|
While I would find the actual event, the motivations behind it, and likely any "results" we may see from it abhorrent, I still believe it to be my primary duty as an American to defend their right to have such an event.
Other peoples' rights and freedoms should never be restricted simply because I disagree with them, no matter how big an ass I think they are making themselves out to be. If anything, defending someone's freedom to be an ass is one of the most important rights for us to defend, IMNSHO.
This made me smile.
Americans are justifiably proud that your right to free speech and free expression is protected by your laws and constitution (in fact, the right to free speech is recognised as a universal human right under international law) but I would think there are better examples of why the right to freedom of speech is so important to defend than “someone’s freedom to be an ass.” But I admire that that is your not so humble opinion even if I don't agree! :-)
I’m not in a position to bad mouth America’s laws or rights, and don’t intend to do so. I will point out that many countries have similar rights to free speech enshrined in their laws and constitution, but also make speech and acts meant to incite hatred or discrimination against the law. Exact laws and definitions differ greatly from country to country, but in most of the ‘Western world’ this act (waht the pastor is proposing to do given the stated reasons and likely reactions) would probably be seen as illegal. It wasn’t until I started researching yesterday that I discovered this was not also the case in the USA.
I’ll also point out that the American government has condemned this act. They have not, of course, suggested that it is illegal, as it is not in the USA.
I wish I was back in Gainesville.
I think I'd go in there and rip off his stack of Qurans.
He'd just get more and burn them, or he might shoot me with his cool ass glock protecting his little semidefunct church/semidefunct ebay furniture business from freaks and devilwishipers and whatnot, but I just wish I could rip those Qurans off so at least somebody did it.
|
|
I wish I was back in Gainesville.
I think I'd go in there and rip off his stack of Qurans.He'd just get more and burn them, or he might shoot me with his cool ass glock protecting his little semidefunct church/semidefunct ebay furniture business from freaks and devilwishipers and whatnot, but I just wish I could rip those Qurans off so at least somebody did it.
Next he will be on the news asking for donations of slightly used Korans / Qurans for him to burn ...
|
|
If I go down the street to buy a litre of milk and that sets off a homicidal maniac. True. If I hold a public book burning of a religious text and that sets the manic off? Different issue.
I agree, we should not go out of our not to offend people. There are a lot of unreasonable people in the world. However, to just turn around and say, so what, let Jones burn a Bible and if a fanatic blows something up well that is the fanatic's fault.
I do not know, but that does not sound like a good idea to me. That is just the way I perceive it. May be that makes me misguided or weak?
Actually, it's not. I will censor my own behavior based on whether I believe something is right or wrong. That's why I would never burn anybody's religious text. However, I refuse to censor myself (or anyone else) based upon the fear of what some unbalanced person may do in response.
If I were to tell you that your posts in this forum deeply offended me (not to fear -- they don't), and that if you ever posted here again I would do something awful, you would have several possible responses. Knowing that any posting you made to this forum could result in crazy, violent retribution by me, you could decide to never post again. This would be allowing your fear of what I might do to control your actions. Or you could decide that you're still free to speak your mind, and that I would be responsible for my own actions in response to that, not you.
The problem with censoring people out of fear of crazies, is that it's crazies who get to decide what is and isn't okay.
I'm not saying burning a religious text is right, or even smart. As I said, I would never do such a thing.
A number of years ago, the KKK wanted to march in Skokie, IL (which is very close to where I live). I'm Jewish, but I supported their right to march. Not because I approved of what they were doing or what they had to say. I supported their right to express themselves even though I found them to be morally repugnant.
The case with Reverend Jones is much the same for me. I oppose what he is doing, but I demand his right to do it. I also support the right of Muslims in the U.S. to burn bibles in response. Again, I wouldn't agree with them, but so what?
