News Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[FlexGunship]

EDIT: I should be clear that I have NOOOOO anti-Muslim tendencies. Simple minded people will make this into an "us vs. them" post. If Obama told me not to burn a Bible, I would burn a Bible.

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

Obama wants Koran burning cancelled
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hJo3TrJgNxQFSKtdLWpGG4ERuLlg

Furthermore, our own president is advocating the abridgment of our freedom to demonstrate.
I am not religious in the slightest, and I had no inclination to support this event, but now that it's a statement about my freedoms as an American I'm forced to support it. This is disgusting. I have a really nice edition of the Koran that I'm tempted to burn now. Maybe I'll take out a few of the books in my Bible collection, too. Surely, someone will burn a copy of the "Origins of Species" just to make a point.

This is getting ridiculous. And people wonder why Obama is so adamantly loathed. Buddy, it's got nothing to do with your birth certificate, your skin color, or your suspected religious leanings. Honestly! It has to do with the fact that you're a jerk. A jerk that can't leave the people of your country alone for a week without asking for more money, limiting our freedoms just a little more, and proposing some other crazy-*** scheme that involves penalizing hardworking people.

 

[JaredJames]

Couldn't agree more (and I'm from the UK - where it's exactly the same!).

 

[lisab]

EDIT: I should be clear that I have NOOOOO anti-Muslim tendencies. Simple minded people will make this into an "us vs. them" post. If Obama told me not to burn a Bible, I would burn a Bible.

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

Obama wants Koran burning cancelled
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hJo3TrJgNxQFSKtdLWpGG4ERuLlg

Furthermore, our own president is advocating the abridgment of our freedom to demonstrate.
I am not religious in the slightest, and I had no inclination to support this event, but now that it's a statement about my freedoms as an American I'm forced to support it. This is disgusting. I have a really nice edition of the Koran that I'm tempted to burn now. Maybe I'll take out a few of the books in my Bible collection, too. Surely, someone will burn a copy of the "Origins of Species" just to make a point.

This is getting ridiculous. And people wonder why Obama is so adamantly loathed. Buddy, it's got nothing to do with your birth certificate, your skin color, or your suspected religious leanings. Honestly! It has to do with the fact that you're a jerk. A jerk that can't leave the people of your country alone for a week without asking for more money, limiting our freedoms just a little more, and proposing some other crazy-*** scheme that involves penalizing hardworking people.

The statements I bolded and enlarged indicate to me you are not thinking for yourself, but your thoughts are simply reflexes against __________ (fill in the blank, doesn't matter what goes there).

 

[FlexGunship]

The statements I bolded and enlarged indicate to me you are not thinking for yourself, but your thoughts are simply reflexes against __________ (fill in the blank, doesn't matter what goes there).

To be fair, yes, I have a tendency to rebel against oppression. In the same way that when someone tried to tie you up you struggle. It should be reflex. When someone tries to stifle your cries for help, you should yell out louder.

Do you disagree?

Keep in mind, these are freedoms we had only weeks ago. We've just barely lost them. Are we scheduled to get them back later?

EDIT: Furthermore, the U.S. used to be the signal-light for the entire free world. Demonstrating at every turn that individual freedoms were necessary to create the the strongest, most powerful nation on earth. Now what are we? The poster boy for "playing it safe."

 

[JaredJames]

lisab, I have do disagree, purely on the grounds that if people attack our cultures, our way of life and claim it's "freedom of speech (and possibly religion)", it's fine, but we try and speak out and defend what we believe in and it's suddenly wrong and frowned upon. A very one sided system.

edit: by 'we' I am not trying to be racist or anything, I'm speaking about the general population who do not fall under any specific group (religious etc), as an example, there are a lot of schools in the uk which fall under religious rules, not the state, meaning they can discriminate against anyone not part of their religion being accepted by them, despite the whole population paying for them through taxes. If you try creating a non-religious school, and imposing said rules, you would be prosecuted for being anti-religious.

