Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was Voltaire thinking of you when he said what you quoted. It looks like you are allowed to say whatever you want.
Banned on Google: The 1,400 words you can't use | Fox News
List of censored words in Generation V - Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia
Words and Phrases to be Banned, 2014 Edition : PR News Blog
War On Words: NYC Dept. Of Education Wants 50 'Forbidden' Words Banned From Standardized Tests
Liverpool's List Of Banned Words Will Make You Giggle
You were saying, ass hole?
If you thought it couldn't possibly get any zanier, there's now this.
This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
One long week after the Paris attacks, as Republican presidential candidates mounted an arms race over who can express the most overt and virulent prejudice toward Muslim Americans, MSNBC's Chuck Todd did something pretty unusual for a cable news host. He invited on an actual Muslim American person, Dalia Mogahed, who also happens to be an expert on Muslim attitudes in the US and globally, to politely ask her about all this.
Their whole exchange is worth watching, but I wanted to pull out one particular moment, at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds, which came as Todd was asking her about American leaders who demand that more Muslim leaders come out to condemn ISIS. Mogahed, rather than pointing out that they already are condemning ISIS, made an important point: this is the wrong question entirely, and we need to stop demanding that Muslims condemn terrorism.
I think we should take a step back and ask a different question, which is: 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians.
Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims.
She's absolutely right. This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted. (Will McCants, a scholar of jihadist ideology at Brookings, thinks it might also be counterproductive.) It implies that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
But Muslims manage to condone these attacks on their own. Then get told to condone them AFTER they have condoned them, because people didn't bother to look to see if these people had condoned the attacks in the first place. Bigoted? No, just idiotic.
Wrong again, as usual.Was Voltaire thinking of you when he said what you quoted. It looks like you are allowed to say whatever you want.
Banned on Google: The 1,400 words you can't use | Fox News
List of censored words in Generation V - Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia
Words and Phrases to be Banned, 2014 Edition : PR News Blog
War On Words: NYC Dept. Of Education Wants 50 'Forbidden' Words Banned From Standardized Tests
Liverpool's List Of Banned Words Will Make You Giggle
You were saying, ass hole?
If you thought it couldn't possibly get any zanier, there's now this.
This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
One long week after the Paris attacks, as Republican presidential candidates mounted an arms race over who can express the most overt and virulent prejudice toward Muslim Americans, MSNBC's Chuck Todd did something pretty unusual for a cable news host. He invited on an actual Muslim American person, Dalia Mogahed, who also happens to be an expert on Muslim attitudes in the US and globally, to politely ask her about all this.
Their whole exchange is worth watching, but I wanted to pull out one particular moment, at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds, which came as Todd was asking her about American leaders who demand that more Muslim leaders come out to condemn ISIS. Mogahed, rather than pointing out that they already are condemning ISIS, made an important point: this is the wrong question entirely, and we need to stop demanding that Muslims condemn terrorism.
I think we should take a step back and ask a different question, which is: 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians.
Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims.
She's absolutely right. This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted. (Will McCants, a scholar of jihadist ideology at Brookings, thinks it might also be counterproductive.) It implies that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
They condone them?If you thought it couldn't possibly get any zanier, there's now this.
This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
One long week after the Paris attacks, as Republican presidential candidates mounted an arms race over who can express the most overt and virulent prejudice toward Muslim Americans, MSNBC's Chuck Todd did something pretty unusual for a cable news host. He invited on an actual Muslim American person, Dalia Mogahed, who also happens to be an expert on Muslim attitudes in the US and globally, to politely ask her about all this.
Their whole exchange is worth watching, but I wanted to pull out one particular moment, at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds, which came as Todd was asking her about American leaders who demand that more Muslim leaders come out to condemn ISIS. Mogahed, rather than pointing out that they already are condemning ISIS, made an important point: this is the wrong question entirely, and we need to stop demanding that Muslims condemn terrorism.
I think we should take a step back and ask a different question, which is: 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians.
Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims.
She's absolutely right. This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted. (Will McCants, a scholar of jihadist ideology at Brookings, thinks it might also be counterproductive.) It implies that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
But Muslims manage to condone these attacks on their own. Then get told to condone them AFTER they have condoned them, because people didn't bother to look to see if these people had condoned the attacks in the first place. Bigoted? No, just idiotic.
The Muslims will be welcomed as a part of America more than the far righties are. Simple fact.
jake, RWer or whomever you will be posting as next. You do what all liberals do and it is disgusting. Everything about you has to be about race, religion or something. I said not one bad word about Muslims but your knee jerk reaction sure indicates to me your inner feelings.
Go away jake no one on either side trusts a fake. The left wing across the world is losing and you are in denial.
If you thought it couldn't possibly get any zanier, there's now this.
This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
One long week after the Paris attacks, as Republican presidential candidates mounted an arms race over who can express the most overt and virulent prejudice toward Muslim Americans, MSNBC's Chuck Todd did something pretty unusual for a cable news host. He invited on an actual Muslim American person, Dalia Mogahed, who also happens to be an expert on Muslim attitudes in the US and globally, to politely ask her about all this.
Their whole exchange is worth watching, but I wanted to pull out one particular moment, at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds, which came as Todd was asking her about American leaders who demand that more Muslim leaders come out to condemn ISIS. Mogahed, rather than pointing out that they already are condemning ISIS, made an important point: this is the wrong question entirely, and we need to stop demanding that Muslims condemn terrorism.
I think we should take a step back and ask a different question, which is: 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians.
Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims.
She's absolutely right. This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted. (Will McCants, a scholar of jihadist ideology at Brookings, thinks it might also be counterproductive.) It implies that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.
A very simple explanation of why it's wrong to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism
But Muslims manage to condone these attacks on their own. Then get told to condone them AFTER they have condoned them, because people didn't bother to look to see if these people had condoned the attacks in the first place. Bigoted? No, just idiotic.
You mean condemn......right?
"It's now bigoted to ask Muslims to condemn Islamic terrorists"
No, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and fails as a composition fallacy..
It does none of those things you stupid fool.
the people in this country better WAKE up to this PC speak/word bullying. It's just another way to try and shut people up and step on your Freedom of speech
Because nobody is terrorizing the world in the name of Christianity."It's now bigoted to ask Muslims to condemn Islamic terrorists"
No, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and fails as a composition fallacy.
No one demands Christians condemn acts of terror by Christians.
You're on it Jim. Hatred and bigotry are ingrained in the genes of democrats.The left has discredited the word 'racism' so badly it has no sting at all any more to people I talk to, except one Millennial I know.
One day pro-white racism will make a comeback and it will be inside the same party that pushes discrimination against whites today; the Dimmicratic PArty.
