Wes Mantooth

I think you'd find that most Americans find it appalling too but at the end of the day what can you really do about it? We can try tell them how ignorant it is until we're blue in the face but the fact remains that it's legal, nobody can physically stop them and once somebody has it in their head to burn a Quran reason probably went out the window long ago anyway.

The best solution is to let them throw their little temper tantrum, not pay it any mind and move on...kind of like a three year old stamping his feet over not getting a cookie...the more publicity this stuff gets the more it validates their position. If the media and everyone left this alone it would be a bunch of idiots at a bonfire but all the hullabaloo surrounding it has turned it into something meaningful and given them the chance to make a massive statement.

__________________

Strange Famous

Not sure if youre asking why it would be illegal in UK or why I agree - but I can answer both questions

In the UK this would probably be covered under incitement of racial hatrid (because blasphemy laws although still on the book are hardly ever used)... any action which is perceived as intended to incite violence can be outlawed.

I agree because I do not think that people should lose their lives so that somebody can have the freedom to burn a holy text and cause massive offensive to the followers of the second most popular religion in the world. I do not think that people have the right through speech or action to cause harm to fall on others and then hide behind the defence "I should be allowed to say whatever I want and burn whatever symbols I want"

I wonder what motivation these people have? In the aftermarth - when an American embassy in the world somewhere is blown up and 30 American citizens killed (for example) - will they be happy? Will they feel that these sacrificial offerings will help summon up a new crusade? I cannot think that they have any other intention but to encourage violence against America and its allies to create more division between the NATO allies and the Islamic world.

It would be nice if they could be ignored as morons that they are, if there was not this inherent hyper-sensitivity inherent in many Islamic states... but thats not the case. These people do what they do full well knowing and taking pleasure in the fact (I can only assume) that they will have blood on their hands.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

The_Dunedan

Here's a thought: instead of banning childish temper-tantrums and idiotic publicity stunts that do not concretely harm anybody and can easily be ignored by adults, why not make it against the law to kill people who say things you don't like?

And here's ANOTHER thought: lots of people HAVE died, for that exact right. I think y'all over there call them "Tommies." You know, average British, French, American, Australian and New Zealander soldiers. Then there's the spies, the partizans, and all the folks who helped any way they could. -THEY- died for that right in a little spat we over here like to call World War Two.

So instead of acting like adults and ignoring these idiots, you advocate that freedom of speech be restricted so as not to risk offending another bunch of even -bigger- idiots? What next? Who will be the -next- group to realize that if you pitch a big enough bitch, make enough of a ruckus, destroy enough property and kill enough people...YOU'LL be the one whose sensitivities are respected? How does that work? Morons get offended, riot and kill people, burn shit down and blow shit up...yet THEY'RE the ones we're supposed to refrain from offending? THEY get the consideration? We're supposed to give up Freedom Of Speech, one of the cornerstones of the Anglo-American tradition of political free agency and liberty...in order not to offend a pack of stone-age radicals who regard mutilating teenage girls as some kind of "justice?"

This "Pastor" is a fucking moron. But the idea that his non-violent* free speech should be legally curtailed because some jackass somewhere -might- take offense or act wrongly as a result...I have no words for how disgusting that is, as an idea and as a fact.

Edited To Add: There exists a possibility, if not likelihood, that Neo-Islamic Totalitarian Radicals will view and celebrate Park51 as a celebratory monument, a "triumphal mosque" if you like, in the tradition of Haiga Sophia et al. This despite the fact that Imam Rauf is anti-extremist, and Park51 will be intended to act as a counter to Al Q. & Co, and has nothing whatsoever to do with extremist triumphalism. Should Park51 and Cordoba be legally prohibited from building their community centre because of how assholes in Bumfuck, Pakistan will see it? Under your argument, SF, they should. Extremists will take it the wrong way and might react violently, so it shouldn't happen, right?


*However offensive and idiotic

Wes Mantooth

Do you guys remember back in the 80's when Ozzy Osbourne was sued because some kid committed suicide and his parents found an Ozzy record on turntable (suicide solution was the first cut I think)? The courts in that situation found that Ozzy had a right to express himself and the kid who committed suicide was responsible for his own actions. I think the same thing applies here only on a bigger scale. I don't think you can realistically hold somebody accountable for what somebody else may or may not do as a response to you expressing your own thoughts and opinions. In the end all you're doing is limiting what ideas can be passed around in public because the possibility exists that bad shit might go down. Where does that stop and when does limiting speech cross the line into plain old censorship?

At some point you just have to accept that idiots exist in the world and they are going to do idiotic things regardless of how much you might try to contain it.