 

[DaveC426913]

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation

You are not "speaking out as a nation". Some people are sensitive about the issue; most keep a rational head on their shoulders. It is disingenuous for you to suggest that anyone is speaking for anyone but themselves.

(or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

Moving the mosque is wrong, pure and simple.

It is not an Islam thing; it is a human rights thing. People who are mourning for lost loved ones in 9/11 are transferring their anger away from an act of terrorism and towards a belief system that is not responsible for their grief. They have no right to associate 9/11 with Islam, nor do they have any right to associate a mosque with direspect of 9/11. To allow them to express themselves by the moving of the mosque is to allow religious persecution back into the nation.

In a nutshell: Islam did not bring down the towers, terrorists did.

 

[FlexGunship]

You are not "speaking out as a nation". Some people are sensitive about the issue; most keep a rational head on their shoulders. It is disingenuous for you to suggest that anyone is speaking for anyone but themselves.

I agree. Sorry. You're right about that.

Moving the mosque is wrong, pure and simple.

It is not an Islam thing; it is a human rights thing. People who are mourning for lost loved ones in 9/11 are transferring their anger away from an act of terrorism and towards a belief system that is not responsible for their grief. They have no right to associate 9/11 with Islam, nor do they have any right to associate a mosque with direspect of 9/11. To allow them to express themselves by the moving of the mosque is to allow religious persecution back into the nation.

In a nutshell: Islam did not bring down the towers, terrorists did.

I appreciate the fact that you're trying to be "mature" and "level-headed" about this, but don't you think that this is one area where political correctness is doled out a little too heavily?

Sam Harris made a great point about the 9/11 terrorists: here we have, for the first time, a clear cut reason. So often we are forced, after a tragic event, to guess at the motives; to theorize. Not this time. They told us who they are. We have videos. We have documents and records. This act was done in the name of Islam by Muslims. 9/11 was an Islamic initiative supported by a minority of Muslims. It's okay to say that; it doesn't make you racist, or anything. It's a fact. There were no atheists, or secular humanists involved this time.

Consider a counter example. And consider it seriously. What if we (the U.S. military) had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and then a private company (unrelated to the military) set up a large investment bank right near where it used to be. Those Muslims have no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site. But do you think they would? I bet they would. What do you think?

OH GIANT EDIT! I totally forgot this part. I agree that there's no reason to move the mosque. Seriously. If they have the money to purchase the land and the money to construct there, then they have every American right to be there. Absolutely. No question. If you carefully review my original post, I made no stance on the matter at all. I was only speaking out against the clear use of extortion.

 

[DaveC426913]

They told us who they are. We have videos. We have documents and records. This act was done in the name of Islam by Muslims.

They can say that all they want. They do not represent Islam or Muslims.

If Terry Jones claimed he was burning the Qur'an "in the name of Christianity", is he representing Christianity? Does he speak for them? Is it right and fair for the nation to decide that Christianity as a group is to be held accountable for his actions?

Nope.

Neither Islam nor Muslims are accountable for the actions of a bunch of terrorists.

 

[DaveC426913]

no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site

Lousy example. "Investment banking" is not a personal human right at the core of how people define themelves.

If a bunch of people decided they didn't like investment banking and wanted to abolish it, whose basic human rights - written in the Constitution - would be trampled on?

No one's.

I was only speaking out against the clear use of extortion.

As a simplistic example: if you told me you were going to steal my car, and I told you I will defend my property, with force if I must, you would crying foul because I threatened you with force? You don't have any problem with the threat to steal the car in the first place?

Muslims have a right to be free from religious persecution. They are the ones wronged here.

 

[FlexGunship]

They can say that all they want. They do not represent Islam or Muslims.

If Terry Jones claimed he was burning the Qur'an "in the name of Christianity", is it right and fair for the nation to decide that Christianity is to blame? No, he can not claim to "represent Christianity", any more than he can claim to "represent males" or "represent brown-eyed blacks over 40".

