I agree, Mriana, but I like having a copy of the old testament next to my keyboard so I can flip it open and quote chapter and verse to shoot down the silly biblically uneducated statements by christians.
This is true and I do the same thing, but still I don’t think it would affect you much if a few hundred were burned, as long as one of them was not your copy.
It seems the city of Gainsville is a little pissed about the whole Qur’an burning hoohah and the extra security and overtime they had to call up over it. So they sent the $200,000 bill to the church. And they expect the church to pay. Better start passing around the collection plate.
And if the church can make the separation of church and state defense stick in this case, maybe the Catholic church will decide to try it to prevent prosecution of their pedophile priests.
Are they? I mean sure, his reasons are different from, say, what mine might be but surely he is just exercising his “right” to freedom of speech which (as I understand it) is guaranteed under the US constitution.
If that’s so then surely the people in the wrong are people like Clinton and Obama (who represent the state).
Are they? I mean sure, his reasons are different from, say, what mine might be but surely he is just exercising his “right” to freedom of speech which (as I understand it) is guaranteed under the US constitution.
If that’s so then surely the people in the wrong are people like Clinton and Obama (who represent the state).
Yes, they are. Sure he’s exercising his right to free speech, but he’s also adding fuel to the fire that runs terrorist recruitment efforts. It’s just another example they can point to and say, “See. America hates the Qur-an, American hates Islam.”
Are they? I mean sure, his reasons are different from, say, what mine might be but surely he is just exercising his “right” to freedom of speech which (as I understand it) is guaranteed under the US constitution.
If that’s so then surely the people in the wrong are people like Clinton and Obama (who represent the state).
Yes, they are. Sure he’s exercising his right to free speech, but he’s also adding fuel to the fire that runs terrorist recruitment efforts. It’s just another example they can point to and say, “See. America hates the Qur-an, American hates Islam.”
But that is surely his right, to demonstrate his feelings as a “right” under freedom of speech/expression?
Dead Monky - 20 September 2010 10:59 AM
What do Clinton and Obama have to do with it?
Everything ... they ARE the state, they (if no one else) should recognise his “right” to FoS/E and by attempting (as state officials) to dissuade him they are attempting to deny his “right” to FoS/E.
Don’t get me wrong here, I think the guy’s a d*** but that’s just my opinion and of no greater inherent value than anyone else’s but I am trying to argue from the so called “right” to freedom of speech/expression which, it seems to me, everyone loses sight of when someone does something they don’t like. Typically it seems to be theists that do that (express their own views and shout anyone else down who doesn’t agree) but I’ve noticed quite a few secularists (you know the kind that always harp on about their rights and so on) seem slow to acknowledge the rights of others when those others disagree with them ... it’s a bit like the way people start calling others trolls when, in actual fact, all those others are is someone who doesn’t hold the same view (all they actually do is demonstrate their ignorance of what a troll actually is).
Keke
[ Edited: 20 September 2010 12:23 PM by Kyuuketsuki UK ]
I don’t really care if he had burned the Qur’an or not. (Well, okay, I do. I don’t think any book should be burned.) But I think he needed to be aware of the greater ramifications of his actions. He needed to be aware of how his actions would be perceived across the world.
And notice that the gov didn’t try to force him to stop. They just tried to persuade him against it.
Are they? I mean sure, his reasons are different from, say, what mine might be but surely he is just exercising his “right” to freedom of speech which (as I understand it) is guaranteed under the US constitution.
If that’s so then surely the people in the wrong are people like Clinton and Obama (who represent the state).
Yes, they are. Sure he’s exercising his right to free speech, but he’s also adding fuel to the fire that runs terrorist recruitment efforts. It’s just another example they can point to and say, “See. America hates the Qur-an, American hates Islam.”
But that is surely his right, to demonstrate his feelings as a “right” under freedom of speech?
Dead Monky - 20 September 2010 10:59 AM
What do Clinton and Obama have to do with it?
Everything ... they ARE the state, they (if no one else) should recognise his “right” to FoS and by attempting (as state officials) to dissuade him they are attempting to deny his “right” to FoS.
Don’t get me wrong here, I think the guy’s a d*** but that’s just my opinion ... I am trying to argue from the so called “right” to freedom of speech which, it seems to me, everyone loses sight of when someone does somethign they don’t like.
Keke
The media has the freedom to ignore him. However they have a vested interest in sensationalizing it.
I don’t think anyone denied his rights. I do think they should have brought more awareness about his freedom of speech. Nothing wrong with trying to dissuade though IMO.
The media has the freedom to ignore him. However they have a vested interest in sensationalizing it.
Yes, they do, certain sections of it at any rate.
Gnostikosis - 20 September 2010 12:20 PM
I don’t think anyone denied his rights. I do think they should have brought more awareness about his freedom of speech. Nothing wrong with trying to dissuade though IMO.
I think that is wrong ... I think Clinton and Obama in particular abused his “rights” to FoS/E because, as I said earlier, they ARE the state, they represent the US constitution. Yes I know they have to look at the bigger picture and perhaps make the gentleman in question aware of the downside to his exercising his “rights” (and arguably that is all they did though it seems to me they put some significant pressure on him arguing it would result in greater Al Qaeda recruitment and the death of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan) but that others might kill US soldiers because of his “protest” is neither here nor there because they are responsible for their own actions and cannot definitively attribute them to what he wanted to do.
The media has the freedom to ignore him. However they have a vested interest in sensationalizing it.
Yes, they do, certain sections of it at any rate.
Gnostikosis - 20 September 2010 12:20 PM
I don’t think anyone denied his rights. I do think they should have brought more awareness about his freedom of speech. Nothing wrong with trying to dissuade though IMO.
I think that is wrong ... I think Clinton and Obama in particular abused his “rights” to FoS/E because, as I said earlier, they ARE the state, they represent the US constitution. Yes I know they have to look at the bigger picture and perhaps make the gentleman in question aware of the downside to his exercising his “rights” (and arguably that is all they did though it seems to me they put some significant pressure on him arguing it would result in greater Al Qaeda recruitment and the death of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan) but that others might kill US soldiers because of his “protest” is neither here nor there because they are responsible for their own actions and cannot definitively attribute them to what he wanted to do.
Keke
On the other side this will encourage Muslims to seek further ways to curtail freedom of speech. They killed 18 soldiers I think I heard in protests. So if they want to affect US policy, kill more soldiers?
What I heard today was the Pastor didn’t agree with Obama but felt he couldn’t stand up against the pressure the administration was applying.
There is a book you might be interested in called the “Death of Free Speech”.
