Anyone following the story of Rev. Terry Jones? Sure, he's got the First Amendment right to do this, but it's a provocative move and defies common sense. Should the White House and other government figures butt out?
"Clinton slams 'disgraceful' Koran-burning, but pastor defiant
By Mike Bernos (AFP) – 3 hours ago
GAINESVILLE, Florida — An evangelical pastor insisted his plans to torch the Koran would go ahead after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the "disgraceful" burning ceremony in Florida.
The leader of the little known church found himself in the eye of a rapidly swirling storm Wednesday with several Muslim and world leaders deploring his plans as fanning flames of intolerance, as well as Muslim hatred of the United States.
Clinton was the most senior US official to speak out against the burning scheduled for the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, saying she was "heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths."
The White House added its voice to warnings that the move could trigger outrage around the Islamic world and endanger the lives of US soldiers.
"It puts our troops in harm's way. And obviously any type of activity like that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern to this administration," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
He was reiterating comments by top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, who warned burning the holy book of Islam would provide propaganda for insurgents.
"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," said Petraeus of the plan, adding that it could cause significant problems "everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."
But a small church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has vowed to mark Saturday's ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks by burning Korans as they remember the almost 3,000 people killed by Al-Qaeda hijackers."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jgUMumAxcnsOKCDs4L32WtHcGoqw
I think they are right to warn of the foreign policy issues raised by the church's action, but beyond that they should indeed keep out of it.
Personally, I think it's offensive and disgraceful. How would they like it if I burned a bunch of bibles? If you've seen the guy's interviews, you'll likely have noted he's apparently also a moron.
Not that I should be talking. I'd probably also look like a moron if I were interviewed on national TV.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 10:16:10 AM
I think they are right to warn of the foreign policy issues raised by the church's action, but beyond that they should indeed keep out of it.
Personally, I think it's offensive and disgraceful. How would they like it if I burned a bunch of bibles? If you've seen the guy's interviews, you'll likely have noted he's apparently also a moron.
Not that I should be talking. I'd probably also look like a moron if I were interviewed on national TV.
Only when interviewed on national TV? ;)
I'm having a hard time not likening this to the "Ground Zero Mosque". While it's his right to do this and perfectly legal, it's very provocative and is flying against good taste and what is sensible. Hell even the Vatican is chiming in saying this is a bad idea. I think what pissed me off the most about this Jones character is even when asked about this putting more troops at danger, he basically said it's worth it. I wonder if the God hates fags crowd will show up....
Oh, and this is what an asshat looks like:
Well, its just a book...they'll make more copies.
Someone should set up next to him and burn bibles and torahs and the harry potter series.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2010, 10:37:12 AM
Only when interviewed on national TV? ;)
I'm having a hard time not likening this to the "Ground Zero Mosque".
OK, OK, local TV, too.
I don't get the comparison with Park 51, though. One is an attempt to be destructive, the other is an attempt to be constructive.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 11:45:34 AM
One is an attempt to be destructive, the other is an attempt to be constructive.
Says you.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 11:45:34 AM
I don't get the comparison with Park 51, though.
Try a little harder to get out of your own viewpoint. Start with the title of this thread.
FWIW, I think the burning is disrespectful.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 11:53:00 AM
Says you.
Sorry for the derail, but: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1)
Quote"Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions."
Not too much loving our neighbor as we love ourselves apparent at the Koran burning, now, is there?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
Try a little harder to get out of your own viewpoint. Start with the title of this thread.
I think I explained why I don't think the two are comparable. I'll say it again: One is specifically intended to be offensive to an entire faith. The other is specifically intended to foster interfaith understanding. Any comparison beyond the fact that they both have the right to carry out their actions enshrined in the first amendment doesn't seem accurate to me.
I think intent matters. Some people disagree.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2010, 12:07:30 PM
Sorry for the derail, but: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1)
Quote
"Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions."
Assuming you accept the premise of the Cordoba House as presented.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2010, 12:16:26 PM
Assuming you accept the premise of the Cordoba House as presented.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2010, 12:07:30 PM
Sorry for the derail, but: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1)
Not too much loving our neighbor as we love ourselves apparent at the Koran burning, now, is there?
I am just loving all this pro religion talk coming from the left these days....