Should Reverend Jones be called out for being a hateful bigot? Loudly! Should we censor his freedom of expression because it may incite others? Absolutely not!
|
|
Americans are justifiably proud that your right to free speech and free expression is protected by your laws and constitution (in fact, the right to free speech is recognised as a universal human right under international law) but I would think there are better examples of why the right to freedom of speech is so important to defend than “someone’s freedom to be an ass.” But I admire that that is your not so humble opinion even if I don't agree! :-)
I’m not in a position to bad mouth America’s laws or rights, and don’t intend to do so. I will point out that many countries have similar rights to free speech enshrined in their laws and constitution, but also make speech and acts meant to incite hatred or discrimination against the law. Exact laws and definitions differ greatly from country to country, but in most of the ‘Western world’ this act (waht the pastor is proposing to do given the stated reasons and likely reactions) would probably be seen as illegal. It wasn’t until I started researching yesterday that I discovered this was not also the case in the USA.
I’ll also point out that the American government has condemned this act. They have not, of course, suggested that it is illegal, as it is not in the USA.
As someone from the U.S., I should point out that I find laws in some European countries that ban headscarves and conspicuous religious symbols to be a bit of an overstep. If someone tried to pass such a law here, I don't think it would stand, and I certainly would be vocal in my opposition to it.
I agree, though, that the Freedom To Be An Ass, while not specifically mentioned in our Bill of Rights, is strongly alluded to :)
|
The problem with censoring people out of fear of crazies, is that it's crazies who get to decide what is and isn't okay ... I'm not saying burning a religious text is right, or even smart. As I said, I would never do such a thing.
No, no. I see your point. I do. I usually only get to see the forums during the day and there is the whole work getting in the way issue! :D
Like you, I do not see it as right. Jones is satisfying his own ego without consideration of his actions. However, if he does want to spark an incident similar to the Danish cartoons (with the same response) that is extremely irresponsible.
Well, he is acting irresponsibly regardless.
I am not advocating we change our way of life for unhappy Islamic fanatics. I just see unintentional provocation in this manner as unnecessary.
|
|
As someone from the U.S., I should point out that I find laws in some European countries that ban headscarves and conspicuous religious symbols to be a bit of an overstep. If someone tried to pass such a law here, I don't think it would stand, and I certainly would be vocal in my opposition to it.I agree, though, that the Freedom To Be An Ass, while not specifically mentioned in our Bill of Rights, is strongly alluded to :)
I’d go further and say I think it’s a HUGE overstep. Maybe it shows that taking steps to deny any form of freedom of expression is the first step on a slippery slope? Today no hate speech, tomorrow we’ll tell you what you can and can’t wear ...
Despite things like this, I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be found. I believe in free speech and I also believe that it should be (to quote part of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act) ‘unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people, and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group’. That I find no contradiction or hypocrisy in these two beliefs is no doubt a product of my cultural upbringing and moral views, just as the fact that many citizens of the USA would fight to defend the right for their compatriots to voice views that they find personally abhorrent is a product of theirs.
So I guess on that matter I must agree to disagree with you. I don’t know which one of us is objectively ‘right’, both of us have cultural views that are going to colour our judgement on such matters. Doesn’t mean we can;t all still get along. ;-)
This made me smile.
Americans are justifiably proud that your right to free speech and free expression is protected by your laws and constitution (in fact, the right to free speech is recognised as a universal human right under international law) but I would think there are better examples of why the right to freedom of speech is so important to defend than “someone’s freedom to be an ass.”
Unfortunately without the right to make an ass of yourself there cannot be a right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Take away the right to be an ass and all you have left is the freedom to not offend anyone.
This guy has the right to have his book burning as it is not harming anyone else, and I have the right to call him a jackass for the same reason. My issue is that if you start trying to limit his rights in this instance, you really cannot logically do so without limiting mine as well. To fashion a law that would limit only his right to offend whilst leaving mine intact would simply be hypocrisy.
And it's so easy to prove me wrong here: just provide one link. That's all it would take to change my mind. Would anything change yours?Using the Internet only...
