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

[Andy]

I hate to say this, but the Quran burner guy has won in the sense that he made his point about the nature of the Islamic world. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. This is a non-issue. The media shouldn't have covered it, President Obama shouldn't have given him recognition by having his Defense Secretary contact the guy, and in general we just shouldn't give a rip.

But look what's happened. The guy wants to burn a few books (albeit sacred books to some people), and Muslims take to the streets in protest, supposedly even endangering our troops. There are lots of people in America who fly off the handle when you burn a flag, but you don't see those people protesting and attacking mosques because the people in Afghanistan are burning flags. My point, and perhaps the pyromaniac pastor's point, is this: our religious fundamentalists are better than their religious fundamentalists. Fundie Christians in America kick gays out of churches. Fundie Muslims in the Middle East simply behead them. American fundie Christians preach about how evil adultery is. Fundie Muslims stone them. Obviously I can go on and on. But if you were to quantify and histogram the insanity level of American Christians and Middle Eastern Muslims, the peak for the latter distribution would be far more towards the "more insane" side.

I hate to give credence to a lunatic pastor of 50 congregants. But he's got a point.

So you see a few hundred muslims burning american flags and assume that they represent the islamic faith?

The only point that the lunatic pastor has made is that it only takes one fundamentalist to upset many thousands of people. How do you think muslims in the middle east view what's going on in america? do you think that they are hearing the same reports that we are? Or do you think that the media in the middle east are slanting the coverage to make it look like all americans hate muslims?

 

[jgens]

EDIT: keep in mind, the office of the presidency was established for the purpose of upholding the constitution. I assume that also means the amendments to it.

President Obama can still uphold the Constitution and ask the pastor to stop the planned book burning. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[lisab]

Because "rational" Muslims wouldn't care. Just like rational Americans wouldn't care where a multicultural center is built.

True that, rational Americans don't give a rat sass about the cultural center. But moderate Muslims are affected by the fundamentalists in their midst, if only because in places like Saudi Arabia the fundies have real power (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaween" ).

I'm not offended when people burn textbooks or books by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku. I think it's silly, but I'm not offended. If I decided to be offended by it, would we have to stop that? How about if I'm offended by Afghanis burning American flags?

This political correctness is one-sided and absurd.

Yes it makes me sick. When there was all that uproar about the Mohammed cartoons I felt the same...but this situation has a twist, because it could cause real harm to our troops. And for what?

EDIT: Thought experiment: how accurately must a Koran be printed before it is offensive to burn it? What about a Koran with typos or a crappy translation? What about a Koran with every other word printed? What about blank books with "Koran" written on the cover?

Wow, FG, are you trying to merge the never-ending "how conscious must an observer be, in order for Schrodinger's cat to be dead or alive?" question with outrage over holy book burning? Nice, I like that...made me laugh !

 

[FlexGunship]

Of course they would.

Then why aren't rational Americans allowed to be offended by the location of a multicultural center? I think you drastically fail to understand the importance and breadth of the spiritual foundations of people.

You think physics textbooks are comparable to the Qur'an??

Hah, they're certainly more useful.

This is shockingly naive.

I feel the same way about your viewpoints. You sound like you formed them right after a "diversity day" at work.

 

[FlexGunship]

President Obama can still uphold the Constitution and ask the pastor to stop the planned book burning. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That's reasonable. I think it's inappropriate for him to do so, though. His personal opinions should be kept private until he leaves office.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why aren't rational Americans allowed to be offended by the location of a multicultural center?

Because that's religious persecution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hah, they're certainly more useful.

Wow. That's just free-floating utter derision for about a fifth of the world's population.

The religion-bashing has commenced.

It's against PF rules. Requesting thread lock.

 

[jgens]

That's reasonable. I think it's inappropriate for him to do so, though. His personal opinions should be kept private until he leaves office.

To what extent then, does the President keep his personal views quiet until he leaves office? For example, the President's decision to sign or veto a bill is often indicative of his personal opinions, even if he doesn't say them publicly.

 

[Andy]

Forgive me if I am wrong (which chances are i am) but wasnt the reason that the settlers left britain and went to america so that they could set up a culture/community that was free from religious persecution? where every man had the right to practice the belief of their choice?

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes it makes me sick. When there was all that uproar about the Mohammed cartoons I felt the same...but this situation has a twist, because it could cause real harm to our troops. And for what?

Isn't that the fundamental reason why we have troops: to protect the freedoms afforded to us in the Constitution. Now that a real problem arises (one in which real people could really die) in the expression of our rights we back down?

We might as well spit in the face of our troops if we don't have enough respect for them to let them defend our rights. This is it; this is a real case of the military existing to protect our freedoms. One of our freedoms was put on the line, and we backed down. I don't see any other interpretation.

 

[jreelawg]

I hate to say this, but the Quran burner guy has won in the sense that he made his point about the nature of the Islamic world. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. This is a non-issue. The media shouldn't have covered it, President Obama shouldn't have given him recognition by having his Defense Secretary contact the guy, and in general we just shouldn't give a rip.

But look what's happened. The guy wants to burn a few books (albeit sacred books to some people), and Muslims take to the streets in protest, supposedly even endangering our troops. There are lots of people in America who fly off the handle when you burn a flag, but you don't see those people protesting and attacking mosques because the people in Afghanistan are burning flags. My point, and perhaps the pyromaniac pastor's point, is this: our religious fundamentalists are better than their religious fundamentalists. Fundie Christians in America kick gays out of churches. Fundie Muslims in the Middle East simply behead them. American fundie Christians preach about how evil adultery is. Fundie Muslims stone them. Obviously I can go on and on. But if you were to quantify and histogram the insanity level of American Christians and Middle Eastern Muslims, the peak for the latter distribution would be far more towards the "more insane" side.