Edited to add:
What's your thought on this? You equally outraged about his attack on Christians?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 12:15:42 PM
I think I explained why I don't think the two are comparable. I'll say it again: One is specifically intended to be offensive to an entire faith. The other is specifically intended to foster interfaith understanding. Any comparison beyond the fact that they both have the right to carry out their actions enshrined in the first amendment doesn't seem accurate to me.
I think intent matters. Some people disagree.
You can say it as many times as you have the time to type it.
I don't believe the publicly stated intent of the mosque to foster interfaith understanding. Hopefully it will be the case but I am skeptical. (I agree they have the legal right to build it.)
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 12:17:04 PM
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Mostly just a distrust of organized religion. (Not just Islam.)
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 12:17:36 PM
I am just loving all this pro religion talk coming from the left these days....
Edited to add:
What's your thought on this? You equally outraged about his attack on Christians?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg)
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is an attack?
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 12:17:36 PM
I am just loving all this pro (anything other than Christianity) religion talk coming from the left these days....
Edited to add:
What's your thought on this? You equally outraged about his attack on Christians?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg)
Before anyone accuses me of being a Bible thumper, I am not a religious person. I just think it is PC to support everything except Christianity at the present time.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2010, 12:30:54 PM
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is an attack?
Try putting a Koran in a jar of urine.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2010, 12:33:02 PM
Before anyone accuses me of being a Bible thumper, I am not a religious person. I just think it is PC to support everything except Christianity at the present time.
I get that sense as well, or as I like to say: "You are free to practice any religion you like publicly so long as it's not Christianity"
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2010, 12:30:54 PM
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is an attack?
It's not just a "crucifix". It also had a depiction of Jesus on the crucifix. So yes, I call that an attack on Christianity. Hair split all you want, but Red Arrow's point is spot on.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 12:44:13 PM
It's not just a "crucifix". It also had a depiction of Jesus on the crucifix. So yes, I call that an attack on Christianity. Hair split all you want, but Red Arrow's point is spot on.
Wouldn't that be typically because many Christians don't believe in any other faith than their own, calling others 'blasphemy'?
And organized religion? What an oxymoron!
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2010, 12:33:02 PM
Before anyone accuses me of being a Bible thumper, I am not a religious person. I just think it is PC to support everything except Christianity at the present time.
Aside from the Koran-burning whackjob, who's attacking Christianity?
If you're so sensitive to anti-Christian bias that you think support of other faiths somehow diminishes the most powerful belief in the land . . . well, you might have to just go ahead and stow that in the Paranoia bucket, along with the inability to believe the Cordoba Project people might actually mean what they say.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 12:44:13 PM
It's not just a "crucifix". It also had a depiction of Jesus on the crucifix. So yes, I call that an attack on Christianity. Hair split all you want, but Red Arrow's point is spot on.
You would have loved my sister's college boyfriend. He did a painting of a neon green Jesus on the crucifix, with a gigantic erection. He also did a linoleum carving of Jesus in Mary's arms up in the clouds, again, with a gigantic cock just hanging out there.
Artists have been doing stupid stuff with images of Jesus for centuries. I don't think that quite rises to the level of an organized book burning, but that may be my anti-religion bias showing.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 01:11:06 PM
You would have loved my sister's college boyfriend. He did a painting of a neon green Jesus on the crucifix, with a gigantic erection. He also did a linoleum carving of Jesus in Mary's arms up in the clouds, again, with a gigantic cock just hanging out there.
Artists Attention whores have been doing stupid stuff with images of Jesus for centuries. I don't think that quite rises to the level of an organized book burning, but that may be my anti-religion bias showing.
FIFY. Thanks though for this insight into your family.
There should be no legal means of stopping him, nor any physical threat. Protest him, argue against what he wants to do, etc. fine.
I think our country shows the world a good example of our freedoms in this way. The Islamic Center near Ground Zero can be built, Korans, Bibles, etc. can be burnt. People can argue and protest for and against... but nobody, nor their property is physically harmed.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I understand that there are people who find the contsruction of the Islamic Center near Ground Zero offensive or hurtful. But I do not believe that is coming from correct thinking. I don't think we should make larger policies, laws or descisions based on what is incorrect. The lesser angels of our nature should not be made paramount.
I understand that there are people who will find the burning of a Koran or Bible offensive and hurtful. But again, argue, peacefully protest etc. but to threaten others with physical harm, or cause physical harm to a person or their property is wrong.
