1. Comment #60206 by Ilovelucy on August 1, 2007 at 10:09 am

First!

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

2. Comment #60209 by wbreim on August 1, 2007 at 10:13 am

Mr. Hooper does miss the point of the 1st amendment as Hitchens pointed out. It exists precisely to protect unpopular speech and expression... we don't need laws to protect popular speech or popular acts of expression. It's sad that the kid chose putting a book in the toilet as a means to express his disgust to what the book stands for.

Other Comments by wbreim

3. Comment #60212 by gordon on August 1, 2007 at 10:19 am

When I was at college I remember some graffiti on the toilet wall which read
"Trust in thee Excalibur not to make your next appearance in this stretch of water". I've been wary of myths ever since.

Other Comments by gordon

4. Comment #60213 by Gordon Brown on August 1, 2007 at 10:28 am

I never thought that Dennis Prager would ever side with Christopher Hitchens on some issue involving religion, but I have to admit that some of Prager's comments are right on the money, especially his pointing out of the dichotomous attitudes toward throwing the Qu'ran in the toilet on the one hand, and Serrano's Piss Christ on museum display on the other.

But Prager needs to read the Qu'ran more closely. As Sam Harris has so ably shown, the exhortations of Islam to kill infidels are explicit and unmistakable.

As for Hooper, well, he's pretty clueless. It's a sad commentary on those who would rail about this alleged "hate crime" while ignoring acts of murder by Muslims against other Muslims in Iraq, or the stonings of innocents in Iran, or the slitting of children's throats by Muslim marauders in Algeria as took place about ten years ago—or, for that matter, the massacre of 7,500 Muslim men and boys by Serbs in Srebrenica, which also occurred several years ago. Right on, Christopher.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

5. Comment #60215 by DamnDirtyApe on August 1, 2007 at 10:30 am

I basically agree. I'm glad this stuff isn't taken lying down. Reminds me of the guys protesting the Denmark Cartoons - several of which were arrested in the UK and jailed for having placards saying 'behead those who insult Islam'.


Religion must never be beyond reproach.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

6. Comment #60218 by tieInterceptor on August 1, 2007 at 10:34 am

Hitchens does know how to master interviews, I love the way he repeats a line until people shut up and let him finish... it is the only way to talk when religious bullies try to steal the lime light, and also the only way to remind comentators that they are not doing their job.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

7. Comment #60220 by Gordon Brown on August 1, 2007 at 10:36 am

Incidentally, it's been reported that presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said that he would send troops into Pakistan to combat Al Qaeda units there, if President Musharraf did nothing on his own part to eliminate them. Whether this is so much campaign saber-rattling remains to be seen, but it's an interesting development.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

8. Comment #60223 by ccrenshaw on August 1, 2007 at 10:43 am

I find it disgusting that Mr. Hooper tries to justify this being called a Hate Crime because it supposedly intimidates Muslims while the Muslim world dances around the issue of whether or not they support Jihad or suicide bombings.

"Do Not Offend or Intimidate us or we will blow you up".... you tell me who is trying to intimidate who.

Other Comments by ccrenshaw

9. Comment #60224 by dgr8test97 on August 1, 2007 at 10:44 am

Wow. 3 despicable people talking about intellectual honesty and freedom of speech.

1) Hitchens- A lier who links Zen Budhism to Japan's 1940s aggression when we know it was Shintoism. This is a man who believes Iraq has WMD and that Mao Zedong went to plan and systematically kill 30 million Chinese ala Hitler killing 6 million Jews.

2) Dennis Prager- This guys does hate Muslims and the site that he supports is Racist. The reality is in this country, some do use Islam as a vehicle for Racism. One must listen intensively to see what are legitimate criticism and what are plain racism. As an Asian-American, I deplore communism, but many people use communism to hide their hate.

3)I don't know who that other guy is but if putting a Koran in the Toilet is intimidating then what do call blowing up 3000 year old Buddhist and Hindu Statues? Also, scum like Hitchen and Prager have good points when talking about the Cartoons. This man does not address the cartoons. BTW, I see Muslims all the time wearing jeans with a satirical Budhha on them and this doesn't seem to bother the Muslims, but put Mohomad there and you got problems.

