1 - Is it allowable for Muslims to be homophobic because of their culture?
2 - Should forced marriages for women be illegal?
3 - Is it acceptable to insist that a woman wears a veil?
4 - Is anti-Semitism a legitimate response to frustration with American or Israeli foreign policy?
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
6 - Can you be a people's champion if your people can't get rid of you?
7 - Are political prisoners ever justified?
8 - Is Al-Qaeda in Iraq a legitimate resistance organisation?
9 - Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali too critical of Islam?
10 - Should the Dutch government have taken her security away abroad?
11 - Should Salman Rushdie have written about the Koran the way he did in The Satanic Verses?
12 - Are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion (and atheism) universal human rights?
13 - Is it an acceptable cultural tradition to call for the death of those who wish to leave your religion?
14 - Is it okay to ban members of other religions from holy sites such as Mecca?
15 - Can honour killings or genital mutilation of women be placed in their 'cultural context'?
16 - Is it acceptable to call for the death of cartoonists because you don't think their cartoons are funny?

<sub>Answers: 1)no 2)yes 3)no 4)no 5)no 6)no 7)no 8)no 9)no 10)no 11)yes 12)yes 13)no 14)no 15)no 16)no

Sporked from the Sunday Times</sub>

---

The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons.

This is wrong. There's nothing special about cultures and they do not deserve to be an exception to the rules.

Funny, but Republicans accuse liberals of supporting dictatorships (a la Stalin).  I am probably much more liberal than most Americans, but think that dictatorship is as anti-thetical to the liberal mindset as a conservative would say it is to his mindset.  (Saying a liberal craves a soviet-style government is as false as alleging a conservative wants a fascist government.)

I see no problem with "supporting" Islam.  Or Catholicism, or Baptism or Buddhism.  If I didn't support them, would I be accused of being an atheist or maybe a heathen secularist?  (I happen to believe in the separation of church and state, but "support" religion as a private expression of one's faith and relationship with his or creator.)  I don't support the politicized radicalization of any of the above.  Also, I think what you mean is "making excuses for" Islam.  That's a huge difference from supporting a certain religion.

In terms of the questions, and I know these were asked rhetorically, but I want to answer them...
1 - No, but I don't see them changing anytime soon.
2 - They're unfair but, again, don't think you'll see the practice end in our lifetime.
3 - No.  But if it's her choice, who's to say?
4 - No.  Nor is anti-Islamism an acceptable response to certain government policies.
5 - Never.
6 - Chavez comes to mind.  Answer: No.
7 - No.  If someone committed a crime, he should be given a fair trial promptly, not held in some prison indefinitely.  And I think making political "crimes" illegal is unconscionable.
8 - No, but in their minds they are.
9 - Much of her criticism is legit.
10 - If she left the country, is her government obligated to provide security for her globally?  That's putting quite a burden on her government.  The big-government answer should be Yes, but I think once she ventures outside, No.
11 - It's his right to write Satanic Verses any way he wishes.
12 - Yes, but we can't impose them on the world at the point of a gun barrel.  They have to grow organically within the country in question for them to take hold.
13 - No.  Never.
14 - Maybe, depending on the particulars of the religious belief.  If we forcibly opened Mecca to non-believers in the physical sense, would you also then support the forcible opening of the Catholic Church (in its practices) to force them to perform gay marriages or accept their "infidels" in ways that they are currently banned?  I think it is perfectly fine for religions to dictate who can and cannot avail themselves of the structures, practices and sacraments of their own faith.  What do I care if as a non-Muslim I am not allowed in Mecca?  Or as a non-Buddhist there may be parts of Buddhist shrines I am not allowed to see?  Or that as a non-Mormon, I am not allowed to witness ceremonies inside a Mormom Temple?
15 - No.
16 - No.

That's not representative of most liberals (and of none of the liberals I know).  A similar cross-accusation could be that historically conservatives have supported fascism, consider Charles Lindbergh's interactions with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of WW2.  Just as attributing Lindbergh's actions and beliefs to all conservatives is disingenuous, so is attribute GBShaw's to all liberals.

Historically, both the right and left have supported dictatorships. Whether marxist, post-1934 national socialism or just plain banana republic thugocracies, all have had western intellectuals who slobbered over them.

OswaldTheOsprey

It even continues today.

OswaldTheOsprey

It would be impossible to find a single modern American politician who morally and ideologically supports dictatorships.

Well, here in the US at least, there is a separation of church and state.  The state cannot force a church to abandon or change its beliefs.  From what I understand the Mormon Church does not allow non-Mormons -- a polite way of saying "infidel" -- into certain parts of their temples and certain rites in the Mormon faith are only allowed to be viewed by members of the Church of LDS.  Could the state force them to change that article of their faith?  Would such exercise of force be consitutional?  Extremely unlikely.  Would you want the state to have such power, to actually dictate to a religion who can enter its holiest innermost shrines, particularly if by going in the faith in question would take offense?  If Mormons possess this right, why can't Muslims or Catholics or Hindus?

Not much of a liberal defense, but I see no problem with allowing churches to operate fully within the confines of their faith.  Short of breaking the law (human sacrifice, smoking of peyote, etc.), states have no right to tell churches how they operate.  They are protected by the Constitution.

Morons and Islamofascists.