I don't like the idea of him burning the Koran. But, that is that. I would never want to hurt him for doing so. Others may believe its right to hurt him or some other "American interest" for the wrong they perceive is happening.
They have their beliefs of what is right and wrong. I have mine and will work to live my life accordingly, just as they will.
I believe in the good of free speach (there are always exceptons, but this is not the valid equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) someone else may believe its ok to kill or physically hurt someone for voicing/showing their opinion.
I have faith that the ultimate right and good will prevail. Let history march on and decide.
Quote from: Hoss on September 08, 2010, 01:00:23 PM
Wouldn't that be typically because most religions don't believe in any other faith than their own, calling others 'blasphemy'?
And organized religion? What an oxymoron!
I would call the domination of Europe for centuries by the Roman Catholic Church fairly well organized.
Quote from: TheArtist on September 08, 2010, 01:20:54 PM
There should be no legal means of stopping him, nor any physical threat. Protest him, argue against what he wants to do, etc. fine.
I think our country shows the world a good example of our freedoms in this way. The Islamic Center near Ground Zero can be built, Korans, Bibles, etc. can be burnt. People can argue and protest for and against... but nobody, nor their property is physically harmed.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I understand that there are people who find the contsruction of the Islamic Center near Ground Zero offensive or hurtful. But I do not believe that is coming from correct thinking. I don't think we should make larger policies, laws or descisions based on what is incorrect. The lesser angels of our nature should not be made paramount.
I understand that there are people who will find the burning of a Koran or Bible offensive and hurtful. But again, argue, peacefully protest etc. but to threaten others with physical harm, or cause physical harm to a person or their property is wrong.
I don't like the idea of him burning the Koran. But, that is that. I would never want to hurt him for doing so. Others may believe its right to hurt him or some other "American interest" for the wrong they perceive is happening.
They have their beliefs of what is right and wrong. I have mine and will work to live my life accordingly, just as they will.
I have faith that the ultimate right and good will prevail. Let history march on and decide.
Well said.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2010, 01:08:05 PM
Aside from the Koran-burning whackjob, who's attacking Christianity?
If you're so sensitive to anti-Christian bias that you think support of other faiths somehow diminishes the most powerful belief in the land . . . well, you might have to just go ahead and stow that in the Paranoia bucket, along with the inability to believe the Cordoba Project people might actually mean what they say.
I'll use a Nathan method and say it again (although it's been a while).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
No, I do not live my life in fear and hide in a fraidy hole. I believe I just have a healthy distrust of public figures. I don't believe I am "so sensitive" to anti-Christian bias, I just recognize it exists and that it seems to be swept under the rug rather than being exposed and brought to the front page like "Islamophobia".
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2010, 01:33:26 PM
No, I do not live my life in fear and hide in a fraidy hole. I believe I just have a healthy distrust of public figures. I don't believe I am "so sensitive" to anti-Christian bias, I just recognize it exists and that it seems to be swept under the rug rather than being exposed and brought to the front page like "Islamophobia".
I find it difficult to believe in an entrenched anti-Christian bias when some 80% or more of my countrymen self identify as such. While I am biased against religion mixing with government, I defend everyone's right to worship as they see fit. I just hate it when people use religion to justify exerting control over others.
TheArtist: Well said. The only thing I have to quibble with is that free speech, while it should always be as unfettered as possible, is not always good. I can say stupid and hurtful things, and I have every right to do so. That does not make it some kind of moral good. There is and always will be tension between our freedoms and our morals.
It is nice to see that while there is much disagreement on this thread about the advisability of Park 51 or the Koran burning and everything else but the kitchen sink, we all agree that both have the absolute right to do so, no matter how much we disagree. We are fundamentally in agreement about the basics, even as we vehemently disagree on the particulars.
The biggest similarities between Park51 and this Koran burning is that the flap against building a community center with a mosque in it a couple of blocks away from ground zero and the intent behind the book burning are from the same "All of Islam is evil" crowd. It reeks of intolerance to a religion other than Christianity. After all, it seems the so many in this country follow Ford's ideas: "You can have any religion you want, as long as it's christian". But this guys very public show of intollerance is protected by the first amendment, which is a givin right in this country. The only real concern I would show of this over, say a bible burning, is that this put others in danger around the world. I don't know how much truth there is in these statements, or if it's just a few trying to stir up fear to keep it from happening, but it is out there. Perhaps this is more of a chance for the majority of Islam to show that they are a peaceful religion, or not. Time will tell.