In reference to the Danish cartoons... "Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a secular Muslim woman then living in the Netherlands, responded with a manifesto that began with the words: "I am here to defend the right to offend.'" [http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/after-attack-on-danish-cartoonist-west.html]
Yep, that's the same Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote the movie Submission in the Netherlands that got its director Theo Van Gogh murdered by a Muslim radical. She has written several books about her experiences in Somalia, which she fled to Europe after being forced into an arrainged marraige. She also now tours the world speaking out about the forces of radical Islam, and has to be protected by bodyguards 24/7. Just posting for clarification.
...I would push the percentage of people walking their dogs by the site to ...Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting the guy was talking about people that were not protesting, but instead just passing by. I think he meant the people there to purposefully protest. I am not convinced everyone that brought a dog to the protest necessarily did it as a provocation. Some people just bring their dogs to anything and everything they can possibly get by with it. Go to a Ren-faire, and see how many dogs people have.
Actually I've never seen a dog at a ren faire- I think the local one doesn't allow dogs since the...incident. I think he meant the people there that were protesting too, but I agree that not everyone there who had a dog was there protesting. But if they aren't protesting and just walking their bowzer, then they aren't going to be at the protest very long, are they?
Again, I agree with you on a few points(several people who were not protesting and had dogs there were just walking said dogs), I just think that there were more people at the protest(who were there to protest) that brought dogs did it to get a rise out of the muslims.
As someone from the U.S., I should point out that I find laws in some European countries that ban headscarves and conspicuous religious symbols to be a bit of an overstep. If someone tried to pass such a law here, I don't think it would stand, and I certainly would be vocal in my opposition to it.
Though that's getting off topic again.
Religion makes people do stupid things.
People do stupid things. Blaming religion only takes away the personal responsibilities of the person performing said stupidity.
|
|
People do stupid things. Blaming religion only takes away the personal responsibilities of the person performing said stupidity.Religion makes people do stupid things.
Religion encourages a lack of personal responsibility, IMO. F~&~ up? Well god didn't make me perfect, everybody's a sinner, I'll just ask for forgiveness. No! You f$$!ed up because of you, not because some chick ate an apple! Accept responsibility and move on. Religion is an excuse, and you know what they say about excuses...
Religion encourages a lack of personal responsibility, IMO.
Funny, the religious say the same about atheism.
|
|
Religion encourages a lack of personal responsibility, IMO.Funny, the religious say the same about atheism.
Which I cannot fathom, no matter how hard I try. When you're an atheist, you have noone to blame but yourself--you can't say the devil made you do it, you can't say that god's testing you, none of that. It's not all bad though...when something good happens, you can take credit for your hard work rather than thank god for it.
When you're an atheist, you have noone to blame but yourself...
Well…I see a few flaws in your assumptions, but I do not think this is the place.
So does this mean that you think that if any Muslim anywhere had offered shelter to the Danish cartoonist then this preacher would have no justification in burning the Quran, but since they did not (as far as you know) he does? There seems a disconnect in this logic, but maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying?
Since the logic seems to be unclear (and it might well be -- I'm largely playing Devil's advocate -- but let's not rush to judgment quite yet), let my try and connect the dots:
1. The initial reaction, almost universal, is that this preacher has no possible justification for the vile and heinous act he has planned.
2. My thought is that we're progressively becoming conditioned to avoid all kinds of seemingly innocuous acts, because in the past radical Muslims have used them as an excuse to commit murder. What used to be daily routine (publishing cartoons) is now a "grave insult," and people EXPECT it to be met with violence. The very definition of "insult" has shifted so far towards "anything radical Muslims dislike" that some people are wondering where it will stop. Maybe this preacher thinks it's time to push back in the other direction.
3. All of the above hinges on another near-universal assumption here, that Islam is neatly divisible into two groups: a tiny Radical Muslim minority who just want to kill things, and a large majority who are peaceful and devout, and who truly oppose the attempts of the violent majority to declare more and more things worhty of fatwa.
