Douglas Giles is a recent casualty. He used to teach a class on world religions at Roosevelt University, Chicago, founded in memory of FDR and his liberal-inclined wife, Eleanor. Last year, Giles was ordered by his head of department, art historian Susan Weininger, not to allow students to ask questions about Palestine and Israel; in fact, nothing was to be mentioned in class, textbooks and examinations that could possibly open Judaism to criticism

Leaving aside his boss’s doubtful qualifications to set limits on a class of comparative religion – her speciality is early 20th-century Midwestern artists such as Tunis Ponsen (nor have I) – the point to grasp is that Professor Giles did not make inflammatory statements himself: he merely refused to limit debate among the young minds in front of him.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1…

So verbose. You trying to prove to us that while you've been away, you may have learned somethign of the world beyond the mud on your boots, the booger in your finger nail and the dropping stains on the back of your pants?

Independent journalism takes time and effort. It also requires money. Every now and then, I ask readers of this site and my work to consider whether they’d be able to contribute financially. Any donations would assist in the further running of my blog, book writing and freelance work.

Just click on the “Donate” box on the right hand side of this site.

Thanks for your support.

dumb fuck

CAPTAIN and VIVA (and all alike)

What are you comments about this

you're in BIG TROUBLE

Your views are those of a misguided 15 year old who desperately wants to fit in at school so you jump on the nearest bandwagon, in your case you were no doubt seduced by some right wing nutjob (or maybe just instilled with irrational fear from the media).

Its nice on the odd occasion where you actually bother to quote things and back up your posts with facts. Is this bleating and insisting on idiotic statements such as "But freedom of press has never been important to Ant" when they are simply baseless noise.

In this example might I point out that despite your virtues on freedom (I agree freedom and democracy are wonderful, when they act like freedom and democracy), this stuff with Israel has nothing to do with freedom of press, so the Palestinians might not have freedom of press (i wouldnt have a clue if they do or dont), does this mean they should therefore be bombed out of existance?

Could you justify an attack on a village of people because the side who did the attack had freedom of press?

Hell then whats to deal with Lebanon, they're a democracy already.

whats your point?

The 'Rapture' loonies have been predicting the end of the world on that day for a while. Many are even giving away their possessions in anticipation. Presumably the head Rapture loonie, Mad King George I of America, Emperor of the Green Zone and Kabul, also believes this, so why bother preventing a few thousand deaths when 6 point something billion,/b> are due for the chop one way or another on that day?

For Tony's, and possibly Musharraf's, sake I hope the Rapture isn't postponed because the trigger has been disabled? The chief fruitcake is really going to be p*ssed if he doesn't get to waft Heavenwards on schedule!!

Sounds like a scene from V for Vendetta doesn't it? No wonder the right wingers hated that movie so much.

It was laughable to hear Bush say that the fascists are atatcking those who love freedom, while those who so love freedom are giving it up.

Who was it that said those who give up their liberty for secruity deserve neither?

And I'm sure it's quite by chance that the lads in blue chose yesterday – with anger at Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara's shameful failure over Lebanon at its peak – to save the world. After all, it's scarcely three years since the other great Terror Plot had British armoured vehicles surrounding Heathrow on the very day – again quite by chance, of course – that hundreds of thousands of Britons were demonstrating against Lord Blair's intended invasion of Iraq.

So I sat on the carpet in my living room and watched all these heavily armed chaps at Heathrow protecting the British people from annihilation and then on came President George Bush to tell us that we were all fighting "Islamic fascism". There were more thumps in the darkness across Beirut where an awful lot of people are suffering from terror – although I can assure George W that while the pilots of the aircraft dropping bombs across the city in which I have lived for 30 years may or may not be fascists, they are definitely not Islamic.

And there, of course, was the same old problem. To protect the British people – and the American people – from "Islamic terror", we must have lots and lots of heavily armed policemen and soldiers and plainclothes police and endless departments of anti-terrorism, homeland security and other more sordid folk like the American torturers – some of them sadistic women – at Abu Ghraib and Baghram and Guantanamo. Yet the only way to protect ourselves from the real violence which may – and probably will – be visited upon us, is to deal, morally, with courage and with justice, with the tragedy of Lebanon and "Palestine" and Iraq and Afghanistan. And this we will not do.

There has to be a Jewish plot there somewhere.

There's plenty of those. Here are just a handful. And let's be reminded of th eKing David bombing "celebrations" Israel had recently.

Very prolific indeed!!
http://www.doublestandards.org/text/unbunche.html

And Nasrallah’s popularity? its dying off.

Ummm wrong. Hasrallah is he most popular figure in teh Middle East.

But freedom of press has never been important to Ant, oh, unless he is being suppressed.

Says the moron who considers freedom of speech the right to suppress other's freedom of speech.

Because like disabled children, Muslim terrorists are never responsible for themselves.

What the hell does this mean, Captain? The disabled? What foul prejudice are you revealing now?