Fair point. I concede it to you. But I would clarify, that Terry Jones is telling us clearly why he's doing it. So, no one can come back later and ascribe it to "impoverished conditions." Although, there does seem to be evidence that he's trying to make money on the whole thing.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the remainder of my post. Quoted here to clarify.

Consider a counter example. And consider it seriously. What if we (the U.S. military) had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and then a private company (unrelated to the military) set up a large investment bank right near where it used to be. Those Muslims have no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site. But do you think they would? I bet they would. What do you think?

 

[FlexGunship]

As a simplistic example: if you told me you were going to steal my car, and I told you I will defend my property, with force if I must, you would crying foul because I threatened you with force? You don't have any problem with the threat to steal the car in the first place?

These people have a right to be free from religious persecution. They are the ones wronged here.

Let me finish my quote for you. I would appreciate if you refrained from selective quoting.

I totally forgot this part. I agree that there's no reason to move the mosque. Seriously. If they have the money to purchase the land and the money to construct there, then they have every American right to be there. Absolutely. No question. If you carefully review my original post, I made no stance on the matter at all. I was only speaking out against the clear use of extortion.

So, obviously, in your example, you are the owner of your car. You have every right to defend your property through any legal channel. I suggest you call the police before physically assaulting me though... I would win that court case.

 

[Jack21222]

You do realize that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group, right? What you're doing is like blaming the Catholic church for IRA bombings. "They're both Christian!"

 

[FlexGunship]

You do realize that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group, right? What you're doing is like blaming the Catholic church for IRA bombings. "They're both Christian!"

Are you talking to me? I never made a claim such that "one Muslim's action represents all."

 

[DaveC426913]

...Terry Jones is telling us clearly why he's doing it...

My only point is that he does get to decide who he represents, any more than terrorists do. The terrorists have no claim to be doing it "in the name of Islam".

More importantly, regardless of what the terrorists wish us to think, the entire world (including those injured by 9/11) must put the blame where it belongs.

So, obviously, in your example, you are the owner of your car. You have every right to defend your property through any legal channel. I suggest you call the police before physically assaulting me though... I would win that court case.

[light-hearted sarcasm]
Look who's making the rules! The criminal is telling the innocent victim how this whole car-stealing thing should go down!

"I'm going to steal your car now. Don't be doing anything foolish that might get me hurt. That'd be, you know, illegal..."
[/light-hearted sarcasm]

Where do you think the world should be concentrating its attention and derision? On controlling the victim's ability to prevent the crime? Or on the initial crime itself?

 

[Jack21222]

Are you talking to me? I never made a claim such that "one Muslim's action represents all."

It's implicit in your arguments. You don't need to make the claim when you say things like:

Not this time. They told us who they are. We have videos. We have documents and records. This act was done in the name of Islam by Muslims.

That is completely irrelevant to Sufis building the equivalent of a YMCA. It's a completely different branch of Islam, and they don't particularly like one another. In that way, it's even a little more separation between groups than my IRA example, which I admit, isn't as good of an example as I would like to use.

Additionally, I'd like to comment on the second part of your post, about the Quran burning. The government is NOT trying to forbid the burning. They are NOT using force to stop anybody. They are NOT stepping on anybody's right to burn the Quran. They are simply expressing their disapproval. Any other interpretation is pure fantasy on your part.

 

[Perspicacity]

Additionally, I'd like to comment on the second part of your post, about the Quran burning. The government is NOT trying to forbid the burning. They are NOT using force to stop anybody. They are NOT stepping on anybody's right to burn the Quran. They are simply expressing their disapproval. Any other interpretation is pure fantasy on your part.

http://firelink.monster.com/news/ar...t-for-koran-burning-pastor-still-goes-for-it"

 

[Jack21222]

http://firelink.monster.com/news/ar...t-for-koran-burning-pastor-still-goes-for-it"

That's a very poor article. The headline has little to do with the body of the article, save a brief mention near the bottom. It provides no details as to WHY the fire department wouldn't issue a permit, and it appears there is no effort to actually stop them from setting an unauthorized fire.

Additionally, the OP was talking about Obama. Obama has nothing to do with the local fire department.