CNN and the media are not interested in having good debates, well not orderly debates at least. They have these idiots and scum come out and yell at each other. I for one hope one day we actually get a good debate or should I say civil debate since Religion does not have a foot to stand on.

I like Harris and Dennetts style of debate. All the debates I see them in end up with the other side viscously giving personal attacks.

BTW the real intimidation is this: Muslims today of every race are intimidating there neighbors world wide.

Muslim Separatists are blowing people up, in Russia (White muslims), in Europe (Turkish Muslims), China (Chinese Muslims), Thailand (Thai Muslims), Fillipines (Pacific Islander Muslims), Nigeria (Black Muslims), the list goes on. This is intimidation that know one wants to talk about. BTW in many of these countries I listed above, there are many religious groups that are persecuted, but few resort to violence as Muslims do.

Other Comments by dgr8test97

10. Comment #60225 by socratzsche on August 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

Muslims need to realize that their religious freedom is equal to the freedom of expression that offends Islam. Any sensible person can see that the Ukrainian flushing a Koran in the toilet was not an act of intimidation but an act of contempt.

Other Comments by socratzsche

11. Comment #60226 by Slainte on August 1, 2007 at 10:47 am

Well spoken, Mr. Hitchens.

It's a shame that Mr. Hooper can't grasp the fact that Islam tries to garner respect largely through the barrel of a gun or at the switch of a suicide vest. The grotesque intimidation tactics perpetrated in the name of Islam pale in comparison to the repellant defacing of a book, holy or otherwise. Some people find Islam (and other religions) offensive. As Mr. Hitchens pointed out, they need to get used to being offended in kind.

Other Comments by Slainte

12. Comment #60228 by maton100 on August 1, 2007 at 10:51 am

When a book is more important than human life, I'll take toilet flushing more seriously. I can name several fleas that need to be flushed...

Other Comments by maton100

13. Comment #60230 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2007 at 10:57 am

Could I draw everyones attention to the fact that Ibrahim Hooper is an unindicted co-conspirator in gathering funds for HAMAS?

And that he has said, quote:

>>"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of
the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education.<<

Close quote.

And of course, CAIR is a front organisation for Islamic totalitarians. You can find it all out at: http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

14. Comment #60233 by Extropian on August 1, 2007 at 11:02 am

Throwing a book into the toilet is intimidation? 'socratzsche' got it right; its an act of contempt. If Muslims, Odin worshipers, or anyone else wants to chant their innermost desires into the night sky and hope that a magical being, whatever the name, might grant those wishes, they are free to do that. Everyone else is free not to do that, and more importantly, we are all free to expound our reasons for not doing so in a public or private forum. If I want to throw a book in the toilet, I can do so at any time or for any reason. Apparently, these sorts of freedoms are not compatible with being a Muslim. And, what is also apparent is, if they come to power in the United States as they would wish, they'll be sticking their heads in a lot of toilets. Just checking for acts intimidation, of course. As for me, since childhood I have lived my life under the assumption that its not my head that belongs in the toilet nor does one intimidate anyone by throwing a book in there. :) Now flying a plane into a building, THAT's intimidating.

Other Comments by Extropian

15. Comment #60235 by AJ Rae on August 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

Are motives themselves crimes now? Wouldn't that be classified a "thought crime"?

Other Comments by AJ Rae

16. Comment #60236 by PrimeNumbers on August 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

Islam has a real problem. But I really would have liked Hitchins to read out a paragraph from the Koran that tells it's followers to kill unbelievers as that is most undoubtably an example of a true hate crime.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

17. Comment #60241 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

Hitchens has said it before and it's true, the very people who are claiming hate speech are the very people who kill others in the name of their free speech and freedom of religion.

"And up go the placards, and up go the yells and the howls and the screams, behead those who cartoon Islam".

