• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastor who burned Koran demands retribution

theplaydrive said:
Obviously General Petraeus anticipated it...
Click to expand...

And he might have an inside track on just how crazy these people are and what they might use as excuses. But not until all those UN workers were murdered did many in the west believe that Muslims , followers of the "Religion of Peace", could ever behave in this barbaric fashion.

My sincere apologies for claiming you used the term "bigot", by the way. It was another poster and I regret making that statement..
 
I certainly believed that extremist Muslims could have behaved in this fashion - I believed it after 9/11, after all of the beheadings of journalists, etc. - which is why I would have listened to Petraeus.

My sincere apologies for claiming you used the term "bigot", by the way. It was another poster and I regret making that statement..
Click to expand...
Thanks man. We all misquote each other once in while. No big deal.
 

They are indeed like you or me. No better, no worse. The difference is that neither you nor I have lived through times in which our country was invaded repeatedly by foreign armies, nor placed under the edict of religious authoritarians. Neither you nor I can guarantee what our response to provocation might be were we living under certain circumstances. It's very comfy for us to speculate, to say "well, not everyone rioted, so those that did are just deranged fanatics, terrorists even", when we don't know how we might behave ourselves. I would hope not to turn into a rampaging, blood-thirsty zealot just as I would hope I wouldn't have turned into a KKK member in post-Civil War America, or a Francoist in Civil War Spain, but speculating on how you might behave is very different from knowing. Of course most Afghans know that murder is not the appropriate response to some idiot Protestant's provocation. Hell, I'm sure some of the people involved in the violence are now wracked with guilt at their behaviour. People behave in wildly outrageous ways under exceptional circumstances. They then have to live with the consequences of that aberrant behaviour.
 
Gardener said:
Somehow, I had been thinking that it was murdering innocent people because of one's ideology that did that.

Silly me.
Click to expand...

that's because you hate muslims, or what ever the current attack meme is
 

And this relates to my comment, how? Oh wait... it doesn't.
 

Yes, killing random people, by choice, will always be deranged and fanatical
 

You just changed the goalposts. If the government eliminates free speech as a right, making it illegal, it is no longer a right. The scenario is completely different.
 

Perhaps you should be more clear with your comments. Then, perhaps, people can understand what you are trying to communicate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You just changed the goalposts. If the government eliminates free speech as a right, making it illegal, it is no longer a right. The scenario is completely different.
Click to expand...

then just have a scenario where Obama has a death squad that kills his critics. In such a scenario you would have only the illusion of the right, not the right

though I think the original example illustrates this point just fine, and the legality of speech, prior to the introductions of death squads, is inconsequential to the logic
 
ManofthPeephole said:
then just have a scenario where Obama has a death squad that kills his critics. In such a scenario you would have only the illusion of the right, not the right
Click to expand...

You are again changing the goalposts. This would be a dictatorship, a type of government where free speech is often not a right at all.

though I think the original example illustrates this point just fine, and the legality of speech, prior to the introductions of death squads, is inconsequential to the logic
Click to expand...

If the right is eliminated as a right, you no longer have the right to exercise it. It no longer exists.
 
Grant said:
Mark Steyn summed up the situation quite well.

Re: Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online
Click to expand...

Wow! You've posted something more than 50% of which I agree with. I'm flabbergasted.

I think the Napier quote is entertaining and apt. The problem with it is that the British Empire at the time were strapping dissidents over the ends of their cannons and blowing them to pieces for having the effrontery to protest at the foreign domination of their country. Was that so much more civilised than the practice of suttee? Nevertheless, the quote seems relevant.

The other thing with which I disagree is the way Steyn gives the Rev. Book Burner a free pass on his incitement to violence. I suspect he would be one of those who jumped up and down when a few extremist Moslems were burning the Satanic Verses in the streets of Toronto and London. I know I was. How the same behaviour by a religious bigot now gets a pass is beyond me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are again changing the goalposts. This would be a dictatorship, a type of government where free speech is often not a right at all.
Click to expand...

wait, earlier you said a right exists regardless if there is a physical threat involved, and now you are saying this example of a physical threat doesn't apply to your earlier argument? Honestly, I'm not understanding how you could claim such.