__________________

roachboy

there's no connection between being critical of these backwater asshats and any limitation of their right to free speech. even if the community where the asshats lived were to mobilize itself and stop them, there'd still be no connection: the right is a legal matter, so the asshats in question could not be prosecuted legally for being asshats and engaging in asshat actions. but there could be a legitimate conflict over community standards in that particular town or county and that conflict could result in the asshat church of jesus being prevented from exercising their formally protected right to be as stupid as they want to be.

and i expect that libertarians wouldn't be able to do anything but cheer that community on.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

uncle phil

the old thing about yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater comes to mind, as well as the previously mentioned "incitement to riot..."

and i too wish the media would leave these clowns alone...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

The_Dunedan

Correct. You'll note that we share an opinion of this alleged "Pastor." SF and I, however, are discussing the fact that in the UK what these asshats want to do -is- illegal, and why he thinks such laws should be applied in the US vs why I think such laws are idiotic, unfair, and immoral.

So long as that conflict remained nonviolent, sure. I for one certainly wouldn't be doing any business with these jerkoffs.

And here's where it gets sticky. How does one nonviolently yet physically prevent someone from doing something?

Fuckin' A Right I would. Shun these idiots! Boycott their businesses, shun social contact with them and their families, turn them into non-functional pariahs! Look -through- them when they approach on the street, ignore them utterly when they talk! Don't buy anything from or sell anything to them! -THAT- is community action of the best and most moral kind, and I applaud all those who engage in it against this alleged "church."

Wes Mantooth

Well that's how I was always taught to fight this kind of stuff, good old fashioned shunning. Hopefully Bubba who owns the garage doesn't get a lick of business after participating in this, people could stop donating to the church, inviting them to civic functions and so forth. The problem though is a church congregation (in a lot of small towns anyway) sometimes makes up a good majority of the community...so yeah. But never the less they have a right to be stupid and everyone else has a right to ignore them...if only people would practice that.

__________________

Strange Famous

This argument is used a lot in a lot of causes, and it is naturally emotive as most people relate it to people they know.

Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, and survived it. One of them was in the RAF/USAF 30 years as a navigator and then an ATC. One of my grandmothers worked in the anti aircraft gun stations in London in the blitz.

It is not my personal view that any of them fought and risked their lives to defend the right for people to desecrate holy texts.

I would argue that burning a bible is as offensive as burning a Qu'ran - and both acts should be illegal.

_

The issue is in part that Islam is sensitive, but also I think me must mention that NATO allied forces are currently stationed and in two Islamic nations where they have invaded and where they currently are the only thing preventing civil war.

The moral offense caused by this church of the dove cretins CANNOT just be measured in the offense and hurt they cause ordinary Muslims. It has to be measured in the context of American and allied nations having troops stationed in countries holding the peace between religious and secular forces.

_

I think only I will repeat what I said first of all. Freedom of speech/expression is something that Americans hold dear, dearer than Europeans do - I understand this. Because of the actions of the Chruch of the dove in Florida, American soliders will die, American families will lose their children, their husbands, their fathers (or their wives, their mothers)

I do not claim that the Taleban are innocent children who have no blame in the wars they wage. But these actions will make the Taleban stronger, they will help them kill more Americans and prolong a conflict that will kill many Afghan civilians. They will increase the risk of terrorist attacks against America and its Allies. They will increase the divide between the vast majority of ordinary working class Islamic people who do not take arms against the offence caused by these things, but who feel hurt and distanced from a country that allows them.

_

It is simply a fact to say that if these people are allowed to burn Qu'rans, and the media publicizes the fact all over the world... people will die who would not if it didnt happen. These people will have blood on their hands.

America, as a society, must assess the price of freedom of speech.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Wes Mantooth

We have assessed it many times Strange and I think we're, for the most part, happy with what we have. How could we possibly express any new ideas if we stopped to weigh the potential consequences any controversial opinion. It would be nice if people would from time to time, self censorship can go a long way, but you don't always know what the consequences of hateful or controversial opinions may be or for that matter the potential benefits (I don't know what they would be here but whatever you can't agree with everybody all the time). Surely burning somebodies sacred religious text is, in my opinion, quite repulsive and I doubt the simple act of outlawing the practice would matter to very few but the question of where to stop remains. Should it be illegal to print a picture of Mohammad due to the potential fall out? Should good old fashioned criticism or satire be censored if a group reacts violently to it? Personally I don't believe we can measure the value of our rights and freedoms based on the reaction of nut jobs who lack a sense of proportion, it simply isn't feasible or right.

__________________

Ourcrazymodern?

...on a lighter (ahem) note, the Gainesville fire department might try to stop it because the ink in books is considered hazardous to burn.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Wes Mantooth

Wow, stopping them on a technicality over toxic fumes. Well played Gainsville FD, well played.

__________________

Strange Famous

Stepping outside of the real case and just into theoretical examples... do you believe there are no limits to the freedom of speech?

