Anti-Muslim ad to appear in NYC subways

[Quesi]

Do you consider all Palestinians to be Mujahideen?

It was a little embarrassing the first time you said it.  Even more so when you say it twice. 

Not sure if you took the time to watch the trailer to the documentary that I posted.  Were the old lady and the little kid mujaheddin?  Even if they took up arms after being evicted from their homes, would that make them holy warriors?  Or people fighting to get their homes back.

Now try, for a moment, to imagine yourself in the position of the people in that video.  Imagine if, at 10 AM, a mob of your neighbors came and dragged you out of your home that you had lived in since 1954, and put your possessions in the street.  Imagine they did that to a subset of your other neighbors as well.  And all you guys who got evicted banded together, trying to figure out how to get your homes back.  If you had Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Wiccan parents,  you would not be fighting as a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim to get your home back.  You would be fighting as someone who lost his home. 

The people who evicted them clearly believed that they were "savages."  The cited scriptures saying that this was there land.  They are the chosen people.  The people they are evicting are savages. 

Did you read the article about the Palestinian guy who lives in DC?  Did you read about how he and his wife have to fly into different airports, go over different bridges, go through different security checks, even though they are both Palestinian?  He was born inside of Israel, and has an Israeli passport.  His wife was born 30 miles away, but outside of Israel, and as a Palestinian cannot even enter Israel with her husband.

Are they mujaheddin?  Or is she just a savage?

You want to talk about the lunatics in Afghanistan, (who were, by the way, recruited and trained and fed religious and nationalistic bullshit by the CIA in order to mobilize them to fight against the former Soviet Union, but that is another story)  you can call them mujaheddin.  They are, at this point, religious fanatics fighting a holy war.  Not refugees hoping to get their homes back. 

[12 Monkeys]

Attacking a persons religious choice is NOT the same as stereotyping a group of people of a different ethnic background and singling them out for attack.   If and when the Caucasians become a minority (soon enough) and are singled out for extermination.... then we will see.

Yes these two factions are of different religions and are of similar ethnicity.....but the Jews are targeting a people and taking over their LAND.....but of course you may be OK with it since your forfathers did it to us in North America (I am Aboriginal)

As I said, I try not to stereotype people. I am not singling out a group of people for attack. I am not calling for Palestinians, Native Americans or anyone else to be singled out for extermination. However, here you seem to be stereotyping Caucasians as behaving that way and calling for their extermination. Is this a Poe?

My point was that YOU are Caucasian and YOU do not care if it doesn't burden YOU....and when it  STARTS burdening YOU,,,,YOU heard it HERE with ME first. Just because YOU are not yet burdened by the problems does NOT mean you wont in the future. Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America....

 I bet you will want to take action when things start making your life miserable.......you see decent people try to stand up for what is right all the time not just when it starts to effect them.

[12 Monkeys]

Case in point.  The cartoons of Mohammed have led to rioting and deaths.  So they were dangerous?  So they should have been legally prevented from being published?

I don't think so.

Is publishing something you must purchase,a magazine or paper to see the offensive different from an advertisment for all to see?

[Bereft_of_Faith]

Just how do you figure the Jewish nation is being civilized?.....going house to house to rid neighborhoods of people so you can bulldoz down their houses  and build your own houses is hardly civilized.

 If you know Vancouver BC you know Stanley park....there were Indian villages in the park and surrounding areas.....in the early 1900's(maybe late 1800's) they drove bulldozers into what is now Stanley park and destroyed the houses there to make said park.....hardly the act of the civilized,more a savage act would you agree?

I didn't say anything about the jewish state.  The first statement says nothing about the jewish state.  It talks about standing against a destructive force/practice/tactic aimed against civilizations.    The US, Spain, Britain, and India, all have had high-profile vicious attacks perpetrated against people who have nothing to do with the conflict in the middle east (civilians, non-combatants, citizens).  Those who think that Israel acts barbarically are free to express their opinion as well.   

[Death over Life]

So I get a day off from this thread, and it's now dealing with race as opposed to free speech? 

Seriously, if we want to keep looking at others for their ethnicity or skin color, how about we just drop the human race population to 0 and be done with it. There we go, no more who believe in a god, and thus, won't be offended at stupid movies, and no people to get upset about over skins or ethnicity or who's a minority or who's a majority etc.

[Mr. Blackwell]

It's a fine example of how easily people can be distracted even without any coordinated effort.