 

[jgens]

Keep in mind, these are freedoms we had only weeks ago. We've just barely lost them. Are we scheduled to get them back later?

Out of curiosity, what freedoms do you think that we've lost?

 

[Perspicacity]

That's a very poor article. The headline has little to do with the body of the article, save a brief mention near the bottom. It provides no details as to WHY the fire department wouldn't issue a permit, and it appears there is no effort to actually stop them from setting an unauthorized fire.

Additionally, the OP was talking about Obama. Obama has nothing to do with the local fire department.

I agree with you on the quality of the article-I was trying to find a source for something on NPR. If what NPr reported was correct, the only penalty will be a fine, but even a $50 fine would be unacceptable in my opinion.

When I first heard the story, I felt that this Pastor was an idiot, but then I recalled how I felt about the Danish cartoons and the aftermath. Now I fully support this pastor, even if it risks the life of our troops overseas. Our military's purpose is to protect our way of life, which includes both hatred and free speech.

 

[DaveC426913]

Out of curiosity, what freedoms do you think that we've lost?

I think he feels his freedom to persecute on the basis of religion is being taken away...

 

[DaveC426913]

Now I fully support this pastor

Do you fully suport this method for getting a message across? Through provocation and hateful stunts?

Do you think that's the example we want to set for the coming remainder of the 21st century?

 

[FlexGunship]

Where do you think the world should be concentrating its attention and derision? On controlling the victim's ability to prevent the crime? Or on the initial crime itself?

Okay, we got way off topic. I'm defending a straw man which is silly. Obviously I don't personally hold any grudge with Muslims, I hope that was well understood. I tried to state it clearly in my original post.

I hope you'll take the time to address my counter-example though:

Consider a counter example. And consider it seriously. What if we (the U.S. military) had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and then a private company (unrelated to the military) set up a large investment bank right near where it used to be. Those Muslims have no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site. But do you think they would? I bet they would. What do you think?

 

[drankin]

I think he feels his freedom to persecute on the basis of religion is being taken away...

Obviously the right is not taken away. Does anyone think this man should be forcibly prevented from burning the Quran?

 

[Gokul43201]

This act was done in the name of Islam by Muslims.

It was also an act done in the name of honor by human beings. Should we prevent honorable human beings from moving into lower Manhattan? Use a sufficiently generic label, and you will catch all the fish you want (and more, but who cares about that?).

Want to list out all the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of patriotism?

Why doesn't your "freedom" bell ring out in rebellion when Obama said that the decision to build a mosque in Manhattan was misguided? Why then, did you not make your own donation to the mosque-building cause as an act of protest? What does that statement not make Obama a jerk who's limiting our freedoms just a little more?

Could it be that your reflexes are stimulated more by the who, and less by the why?

 

[Jack21222]

I agree with you on the quality of the article-I was trying to find a source for something on NPR. If what NPr reported was correct, the only penalty will be a fine, but even a $50 fine would be unacceptable in my opinion.

Unacceptable based on what? If the fire department is creating code violations out of thin air to suppress religious or political speech, I agree with you. If the fire department denied the permit because of actual dangers in the pastor's plan, I disagree with you.

Based on the information we have, I cannot make that determination.

When I first heard the story, I felt that this Pastor was an idiot, but then I recalled how I felt about the Danish cartoons and the aftermath. Now I fully support this pastor, even if it risks the life of our troops overseas. Our military's purpose is to protect our way of life, which includes both hatred and free speech.

It must be nice to live in such a binary world, with no shades of grey. In my world, I think the pastor is an idiot AND I support his right to be an idiot. I think he's being needlessly provocative for his own personal gain, but I have no particular love for any religious text. I think it's a bad PR move to provoke Muslim extremists, but I also think the Muslim extremists are foolish for taking their fairy tales so seriously.

It's possible to have a nuanced view on things. It's not necessary to be either "for" or "against" something.

 

[FlexGunship]

Out of curiosity, what freedoms do you think that we've lost?