I hate to give credence to a lunatic pastor of 50 congregants. But he's got a point.

I hope that all stands true after (if) Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney get elected as president.

 

[Andy]

Requesting thread lock.

Surprised it hasnt been already.

 

[FlexGunship]

Forgive me if I am wrong (which chances are i am) but wasnt the reason that the settlers left britain and went to america so that they could set up a culture/community that was free from religious persecution? where every man had the right to practice the belief of their choice?

Amen to that. Terry Jones, as crazy as he is, has every right to express his religion without persecution.

I thought you were on the other side, Andy.

 

[jgens]

One of our freedoms was put on the line, and we backed down. I don't see any other interpretation.

What freedom was on the line?

 

[Andy]

Isn't that the fundamental reason why we have troops: to protect the freedoms afforded to us in the Constitution. Now that a real problem arises (one in which real people could really die) in the expression of our rights we back down?

We might as well spit in the face of our troops if we don't have enough respect for them to let them defend our rights. This is it; this is a real case of the military existing to protect our freedoms. One of our freedoms was put on the line, and we backed down. I don't see any other interpretation.

Which one of your freedoms has been put on the line?

 

[FlexGunship]

Surprised it hasnt been already.

Why would you advocate locking a thread that is still producing meaningful discussion? Just because you disagree with some of the opinions? Seems like a dangerous precedent. Ironic for a thread concerned with first amendment rights (although, this is a privately operated forum, and I respect the forum-owner's rights to ban me or lock any thread they please).

 

[FlexGunship]

Which one of your freedoms has been put on the line?

Not my freedom. Terry Jones'.

I don't like the guy. I disagree with his actions (and threat of actions). But I absolutely respect his right as an American citizen to make his point through peaceful demonstration with police and military protection.

You have every right to be offended. And he has every right to offend you.

 

[jgens]

Not my freedom. Terry Jones'.

I don't like the guy. I disagree with his actions (and threat of actions). But I absolutely respect his right as an American citizen to make his point through peaceful demonstration with police and military protection.

You have every right to be offended. And he has every right to offend you.

How were his freedoms usurped?

 

[Andy]

Amen to that. Terry Jones, as crazy as he is, has every right to express his religion without persecution.

I thought you were on the other side, Andy.

The other side? How old are you? 10?

How is burning a bunch of qu'rans anything to do with his religion? The people the seem to be persecuted here are the muslims that worship that book.

 

[FlexGunship]

How were his freedoms usurped?

That was page two of this thread. They weren't. But the president requested that he voluntarily surrender them. An inappropriate position for the president to adopt.

 

[FlexGunship]

How is burning a bunch of qu'rans anything to do with his religion? The people the seem to be persecuted here are the muslims that worship that book.

One of Terry Jones' convictions is that the Koran is evil. Really. He's not a mainstream kind of guy. As an expression of his religion (again, whether you agree with it or not), he wanted to burn the book he thought was evil. There's plenty of precedent.

Book burnings are not rare. Why do we only find this one offensive?

 

[Andy]

Why would you advocate locking a thread that is still producing meaningful discussion? Just because you disagree with some of the opinions? Seems like a dangerous precedent. Ironic for a thread concerned with first amendment rights (although, this is a privately operated forum, and I respect the forum-owner's rights to ban me or lock any thread they please).

Not advocating locking the thread, i enjoy these threads (to a certain degree) was merely pointing out my surprise that with some of the comments that have been made about muslims and the islamic faith that this thread has not been locked already.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would you advocate locking a thread that is still producing meaningful discussion?

No meaningful discussion can come when a major player in the discussion expresses his utter contempt for the very people being discussed.

 

[jgens]

That was page two of this thread. They weren't. But the president requested that he voluntarily surrender them. An inappropriate position for the president to adopt.

So first, you claim that our freedoms have been put on the line, and then we backed down. When asked what freedoms were on the line, you responded that yours were not, but that Terry Jones' were. Now you say that they weren't. Some consistency would be nice.

Second, why is it an inappropriate position for the President to adopt?

 

[jreelawg]

Isn't that the fundamental reason why we have troops: to protect the freedoms afforded to us in the Constitution. Now that a real problem arises (one in which real people could really die) in the expression of our rights we back down?

We might as well spit in the face of our troops if we don't have enough respect for them to let them defend our rights. This is it; this is a real case of the military existing to protect our freedoms. One of our freedoms was put on the line, and we backed down. I don't see any other interpretation.

Yeah, that all sounds good, but the fact is that we are invested heavily in an effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, both muslim countries. Nobody said the guy can't burn the Koran, they just asked nicely to not do it, (because he is doing it on a stage where the whole world is watching). If this ridiculous media circus undermines our efforts to bring freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq, and helps radicalize muslims, what is the point.

It would be disrespectful to the troops who have put their lives on the line to try and bring democracy to the middle east, to go on national TV and say things which could potentially put them in danger, and set back or destroy some of their efforts to bring peace and stability.

 

[Andy]

One of Terry Jones' convictions is that the Koran is evil. Really. He's not a mainstream kind of guy. As an expression of his religion (again, whether you agree with it or not), he wanted to burn the book he thought was evil. There's plenty of precedent.

Book burnings are not rare. Why do we only find this one offensive?

We arent talking about the latest dan brown book here, we are talking about holy scripture, there is a big and quite significant difference. My objection to this is that religion is not violent, true people of faith regardless of their religion only ever talk about tolerance towards others. I know many christians, muslims, sikhs and hindu's and none of them would ever talk about another faith as being evil, merely uninformed.

 

[Evo]

Locked, getting too much into religion.