[Anfauglir]

Case in point.  The cartoons of Mohammed have led to rioting and deaths.  So they were dangerous?  So they should have been legally prevented from being published?

I don't think so.

Is publishing something you must purchase,a magazine or paper to see the offensive different from an advertisment for all to see?

I don't know.  Is it?  Does a hateful message suddenly become not-hateful because I'd paid money for it before I knew it was there?  Are you saying that it is a terrible thing to have that poster on the subway, that it was hateful and should be banned, but if it was on an ad on page 34 of your favourite magazine it wouldn't cause you the slightest problem?

This has been my point all along.  If the message is wrong, its wrong.  Either you can say something, or you can't (or perhaps that should be "should/shouldn't).  And this is where 3Sigma and I seem to be united in wanting to know exactly what the criteria are.  And in my case, knowing that those criteria will not be used against me in a dozen years time as the boundaries shift.

[3sigma]

It was a little embarrassing the first time you said it.  Even more so when you say it twice. 

Not sure if you took the time to watch the trailer to the documentary that I posted.  Were the old lady and the little kid mujaheddin?  Even if they took up arms after being evicted from their homes, would that make them holy warriors?  Or people fighting to get their homes back.

I’m not saying all Palestinians are Mujahideen and neither is the advertisement. I imagine most Palestinians are just trying to get by under occupation, but there are groups within Palestine (notably Palestinian Islamic Jihad) that kidnap, shoot and bomb Israelis. The reason I ask the question is because you said the advertisement portrays Palestinians as savages and Azdgari said the advertisement calls all Palestinians savages. However, the advertisement doesn’t actually mention Palestinians at all. It says, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” It doesn’t say defeat Palestine. It doesn’t say all Palestinians are engaged in jihad. People engaged in jihad are called Mujahideen. The Palestinians are not the only Muslim group engaged in jihad against Israel. Last month there was an attack by Islamic militants on Israel’s Egyptian border and Iran is calling for the elimination of Israel.

Now try, for a moment, to imagine yourself in the position of the people in that video. 
…
The people who evicted them clearly believed that they were "savages."  The cited scriptures saying that this was there land.  They are the chosen people.  The people they are evicting are savages.

Are you saying this was caused by the yet to be displayed advertisements in a New York subway or any similar advertisement? This deep-seated hatred appears to have been caused by ancient religious beliefs long before any advertisements.

Did you read the article about the Palestinian guy who lives in DC?
…
Are they mujaheddin?  Or is she just a savage?

Yes, I did read that article. I presume neither he nor his wife have kidnapped, shot or bombed anyone so I would say they are neither Mujahideen nor savages. However, there are constant attacks on Israel by Palestinian militants engaged in jihad and, yes, there is constant oppression of the Palestinians by the IDF. I read a first-hand report describing this oppression last month. I just don’t think an advertisement in a New York subway is going to change the situation in the Middle East in any way.

[3sigma]

My point was that YOU are Caucasian and YOU do not care if it doesn't burden YOU....and when it  STARTS burdening YOU,,,,YOU heard it HERE with ME first. Just because YOU are not yet burdened by the problems does NOT mean you wont in the future. Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America....

 I bet you will want to take action when things start making your life miserable.......you see decent people try to stand up for what is right all the time not just when it starts to effect them.

No doubt I will be one the first against the wall come the revolution.

[12 Monkeys]

My point was that YOU are Caucasian and YOU do not care if it doesn't burden YOU....and when it  STARTS burdening YOU,,,,YOU heard it HERE with ME first. Just because YOU are not yet burdened by the problems does NOT mean you wont in the future. Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America....

 I bet you will want to take action when things start making your life miserable.......you see decent people try to stand up for what is right all the time not just when it starts to effect them.

No doubt I will be one the first against the wall come the revolution.

It is not about that it is about losing what you are comfortable with now...the place you exist in now .....it will change,someday you may have to put up a fight to be treated equally...as you said it does not effect you ,you don't care. Can I ask you why you ignore it?

[3sigma]

It is not about that it is about losing what you are comfortable with now...the place you exist in now .....it will change,someday you may have to put up a fight to be treated equally...as you said it does not effect you ,you don't care. Can I ask you why you ignore it?

I’m ignoring your supposed future dystopia because, even if your prediction that “Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America” comes true, I doubt it will have any significant effect on my life.

[Quesi]

I’m not saying all Palestinians are Mujahideen and neither is the advertisement.