1) Freedom to express disapproval, publicly, vocally, to everyone. In this case, the freedom to express disapproval of the build site for the "multicultural Islamic center."

Buy the land and use it however you want, that's your right. But don't complain for a second if people protest it, that's their right. This federally-funded Imam (AP - http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5d652c58-0b4f-5301-89fd-afd66996ba1b.html ), is now warning us that if he doesn't get his way that there might be lethal consequences.

I'm not saying he's going to hurt anyone, I know he won't. In fact, he seems like a decent guy in all of his interviews. But that is the definition of terrorism.

2) Freedom of expression through symbolic act. In this case, the freedom to destroy a symbol. I disagree vehemently with Terry Jones. REALLY! I think they guy is a world-class fark-tard. And if he can't burn the books, then I hope he rips them up by hand.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does anyone think this man should be forcibly prevented from burning the Quran?

Heck, even our freedom hating Obama hasn't implied that!

 

[FlexGunship]

In my world, I think the pastor is an idiot AND I support his right to be an idiot. I think he's being needlessly provocative for his own personal gain, but I have no particular love for any religious text. I think it's a bad PR move to provoke Muslim extremists, but I also think the Muslim extremists are foolish for taking their fairy tales so seriously.

It's possible to have a nuanced view on things. It's not necessary to be either "for" or "against" something.

Jack, that has always been my view. Same with Rand Paul's statement about allowing private business owners to ban whoever they want from entering their business. I support your right to be stupid.

 

[FlexGunship]

@Gokul

Geeze, don't quote individual lines like that. That's way out of context and you know it. I call foul.

 

[jgens]

Consider a counter example. And consider it seriously. What if we (the U.S. military) had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and then a private company (unrelated to the military) set up a large investment bank right near where it used to be. Those Muslims have no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site. But do you think they would? I bet they would. What do you think?

Can you explain how this is a counterexample? What proposed rule does this example contradict? And do you seriously believe that we should use a hypothesized reaction of the Muslim community to justify our own behavior?

 

[jgens]

1) Freedom to express disapproval, publicly, vocally, to everyone. In this case, the freedom to express disapproval of the build site for the "multicultural Islamic center."

Buy the land and use it however you want, that's your right. But don't complain for a second if people protest it, that's their right. This federally-funded Imam (AP - http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5d652c58-0b4f-5301-89fd-afd66996ba1b.html ), is now warning us that if he doesn't get his way that there might be lethal consequences.

I'm not saying he's going to hurt anyone, I know he won't. In fact, he seems like a decent guy in all of his interviews. But that is the definition of terrorism.

2) Freedom of expression through symbolic act. In this case, the freedom to destroy a symbol. I disagree vehemently with Terry Jones. REALLY! I think they guy is a world-class fark-tard. And if he can't burn the books, then I hope he rips them up by hand.

Please provide a citation showing that we no longer have these freedoms. Thanks.

 

[Jack21222]

1) Freedom to express disapproval, publicly, vocally, to everyone. In this case, the freedom to express disapproval of the build site for the "multicultural Islamic center."


2) Freedom of expression through symbolic act. In this case, the freedom to destroy a symbol. I disagree vehemently with Terry Jones. REALLY! I think they guy is a world-class fark-tard. And if he can't burn the books, then I hope he rips them up by hand.

Neither of those freedoms have been taken away. To argue otherwise, as I said before, is pure fantasy on your part.

Buy the land and use it however you want, that's your right. But don't complain for a second if people protest it, that's their right. This federally-funded Imam (AP - http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5d652c58-0b4f-5301-89fd-afd66996ba1b.html ), is now warning us that if he doesn't get his way that there might be lethal consequences.

I'm not saying he's going to hurt anyone, I know he won't. In fact, he seems like a decent guy in all of his interviews. But that is the definition of terrorism.

That isn't a threat on his part. Actual counter-intelligence officials have stated that this is serving as a recruiting tool for jihadists. This imam is just saying he is not to blame if some other group of Muslims uses this controversy as a recruiting tool.