Quote from: custosnox on September 08, 2010, 02:06:55 PM
The biggest similarities between Park51 and this Koran burning is that the flap against building a community center with a mosque in it a couple of blocks away from ground zero and the intent behind the book burning are from the same "All of Islam is evil" crowd. It reeks of intolerance to a religion other than Christianity. After all, it seems the so many in this country follow Ford's ideas: "You can have any religion you want, as long as it's christian".
Oh jeez, here we go again. Those mean ol' Christians running amok. Allahu Jehovah!
If I were Reverend Jones, I think I'd be pretty leary of any Middle Eastern-looking people.
I heard on the radio his congregation only numbers 50 people, so this is a major self-promotion stunt. As one of my FB friends was saying, just watch this idiot will be rewarded with his own reality series. I can see it now:
"Keeping Up With The (Rev) Joneses"
/ghack
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 02:52:19 PM
Oh jeez, here we go again. Those mean ol' Christians running amok. Allahu Jehovah!
Oh, I gotcha, burning Korans is a sign of love and acceptance. I must have missed that memo.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 02:52:19 PM
Oh jeez, here we go again. Those mean ol' Christians running amok. Allahu Jehovah!
Some Christians do run amok from time to time, using tax dollars to promote their religion or force their particular brand of morality on people. Happily, there is less of that these days than there was even ten years ago.
He has the right to be a dick under the First Amendment just as Fr@d Ph@lps has the same right. But there's another concern here.
The local fire department denied him a burn permit, and to my way of thinking, that would abridge his First Amendment rights.
The local police department plans to do a documents check on anyone approaching the church, which is located at the end of a single street and it's the only way in or out. "Papers, please" is - or should be - anathema to Americans.
Quote from: Ed W on September 08, 2010, 06:45:02 PM
The local fire department denied him a burn permit, and to my way of thinking, that would abridge his First Amendment rights.
The local police department plans to do a documents check on anyone approaching the church, which is located at the end of a single street and it's the only way in or out. "Papers, please" is - or should be - anathema to Americans.
One of those is not like the other.
A lot of folks seem to be quite OK with the "papers please" thing lately. (which I find very disturbing)
Quote from: custosnox on September 08, 2010, 05:34:20 PM
Oh, I gotcha, burning Korans is a sign of love and acceptance. I must have missed that memo.
That's not remotely the point I was making. I am just tired of your endless Christian bashing. Interesting, though, I guessed you missed the memo that Christians/Catholics are huge givers to charities. Perhaps that because you were a patient at Muhammad General Hospital or studying at Akbar University rather than St. Francis Hospital or Notre Dame.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2010, 07:06:54 PM
One of those is not like the other.
A lot of folks seem to be quite OK with the "papers please" thing lately. (which I find very disturbing)
Why do you find that disturbing? I have to show them when I check in at the airport, entering another country or returning to this country and they can demand to see my documents at any time I'm a guest in another country, during lawful contact with police (i.e. stopped for speeding), when I cash a check or request money back from a deposit... etc.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2010, 07:21:39 PM
That's not remotely the point I was making. I am just tired of your endless Christian bashing. Interesting, though, I guessed you missed the memo that Christians/Catholics are huge givers to charities. Perhaps that because you were a patient at Muhammad General Hospital or studying at Akbar University rather than St. Francis Hospital or Notre Dame.
How is is endless christian bashing when I point out what is said or done? I said it seems so many have that attitude, I didn't say all did. I'm not painting with a broad brush, I'm pointing out that it is a strong setiment in many of the people in this country, and beyond.
And of course now the funny thing is that so many people have come out against what this a$$hat is doing (Gen Petraeus, Gen Odierno to name a couple) using the reasoning that the imagery of burning these Korans will create danger for our troops overseas. But many of those with the (R) following their names stop just short of condemning it...mainly. Couldn't get a yes or no out of Boehner the Tanned and many others. Of course then he who smells of burnt toast tried to equivocate the two (Koran burning vs the Park51 project) after the concerns of the military were interjected into the conversation.
It can't be both ways.
This person has a very checkered past, and by some accounts he was kicked out of Germany in 2008.