Again, the right would exist, you would just need to deal with a death squad. Which would be the consequences of your actions, and you could (according to your earlier arguments) choose not to voice your opinion, while still maintaining the right of free speech.



CaptainCourtesy said:
If the right is eliminated as a right, you no longer have the right to exercise it. It no longer exists.
Click to expand...

Right, and the threat of force, in retaliation to an individual exercising their rights, essentially ends those rights. Like in the above example
 
Last edited:

He is "devastated" by the deaths... good to know he is human unlike the Westboro Baptist people. I however, am not surprised by the reaction in the middle east
 

Perhaps you and I differ on the definition of a right. For the purposes of this discussion, a right is a legal entity.


Right, and the threat of force, in retaliation to the exercise of your rights, essentially ends those rights, like the example above
Click to expand...

If the right is eliminated in the way you described, it is no longer a right. For example, if Congress elminated the First Amendment as a right, you burning a book could be a capital offense. You do not have the right to burn the book, in this scenario, therefore, you have no right to lose if you do not burn a book for fear of retribution.
 
Andalublue said:
Wow! You've posted something more than 50% of which I agree with. I'm flabbergasted.
Click to expand...

Then I'm more optimistic. You're making progress.


Dissidents? Napier doesn't mention "dissidents", which is a much abused word these days.


Anything can be construed as "an incitement to violence" if we are dealing with brains completely warped by religious fervor, as those Islamic butchers were. There is no 'incitement' too trivial once we start down any path which attempts to justify murderous religious fanatics.
 

Do you think a right can be curtailed while still being technically legal?
 
Grant said:
Dissidents? Napier doesn't mention "dissidents", which is a much abused word these days.
Click to expand...
No, Napier wouldn't mention them, nor the barbaric practices of the British overlords during the period of the Raj, but I'm not blowing hot air...

Execution by Cannon
 
Andalublue said:
No, Napier wouldn't mention them, nor the barbaric practices of the British overlords during the period of the Raj, but I'm not blowing hot air...

Execution by Cannon
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but you're attempting to blow smoke in the wrong direction. Let's have a debate about British imperialism and the dissidents elsewhere.

In the meanwhile, Taliban Militants Bomb Muslim Shrine in Pakistan, Kill 42, Christian News, The Christian Post

How do we blame this one one on an obscure Florida pastor Muslims in Pakistan, or Afghanistan for that matter, never heard of?
 
Andalublue said:
Well, let's have a debate about unrelated attacks elsewhere.
Click to expand...

It seems clear that these attacks are related and none of them have anything to do with an obscure pastor in Florida. They have gone on for years before he came into view and will continue long after his 15 minutes are up.

Anyone who believes that the riots and killings in Afghanistan were the result of some obscure Florida preacher or that other riots and killings around the world were a consequence of some locally published Danish cartoons, really should rethink what's happening in the world and check up on the history and meaning of what propaganda is and does. Others obviously have.

If they can murder innocent people and blame it on the West, so much the better. But terrorists will continue their murders of innocents no matter what is said in the democracies. It really doesn't matter.
 
Salty said:
imo he is guilty of seditious acts in a time of war. That's more than just freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
a rebelion against the government? If you classify this man guilty of that then every hippie in the U.S. during Vietnam would have been arrested and charged.
 
I now feel like burning 100 Qurans and posting it up all over youtube, just to prove that i have a right to do whatever i want with my payed property(as long as im not harming anyone directly i.e. light a muslim on fire while holding a quran or chucking flaming qurans at people) without any conciquences .

And i don't even hate Muslims or Islamic people, but to accuse a man by practicing his free speach is de-humanizing.
 
Last edited:
Free-speech is a Universal right... no matter what someone says/does(legally) in America !everyone! in the world IS morally obligated to respect their free speech.
 
celticwar17 said:
Free-speech is a Universal right... no matter what someone says/does(legally) in America !everyone! in the world IS morally obligated to respect their free speech.
Click to expand...

Wow I didn't realize America gets to decide which rights are universal. Neato!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…