So Muslims, passionate in their faith, are duty-bound to reject Western standards of free speech that tolerate blasphemy to the prophet.Most Americans repudiate this reasoning, and so do more tolerant Muslims.A number of readers and outside groups have demanded that we stop running opposing views from climate change skeptics.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
In other words, we won’t run pieces that deny the reality of human-induced climate change.
First question, Does the author recognise a viewpoint that opposes his or her own? Second question, Is that viewpoint presented objectively or emotionally? I didnt understand the questions if you can please explain it.
Make your own flashcards that can be shared with others.
But that doesn't make understanding it any less important.
It needs to be understood and countered." In recent years, perhaps no debate topic has been more controversial than global warming.
“Because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see,” Choudary wrote. As Brian Gallagher, the editorial page editor at the time, wrote: "Choudary ... But as one of Europe's most visible and outspoken Islamist leaders, he also has both influence and insight, making him a natural choice to write the other side.
His argument is neither an incitement to violence nor a defense of the murders. Rather, it is a tempered analysis of the motivations behind tragedies like the Charlie Hebdo attack: Nothing is more central to Islam, he points out, than the sanctity of the religion's founder, the prophet Mohammed.
The scientific consensus on that point is overwhelming, and increasingly so.
But we will run opposing views that disagree about proposed remedies, discuss the urgency of the climate change problem compared to other problems, or raise questions about costs versus benefits.