(Bold mine)

Actually, it is.  Israeli policies treat all Palestinians as savages.  Their movements are restricted. Their homes and property are not really theirs.  Their access to government services and representation is at most tokenism.  The government imposes curfews it fails to tell its Palestinian residents about, and then feels justified in killing a few dozen folks who violated the curfew. 

And then, when the Palestinians get pissed off about being evicted from their homes or having their family members assassinated, the Israeli infrastructure gets to point at their uprisings as proof of their savagery, or label them as terrorists. 

I think it is impossible to underestimate the role that the Palestinian situation plays on the international stage.  For Muslims around the world, including the non-Arab Muslim majority, the Palestinian situation is a rallying point. 

When Muslims get mad about pictures of Mohammad or youtube videos, please understand that they are really already mad about the dehumanization of Palestinians.[1]  They see these symbolic attacks on their beliefs and practices as a reminder of their vulnerability, and they live with the ever-present fear that their lives could be transformed into the lives that the Palestinians have been forced to endure now for generations, in which their land is not theirs, their national resources are not theirs, and their right to self-determination is stripped away. 

And it is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  We watch the protests against these cartoons and whatnot from the safety of our comfortable homes, and we shake our heads at how irrational they are, and we forget the greater context.  Just as most Americans look at the 9/11 attacks with outrage, and just as most Americans can identify with the victims, most Muslims look at the Palestinian situation with outrage and identify with the victims.   

But when we fail to recognize the context in which the outrage is taking place, it is indeed easy to dismiss these angry people as savages.

And then those who have a vested interest in the perpetuation of this real and symbolic oppression, want to capitalized on widespread Western ignorance about world events, and  put up a sign (in a public space) naming the primary victims of this oppression as savages. 

1.	And deadly drone strikes on their land and foreign occupation and a few other things as well

[Quesi]

I’m ignoring your supposed future dystopia because, even if your prediction that “Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America” comes true, I doubt it will have any significant effect on my life.

And certainly, YOUR LIFE is all that you should be concerned with.   The impact that your life has on the rest of humanity is irrelevant. 

[3sigma]

And certainly, YOUR LIFE is all that you should be concerned with.   The impact that your life has on the rest of humanity is irrelevant.

Oh please, give it a rest would you? Should I take the fact you’ve failed to mention the impact your life has on the rest of humanity as indicating you think it is irrelevant?

[shnozzola]

Now that the "freedom of speech" question has been put to rest, does anyone care to chat about the Israeli/ Palestinian issues?

        If I was Jewish, and heard that Israel had now been established as a homeland based on the outcome of World War II, and I could have a family taken out of the house I wanted to move into, I would decline.  That seems madness.

        If I was Jewish, born in Israel since the establishment of the Jewish state, and learned the history of the region, and understood that my family may have a better chance of being killed living in this region - then the Palestinians have won – I’d move.

       If I was Palestinian, and a Jewish family showed up and removed me from my house in the late 1940s, I would swear a few WTF storms, and, being horrified, move my family from the region, never to return, and forever look down on the Jewish families that felt entitled to have someone removed from their homes.  But I would never attack anyone.  Those Jewish families would have won.

   If Jewish, the thing I would not do would be to continue to treat Palestinians with contempt.  The way the two societies separate themselves is madness.   Palestinians would be able to settle and live wherever they want in the region, with ethnicity and/or nationality downplayed as much as possible.

   If Palestinian, the thing I would not do is attack Jewish people, realizing that the sooner the region “gets over” the actions of the past, the sooner the area can progress, with Jewish people and Palestinian people living wherever they want.
___________________________________________
But instead, why don’t Jewish people continue to mistreat the Palestinians, and be surprised at the next bus blowing up, while the Palestinians continue to blow up buses, and be surprised when they are mistreated.  Madness. 

-the only thing we can hope (so the entire world can relax ) is that the younger generations of both sides get tired of the madness.

[periboob]

This ad, and the movie, and the cartoons, and child porn are all examples of how silly it is to talk about Freedom of Speech.

Just the idea of Freedom of Speech is an example of how innocent and primitive the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were. They were just trying to make Baptists and Methodists get along. They could never have imagined a world where Christians had to mingle with Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Comet Worshipers, followers of Jim Jones, Atheists... Cool aid drinkers all. If your society and its neighbors have a mixture of beliefs, you cannot have free speech without anonymity--  If your neighbors are saying the wrong thing (or drinking the wrong thing, smoking the wrong thing, displaying the wrong flag, doing the right thing on the wrong day, just generally setting a bad example) it is violence.

If people say the wrong thing, they set a bad example for your children that may cause them to lose the vision of the truth, and burn in a lake of fire forever. Or they may cause your children to rule their life by myths and fairy tales rather than logic and science. One of the reasons that those without religion are uncomfortable around religion is that they know that it can make their children gullible, and more easily rallied into other forms of mob psychology, following the loudest voice into combat with the other tribe.

I see few examples of religion being the cause of human nastiness, but it has frequently been the tool that allowed or helped evil men to rise to power. Religion produces gullibility, and gullibility allows the rabble to be roused to violence against the infidels. Power-hungry leaders have used this characteristic of religion to rally the pack against "enemies" countless times.

There are leaders in every society who use "those violent people over there" to mobilize the mob, and thereby increase their own power. And the greatest ally of the violent leader, is the violent leader on the other side. My analysis is that the maker of the ad, the movie and the cartoons are, perhaps knowingly, inciting violence, so that the resulting storm can be held up as an example of "the savagery" of those over there, and the ad maker etc can grow their own flock.

Those who's way of life is fragile, those who live in despair, the hopeless, are the easiest to lead to extremism, and the easiest to rally violently. Short of joining the serve-and-volley of violence, the only way I can see out, is to help those others out of their hopeless fragile conditions.

Thanks for an interesting discussion, and have a nice Sunday.
-------------------------
Well I'm standing by a river
But the water doesn't flow
It boils with every poison you can think of
And I'm underneath the streetlights
But the light of joy I know
Scared beyond belief way down in the shadows
And the perverted fear of violence
Chokes a smile on every face
And common sense is ringing out the bells
This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is the road to Hell
And all the roads jam up with credit
And there's nothing you can do
It's all just bits of paper
Flying away from you
Look out world take a good look
What comes down here
You must learn this lesson fast
And learn it well
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway
Oh no, this is the road to Hell 

~ Chris Rea "Road to Hell II"

[Gohavesomefun]

Freedom of speech has an errand of responsibility tied with in it and any person with a sense of morality, can see that at some point someone needs to step in to apprise and educate to as why certain beliefs are inhumane and cruel. It is up to each individual to make their own choices and it's my belief that most people want good things for themselves and others.

[12 Monkeys]

It is not about that it is about losing what you are comfortable with now...the place you exist in now .....it will change,someday you may have to put up a fight to be treated equally...as you said it does not effect you ,you don't care. Can I ask you why you ignore it?

I’m ignoring your supposed future dystopia because, even if your prediction that Caucasians will be a minority by 2030 in North America comes true, I doubt it will have any significant effect on my life.

Fair enough

[Anfauglir]

I bet you will want to take action when things start making your life miserable.......you see decent people try to stand up for what is right all the time not just when it starts to effect them.....It is not about that it is about losing what you are comfortable with now...the place you exist in now .....it will change,someday you may have to put up a fight to be treated equally...as you said it does not effect you ,you don't care. Can I ask you why you ignore it?

12M, I found this to be a very interesting question.  I can see exactly what you mean by it, hearkening to the famous verse by Martin Niemoller: "First they came for....".  And one significant part of me is right behind that.

But what also worries me is that while I stand by the idea of opposition - stand by the talking against the hateful groups, of spreading the truth, or displaying the rebuttal posters - I have trouble with the idea of refusal: of simply banning anything that "we, today" regard as hateful.  Because I can see the application of Niemoller there as well - "first they took away the right to speak from this group, then from that group.... then when they took away MY right to speak, there was no-one to speak up for me." 

I may agree with the way the courts define "hateful" today....but will I agree with them tomorrow?  Look at Ireland's blasphemy laws, for example.  Laws that - basically - say "you can say this, but not that".  And in general, I don't agree with that at all. 

[Quesi]

I guess I’m just really surprised by the number of people on this forum who take issue with long-standing judicial decisions to weigh freedom of expression against freedom from harm. 

Anfauglir, Sigma, HAL, and others who are concerned about ANY restrictions on freedom of speech, may I ask again if you oppose the restrictions on prayer at sporting events at public universities?

Why or why not? 

[3sigma]

Anfauglir, Sigma, HAL, and others who are concerned about ANY restrictions on freedom of speech, may I ask again if you oppose the restrictions on prayer at sporting events at public universities?

Why or why not?

I am not opposed to any restriction on free speech and I haven’t said that here or even implied it. In fact, I’ve given instances where freedom of speech should be restricted—notably, direct incitement to violence. The problem I have with your desire to ban the advertisement in your OP is that I don’t consider it to be a direct incitement to violence. I think you are overreacting to it.