In 1944, should an American scientist have been free to announce to the world media how to make an atom bomb? Or should his freedom of speech be curtailed?

In 1943 should Japanese Americans have complete freedom to call on all ethnic Japanese living in America to sabotage American war efforts in any way they could?
_

I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ourcrazymodern?

The ACLU would have conniptions, but I agree.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ASU2003

It changed. I'm not a fan of what they are doing. If they wanted to attack Islam, there are other more effective ways to do it. ("You don't gotta burn the books, you just remove them." -Rage Against The Machine)

But, I am blaming the media for amplifying this event. It is all over the place now.

I am a fan of freedom of speech, but I would think this would fall under hate speech.

If the Muslims wanted to 'win' this, they would gather in a public location nearby and say that they were showing hatred towards their religion.
And the news media made sure to show off the guns that the pastor and 'followers' were carrying... (If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_cr..._United_States

*And I did read about this here last month, but I chose to ignore it. If the media had done the same and reported on a real news story, this wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

Wes Mantooth

Nope and neither does the US but there is a big difference between leaking military secrets, threatening others with physical harm, slander or openly inciting a riot and expressing your dislike or hatred about something. Carting them off to jail because they have a stick up their collective asses about the Quran or Muslims is really no different then carting somebody off to jail because they've expressed hatred towards a political party, a corporation or a local church.

We aren't just going to ignore a long standing American right that we've fought very hard for just to set an example. At the very least freedom of speech deserves the right of due process before its trampled on for a political gesture and that certainly isn't going to happen in time. You really advocate hauling innocent civilians off to prison on trumped up charges just to make a point? I know the US has done some fucked up stuff in the past but that would be pushing it pretty far.

__________________

The_Dunedan

This is insane. I honestly cannot believe that we're sitting here, having a discussion about ways in which people's Constitutional rights might best be violated. Carting people off to jail on whatever charge seems convenient to prevent them from engaging in stupid, but Constitutionally-protected, free speech? Actually advocating "trumping up" charges if nothing useful surfaces on its' own? Does the danger of starting down that road not evince itself to y'all, or what?

Jesus Fuck this is nuts.

Baraka_Guru

The U.S. is the land of the free, not the land of the "free from hatred." They're free to hate whomever they want, whether it's Muslims, atheists, blacks, women, children, gays, transsexuals, socialists, or Mexicans.

Of course, the U.S. isn't as free as it was in, say, the 19th century, but at least it's a more tolerable place to live than most (and to most people, it's more a more tolerable place to live than it was back then).

This whole situation is just a big, ugly anomaly. There is so much opposition to this both inside and outside of the U.S. It's just frustrating to think what a radical congregation of 50 can do to international politics and cultural relations.

And it's incredibly ironic. This act will only prove that they are false Christians who would disgrace the memories of those who died on 9/11.

Let's poke a few bears after a savage bear attack to see if maybe one might attack again. Because, you know, we want to protest against bears who would attack.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ourcrazymodern?

The "danger of starting down that road" evinces itself less clearly to me than the dangers of allowing these few to have their way. I don't see the slope as that slippery. Media circus & all, the threat of allowing this seems to me greater than the threat created by preventing it. Just maybe, in light of the fact that there are things none of us are allowed to freely say, this should be one of them.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

The_Dunedan

Be sure to remember this when you're being arrested on a trumped-up charge in order to make an example of you for saying things someone in power doesn't like or finds offensive. Child-molestation or kiddie-porn posession was a favorite such charge of certain midwestern PDs in the 1990s. Think about that. Then think about the fact that one day, another George W. Bush -will- be back in power, and objecting to wars and torture -will- be considered treason, or terrorism, or support for terrorism, by that administration or at least some of those within it. According to your line of reasoning, all that administration (or those people) would need to do in order to justify trumping up a false charge of molestation, or kiddie porn, or whatever they thought would do the trick, is make exactly the argument you've made above: that allowing you to protest the war (or whatever the situation may be) is more dangerous to the Body Politic than falsifying a charge against you and hauling you off to prison to shut you up. And you, my friend, will have absolutely -no- room to bitch about anything that happens to you, your family, or your friends. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, you will purely and simply deserve EVERYTHING that happens to you.

People wonder why the Constitution gets trashed, left and right, on a constant basis? People wonder where the PATRIOT Act came from? This is where. This mentality right here.

roachboy

disgusting from the outset, this is fast approaching lunacy.

Qur'an burning would increase risk of terror attacks ? Interpol | World news | guardian.co.uk


terry jones is playing kim jong il.

how is this now any different from yelling fire in a crowded theater?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I can only imagine what the conspiracy theorists will say if he calls it off after announcing that he was contacted by a government official.

