are quite fine with a future when people can't slander Islam or atheism or Christianity or any other belief.  Are you fine with a future where you can't slander those you disagree with (like Democrats)?

[DJQuag]

"Also, you silly boy,"

Knock it off.

[cherrypoptart]

So the future must not belong to people like Bertrand Russell, or Sarah Silverman, George Carlin, Penn Jillette, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and others like them including whoever came up with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I almost feel like I am being gaslighted here but I didn't have any problem finding Reasonable voices on the internet who disagree with what Obama said. Maybe I am thinking more along the lines of libertarians who would have the greatest problem with what Obama said, and not Democrats who seem to go along easily enough with wanting to ban people from saying anything someone might find offensive, except conservatives who are fair game to offend and slander such as with numerous fake hate crimes accusations, so they can escape to their safe zones and avoid getting triggered. Come to think of it, that is exactly like the Muslims, in a way.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho

"...So many things wrong in so few words. Why this video, and not Theo Van Gogh's Submission, or Lars Vilks' animation of Mohammed wanting to go to a gay bar, the "Super Best Friends" episode of South Park, or Funny or Die's "How to Pick a Pocket"? Is it the degree of the insult, the craptasticness of the production values, the size of the release, or the vociferousness of the outrage expressed?

Given the track record of our past two administrations, I think we know the answer to that question, which suggests another thing terrible about this sentence: As Eugene Volokh recently pointed out, "Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated." If all it takes to earn a White House call for global condemnation of a single piece of expression is some violent protests outside a dozen or two diplomatic missions, then the perpetually aggrieved know exactly what to do the next time they pluck out some bit of cultural detritus to be offended by.

It is not any politician's job, and certainly not any American politician's job, to instruct the entire world on which films to criticize....



 ...   "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Not your call, dude. Also, not my "prophet."

Even though you can see what the president's getting at in terms of equivalent outrage, he's still way off base here. It is not our job to condemn blasphemy of any kind, period. As individuals we might criticize a few bits here and there, but we mostly ignore the vast ocean of what various people may consider "hateful" or "offensive" speech, and rightly so.

There was much else to criticize in Obama's speech today, most notably a deeply incoherent depiction of America's role in the world. But it's certainly worth noting that a president who thought he was making a profound defense of American freedom of speech has continued his administration's two-week assault on the very notion."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was very well put. That is my point. I'm still confused by how many people, and the people one might least expect, support Obama's notion of stifling freedom of speech. But again, I suppose within the context of triggering and safe spaces it starts to make a little more sense. I should be more careful in the future not to confuse libertarians with Democrats. I always say that I'm not really very libertarian for a number of reasons, but I do agree with them quite often, and this happens to be one of those times.

[TheDrake]

To stifle free speech, you have to MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Suggesting that people have the right, but should be more prudent, isn't stifling anything. Neither is suggesting that maybe its not such a great idea to wipe your ass with pages out of a bible, even while asserting that the person is well within the bounds of law and that they shouldn't be injured for it. Absolutely government leaders have a responsibility to promote what they think of as moral values, and their personal opinions on art. As soon as they try to ban it, then I'm going to get outraged.

Cleverness does have something to do with acceptability, for my personal taste. The Life of Brian could have been called blasphemous, and yet it was done without overtly going for offense. Thus, Brian and not Jesus.

So yeah, on a blanket level, I think people should avoid slandering a religion, drawing pictures of their mythological figures being sodomized, or other such nonsense. That doesn't make me against free speech. It just means I don't think people should run around pissing people off for no good reason, particularly by making all Muslims or other religions the subject of your lampooning, as opposed to specific individuals or subgroups.

When the Onion ran a story following 9/11, they channeled the rage at the hijackers, not all Muslims everywhere. But they also run stories like this one where they have a character that has an Islamic awakening and leaves ISIS. Because they can tell the difference.

[D.W.]

That was well put cherry.  I would say however it is predictable.  When one is forced to proclaim their faith more loudly and forcefully than they 'believe' as I expect includes almost all politicians in the United States, it's an easy trap to fall into.

When atheism/agnostic/lapsed X faith, is a (one of the) third rail in politics the best some feel they can do is apply the same rules to all religions.  While I as a private citizen believe deeply in our right to offend any and all religions as we see fit... I know I couldn't run on such an opinion. 

The current Democratic options are Christian who goes out of their way to embrace everyone's religion and tempts fate timidly including "and those without religion", or a Christian who tries not to mention religion at all other than throwing out God this or God that now and then while campaigning or making a big speech. 

I don't think that really excuses anything, but it does help explain it.

[Wayward Son]

Maybe I am thinking more along the lines of libertarians who would have the greatest problem with what Obama said, and not Democrats who seem to go along easily enough with wanting to ban people from saying anything someone might find offensive, except conservatives who are fair game to offend and slander such as with numerous fake hate crimes accusations, so they can escape to their safe zones and avoid getting triggered. Come to think of it, that is exactly like the Muslims, in a way.

No, the problem cherry is you have a strawman you think of when you think of Democrats, and ignore any information that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.  So it's no wonder you find Democrats so contemptible--that's all you're able or willing to see.  A boogey-man in your own head.

Try looking from the other's guy actual perspective instead sometimes. :p

[cherrypoptart]

Every religion has aspects of it that deserve mocking, and some religions have much more than others. A religion with followers that kill people for mocking it deserves to be mocked most of all. Just my opinion. And I like Christianity too, but that doesn't mean that some elements of it don't deserve to be mocked.

[TheDrake]

A sect of a religion that kill people for mocking it deserves to be deplored, mocked and fought against. Painting the entirety of that religion with the same brush is both ignorant and clumsy.

[D.W.]

Guilt by associate is real.  If one wants to save a group from those who are dragging down the reputation of the group it is absolutely their responsibility as much (or more so) than it is the responsibility of others to not paint with the same brush...

Fair?  Maybe not, but far FAR more practical.  We are by nature suspicious and quick to judge outsiders.  Fixing from within is a far less idealistic goal than programming one group not to judge another while the condemned actions still occur.   

Acceptance and forgiveness make YOU a better person. (and by extension your group society better people)  It sadly does little to change those outside of that society.  Which also goes to explain why inclusion into a broader society is important.  Xenophobia and isolation will always be an enemy to peace.

[Pete at Home]

Can you imagine the flaming turdstorm if "big love" had been made with a Muslim store opener who took on multiple wives in the name of his religion?

[Pete at Home]

To stifle free speech, you have to MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Tell that to the KKK. All southern states had to do was make private ownership of firearms illegal, then selectively enforce it against blacks, so the KKK could wipe out Republican activity.