Other Comments by scooternyc

18. Comment #60245 by troodon on August 1, 2007 at 11:27 am

The 11th commandment: "When the truth fails in promoting Islam, Christianity or Judaism, thou shalt lie, cheat, deceive, intimidate and kill."

What a liar that Hooper is!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017601.php#more

I visited the CAIR website http://www.cair.com/ to leave a comment on their forum, but what a shock - there is no forum.

Other Comments by troodon

19. Comment #60255 by jaf on August 1, 2007 at 11:49 am

I fail utterly to comprehend what exactly is the big deal?
I meantersay, I *never* go for a dump without a book.

Other Comments by jaf

20. Comment #60256 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 11:55 am

If you haven't heard this recently, it's worth listening to again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJExwAQP4Eg

Other Comments by scooternyc

21. Comment #60262 by debaser71 on August 1, 2007 at 12:15 pm

"Get used to it."

Other Comments by debaser71

22. Comment #60267 by robotaholic on August 1, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I absolutely detest religion in general, in any form it may take. Islam is probably the most despised by me. I don't see how flushing a KORAN or Quoran or w/e you call it down the toilet is intimidation - anyone who says that is terribly sensitive and needs to control themselves.

I like how CH is getting in on the debates now on tv all the time! coolio

Other Comments by robotaholic

23. Comment #60270 by mark1958 on August 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm

I have to say as much as I support the movement on this website, I think some lines have been crossed here, and I would define this student's actions as a hate crime. The fact is that the student stole the Korans and then placed in a toliet. He destroyed property that belonged to a specific group of people that did not belong to him. It would be the same as someone taking paint and making ethnic or racial slurs on a church, temple or mosque. They are defacing property for which is owned by someone else. If he would have purchased his own Korans and did a similar act the situation would get more grey but this is not what happened.

Other Comments by mark1958

24. Comment #60274 by ccrenshaw on August 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm

mark1958, i suppose if someone stole my copy of "Origin of Species" and put it in a toilet that would be a hate crime as well. No. It would be theft and destruction of property.

Other Comments by ccrenshaw

25. Comment #60275 by PrimeNumbers on August 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm

If the student stole the books, then he should be charged with the crime of theft. That is obvious. However, disposing of the said book does not in itself make it a hate crime.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

26. Comment #60276 by bruce on August 1, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I don't care how much time they devote to a subject, I can never get much out of these TV debates. The hosts are the worst, they never ask decent questions.

Other Comments by bruce

27. Comment #60279 by scooternyc on August 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm

"I would define this student's actions as a hate crime"

And on what authority would you be defining such actions?

To what end have you subjectively made such a decision?

You clearly don't understand anything on this subject as it was without a doubt stated that Islam is a religion and therefore a "hate crime" is impossible since it's not against a protected entity such as women, gays, ethnicity, etc.

Other Comments by scooternyc

28. Comment #60287 by silent_brook on August 1, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Right at the end, Mr. Hooper, suggests that the first amendment prohibits a citizen from criticizing religion. Which, of course, is not what it says at all. The first amendment protects a citizen's right to free speech, and prohibits the Government from favoring or criticizing a religion. The first amendment prohibits the government from defending a religion against criticism. Hitch tries to point this out to him, "You have neither read nor understood the first amendment." I worry the "average viewer" won't pick up on it; mostly because not enough attention was given to this huge misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Hooper.

Other Comments by silent_brook

29. Comment #60288 by happyatheist on August 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Exactly what scooternyc said. LOL! I'm black and female. A "hate crime" against me would be a group of neo-Nazi skinheads kicking my arse simply cuz I'm a black female. A white female kicking my arse is NOT a "hate crime" just cuz I'm losing. LOL! I suppose if racial slurs were spoken from either one of us, then either one of us could be charged with a "hate crime." ...Flushing a religious text down the toilet (or burning it...or crapping on it...etc.) is NOT a "hate crime"....even if some people find those acts of expression tacky or tasteless.

