Think back to the spiritual crisis of confidence we experienced in the 1970s or that much of Europe is plunged into now and a moralistic and cohesive Islamic culture certainly seems preferable.

Like I've said folks, OJ prefers theocracy to democracy.

Yes, Reagan restored it and W kicked it into hyperdrive. That's why Islamicization is unnecessary here but easy to imagine in a dying Europe.

The Unitarian Church in a neighboring village hosted an inequality lecture today and I just had to go.

Commies pure and simple.

Bring back unions, eat the rich, raise the minimum wage, yada, yada.

But--

The interesting thing was that the 2nd/3rd percentiles were polled and they weren't concerned economically.

They were concerned about the direction of the country - too much hedonism, wanted more authoritarianism.

W kicked it (theocracy) into hyperdrive

I don't think that word means what you think itmeans. By theocracy, it is generally meant a state where there is no separation of church and state, no tyranny of the majority, with an official sponsored and sanctioned government religion. Like what you admire and love so much in Iran. The murderous, terrorist, Iranian theocracy is OJtopia. No doubt the Taliban were your idea of heaven.

Ask your wife, the Jewish doctor, if she would like to live under theocracy in general and Sharia law in particular.

Were you this enthusiastic about the "Turner Diaries"?

Set aside the cartoons for a moment.

Who were you cheering for OJ, Theo Van Gogh or his murderer?

daniel:

Van Gogh and his murderer deserved each other. Such are the wages of hate speech.

Both Reagan and Bush consider(ed) themselves divinely guided and govern a Republic that is premised on revealed truth. You seem to think that a theocracy and it's actually close enough to one to fit the definition. It's not incompatible with some degree of democracy, which is what we have.

If you think that I believe that Reagan and Bush have created a theocracy, you'd be wrong. Theocracies are more like Cotton Mathers Boston, Oliver Cromwell's England, the Medieval Papacy or Khomenei's Iran. If Reagan had truely established a real theocracy would Clinton have been elected?

Personal faith of an individual president != theocracy.

What Van Gogh did was point out how Islam abuses women. How is that hate speech?

cohesive Islamic culture certainly seems preferable

So what happens to the Jews in this hypothetical society that you find preferable? What happens to educated, professional women?

What would happen to your wife in this society you so admire?

Nothing. The Wife lives in a superior culture.

daniel:

Yes, Clinton made much of his religion. The only Democrats to interrupt the string of Republican presidencies have been two Southern Born-Agains.

I'll ask again since you dodged the questions,

What did Van Gogh do that could be labeled as hate speech?

How would your wife do in the hypothetical Islamic American society that you find preferable?

daniel:

Van Gogh said: "I'll do my best to seriously insult quite a few people." You can't be too surprised when you provoke a reaction doing so.

jews have historically fared rather well in Islamic nations., It was secular Darwnist Europe that Holocausted them.

Van Gogh pointed out how Islam abused women. So where is the hate speech? If he is telling the truth, where is the insult?

daniel:

His intent was to insult Muslims. They dealt with him.

And Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Does she deserve what Van Gogh got? Because that's exactly what they want to give her, now isn't it?

rat:

Probably not. It was van Gogh -- "I'll do my best to seriously insult quite a few people." -- who made a big deal out of trying to offend people. Van Gogh was, of course, also friends with that pedophilia advocate Fortuyn.

Oj is right that a society without some set of underpinings will undermine itself and fall apart from nihilism. Things like free speech are not ends of themselves, but means to an end. That includes not just material benefits, but contributing to a better life overall that meets more spiritual and philosophical needs.

Those societies unable to harness the better impulses of their people go through a profound crisis.

Transgressive acts, by themselves, are useless and damaging. Only when they point out real problems and open the doors to solutions can transgressive acts be beneficial. A healthy society accepts a small amount of trangressive acts because true goods occupy the center of society.

In America today, those transgressive acts that damage the society's core, may be too much.

The problem is OJ's analysis with the solution. If you involve government, you invite stasis and decline. The established order will always have problems, and people need to be able to properly criticize it.

However, unless we recover and restore that core, more and more people will make the same decision OJ does. Defending free speech is not enough. More intrinsic needs must also be met.

Chris:

I'm fine with people settling these questions between themselves too. Jury nullification will take care of the rest.