His new church is supported by a for profit company owned by the church, that resales furniture imported from Europe, and his followers are employees of the company and recieve no pay, but are provided housing by the church for their work to resale furniture. Jim Jones? Terry Jones? Coincedence?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-07/terry-jones-pastor-who-want-to-burn-qurans/ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-07/terry-jones-pastor-who-want-to-burn-qurans/)
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090719/ARTICLES/907191005 (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090719/ARTICLES/907191005)
I think that he is a looney looking for attention to his own cause, and apperently in the Muslim world they take him to represent the US.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201098185822713338.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201098185822713338.html)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2010, 08:02:18 PM
Why do you find that disturbing? I have to show them when I check in at the airport, entering another country or returning to this country and they can demand to see my documents at any time I'm a guest in another country, during lawful contact with police (i.e. stopped for speeding), when I cash a check or request money back from a deposit... etc.
And if you're walking down the street doing nothing illegal whatsoever.
When you're in another country, you do as the locals do. Here in the US, I would think we'd be above having to carry ID on our person at all times.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2010, 08:28:08 AM
And if you're walking down the street doing nothing illegal whatsoever.
When you're in another country, you do as the locals do. Here in the US, I would think we'd be above having to carry ID on our person at all times.
Far as I know you don't
have to carry an ID
all the time when you are walking down the road.
I'm curious though, why do we want to have lower standards than other countries when it comes to issues like, say, immigration? Why don't we expect our visitors to do "as the locals do"? Other countries have requirements you can sustain yourself financially prior to taking up residence and do a better job of tracking people on travel visas.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2010, 08:48:01 AM
Far as I know you don't have to carry an ID all the time when you are walking down the road.
Other countries have requirements you can sustain yourself financially prior to taking up residence and do a better job of tracking people on travel visas.
Several states have stop and identify laws that require that you carry ID at all times. The Supreme Court upheld the Nevada version a few years back. It made me sad. Previously, the prevailing legal opinion was that you had to identify yourself by name when asked, but were not necessarily required to carry ID.
We also require that an immigrant be able to sustain themselves financially to get a tourist visa here, much less a residence visa. Unless they have a lot of financial resources, an immigrant also requires a sponsor who agrees to be financially responsible for them until they get a green card. We're actually far stricter than most countries with regard to immigration policies, although as you've pointed out, enforcement once an immigrant is here is relatively lax. (although the bureaucracy is equally as byzantine, if not as arbitrary)
It still doesn't bother me if I'm asked for identification. I'm not a chronic law breaker so I really don't understand why law-abiding citizens and immigrants would really care.
Far as I know every state requires you to be in possession of a driver's license at all times when operating a motor vehicle. How do you feel about police sobriety check-points? Drivers are all asked for identification and are often cited for offenses unrelated to drunk driving.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2010, 09:10:46 AM
It still doesn't bother me if I'm asked for identification. I'm not a chronic law breaker so I really don't understand why law-abiding citizens and immigrants would really care.
Far as I know every state requires you to be in possession of a driver's license at all times when operating a motor vehicle. How do you feel about police sobriety check-points? Drivers are all asked for identification and are often cited for offenses unrelated to drunk driving.
Uh, perhaps because, as our founding fathers believed, anonymity is a crucial part of freedom. Perhaps because I don't want to be taken to the police station just because I forgot my license when I go riding on my bike. Perhaps because I don't want to risk my license being stolen.
It's one thing to require one carry a driver's license when operating a motor vehicle. After all, your license is what gives you the privilege of operating said vehicle on the public streets. Last I checked, walking or riding a bicycle does not require a license.
As far as sobriety checkpoints go, I'm ambivalent towards them. I'd prefer they not exist, because the real drunks know where the cops set up shop, but there is some deterrence value in being so highly visible. The odd thing is that the Supreme Court allows them, yet does not allow checkpoints for other purposes, aside from a few limited circumstances.
Edited to add: What does bug me is passengers being required to identify themselves. They're not the ones driving, so it's not really anybody's business who they are.
I believe the context of anonymity the founding father's advocated had to do with being able to practice free speech without repercussion in revolutionary times.
I do carry an ID with me at all times and especially when I'm on one of my bikes so I can be identified quickly in the event of an accident. If I'm asked by an LEO to see my identification at random, I don't consider it a violation of my rights. Who knows, random ID checks might well nab a guy who just broke into your car and stole your stereo or beat the smile out of you.