Other Comments by happyatheist

30. Comment #60315 by cassdenata on August 1, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I never thought I would be agreeing with Dennis Prager the most in this discussion. In my oh-so-humble opinion, the example that Mr Hooper gives of people videotaping the shooting of a Koran and then putting the Koran on the doorstep of a mosque is most definitely intimidation and likely a hate crime. Christopher weakens his argument when he disputes this. I waiver back and forth on whether I think the Pace University example is a hate crime or not. When I replace muslims being the targets with homosexuals or blacks, it automatically puts a bad taste in my mouth and has me thinking it is a hate crime, which perhaps shows my atheistic liberal bias. In the end, a religion is a belief system, not specifically an ethnic group or an inborn feature (although there is a huge overlap between culture and religion). If a member of the college republicans stole a Bill Clinton book from the college dems and put it in the toilet, I would laugh to think this was a hate crime. But they are directly equivalent.

In closing though, there is a lot of general bigotry towards muslims of any stripe. Although there are plenty of muslims committing atrocious acts, there are still large numbers of muslims, who are great people. We have to walk a fine line between criticizing an ideology and criticizing our fellow humans.

Other Comments by cassdenata

31. Comment #60317 by colluvial on August 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

At what point will the inclusion of pork on a restaurant menu be considered a hate crime? If we all had to be on our guard against offending anyone's religious (non)sensibilities, we wouldn't have time for anything else.

Other Comments by colluvial

32. Comment #60321 by Donald on August 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Scooternyc, comment #60256, thanks for the HItchens debate youtube link. I hadn't seen it.

I noticed the following segment of his debate speech:

"Not all monotheistic religions are the same at the moment. They are all based on the same illusions, they are all plagiarisms of each other, but there is one in particular which at the moment is posing a serious menace, not just to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but to quite a lot of other freedoms too. This religion exhibits the horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity. I'm talking about militant Islam. Globally it's a gigantic power. It controls an enormous amount of oil wealth, several large countries and states, with an enormous fortune, and it's pumping the ideology of wahabism and salafism around the world, poisoning societies where it goes, ruining the minds of children, stultifying the young in its madrasas, training people in violence, making a cult of death and suicide and murder. That's what it does globally. It's quite strong. In our societies it poses as a cringing minority whose faith you might offend, which deserves all the protection that a small and vulnerable group might need."

It's another perspective, and I think we need a global perspective when discussing religions in the world today.


As regards the smaller issue of flushing a book down the toilet, I think it's ridiculous (and dangerous to free speech) to label this a hate crime. The term "hate crime" should be reserved for explicit statements or actions likely to induce people to commit criminal acts. The passive act of flushing a book is at most an act of disrespect.

Other Comments by Donald

33. Comment #60324 by numpty on August 1, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Ilovelucy - "First!"

The Neandarthal icon is appropriate. :/ Just me, or is there an IQ degradation around these parts?

Other Comments by numpty

34. Comment #60326 by CJ22 on August 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm

The real victory here is that when CNN wanted to put together a debate about religious hate-crime, they called a Jew, a Muslim AND an ATHEIST!

Other Comments by CJ22

35. Comment #60330 by D'Arcy on August 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm

What a profound insult to an extremely useful artifact, produced by human labour, a toilet, to throw a Koran into it. The Ukrainian has defiled the toilet, and must suffer the wrath of the great Turd in the sky.
Give me sewage over religion any day.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

36. Comment #60332 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm

33. Comment #60324 by numpty

"The Neandarthal icon is appropriate. :/ Just me, or is there an IQ degradation around these parts?"

Now, now numpty be careful, you'll have the IQ police after you for daring to make such a remark!

Other Comments by Yorker

37. Comment #60359 by Salvatore on August 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Can I hope to find a copy of the God Delusion in the next public toilet I visit?

Other Comments by Salvatore

38. Comment #60360 by Converse02 on August 1, 2007 at 5:04 pm

The Koran says atheists deserve to be tortured for all eternity in a lake of fire.

Really, atheists should be the ones suing Muslims for committing hate crimes.