4. My second question: what if that second group actually consists of any number of different groups and individuals, but who are all unified by a common thread: although many claim "those guys don't represent us," none of them will take action to oppose their violent brethren (I'll get to why this is important in the next point). Now, I'm in no way claiming it's every Muslim's responsibility to do so. Nor am I claiming that my reserach skills are perfect. But it seems there should be some record, somewhere, of at least one mosque or Muslim group actively offering to shelter someone under fatwa -- not just claiming they don't support it, but actively doing something about it. I'm saying I'd do it, so it's not a totally unreasonable thing that "no one would ever do anyway."
5. Why is that important? Because this preacher's act is totally wrong and completely unjustifiable if he's offending more people who are helping, as opposed to a smaller number of people who just want an excuse to kill him, or to look the other way while someone else does it. I'm saying if there were some hint that the assumption in #3 is true, then I'd condemn this preacher along with everyone else. But IF the assumption in #3 is false, and IF #4 is actually correct -- I'm not saying that's the case, but so far the ONLY evidence to the contrary has been unsubstantiated claims and links that don't address the point* -- IF that's the case, then maybe Islam as practiced is incompatible with the Western value of free speech, and therefore we maybe will be forced to decide which one is more important to us, here in the West, rather than letting the choice be made for us.
Again, I'm not claiming my case is correct. I honestly hope it's not. But it's a hypothesis that fits the existing data as well as, if not better than, the majority assumption. What I want is new data that will disprove it.
* I understand that absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. However, something so fundamental to the whole debate, the absence of evidence, to me, seems incredibly shocking in how conspicuous it is. I want to be wrong about this. I desperately want someone to convince me that, yes, most Muslims in the West value free speech as much as Westerners do, and that Islam is not a barrier to that. But claiming it's so, and seeing evidence that it's so, are two different things.
In reference to the Danish cartoons... "Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a secular Muslim woman then living in the Netherlands, responded with a manifesto that began with the words: "I am here to defend the right to offend.'" [http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/after-attack-on-danish-cartoonist-west.html]
I mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali specifically earlier, as an example of an ex-Muslim to whom no practicing Muslims will offer shelter, so your link is supporting my case.
Interestingly, Ali puts Muslims into five (5) groups:
1. Ex-Muslims like herself, who are apostate and under threat of death;
2. Muslims who are reformist to the point that they accept only the initial Sutas of the Quran, and reject the rest of it;
3. Muslims who passively support wordwide domination of Islam;
4. Violent jihadis; and
5. Muslims who look the other way.
1. I am more inclined to believe the good pastor just wants to start sumpin'. If he just wanted to poke Islam with a stick, another cartoon would do.
2. Burning a religious text is a little more than accidentally stumbling into an offensive act.
3. How neatly divisible is Christianity? If we are not allowed to assign them the sin of the extremist, why should we be allowed to do so with Islam?
4. Let's assume you are right an every Muslim either vocally or silently wishes to kill every last American. What does a big 'F you!' accomplish?
5. Only speaking for myself here, I condemn him only in so much as I think he is purposefully being provocative. As far as I am concerned, he has every right as an American citizen to burn the Qu'ran. I believe his actions are counter-productive to his objective.
You could burn the Bible to demonstrate it is no more divinely inspired than Tom Sawyer. Why don't you, Kirth? Why do you appease the Christians and give up your right to be an agent provocateur?
1. I am more inclined to believe the good pastor just wants to start sumpin'. If he just wanted to poke Islam with a stick, another cartoon would do.
2. Burning a religious text is a little more than accidentally stumbling into an offensive act.
3. How neatly divisible is Christianity? If we are not allowed to assign them the sin of the extremist, why should we be allowed to do so with Islam?
4. Let's assume you are right an every Muslim either vocally or silently wishes to kill every last American. What does a big 'F you!' accomplish?
5. Only speaking for myself here, I condemn him only in so much as I think he is purposefully being provocative. As far as I am concerned, he has every right as an American citizen to burn the Qu'ran. I believe his actions are counter-productive to his objective.