In addition to sobriety checks, LEO's also set up seatbelt checkpoints or "safety" checkpoints to specifically catch things like no liability insurance, expired tags, open warrants, etc.
I think it's interesting to note that as a small governent person, ID checks don't bother me and as someone I see as liking the concept of big government, you don't want them to have the ability to do so.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2010, 10:11:50 AM
I believe the context of anonymity the founding father's advocated had to do with being able to practice free speech without repercussion in revolutionary times.
I do carry an ID with me at all times and especially when I'm on one of my bikes so I can be identified quickly in the event of an accident. If I'm asked by an LEO to see my identification at random, I don't consider it a violation of my rights. Who knows, random ID checks might well nab a guy who just broke into your car and stole your stereo or beat the smile out of you.
In addition to sobriety checks, LEO's also set up seatbelt checkpoints or "safety" checkpoints to specifically catch things like no liability insurance, expired tags, open warrants, etc.
I think it's interesting to note that as a small governent person, ID checks don't bother me and as someone I see as liking the concept of big government, you don't want them to have the ability to do so.
I'm a fan of as small a government as works in a modern society. I think that these days, that includes providing equal access to necessities like health care for those who are left behind by our chosen economic system. It also includes infrastructure. I like to think of it as pragmatic libertarianism. I agree that it's an interesting difference. I have a problem with authoritarianism. I don't have a problem with government in general.
Regarding random ID checks catching criminals, that's just ridiculous. If they see someone matching the description of someone who committed a crime in the area where the crime was committed, it's perfectly reasonable to ask said person to identify themselves. It is not reasonable to stop everyone on a street and require them to produce ID when they aren't engaging in a specific investigation.
I also don't have a problem with police
asking people in general to identify themselves. I do have a problem with them being
legally required to do so absent reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. The police should have the freedom to ask and I should have the freedom to tell them no unless they can articulate a reason why I should be required to do so beyond "I want to know who you are." It's not a matter of them violating my rights by asking, it's a matter of my rights being violated by being forced to comply by the threat of fines or jail time.
Speaking of which, I need to check and see what Oklahoma law has to say on the matter. I do generally carry an ID, and I'm generally in a cooperative mood, but it would be nice to know what my rights are in this fine state.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2010, 11:16:10 AM
Regarding random ID checks catching criminals, that's just ridiculous. If they see someone matching the description of someone who committed a crime in the area where the crime was committed, it's perfectly reasonable to ask said person to identify themselves. It is not reasonable to stop everyone on a street and require them to produce ID when they aren't engaging in a specific investigation.
A street crimes cop once told me that, while the law says that it's "voluntary" for a person to comply with a random request for ID, anyone exercising their legal right to decline is told they will be arrested for public drunk (or something just as convenient).
He's now in a much greater position of authority in the department, so I would take that as the rule rather than the exception.
It's kind of interesting that Interpol has issued a global terror alert (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/interpol_issues_global_terror_alert_if_koran_burni.php?ref=fpblg) in response to the Koran burning.
I wonder if they know something we don't.
And the AP gets it right
AP will not distribute photos of burning Qurans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100909/pl_yblog_upshot/associated-press-will-not-distribute-photos-of-burning-qurans)
This guy is an assmonkey. A good Lee Harvey to the head would help us all.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2010, 10:37:12 AM
Only when interviewed on national TV? ;)
I'm having a hard time not likening this to the "Ground Zero Mosque". While it's his right to do this and perfectly legal, it's very provocative and is flying against good taste and what is sensible. Hell even the Vatican is chiming in saying this is a bad idea. I think what pissed me off the most about this Jones character is even when asked about this putting more troops at danger, he basically said it's worth it. I wonder if the God hates fags crowd will show up....
Oh, and this is what an asshat looks like:
Apparently the "link" may indeed exist in his mind. This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
Pastor Terry Jones said Thursday that he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its controversial location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.I didn't hear that they were moving the Mosque? But if so, it seems like an equatable compromise. One completely idiotic action for another.
I will defend anyone's right to burn a pile of Bibles, Qurans, or DVDs of Sex in The City. While I only agree with the latter, freedom of speech must be allowed,
especially when exercised by idiots.