I like how he put the onus on them. Now he has an excuse if something bad happens. He can just say he invited the government to advise him to do otherwise and they didn't. And if the government does advise him to cancel, he'll have more ammunition for his cause. He will be able to say how the government not only does too little to stop the Muslim takeover of America, but they impede his own initiatives to do something.

Nice.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Rekna

I think it is ironic that many Christians are saying "this guy doesn't represent us he is just some crazy guy" but at the same time many of those same people are saying "Muslims attacked us on 9/11".

Both are a case of crazy people doing stupid shit. I really hope this guy does not go through with this though I do wish that a few more Christian leaders would denounce the burnings much more forcefully.

Baraka_Guru

Here is the response to the event by the Islamic Center of Gainesville, Florida:



Islamic Center of Gainesville | Islamic Center Of Gainesville, Florida

This must be the work of the devil!

...and they're protesting the building of a Muslim cultural center in Manhattan?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

I think its still beyond lunacy that people are giving paying these idiots any mind at all (I don't mean discussions like this one). We have to keep whats going on here in perspective. A group of backwards, small minded people who essentially, as best I can tell, are just trying to get attention...and what do we do? Give it to them to them by the truck load. The simple fact of the matter is you can't control what everybody does all the time and in this world people are going to do grossly offensive and stupid things to make a point. We can collectively pull out hair out and fight it or turn our back to this kind of stupidity and give it the attention it deserves. None.

Why is everybody, world over, going out of their way to validate these people? Its like trying to put out a stupid fire by spraying it with liquid stupid.

__________________

Lindy

I anticipate a torrent of ad hominem attacks here, (how could anything good come out of that airhead?) but I think that the much maligned Ms. Palin really hits the nail on the head here. Many of us tend to force through our rights without regard to the consequences or for the feelings of others. Do we not all have a responsibility to consider the potential consequences of asserting our rights? Book burners and mosque builders alike.
Isn't this akin to selfishly forcing our "right of way" on the road, thereby causing an accident?

Lindy

ring

I'm borrowing Hired Gun's words here:

"Here is what I find ironic:

Cordoba House is not really a mosque. It includes a prayer space, yes, but it's primarily a cultural center - and not even an exclusively Muslim cultural center. Take a look at their mission statement:

Quote:
Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.
The entire Cordoba initiative seems to me to be exactly what the shrillest commentators have spent the last nine years claiming does not exist: a Muslim constituency genuinely and publicly devoted to tolerance and interfaith understanding.

So the choice of Lower Manhattan is meaningful; the whole point is to juxtapose a monument to understanding in the shadow of a scar of hatred and war.

Also, it's really not at ground zero, but a few blocks away on Park Place.

I think political opposition to this project is the cheapest, basest form of grandstanding, and I genuinely hope that the truth of the matter wins the day and calms the hearts of those who are sincerely upset."



Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0z401uoc3

Ms. Palin is not hitting any head of any nail, unless thumbs count.

Her feeble odious attempts at likening the two groups of people she is talking about:
Is sickening.

roachboy

so as ring said, and as is the case empirically, there is no "ground zero mosque."
what's interesting about palin's remark is that she's trying rhetorically to distance the neo-fascist right from these gainesville zanies. presumably everyone who either opposes or endangers the neo-fascists are identical for her. and that's about all that's interesting.

the clause about having the formal right to burn books and it being tasteless is a simple recapitulation of what everyone's said about this except maybe for the members of terry jones' cult and immediate family.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Agreed.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Pearl Trade

Not entirely true. Burning books is a symbolic act not topped by much else, if anything. Anyone who burns a religious book in a time of high tension with that religion is bound to get good media coverage, which has happened.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Wes Mantooth

So the news breaking...like right this second is that the Pastor won't be burning the Quran on Saturday...

...no articles yet, CNN is saying he instead is going to fly to New York and talk to an Imam.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

what a wuss.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

It's actually a bit surprising to me, especially after seeing the photo/video footage of him with Braveheart images/soundtrack and torso-shaped targets (or whatever they're called) as decoration on his walls.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

this of course was met with immediate denials from the people associated with the ground zero center and maybe I should tighten my tin foil hat, but his decision came very shortly after a meeting with the FBI. I'm sure they didn't threaten him with anything and just made a heartfelt appeal to him.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

He was probably repressed not unlike how King Arthur repressed Dennis.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

because the US Government would never threaten an american citizen for simply exercising their constitutional rights, right?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

What would they threaten him with? A disappearance? An "accident"?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

are you serious? have you not been paying attention to all the new homeland security laws since 9/11/01? do you REALLY need to have all this explained to you in great detail? or are you simply being obtuse?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

So they'd threaten him...with a law?

I'm not trying to be obtuse; it's just that you're being vague.

Your tin foil hat is showing, remember?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot