rickyp wrote:fate

Sure. That's why it only took half a page to explain it

If you actually want to explore the idea, read "Why Nations Fail". Its a brilliant exploration of the nature of democracy, its superiority as a lasting institution, and the reasons why other systems of governance ultimately fail.
Its a whole book though... Can you handle focussing on an idea that long?

The you should have no trouble enumerating them... You havn't have you?

Because you miss singing limericks about the Pope at the local pitch?
I'm not sure why you rile against laws that seek to eliminate behaviours which have no possible motivation other than to incite hate.
Ugly behaviour at the stadium almost ruined the English professional game, Without the hooligan laws, and the force of law to ban people who attend not to enjoy the beautiful game but to hurl invective and poison the atmosphere so that most parents won't take their children to the game.... football would be less than it is today.

Many of them have been positive (it's certainly revolutionised our cuisine) and most are relatively benign, but when you have a substantial and rapidly growing minority in your country who do not share the political priorities of the majority culture and who are actively encouraged to self-define as members of a religious community first and foremost, and when that community starts to mobilise, then you're going to see changes that a lot of us will feel uncomfortable with.

This being the case, is it so difficult to comprehend that this might also have some implications for our political and legal traditions in the long run ?

For the record btw, I wouldn't have any problem with football clubs choosing to ban whatever language they wish from their private premises, but the law should have no place in that.

. as societies become more inclusive . . . they become increasingly inclusive."

Truly, that is remarkable.

rickyp wrote:fate

. as societies become more inclusive . . . they become increasingly inclusive."

Truly, that is remarkable.

It is actually. And the phenomenon has been coined : :
The Virtuous Circle
How institutions that encourage prosperity create positive feedback loops that prevent the efforts by elites to undermine them
Its clearly demonstrated in the history of the USA... and other nations that have created prosperous democracies..

http://whynationsfail.com/summary/

Sass, you know as well as I do that being able to get great curry, isn't a profound change in the nature of a countries laws and institutions..

If all you are uncomfortable with is some laws that limit hate speech, I don't think thats substantial change.

What do you value more, the ability of a free society to choose its laws and institutions with the involvement of all its citizens, or the enforcement of traditions upon a resistent populace? (I know this is a limited, and perhaps false choice, but I offer the two as a contrast of extremes. Because that's what your complaint sound like to me...someone who wants the world to stay the way it is....even when the majority would like to make what they see as improvements...) And it sounds like that, even though all you can point to in the way of change so far, are hate speech laws...

So a football clubs rules have primacy over the laws of the land in a public space ? You see no danger in allowing a club with public access the ability to allow conduct that isn't allowed in other generally accessible public areas?

Doctor Fate wrote:If it was not literally life and death, I would laugh at your (and the Administration's) insistence that it's the video.

What a coincidence that it kicked off on 9/11!

How amazing that a crowd spontaneously gathered in Benghazi late in the evening complete with RPG's and other armament! Why it is a straight copy of the OWS movement!

How wild is it that it took 6 months for this video to "spontaneously" spark a firestorm!

What does it mean when the president and the president’s press secretary contradict each other? Yesterday, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said of the murder of four Americans in Libya last week: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
A few minutes later, appearing on the Spanish-language network Univision, the president himself replied to a question about whether the attack was premeditated by saying, “We don’t know yet. We’re going to continue to investigate this.”
Which one of these guys didn’t get the memo?
When Carney spoke, it seemed as though he’d been directed to change the administration’s baffling official line— which last week was that the killing of Americans, the breaching of the Cairo embassy walls and the other riots against US embassies had simply been the result of spontaneous uprisings against a YouTube video that insulted Mohammed.
But who would direct him? Carney speaks in the name of the president. Yet the president opted to follow the line spoken by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland (full disclosure: an old friend of mine), who said Monday, “I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation . . . I don’t think we know enough.”
Why the smokescreen? Why is Carney saying one thing and Obama saying the other? Why did Carney and other administration spokespersons ever say anything other than what he said yesterday?
And why did Obama continue to say he didn’t know when, oh, yes, he certainly did then and he certainly does now? . . .

Maybe it doesn’t wish to face the harsh reality — the reality that its four-year campaign to improve America’s image in the Arab world, to find common ground lost under his supposedly ruthless predecessor, has come a cropper.
The reality that the Arab Spring is more ominous than promising.
The reality that leading from behind — his supposedly innovative form of waging war and making foreign policy — is not only a grammatical oxymoron but a potential recipe for disaster.
So much easier to blame a video. And so much easier to blow smoke and speak out of both sides of your mouth — say it was terrorism and say you don’t know if it was terrorism — when your ludicrous position becomes untenable.

freeman2 wrote:Gee, I thought Republicans wanted the attack on the embassy to be the result of the mob so that they could blame the administration for lack of security. Ok, now want they to show Al Qaeda is still strong (and be able to criticize Obama for not weakening Al Qaeda more) so Al Qaeda is responsible for the Libyan attack Got it.

Ray Jay wrote:http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism_arab/cartoon-compilation-20120920.asp

Here's an assortment of comics from the Arab press enjoying freedom of speech. Brace yourself for tomorrow when Jews come out of synagogues throughout the Arab world and protest Islamic insensitivity by burning and looting Arab embassies.

Church response

The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical has been described as "measured".[45] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."[46] Michael Otterson, the head of Public Affairs for the church, followed in April 2011 with measured criticism. "Of course, parody isn't reality, and it's the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously—if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion", Otterson wrote, outlining various humanitarian efforts achieved by Mormon missionaries in Africa in recent years.[47][48]

Stone and Parker were unsurprised by this response:


"The official church response was something along the lines of 'The Book of Mormon the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon,'—the book as scripture—'will change your life through Jesus.' Which we actually completely agree with. The Mormon church's response to this musical is almost like our Q.E.D. at the end of it. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing—a big musical that's done in their name. Before the church responded, a lot of people would ask us, 'Are you afraid of what the church would say?' And Trey and I were like, 'They're going to be cool.' And they were like, 'No, they're not. There are going to be protests.' And we were like, 'Nope, they're going to be cool.' We weren't that surprised by the church's response. We had faith in them."[10]

The LDS Church took advertising out in the playbill at the Los Angeles showing of the musical to encourage attendees to learn more about The Book of Mormon, with phrases like "the book is always better."[49]

Mormons themselves have had varying responses to the musical. Richard Bushman, professor of Mormon studies, said of the musical, "Mormons experience the show like looking at themselves in a fun-house mirror. The reflection is hilarious but not really you. The nose is yours but swollen out of proportion."[50] Bushman said that the musical was not meant to explain Mormon belief, and that many of the ideas in Elder Price's "I Believe" (like Mormons getting their own planets, God living on a planet called Kolob, and changing his mind about black people), though having some roots in Mormon belief, are not doctrinally accurate.[50][51]