One of our greatest strengths is our ability to quickly identify and discount morons by their exercise of our first amendment. Without it, we would still think Mel Gibson, Cheryl Crow, Chris Matthews, and Sean Hannity are intelligent people!
The assmonkey believes Jesus is ok with extortion.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
Apparently the "link" may indeed exist in his mind. This just in:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
Pastor Terry Jones said Thursday that he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its controversial location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.
I didn't hear that they were moving the Mosque? But if so, it seems like an equatable compromise. One completely idiotic action for another.
I will defend anyone's right to burn a pile of Bibles, Qurans, or DVDs of Sex in The City. While I only agree with the latter, freedom of speech must be allowed, especially when exercised by idiots.
One of our greatest strengths is our ability to quickly identify and discount morons by their exercise of our first amendment. Without it, we would still think Mel Gibson, Cheryl Crow, Chris Matthews, and Sean Hannity are intelligent people!
Wow, some of the comments on there made me feel like I was reading a TW article...
Not sure, but perhaps this was the deal?
Associated Press
Donald Trump is offering to buy out one of the major investors in the real estate partnership that controls the site near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.
In a letter released Thursday by Mr. Trump's publicist, the real estate investor informed Hisham Elzanaty, a major investor in the Islamic center, known as Park51, that he would buy his stake in the Lower Manhattan building for 25% more than whatever he paid. Mr. Trump wrote that he's making the offer not because he thinks the location is spectacular but because it would end "a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation."
It's unclear whether Mr. Elzanaty, an Egyptian-born Long Island resident, has total control over the property, which is owned by an eight-member investment group managed by Soho Properties.
If so. . .Good for the Donald! This thing has gone too far.
I honestly think there's a snowball's chance in hell of this particular action getting Parc 51 to move. Not to say that there's no chance of it moving at all, but this ain't the thing that will do it.
I'm actually quite happy with how this has progressed. Crazy whackjob guy has been able to insist on his right to burn the holy book of his choice, while everyone from the President to the Pope to Interpol to Petraeus to anyone else remotely considered reasonable (and even those, ahem, on the threshold, like Palin) have been able to ask him in varying tones of politeness to stand down. All the while his freedom to say and do the despicable have remained intact.
It's been an excellent opportunity for civil society to prove itself civil. The question will be whether radical Muslim terror cells the world round will laugh it off or not.
What would be a shame is if the jagoff burns the Korans and Park51 ends up moving. While we all know it wouldn't be about religious freedom only applying to one set of people, the rest of the world might not see it that way.
Also interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/08/imam.lkl/index.html
Quote from: Ed W on September 08, 2010, 06:45:02 PM
He has the right to be a dick under the First Amendment just as Fr@d Ph@lps has the same right. But there's another concern here.
The local fire department denied him a burn permit, and to my way of thinking, that would abridge his First Amendment rights.
The local police department plans to do a documents check on anyone approaching the church, which is located at the end of a single street and it's the only way in or out. "Papers, please" is - or should be - anathema to Americans.
The news this morning reported the FBI had stopped in and visited his church. This made think of the above-mentioned "harassment."
The local community/and federal government is probably going to treat him like the jerk he is, and that is how it goes.
Its like when you get pulled over by a police officer. You can be polite, professional, and maybe get a ticket or a warning. Or you can go all crazy on him, and end up with your car impounded and a court date.
This guy is upsetting the United States government's HUGE investment in nation building in the middle-east (and risking the lives of our soldiers) with this stupid idea of burning a Koran. The U.S. government therefore, will respond in kind, and so will the local community.
The IRS and everyone else will come knocking on this guy's door now, and I am fine with this.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2010, 05:24:31 PM
I'm actually quite happy with how this has progressed. Crazy whackjob guy has been able to insist on his right to burn the holy book of his choice, while everyone from the President to the Pope to Interpol to Petraeus to anyone else remotely considered reasonable (and even those, ahem, on the threshold, like Palin) have been able to ask him in varying tones of politeness to stand down. All the while his freedom to say and do the despicable have remained intact.
This is getting weird. In the last hour, the Florida preacher said he had a deal with the Imam in NYC regarding moving the mosque, therefore in line with God's will, they were suspending (or canceling - depending on the news source) the Koran burning. Then the Imam said, no, we didn't make a deal.