6. You could burn the Bible to demonstrate it is no more divinely inspired than Tom Sawyer. Why don't you, Kirth? Why do you appease the Christians and give up your right to be an agent provocateur?
1. I think he wants to actively push back, not just do what we do.
2. Yes, that's the point.3. It's not, and we shouldn't -- thus the next point.
4. (a) Not necessarily "kill." Convert, and maybe kill (or let someone else kill) whomever won't (like the Quran says).
(b) What it accomplishes is sends a message "Not gonna happen" (as opposed to the current message of "it is already happening by degrees, and we're glad it is.").
5. If the objective is to shift the Overton Window back in the direction of "Only really outrageous stuff should be considered provocative," then maybe he's on track.
6. As soon as Christians use Old Testament verses as an excuse to try to kill me, and the rest sit by and let them, then I'll happily do so.
Again, I'm not so much trying to convince people as to overtly challenge the assuptions that are so prevailent -- assumptions that seem to be taken as articles of faith rather than as hypotheses susceptable to evidence and logic.
1. I am more inclined to believe the good pastor just wants to start sumpin'. If he just wanted to poke Islam with a stick, another cartoon would do.
2. Burning a religious text is a little more than accidentally stumbling into an offensive act.
3. How neatly divisible is Christianity? If we are not allowed to assign them the sin of the extremist, why should we be allowed to do so with Islam?
4. Let's assume you are right an every Muslim either vocally or silently wishes to kill every last American. What does a big 'F you!' accomplish?
5. Only speaking for myself here, I condemn him only in so much as I think he is purposefully being provocative. As far as I am concerned, he has every right as an American citizen to burn the Qu'ran. I believe his actions are counter-productive to his objective.
6. You could burn the Bible to demonstrate it is no more divinely inspired than Tom Sawyer. Why don't you, Kirth? Why do you appease the Christians and give up your right to be an agent provocateur?
1. I think he wants to actively push back, not just do what we do.
2. Yes, that's the point.
3. It's not, and we shouldn't -- thus the next point.
4. (a) Not necessarily "kill." Convert, and maybe kill (or let someone else kill) whomever won't (like the Quran says).
(b) What it accomplishes is sends a message "Not gonna happen" (as opposed to the current message of "it is already happening by degrees, and we're glad it is.").
5. If the objective is to shift the Overton Window back in the direction of "Only really outrageous stuff should be considered provocative," then maybe he's on track.
6. As soon as Christians use Old Testament verses as an excuse to try to kill me, and the rest sit by and let them, then I'll happily do so.
In fairness, there are a few small groups who are campaigning for old testiment laws to be the law of the land, which I think would almost certainly result in all our deaths. Well, i might be okay, so long as they don't get the nuke codes (in which case i'd be totally boned).
Defending Free Speech Against Fundamentalist Islam [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eboo-patel/free-speech-vs-fundamenta_b_571459.html]
BTW, I've read that one, and it's exactly what I'm NOT looking for more of. The whole argument is that "I claim to support freedom of speech, but not when it offends Islam!" I'm looking for one example of the opposite: "I actively support freedom of speech even when it's offensive to Islam."
I know; it just kinda pisses me off and/or embarrasses me for some reason.
My town is in the (inter)national spotlight for this b#~@*~%&, and I doubt that guy has a congregation of 30? I could be wrong.
I think the claimed number of followers is around 50. This guy may just be a karmic road apple to balance out for Gainesville producing the awesome Tom Petty. :)
I wish I was back in Gainesville.
I think I'd go in there and rip off his stack of Qurans.He'd just get more and burn them, or he might shoot me with his cool ass glock protecting his little semidefunct church/semidefunct ebay furniture business from freaks and devilwishipers and whatnot, but I just wish I could rip those Qurans off so at least somebody did it.
Maybe he is like a junior Fred Phelps... deliberately looking to provoke an American into printing something libelous or physically attacking him so they can sue them for monetary damages.
