No, my comment about the "right to get shot in the face" was me speaking figuratively. And yes, once you choose not to exercise your rights, due to fear of violence reprisal, you literally no longer have them
Pastor had the right. Period....Like it not...and when we start regulating freedoms due to how others may react, then we have lost our freedom completely.
This may also shock you - There will be more Terry Jones and others that will continue to provoke or pull anti-Islam stunts
Are you also going to kick their asses? How many more asses will you have to kick?
100, 1000, 10,000...a million asses?....Thats a lot of ass
Not at all. There is a difference between one making a choice that affects others and one having any responsibility in the behavior of those other people. For example, if I burn the US Flag, and someone gets pissed off that I did it and goes on a killing rampage, my behavior had an impact on others, and it may have been prudent for me to have not burned the flag... even though it was entirely legal for me to do so. Even with this, though, I am not responsible for the behaviors of that other person's murders.
people decide to go on rampages for all manners of things.
I think that in the end if you don/t like Muslims your argument is Jones has the right.
If you believe in freedom of religion your argument is why go around disrespect peoples religion?
My view is I don't like islamists but I can differentiate between them and average practicing Muslims. Some just group them all together and make excuses for doing so.
Of course, because no one EVER used justification other than religion to commit atrocities.
This was just another case of zealots provoking zealots. Without religion, both sides still would've found some reason to justify their moronic behavior.
This is totally wrong. I'm a Christian, but I still acknowledge that people have the right to burn the Bible in this country as a form of speech.I think that in the end if you don/t like Muslims your argument is Jones has the right.
because freedom of religion also entails the freedom to be critical of them
Interfering with military operations in a war zone.
It is only a certain faction that feel this way. They are in the minority. Unfortunately "the squeaky wheel" still gets the oil. I am just an outspoken person; most people think the rev is a nut case, but they see it as a given and don't have an ax to grind. The ones who disagree with that and secretly feel he vindicates their hostility, are usually loud mouths with a YouTube account.
Frankly the guy should never have been given media attention. But if he finagled his way to stardom on his own, the media is still complicit for not telling the truth on the air that the man was endangering lives. Americans are individuals and I believe most are moral.
This new wave of propaganda has swept up some folks who are probably a little loose in the brain department and others who are morbidly uneducated.
President Hamid Karzai expressed regret for the 20 protest deaths, but he also further stoked possible anti-foreign sentiment by again demanding that the United States and United Nations bring to justice the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, where the Quran was burned March 20. Many Afghans did not know about the Quran-burning until Karzai condemned it four days after it happened.
This is totally wrong. I'm a Christian, but I still acknowledge that people have the right to burn the Bible in this country as a form of speech.
1) i have not condoned his bigotry
2) I support the constitution- I have taken two oaths to defend it
3) The people who did the killing are scum and impalement would be the proper sentence
4) towelterrorists will kill with no provocation at all-and this has been proven thousands of times
Have you not been reading this thread? Anyone here who calls for Jones to be sued, extradited to Afgahnistan, stoned, hands cut off or whatever, is not only questioning his right to free speech, they're saying he doesn't have it. Look, I totally agree that just because something is a right, doesn't mean it is right, but I'd rather live in a country where there's free speech even if it's speech that offends me.But see nobody ever I mean ever question his right. But it seems like the fall back position. The question I asked several times was was it right to do? Isit right to condemn a religion by burning their holy book. Not all Muslims are Islamists. So regardless Of our rights was Jones right to condemn all Muslims by his action. I say no
“That was mere foreplay. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” - Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)
Have you not been reading this thread? Anyone here who calls for Jones to be sued, extradited to Afgahnistan, stoned, hands cut off or whatever, is not only questioning his right to free speech, they're saying he doesn't have it. Look, I totally agree that just because something is a right, doesn't mean it is right, but I'd rather live in a country where there's free speech even if it's speech that offends me.
I knew you were going to use that quote. Book burning by government authority figures is different than private citizens doing it as a form of protest. In a sense, burning things with the intent of being offensive, is the epitome of free speech in the US.The one thing in this debate that just doesn't feel right to me is the feeling I'm getting that people seem to believe that the action of burning books is somehow a part of the sacred convenant of the freedom of expression or freedom of religion. There is nothing sacrosanct in upholding a behaviour that, of itself, represents the opposite of the freedom of expression.
I am not advocating that it should be made illegal, but that the reaction to it of the rest of society should be one of deep disapproval and enhanced vigilance to ensure that those carrying out such book-burnings realise that the wider community understands perfectly well the route they might be planning to take us down.
Book burning is a deeply authoritarian action, one that has been a hallmark of the most despotic regimes in history, in fact one of the actions of the very people whose values these book-burners claim to despise. You don't show your disapproval of fascistic behaviour by adopting the same behaviour.
It's been quoted many times on DP, but to remind you:
Evidence of religious violence on any side of the field is riddled throughout history. The being an Islamic reaction holds no correlation to the violence itself.They JUST didnt die. They were BRUTALLY MURDERED!!! Why? Because some guy on the other side of the Earth burned their book. Religion SUCKS! And especially the muslim religion. They are murders and barbarians.
I think every one here has questioned his wisdom and courage. We don't have to like the speaker or the message to believe in free speech.who are you arguing with. I never question his right but his wisdom. I question his courage as well.
and you would lose that suit and hopefully the judge would hit you with sanctions pursuant to civil rule 11.
if Christians killed people everytime the jihadist scum insulted the Christian faith or the west we would have a 100 million dead muslims
I think every one here has questioned his wisdom and courage. We don't have to like the speaker or the message to believe in free speech.
The actions of that jihadist scum were the totally predictable outcome of the actions of Reverend Nutter. He knew, or at least should have known, that his publicity stunt was putting lives at risk. He is, therefore, to blame for having set off religious extremists and indirectly having caused death and injury.
Once again, yes it has. Anyone who's claiming that Jones should be held accountable in some way, is effectively saying he didn't have the right.Again, Who has questioned his right? It really was never the question at all by anyone.
The one thing in this debate that just doesn't feel right to me is the feeling I'm getting that people seem to believe that the action of burning books is somehow a part of the sacred convenant of the freedom of expression or freedom of religion. There is nothing sacrosanct in upholding a behaviour that, of itself, represents the opposite of the freedom of expression.
I am not advocating that it should be made illegal, but that the reaction to it of the rest of society should be one of deep disapproval and enhanced vigilance to ensure that those carrying out such book-burnings realise that the wider community understands perfectly well the route they might be planning to take us down.
Book burning is a deeply authoritarian action, one that has been a hallmark of the most despotic regimes in history, in fact one of the actions of the very people whose values these book-burners claim to despise. You don't show your disapproval of fascistic behaviour by adopting the same behaviour yourself.
It's been quoted many times on DP, but to remind you:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?