 

[FlexGunship]

Can you explain how this is a counterexample? What proposed rule does this example contradict? And do you seriously believe that we should use a hypothesized reaction of the Muslim community to justify our own behavior?

You are not "speaking out as a nation". Some people are sensitive about the issue; most keep a rational head on their shoulders. It is disingenuous for you to suggest that anyone is speaking for anyone but themselves.

Moving the mosque is wrong, pure and simple.

It is not an Islam thing; it is a human rights thing. People who are mourning for lost loved ones in 9/11 are transferring their anger away from an act of terrorism and towards a belief system that is not responsible for their grief. They have no right to associate 9/11 with Islam, nor do they have any right to associate a mosque with direspect of 9/11. To allow them to express themselves by the moving of the mosque is to allow religious persecution back into the nation.

In a nutshell: Islam did not bring down the towers, terrorists did.

Consider a counter example. And consider it seriously. What if we (the U.S. military) had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and then a private company (unrelated to the military) set up a large investment bank right near where it used to be. Those Muslims have no right to associate investment banking with the bombing of their site. But do you think they would? I bet they would. What do you think?

Read the whole thread before posting.

 

[Gokul43201]

@Gokul

Geeze, don't quote individual lines like that. That's way out of context and you know it. I call foul.

I don't see how I'm taking it out of context - perhaps I've missed your point. I'm my defense though, it appears that Dave interpreted your post the same way that I did (see post#8).

 

[FlexGunship]

Please provide a citation showing that we no longer have these freedoms. Thanks.

It's in the original post. Read both articles.

Obama has explicitly requested that copies of the Koran not be burned. When in fact, his duty as the President is to publicly announce "I support the right of these Americans to demonstrate peacefully in the manner they see fit to express their views."

 

[jgens]

Read the whole thread before posting.

I have read the entire thread, thank you very much. Can you highlight the general rule that Dave states?

It's in the original post. Read both articles.

Obama has explicitly requested that copies of the Koran not be burned. When in fact, his duty as the President is to publicly announce "I support the right of these Americans to demonstrate peacefully in the manner they see fit to express their views."

But Obama did nothing to actually restrict this man's right to burn the Quran; he just politely asked that he not do it because it could have disastrous effects for the war effort. Unless you provide a citation which illustrates how we no longer have these rights, you are violating the PF guidelines.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't see how I'm taking it out of context - perhaps I've missed your point. I'm my defense though, it appears that Dave interpreted your post the same way that I did (see post#8).

Well, you make it sound like I have something against Muslims which I resent (personally, not for a valid debate reason).

I've tried carefully to complain about (1) Obama's request that we censor ourselves, and (2) the use of extortion by Feisal Abdul Rauf.

But now we're off in the weeds implying that I'm racist for claiming 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. It was! Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

 

[Perspicacity]

Do you fully suport this method for getting a message across? Through provocation and hateful stunts?

Do you think that's the example we want to set for the coming remainder of the 21st century?

Yes. I don't have any particular problem with hatred. I hate a lot of things. I hate cabbage. I hate spiders. I hate people who think that women should be subservient to men. I hate people who think that they know God's will.

I find Christian belief as outlined in the New Testament abhorrent. I hate those who truly subscribe to those beliefs. Nearly every Christian I know has nothing more than a vague belief in a creator and a hope for an afterlife. They may read the bible, but they see only the nice parts and ignore everything else. I can live in peace with people like that.

Some Muslims are the same way. The grew up Muslim, and while they personally have no problem with women or gays or infidels, they can't quite make the leap and say they don't believe because they're afraid of hell or whatever. I can live in peace with them too.

Those christians and muslims who go further than that...well I hate them. I wish there were less of them.

 

[talk2glenn]

Neither of those freedoms have been taken away. To argue otherwise, as I said before, is pure fantasy on your part.

Clearly, there is a practical risk to the fundamental protections of speech and expression in the United States, even if there is no overt threat of state action.