Other Comments by Converse02

39. Comment #60370 by DingoDave on August 1, 2007 at 5:24 pm

"I suppose if someone stole my copy of "Origin of Species" and put it in a toilet that would be a hate crime as well. No. It would be theft and destruction of property."
and
"Any sensible person can see that the Ukrainian flushing a Koran in the toilet was not an act of intimidation but an act of contempt."

If the book was the property of the library, then perhaps he should be required to replace it and apologise to the the University for destroying public property.

The writing of a book like the Koran, if it were perpetrated today, would rightly be considered a hate crime. Considering the Koran's numerous invocations of violence, discrimination, and contempt for all non- Muslims, it is beyond me how anyone could have the gall and hypocricy to condemn someone who displays a similar contempt for this vile book.
Why can't we all agree to condemn invocations towards violence and discrimination wherever we find them? Whether they be in the Bible, or the Koran, or the pages of Mein Kampf.
Many Muslims and Christians set their holy books and their holy prophets up as idols which must be worshipped and which must not be questioned.

Idolator: n
One who worships idols.
One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another.

The ex-preacher and counter-apologist Farrell Till describes people like these as 'Bibliolators'.
Forget the expression, 'people of the book', how about we start referring to people like this as 'worshippers of the book'?

I'm all for putting warning stickers on the covers of these holy books outlining just how hateful and discriminatory some of their contents really are.
But then I suppose that we'd have a bunch of crazy Bibliolators threatening to blow up public libraries in the name of their 'peaceful' religion.

Other Comments by DingoDave

40. Comment #60395 by mark1958 on August 1, 2007 at 6:50 pm

24. Comment #60274 by ccrenshaw on August 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm
mark1958, i suppose if someone stole my copy of "Origin of Species" and put it in a toilet that would be a hate crime as well. No. It would be theft and destruction of property.
29. Comment #60288 by happyatheist on August 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Exactly what scooternyc said. LOL! I'm black and female. A "hate crime" against me would be a group of neo-Nazi skinheads kicking my arse simply cuz I'm a black female. A white female kicking my arse is NOT a "hate crime" just cuz I'm losing. LOL! I suppose if racial slurs were spoken from either one of us, then either one of us could be charged with a "hate crime." ...Flushing a religious text down the toilet (or burning it...or crapping on it...etc.) is NOT a "hate crime"....even if some people find those acts of expression tacky or tasteless.


Since the book was stolen it is a crime by definition. SInce it was used to intimidate a specific religious group by definition it is a hate crime. The Origins of Species is a scientific thesis and does not represent a particular ethnic, racial, nationalist etc group -- eg. not all people who believe in Darwin are athetists (I know this is the point you are trying to make). Therefore the act under question cannot be compared.

If you deface a temple or church with racists remarks the crime is considered a hate crime rather than only defacing private property--- (e.g. stealing a book)?

Other Comments by mark1958

41. Comment #60412 by Theocrapcy on August 1, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Hooper is conned by his own stupidity. He claims to know where expression ends and hate begins, but implies Islam should have special dispensation from the law.

This is Islamic law encroaching on the law itself. Islamists need to be reminded, and if need be offended by the actions and RIGHT of rest of us to speak freely within the confines of the LAW, which is the final word.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

42. Comment #60414 by Maximus222 on August 1, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Concerning Post 9.
I am really tired of people misrepresenting Hitchens' position on the war in Iraq. WMD was never a reason he argued for regime change, or at least it wasn't as critical an issue as the human rights violations occuring in the country, and its known associations with unsavory characters intent on damaging secular institutions of government and civil society.
Agree or disagree, but please quite mis-representing his position in an effort to build him into a straw man. Clearly the Iraq issue is more complex than the definately yeas and the definately nays would have us believe. The position hitchens has articulated on the war reflects that (in fact I would argue he has made a better case for the war than the administration ever did).
He has been as critical of the handling of post regime change policy as anyone.
I don't quite agree with him on the iraq issue, but I think I understand much more about Iraq and its troubles, past and present for having heard Hitchens.

