Getting Muslim countries to sign on to a free-speech resolution is impressive in the first place.
Yes, they should do away with theocracies and blasphemy laws, but how do you guys recommend we do it? Should we follow Ann Coulter's advice to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all" to discordianism. The resolution would be better if it didn't contain this exception. The article seems intentionally misleading, as it's extremely short on the content of the resolution and the nature of Obama's support and very longwinded on the fact that blasphemy laws are bad (thanks guys, I didn't already know that).
This is how diplomacy works. Compromises and baby steps.
I'm kind of new to the forum, so I don't know if there was some subtext here I was missing. Can anyone explain what the big deal is here?
Yes, they should do away with theocracies and blasphemy laws, but how do you guys recommend we do it? Should we follow Ann Coulter's advice to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all" to discordianism. The resolution would be better if it didn't contain this exception. The article seems intentionally misleading, as it's extremely short on the content of the resolution and the nature of Obama's support and very longwinded on the fact that blasphemy laws are bad (thanks guys, I didn't already know that).
This is how diplomacy works. Compromises and baby steps.
I'm kind of new to the forum, so I don't know if there was some subtext here I was missing. Can anyone explain what the big deal is here?