You will need to be more specific about the prayers being opposed. If prayers are mandated or led by the school authorities then, while it is still a First Amendment issue, it comes under the Establishment Clause rather than the Freedom of Speech Clause. If they aren’t endorsed by the school authorities then I don’t have a problem with them.

[12 Monkeys]

I bet you will want to take action when things start making your life miserable.......you see decent people try to stand up for what is right all the time not just when it starts to effect them.....It is not about that it is about losing what you are comfortable with now...the place you exist in now .....it will change,someday you may have to put up a fight to be treated equally...as you said it does not effect you ,you don't care. Can I ask you why you ignore it?

12M, I found this to be a very interesting question.  I can see exactly what you mean by it, hearkening to the famous verse by Martin Niemoller: "First they came for....".  And one significant part of me is right behind that.

But what also worries me is that while I stand by the idea of opposition - stand by the talking against the hateful groups, of spreading the truth, or displaying the rebuttal posters - I have trouble with the idea of refusal: of simply banning anything that "we, today" regard as hateful.  Because I can see the application of Niemoller there as well - "first they took away the right to speak from this group, then from that group.... then when they took away MY right to speak, there was no-one to speak up for me." 

I may agree with the way the courts define "hateful" today....but will I agree with them tomorrow?  Look at Ireland's blasphemy laws, for example.  Laws that - basically - say "you can say this, but not that".  And in general, I don't agree with that at all.

  The Irish law is religious bias against another faction of the same religion and the same ethnic group. It does not single out ethnic groups like the Germans against the Jews,and ironically the Jews using the same tactics against Muslims.  They,like the Nazis call their  "enemies" subhuman,or "savages". The parallel paths are disturbingly close,the methods are not as barbaric,but the result is similar.

[Anfauglir]

I guess I’m just really surprised by the number of people on this forum who take issue with long-standing judicial decisions to weigh freedom of expression against freedom from harm. 

I'm really surprised at the number of people who don't get my point!    

For example, the part I have put in bold here was my point.

I may agree with the way the courts define "hateful" today....but will I agree with them tomorrow?   Look at Ireland's blasphemy laws, for example.  Laws that - basically - say "you can say this, but not that".  And in general, I don't agree with that at all.

The Irish law is religious bias against another faction of the same religion and the same ethnic group. It does not single out ethnic groups like the Germans against the Jews.......

12M concentrated on the trivial example I posed, rather than what was - to me - the point.

I guess I’m just really surprised by the number of people on this forum who take issue with long-standing judicial decisions to weigh freedom of expression against freedom from harm. 

And I repeat:

I may agree with the way the courts define "hateful" today....but will I agree with them tomorrow?

The judicial system today has said "this is right, this is wrong".  So hooray!  All the fights are over, we can sit back and relax....or can we?  If the judicial system is so right, Quesi, what is the issue over the poster?  If the courts got it right, why are we discussing it?

Anfauglir, Sigma, HAL, and others who are concerned about ANY restrictions on freedom of speech, may I ask again if you oppose the restrictions on prayer at sporting events at public universities?
Why or why not?

Personally, I really wish they didn't happen.  But do I want it legally stopped?  On balance, no, I don't.  Because once you say that this group can't say what they want, there is no guarantee that tomorrow that group will still be allowed to speak.  And because I want it to be just as legal for the non-believers in the crowd to be able to stand there saying "Rubbish!  Rubbish!  Rubbish!" all the way through the prayer.

That's my point.  It makes no difference what particular types of speech I may prefer to hear, or not to hear.  My sole point is that I fear that laws made today against them, will tomorrow be used against us.

[Quesi]

The judicial system today has said "this is right, this is wrong".  So hooray!  All the fights are over, we can sit back and relax....or can we?  If the judicial system is so right, Quesi, what is the issue over the poster?  If the courts got it right, why are we discussing it?

One of the wonderful things about our legal system is that it is designed to grow and evolve.  Sigma cited the establishment clause, as if it were very clear on the topic of prayer in schools.  In fact, it was not until the 20th century that the courts interpreted the establishment clause as a source of protection against publically sanctioned prayers.