Other Comments by Maximus222

43. Comment #60415 by Goodwithwood on August 1, 2007 at 9:30 pm

16. Comment #60236 by PrimeNumbers on August 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

Islam has a real problem. But I really would have liked Hitchins to read out a paragraph from the Koran that tells it's followers to kill unbelievers as that is most undoubtably an example of a true hate crime.

Lets be fair and balanced.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.

Luke 19;27

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

44. Comment #60416 by roach on August 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm

It's not a hate crime. Get over it.

Other Comments by roach

45. Comment #60417 by Zaphod on August 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Lets all get a long and walk in fields of flowers and pat bunny rabbits while we eat honey. Please tell that guy to dispel his naivety. If you disagree with someone it can offend them. Should be never have disagreements. If you think certain beliefs and idiotic and vulgar you offend them. Should we not give our opinions for fear of offence. Personally I will give mine any time I blood well choose too.

Other Comments by Zaphod

46. Comment #60423 by JimmyT on August 1, 2007 at 10:19 pm

mark1958, let's not get carried away here.

The guy put a library book down the toilet. Nobody got hurt. It was just a not-very-subtle attempt to hurt the feelings of some people he had fallen out with. If expressing hatred is a crime, most of the people on this site, including me, would be banged up for hating (strong word I know) the central views of most religions and the effect they have on the world.

He didn't burn effigies of the Muslim guys he had problems with and call for them to be killed. He didn't put a horse's head in their bed. He didn't send them a bullet in the post. All of these could quite justifiably be called intimidation and altogether more sinister. I'm sure the Muslim chaps he upset aren't laying awake at night in fear of being 'bog-washed' (as we call it in the UK).

You say that "The Origins of Species is a scientific thesis and does not represent a particular ethnic, racial, nationalist etc group". Correct, but neither does the Koran. Muslims can stop being Muslims tomorrow. You can't change your parents or where you were born, but you can change your views on life and the universe whenever you like.

I happen to "believe in Darwin" (as you put it), I've even seen a photograph of him. If you mean "Darwinism", I happen to think that evolution and natural selection are true. By flushing a copy of "Origin…" book down the pan, are you not committing the same crime against those who "know" Darwinism is true, as the student did against those who "know" the teachings of Islam are true? Both "Origin…" and the Koran are a symbol of a person's view of the world, it's just that "Darwinists" don't happen to think the book was dictated by the one and only god through an angel. For some reason, you think this means they should get less protection from the state. I happen to think I should not get any preferential treatment because of my "beliefs", and neither should anyone else.

Other Comments by JimmyT

47. Comment #60426 by troyreynolds86 on August 1, 2007 at 10:37 pm

I have never been a supporter of legislating "hate crimes". My main objection is that it places a greater emphasis upon certain motives for evil deeds over other motives while rendering the deed itself as a secondary consideration. Using the obvious example, a racially motivated crime, while being breed from a hatred of a race and is more morally repugnant for that reason alone, shouldn't be treated as a greater crime because we would be legislating thought, in this case detestable thought, but in fairness to the First Amendment even the ugliest thoughts of all are still protected. This exists as only my opinion and I certainly would expect a thousand dissenting opinions to this, but I can't find justification in escalating the significance of immoral acts based upon the thought behind it. While our sense of social justice demands we punish the perpetrators of repugnant thought with greater zeal we should in turn remain consistent with our belief in Free Speech and Free Thought in all spectrums, especially when it is what we find most repelling because we would demand the same when our thoughts were repelling to another. Justifying irrational hatreds remains a rather unpopular position in our sensitive world, but my own demands of unfettered thought demands in turn that I never impose upon any other thought regardless of the ugliness.
Hate Crime legislation also applies a fresh coat of grease to the slipperiest of slopes in finding a act that can be interpreted as intimidating as being unlawful leads us all to a place that we wouldn't want to be. If it is a Hate Crime to simply say or do things that can be merely condemned as hateful because they cause the opposition's participants to feel as though they are being intimidated out of the public square then such actions as counter-protest and public debate begin to suffer the ultimate consequence. Too easily a tool those types of laws can be to dissolve all and any dissenting opinions.
Should we include in any form of speech racial, ethinic or sexual slurs. No. But neither should we demand they remain legally unutterable phrases because we would loose the right to utter our little gems like Fundie and Faith-head. While none of these are equally repugnant they are all born of the same contempt. Again, laws regarding the hate within a crime remains quite beyond the bounds of the law.
What this kid did was a nasty, idiotic waste that is barely recognizable as protest. But there remains a question, would we be as angered at his action, and think of it as equally hateful and deserving of retribution, had he stolen a copy of Mein Kampf from a Skinhead and deposited it into a toilet in an act of equal dissent? Any who find fault in his present action would certainly have to agree that this would be equal and yet I doubt many would see it that way.
It will forever remain upon the docket of public debate the circle of protection that should be offered by a free society, and while exciting our own personal violent tendencies upon the grounds of our own personal prejudices, scribbling hurtful words upon a building wall or attempting to flush a distasteful book into the sewers with the rest of the crap strikes us as being a "Hate Crime" I find it imperative that we overlook the thought behind it and focus on the act itself or else we may loose the privilege of free public vocalization that someone may find hurtful. And nothing could be more hurtful to a society, and would remain light-years beyond hateful motives, than that.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