The Federal Government has assumed the responsibility of protecting the civil rights of its citizens from non-national actors since the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment, through to the later Civil Rights acts of the 60s and 70s. However, the reaction of the government to this pastors threat has been entirely one-sided - the President himself, and his administration at every level, has simply tried to dissuade the church from carrying out its plan. Whenever the question of 1st Amendment rights is raised, it is always an apology - we have our own government apologizing to the world for our own constitution, which it is supposedly obliged to protect and uphold!

A more nuanced reaction would be far more appropriate. The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad. However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans. This is a chance to celebrate American libertarianism, not distance ourselves from it. We should be proud of the fact that this is the only country on Earth where one can burn a Koran on Monday, a Bible on Tuesday, and the flag on Wednesday with no repercussions from the state.

It seems to me that if we allow ourselves to be bullied into disavowing, verbally, our constitutional guarantees (we had the embarrassing case of Obama calling the planned burning "contrary to American values", a blatant appeal for mercy from Muslim extremists when the reverse is clearly the truth) it becomes foreseeable that we allow ourselves to be bullied into disavowing them practically and legally.

After all, the constitution is just a piece of paper, and is only as strong as our willingness to uphold it, through force of government and law.

 

[Perspicacity]

Unacceptable based on what? If the fire department is creating code violations out of thin air to suppress religious or political speech, I agree with you. If the fire department denied the permit because of actual dangers in the pastor's plan, I disagree with you.

Based on the information we have, I cannot make that determination.
It must be nice to live in such a binary world, with no shades of grey. In my world, I think the pastor is an idiot AND I support his right to be an idiot. I think he's being needlessly provocative for his own personal gain, but I have no particular love for any religious text. I think it's a bad PR move to provoke Muslim extremists, but I also think the Muslim extremists are foolish for taking their fairy tales so seriously.

It's possible to have a nuanced view on things. It's not necessary to be either "for" or "against" something.

I'm sure society would not collapse if people could burn books without the supervision of the Fire Department.

The Pastor may be an idiot, but he makes a valid point. Muslims are going to have to live with the fact that we get to burn the Koran. It's our right. And when hundreds of millions of people have that right, at least a few are going to do it. If they can't live with that fact, then there is no place for them in this world.

 

[Gokul43201]

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

1. You admit that it would be a violation of his Constitutionally protected freedoms to force him to move the mosque.
2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

If I showed you an example of a right wing commentator warning that the government's deafness to the common man, it's desire to take away his guns, curb his freedoms, or shove political correctness down his throat will inevitably lead to a violent response, would you exercise consistency and admit this person is engaging in terrorism?

 

[FlexGunship]

I have read the entire thread, thank you very much. Can you highlight the general rule that Dave states?

Dave's example (sorry Dave, I'm not trying to speak for you):

"Some Muslims destroyed the twin towers. Now some other unrelated Muslims are trying to build a mosque (or multi-cultural center) near the twin tower memorial. Some Americans are angry but they shouldn't be. A specific Muslim has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Muslims might be angry."

My counter-example:

"Some American's destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now some other unrelated Americans are trying to build a bank (or investment center) near the dome memorial. Some Muslims are angry bu they shouldn't be. A specific American has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Americans might be angry."

Please do not flame me for equivocating Americans (a nationality) with Muslims (a religion). Just like many Americans oppose the war, many Muslims oppose the war. Just like one American declared war for all of us (even though we didn't like it), one Muslim declares war for all of them (even though they didn't like it). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

 

[FlexGunship]

1. You admit that it would be a violation of his Constitutionally protected freedoms to force him to move the mosque.
2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

If I showed you an example of a right wing commentator warning that the government's deafness to the common man, it's desire to take away his guns, curb his freedoms, or shove political correctness down his throat will inevitably lead to a violent response, would you exercise consistency and admit this person is engaging in terrorism?

Hmm, that's a good point actually. I don't know how I would feel. I'm not a big an of right-wingers for the most part. I guess it's different because he's threatening his own government and not innocent people.

Can I have time to more fully consider your point?