Update: I found one example -- which no one here would do -- of a Muslim taking action to oppose Islamists. In this case, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy provided legal defense for passengers who were being sued for pointing out the bizarre behavior of the so-called "Flying Imams" (who were acting out as an excuse to find a chance to sue). The author of the piece then outlines what he sees as the real problem:
In 1964, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's leading theoretician, published Ma`alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones) in which he laid out steps to achieve an Islamic state and defeat the West. He described a generational process to ensure the victory of Islamism over Western liberal society. Liberal and traditional Muslims have yet to wage an effective counter-jihad against their Islamist brethren. There does not yet exist a liberal Muslim intellectual work equivalent to Milestones to lay the groundwork to defeat Islamism and ensure the creation of integrationist, tolerant American Muslim institutions.
A starting point to counter the Qutb construct would be for Muslim leaders to acknowledge ten points:
An Islamic narrative should not constrain universal human principles.
Mosques should support the separation of church and state, even as they take stands on social or political issues.
The affirmation of an egalitarian approach to faith beyond the constraints of simple tolerance. Tolerance implies superiority while pluralism implies equality.
Recognition that if government enacts the literal laws of God rather than natural or human law, then government becomes God and abrogates religion and the personal nature of the relationship with God.
Separation of mosque and state to include the abrogation of all blasphemy and apostasy laws.
Empowerment of women's liberation and advocacy for equality as is currently absent in many Muslim-majority, misogynistic cultures.
Ijtihad negating the need for Muslims active in politics today to bring theology into the political debate. Nowhere in the Qur'an does God tell Muslims to mix politics and religion or instruct by what document governments should be guided.
Creation of movements and organizations that are specifically opposed to such radical or terrorism-supporting groups as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat al-Islamiya, and Al-Muhajiroun, to name a few, rather than simply being against undefined, generic notions of terrorism.
Public identification without apologetics of leaders and governments of Muslim majority countries who are dictators and despots and are, as such, anti-liberty and anti-pluralism. Muslims enjoying freedom in the West have yet to create mass movements to liberate their motherlands from dictatorship and theocracy and to move these toward secular democracies founded on individual liberties for all based in natural law.
Establishment of classical liberal Muslim institutions and think-tanks to articulate, disseminate, and educate concerning the above principles. The idea that individual liberty and freedom need not be mutually exclusive with Muslim theology must be taught to Muslim youth.
Countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations engage. Americans living in fear for their security are looking to moderate, traditional Muslims to lead this fight. The credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism.
In summary, this guy says, point-blank, "Until moderate Muslims challenge their actions, terror networks and their ideologies will flourish." QED.
---
Let me say with no reservation that I consider men like Jasser to be heroes. For the sake of the few active Muslims like him, I'd refrain from burning the Quran. In short, this one guy is enough to change my mind... and I still maintain that if there were a lot more like him, this crazy preacher's mind would be changed as well, and we'd all be a lot better off.
Until then, shielding all Muslims from all criticism doesn't seem to be helping. Immediately demonizing anyone who tries to call the Islamists' bluff is just as irrational a knee-jerk response as assuming all Muslims are terrorists.
Update: I found one example -- which no one here would do -- of a Muslim taking action to oppose Islamists. In this case, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy provided legal defense for passengers who were being sued for pointing out the bizarre behavior of the so-called "Flying Imams" (who were acting out as an excuse to find a chance to sue). The author of the piece then outlines what he sees as the real problem:
...In 1964, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's leading theoretician, published Ma`alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones) in which he laid out steps to achieve an Islamic state and defeat the West. He described a generational process to ensure the victory of Islamism over Western liberal society. Liberal and traditional Muslims have yet to wage an effective counter-jihad against their Islamist brethren. There does not yet exist a liberal Muslim intellectual work equivalent to Milestones to lay the groundwork to defeat Islamism and ensure the creation of integrationist, tolerant American Muslim institutions.
A starting point to counter the Qutb construct would be for Muslim leaders to acknowledge ten points:
An Islamic narrative should not constrain universal human principles.
Mosques should support the separation of church and state, even as they take stands on social or political issues.