Anfauglir I think the court’s decision in this case demonstrates an evolution in the understanding of protections that can and should be afforded.  The court found that by listing the specific groups who were protected against “demeaning speech” they were leaving unnamed groups vulnerable.  The wording of the MTA statement is very similar to the working of the EEO statement that is part of my employer’s anti-discrimination policy.  I can’t discriminate against someone because he is gay and I can’t discriminate against someone because she has limited mobility.  However, if I happen to dislike redheads, the way the policy is written, I am free to discriminate against them.  And the way the MTA policy is written, it in fact does allow for demeaning speech against groups that are not named as protected.  The judge said that was not good enough.  If some groups were protected, then everyone had to be protected. 

The MTA screwed up.  They didn’t call a meeting in time to adjust the wording of their policy.  But I support the judicial decision. 

 

My sole point is that I fear that laws made today against them, will tomorrow be used against us.

I'm advocating for a progressive system that continually evaluates existing laws, and adjusts them as appropriate. [1]

What are you advocating for?

1.	Yeah, our forefathers did not spell out exactly how to weigh freedoms vs protections in subway ads.  The were conspicuously silent on how they viewed the internet.  They didn't say a thing about the Palestinians.  And they would not have acknowledged my input on any of those topics.

[Anfauglir]

I think the court’s decision in this case demonstrates an evolution in the understanding of protections that can and should be afforded..... The MTA screwed up.  They didn’t call a meeting in time to adjust the wording of their policy.  But I support the judicial decision. 

And - I'm guessing - had you lived fifty or a hundred years ago (the you as you are today, not allowing for any different you that may have been brought up then), you would NOT have supported the judicial decision made because it would have been quite, quite different.  So whatever the law is today - whether it is today today, or fifty years ago today, or fifty years hence today.....if you follow me.....there is nothing that necessarily makes it "right", or something that you agree with.
 

My sole point is that I fear that laws made today against them, will tomorrow be used against us.

I'm advocating for a progressive system that continually evaluates existing laws, and adjusts them as appropriate.

"As appropriate" - ay, there's the rub.  What happens when the laws start to go further than you want?  Will you still be arguing that they should change and evolve away from what you currently think is right?  Your view (which I'm pretty sure coincides a vast amount with mine) of what is good and right (as opposed to legal) is, happily, the norm.

What if it wasn't?

What are you advocating for?

Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.  No partisan bars on what you can and cannot say.  "Bad" views can be expressed just as freely as "good" views.  But I've said that several times now, and nobody seems to be hearing it!   

[Azdgari]

Anfauglir, do you support the right of Muslim clerics to be able to publicly call for peopls' deaths and such?  That's basically akin to what this ad is doing.

[Dante]

Anfauglir, do you support the right of Muslim clerics to be able to publicly call for peopls' deaths and such?  That's basically akin to what this ad is doing.

How so? Seems to me it's saying to support Israel, not explicitly calling for murderous intentions. But, I'm open to other interpretations.

Muslim clerics calling for people's deaths are guilty of accessory to murder, methinks.

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

“Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,”

Don't misunderstand, I think the message is not only wrong from an anti-bigotry perspective, but also from a political one.

[3sigma]

I'm advocating for a progressive system that continually evaluates existing laws, and adjusts them as appropriate.

From your posts in this thread so far, two things seem clear: you think “hate speech” should be banned; and you abhor the situation in the Middle East. Several questions arise from this.

First, when is something considered hate speech and who makes that judgment? Several leaders of Islamic countries are about to demand from the UN that blasphemy be made illegal globally. They consider blasphemy to be hate speech so do you support their calls? Do you think anything the Muslims consider blasphemous should be illegal and banned? What penalties should be levied against blasphemers and who should decide on those penalties? For example, Muslims call for harsh penalties against anyone convicted (or even accused) of the most trivial slight against whatever they consider sacred. Recall the Sudanese teddy bear case from 2007. A schoolteacher was imprisoned then deported for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. 10,000 protesters took to the streets demanding her execution. It doesn’t matter where people live, Muslims could call for their execution. These aren’t hypothetical situations—they’ve actually occurred—so do you support the call to make blasphemy illegal worldwide? If not, where do you draw the line?

Second, what is your proposed solution to the Middle East situation? Should Israel return land to the Palestinians? How much land? Will the Muslim nations surrounding Israel be satisfied with anything less than the elimination of Israel?

[Azdgari]

How so? Seems to me it's saying to support Israel, not explicitly calling for murderous intentions. But, I'm open to other interpretations.

The key is in the 1st sentence more than in the 2nd one:

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

“Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,”

Israel is, according to this, at war.  At war with the savages.  And this is not a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs" - military and para-military forces are killing each other.  To support one side is to support the killing of the other.