EDIT: After thinking about it, I might have to reconsider my position on Rauf's statement. I suppose I just resent it because he refers to Muslim extremists in his quote as though we must appease them by building this mosque in that exact location.

 

[FlexGunship]

The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad. However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans.

I like your wording here. However, I disagree about the government taking a stand at all. I don't think it's the government's place to "have a conviction." Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

 

[jgens]

I'd prefer you highlight Dave's exact statement. Now, the only thing close to a general rule in your paraphrase od Dave's comment is:

Some Americans are angry, but they shouldn't be.

Now, the only way you can construct a valid counterexample is if you can show that Americans should be angry. Since your 'counterexample' only hypothesizes that Muslims would be angry, it doesn't meet the necessary criterion.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd prefer you highlight Dave's exact statement. Now, the only thing close to a general rule in your paraphrase od Dave's comment is:



Now, the only way you can construct a valid counterexample is if you can show that Americans should be angry. Since your 'counterexample' only hypothesizes that Muslims would be angry, it doesn't meet the necessary criterion.

Fine, it's not a "counter-example." It's a "reciprocal situation."

 

[Jack21222]

I'm sure society would not collapse if people could burn books without the supervision of the Fire Department.

How many books are we talking? How far from the nearest building? Can you think of no circumstance under which a large open fire should be banned?

Clearly, there is a practical risk to the fundamental protections of speech and expression in the United States, even if there is no overt threat of state action.

No, that isn't clear.

I like your wording here. However, I disagree about the government taking a stand at all. I don't think it's the government's place to "have a conviction." Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

Foreign relations is one of the most important functions of government. It absolutely is his place to share it in such a way for foreign governments to hear.

the use of extortion by Feisal Abdul Rauf.

I've already pointed out he isn't using extortion. He was just repeating what counterintelligence officials are saying, that it will lead to an increase in violence, and that he is not to blame.

 

[FlexGunship]

Foreign relations is one of the most important functions of government. It absolutely is his place to share it in such a way for foreign governments to hear.

What if Obama had made a similar statement about something else? Would you feel comfortable if Obama stopped a book burning of Mein Kampf, or The Art of Cinema (Kim Jong Il's book)?

EDIT: Furthermore, we don't have a Muslim embassy. Is it relations with the Afghan government we are trying to save?

I've already pointed out he isn't using extortion. He was just repeating what counterintelligence officials are saying, that it will lead to an increase in violence, and that he is not to blame.

Yes, yes... I'm slowly revising my position on that one. Extortion is the wrong word, so I retract that statement. But it is still "terrorism" (not on the part of Rauf) for Muslim extremists to threaten Americans if that mosque isn't built in that location (which you will recall was my original position on the matter... I wrongly ascribed the position to Rauf).

 

[jgens]

Fine, it's not a "counter-example." It's a "reciprocal situation."

Do you believe that we can justify our actions on the basis of how others behave? I'm only asking because I don't see another point of your "reciprocal situation". If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

 

[FlexGunship]

Do you believe that we can justify our actions on the basis of how others behave? I'm only asking because I don't see another point of your "reciprocal situation". If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

Dave said that Americans shouldn't be angry with Muslims because of 9/11 (again, paraphrasing someone else... I'm sorry Dave. It's not my place.).

Some Muslims destroyed the twin towers.
Some American's destroy the Dome of the Rock.

Now some other unrelated Muslims are trying to build a mosque (or multi-cultural center) near the twin tower memorial.
Now some other unrelated Americans are trying to build a bank (or investment center) near the dome memorial.

Some Americans are angry but they shouldn't be.
Some Muslims are angry but they shouldn't be.

A specific Muslim has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Muslims might be angry.
A specific American has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Americans might be angry.

My point is that the behavior wouldn't be singular. Not that it's "okay" to be upset at Muslims in general, but rather that it is an understandable emotional response. I would be comfortable dropping the point since it is no longer contributing to the discussion. Given the nit-picking that is happening with details, I'm just waiting for someone to yell at me for comparing a bank to a mosque/church (which is what Bin Laden did).