The affirmation of an egalitarian approach to faith beyond the constraints of simple tolerance. Tolerance implies superiority while pluralism implies equality.
Recognition that if government enacts the literal laws of God rather than natural or human law, then government becomes God and abrogates religion and the personal nature of the relationship with God.
Separation of mosque and state to include the abrogation of all blasphemy and apostasy laws.
Empowerment of women's liberation and advocacy for equality as is currently absent in many Muslim-majority, misogynistic cultures.
Just to let you know, I did look.
Until then, shielding all Muslims from all criticism doesn't seem to be helping. Immediately demonizing anyone who tries to call the Islamists' bluff is just as irrational a knee-jerk response as assuming all Muslims are terrorists.
Speaking only for myself, again, I would hope you do not think this applies to me. I am not above criticizing anyone including myself.
If I meet the Buddha on the path, I'm stabbing that fat bastard in the gut.
If I meet the Buddha on the path, I'm stabbing that fat bastard in the gut.
Right on!
If we don't challenge our assumptions at every turn, we're no more rational than the fanatics. Being "obviously right" often means being dead wrong.
|
So this nuttbag suggests going out and buying a copy of the Koran and torching it. I dont think he understands the concept of financing Terrorism. A dollar from every Koran sold finances fundamentalism so a million followers buying a million copies puts a million dollars in the hands of terrorists.
That means this idiot is financing terrorism...if he wanted to realy endange the US Servicemen in Afghanistan he would encourage his followers to all go out and buy and burn a copy of the Catholic Bible (More pages). The CO2 levels would rise and Afghanistan would see a shift in rainfall patterns. Troops would drown while crossing swolen rivers.
We're not the only ones discussing this!
The Devil you say!
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.
|
|
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.
That's the cliche answer, yes...I'm not concerned about hurting people's feelings, I'm concerned about this act guaranteeing there will be increased violence against our troops. I'm concerned that this will help to recruit additional terrorists. There's unpopular speech and then there's this. I have friends and family overseas that could be hurt because of this dipsh!t...as far as I'm concerned, he might as well be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?
|
|
We're not the only ones discussing this!The Devil you say!
"Oh Look puppy! A bouncy ball! Fetch!" - Throws rock over cliff.
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.That's the cliche answer, yes...I'm not concerned about hurting people's feelings, I'm concerned about this act guaranteeing there will be increased violence against our troops. I'm concerned that this will help to recruit additional terrorists. There's unpopular speech and then there's this. I have friends and family overseas that could be hurt because of this dipsh!t...as far as I'm concerned, he might as well be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?
Please explain how this is going to "increase violence against troops"? Are you suggesting the people that the troops are fighting now are suddenly going to say, "Well were just going to kill a few of you, but now it is on, and we are stepping up a level?" Seriously? No, they are doing the best and if our (collectively, not me personal) idealization of people like Lady Gaga and such isn't already enough to push them to the point of murdering us, a few burnt books are going to either. As for recruiting more, again, are people really being so prejudiced against Muslims that they really believe that a rational Muslim is going to be turned to terrorism over a few burnt books? Seriously, do you think that moderate, rational Muslims have such a weak grasp on their morals that a burnt book or ten is going to suddenly make them turn away from them.
Frankly the claim that a few burnt books are going to increase the violence directed towards our troops is insulting to everyone.
|
|
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.That's the cliche answer, yes...I'm not concerned about hurting people's feelings, I'm concerned about this act guaranteeing there will be increased violence against our troops. I'm concerned that this will help to recruit additional terrorists. There's unpopular speech and then there's this. I have friends and family overseas that could be hurt because of this dipsh!t...as far as I'm concerned, he might as well be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?
Except it isn't really incitement, at least not acording to the dictionary
Incirte
–verb (used with object), -cit·ed, -cit·ing.
to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.
It's provocative, certainly, and will likely lead to some nutjobs coommitting violence but it lakcs the urge to action that makes incitement incitement, It's not enough to say offensive things, you have to say offensive things and then call on people to do something about it. He's just being an aresehole and as pres man said, that's the very type of speech that has to be defended most vigourously.
