We just ban it for our own safety. Read this article. Does anyone notice anything? The story appears to be about a Tea Party event canceled at a Mansfield, Ohio high school. Why? Because a speaker is labeled anti-Islamic. The proof? Because he is founder of a Christian ministry that seeks to - gasp - convert Muslims to Christianity. He even contends that Islam is a violent religion. There you go. Of course we are later reassured that the event has not been canceled because of the content of the speaker's talk - despite the headline. Rather, it's because of fears for the safety of students.
But why? Apparently, those who said they were not planning the protests that the school feared wanted the talks pulled. Said Julia Shearson, director of the local NAACP branch, "We believe in the right to free speech. We are thankful for the district's decision and that a message of hate will not be promoted in this district where there are Muslim children." So there you go, they support the right to free speech so they are thankful the school censored a group and kept it from speaking things they didn't like. After all, speaking against Islam could lead to violence against Muslim students. While I guess speaking against Christianity in school lessons or secular groups in high schools could lead to violence against Christians and other religious believers? Is it just me, or are there others out there that realize our freedoms, liberties, and equalities are going down the toilet tubes faster than we can blink?
Now, for the bonus question. Could someone tell me why Usama Dakdok is all about hate for saying Islam teaches a violent doctrine, and the NAACP isn't all about hate for defining his message as hate? By what authority do they make such a dogmatic claim about an absolute value judgement?