48. Comment #60428 by Tumara Baap on August 1, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Koran down the toilet issue should not be judged in light of the failings of Islam or Muslims, however tempting that may be. Jews have been brutally persecuted in Europe, and it must've been easy enough for those involved in the Spanish Inquisition to cherry pick violent passages in the Torah or use miscreant Jews to somewhat justify their own crimes.
Islam has a rich heritage in advancing math, science and literature. Islamic sects such as sufism are relatively peaceful. Other sects such as the Ismailis under Aga Khan are very modern and progressive. Islam also has extremist sects such as Wahabis and has scripture that is plainly barbaric. My point is that other religions (all of them wrong) are not too different; they have their extremists on one hand and also followers who are otherwise decent folk with admirable traditions but live in a deluded Godly world . Admittedly the muslim mind set may be more deeply steeped in medieval times. But our own standards of hate crime against any religious group, muslim or otherwise, should not be influenced by that religion's extremists or by drawing attention to their shameful scripture. I have nothing but utter contempt for the Koran, and would happily use its pages for wiping my ass crack. What that kid did was clearly not a hate crime. However, muslim transgession plays no role one way or the other in upholding that view. I'd be the first to defend any real assault or intimidation against a muslim individual, even if all of that individual's brethren are intolerant of others.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

49. Comment #60433 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2007 at 12:03 am

I read Jihad Watch, the site that this miserable little creature tried to defame. None of those comments have ever been posted on the main site by any of the main proprieters, but have occasionally shown up in the comments. Who can claim responsibility for the comments made on a site?

And there is good reason to believe that these comments were planted specifically by the likes of Hooper:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017601.php#comments

Anyway, JIHAD WATCH. Read it.

>>Islam has a rich heritage in advancing math, science and literature<<

No, it doesn't. The "Golden Age" of Islam was when it had recently conquered many non-Islamic populations, and the great minds of Islam were either dhimmi or first- or second-generation converts, who, in fact, were much closer to heretics than muslims. Averroes denied the immortality of the soul.

And guess what? Those greats don't belong to Islam, they belong to the West. Because the West took them in when they were thrown out by Islam. Who the heck is Ibn Rushd? Noone - he became Averroes, and helped inaugurate the Enlightenment. Who is Ibn Sina? Noone - he became Avincenna, one of the great medics of antiquity.

Islam is nothing but stagnation.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

50. Comment #60436 by PsyPro on August 2, 2007 at 12:16 am

As much as I agree with Hitchen's defenestration of religious nonsense, I haven't seen this elsewhere, and sometimes warning stickers (as rock album producers of the 80s and 90s recognised) can be useful for sales: <http://bp1.blogger.com/_IWn1UTEW0RY/RqeHZxAVowI/AAAAAAAADZ4/chPZekPJdxM/s1600-h/bible_fiction.jpg>

Other Comments by PsyPro