Obligatory "American President" quote:
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.
You and I don't often agree, pres man, but this is spot on. Bravo.
|
|
Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?By granting the power of limiting speech to those that commit violent acts in reaction to words, you are granting the power over your free speech to the idiots and the insane.
If we assail consensus Government where every act is by definition Sedition if it causes Government, Law, Constitution to be held in hatred and contempt, how do we move forward together without mutual recognition of the right of everyone to self government and an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship?
By granting the power of limiting speech to those that commit violent acts in reaction to words, you are granting the power over your free speech to the idiots and the insane.
Exactly.
|
|
Popular speech needs no protection, it is unpopular speech that needs it. Whether it is the misogyny of Larry Flint's products or the blashemphous art work of some or the book burning of others. It is these types of speech that need more protecting than others. Even speech like Jon Stewart's would be threatened if laws of purposefully offending others was put into place. That doesn't mean that people are protected from the negative consequences of their speech, despite how much Dr. Laura wishes it was so. But Phelps and his like protesting (legally) near a soldier's funeral is exactly the kind of right that the soldier gave their life for. Disgusting, irredeemable speech that sickens you to experience it is exactly the type of speech that needs the most protection.That's the cliche answer, yes...I'm not concerned about hurting people's feelings, I'm concerned about this act guaranteeing there will be increased violence against our troops. I'm concerned that this will help to recruit additional terrorists. There's unpopular speech and then there's this. I have friends and family overseas that could be hurt because of this dipsh!t...as far as I'm concerned, he might as well be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Unless, of course, you think that speech that incites violence should be protected?
Please explain how this is going to "increase violence against troops"? Are you suggesting the people that the troops are fighting now are suddenly going to say, "Well were just going to kill a few of you, but now it is on, and we are stepping up a level?" Seriously? No, they are doing the best and if our (collectively, not me personal) idealization of people like Lady Gaga and such isn't already enough to push them to the point of murdering us, a few burnt books are going to either. As for recruiting more, again, are people really being so prejudiced against Muslims that they really believe that a rational Muslim is going to be turned to terrorism over a few burnt books? Seriously, do you think that moderate, rational Muslims have such a weak grasp on their morals that a burnt book or ten is going to suddenly make them turn away from them.
Frankly the claim that a few burnt books are going to increase the violence directed towards our troops is insulting to everyone.
Well, for some it will be the proverbial straw, because to extremely devout Muslim the Quran isn't just a book, it's the word of God, something to be treated with the utmost respect because it is directly of God. Same way the bible is regarded by extremely devout Christians.
But it's really just another thing the extremists can use to 'prove' that the West hates Islam and wishes to destroy it. They've got enough 'evidence' for this already, though , so I'm not sure this will make a huge difference.
Is everyone familiar with the Overton Window? We used to think that cartoons were OK. Now we consider it "normal" if people kill you for publishing them. How far are we willing to let that window slide?
By granting the power of limiting speech to those that commit violent acts in reaction to words, you are granting the power over your free speech to the idiots and the insane.Exactly.
+1, I guess.
We used to think that cartoons were OK. Now we consider it "normal" if people kill you for publishing them.
Show of hands? Who thinks it 'normal'?
We used to think that cartoons were OK. Now we consider it "normal" if people kill you for publishing them.Show of hands? Who thinks it 'normal'?
Depends how bad the version of Captain America is that they are publishing. =D
|
|
Is everyone familiar with the Overton Window? We used to think that cartoons were OK. Now we consider it "normal" if people kill you for publishing them. How far are we willing to let that window slide?
I dont know...how far are we willing to tolerate an internment camp civilization governed by mediocrity?
Show of hands? Who thinks it 'normal'?
All the major newspapers in the U.S. -- none of them will publish the cartoons out of fear of violent reprisals (although they claim it's to "avoid insluting the poor Muslims)."