But what I don't get is whether God changed His mind or He was against the Koran burning all along. If the latter, then the preacher was going against God's will. But if God did indeed change His mind, does that mean He responds to public opinion?
There's more to write on identifying oneself to a police officer, but perhaps that should be a separate thread.
Oh great! The Westboro Baptist nuts are going to burn a Quran if the Florida preacher doesn't.
Looks like a Quran is going to get burnt either way on 9/11. How many more of our proud congregations are going to step up and pledge to BBQ Allah on 9/11 for a little publicity?
In the past, the ACLU has rushed to defend Westboro's utterly disgracefull actions and slogans preying for the death of gays, soldiers, and anyone else they don't like.
Where is the ACLU to defend their rights to burn Qurans? Crickets. . .
We know if they were burning Bibles, or pictures of soldiers, the ACLU would be on the front line for them.
This controversy, no matter how ugly, seems to be opening eyes.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2010, 07:44:51 AM
This controversy, no matter how ugly, seems to be opening eyes.
Amazing how mass stupidity and an election year will do that.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2010, 07:44:51 AM
Where is the ACLU to defend their rights to burn Qurans? Crickets. . .
Nobody is saying they can't do it. Just saying it might not be a good idea to give recruiting material for terrorists.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2010, 07:44:51 AM
Where is the ACLU to defend their rights to burn Qurans? Crickets. . .
There's no legal challenge to that right. If there were, I'd expect the ACLU to be right up there defending it.
Video of guy burning Koran at Ground Zero today.
Quote from: guido911 on September 11, 2010, 02:43:49 PM
Video of guy burning Koran at Ground Zero today.
Seems to me he was just seeking attention. I wonder if they actually charged him with something or not, or what their reason for removing him was. Unless he was in danger of inciting a riot (which is possible at that point) I don't think NYPD should have been involved, other then actually protecting him from physical harm. Still, he doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the pack, just saying.
The religion of peace is at it again; here comes the fatwas against Koran burners:
QuoteSept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Two Iranian grand ayatollahs issued fatwas calling for the killing of those who insult the Koran, including anyone who burns the Islamic holy book, the state-run Fars news agency reported.
No one was specified in the decrees, which were issued by Nasser Makarem-Shirazi and Hossein Nouri-Hamedani in response to questions asked by student groups from universities in Tehran, Fars said. Such an action against any individual could only be carried out with the authorization of an Islamic religious judge, they said.
"Undoubtedly, the blood of a person who burns the Koran should be shed," Makarem-Shirazi was cited by Fars as saying. Everybody should "strongly condemn" such an act.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-13/iran-ayatollahs-issue-fatwas-against-koran-burners.html
Look, it's the Iranian counterparts of Terry Jones, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson!
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2010, 01:16:02 PM
Look, it's the Iranian counterparts of Terry Jones, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson!
What freakin ever.
Quote from: guido911 on September 13, 2010, 01:22:53 PM
What freakin ever.
OK, you got me. They're more like Fred Phelps.
The point being that all religions have adherents who do shameful things. I know you'd never paint Christians with the same broad brush you use on Muslims, but that's your hang up, not mine.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2010, 01:27:09 PM
OK, you got me. They're more like Fred Phelps.
The point being that all religions have adherents who do shameful things. I know you'd never paint Christians with the same broad brush you use on Muslims, but that's your hang up, not mine.
We know you WOULD paint Christians with the broad brush.
Quote from: guido911 on September 13, 2010, 01:38:20 PM
We know you WOULD paint Christians with the broad brush.
You make that claim, yet I specifically direct my comments at the loony fringes of Christianity (or any other religion). As long as tax dollars aren't being spent on their religion, I don't care one way or another what they do. That doesn't mean I won't point and laugh at the particularly stupid things that get said by the fundamentalists.
My brush is equally broad regardless of who is on the receiving end. Yours, on the other hand, seems to vary in size. You refuse to acknowledge the crazy in your own house while going after the crazy in everyone else's.
I seem to remember learning an old saying about glass houses and stones in sunday school when I was a kid. That's been a long time ago now, so the details are fuzzy. I'm sure you can figure out what I'm referring to.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2010, 01:43:26 PM
You make that claim, yet I specifically direct my comments at the loony fringes of Christianity (or any other religion). As long as tax dollars aren't being spent on their religion, I don't care one way or another what they do. That doesn't mean I won't point and laugh at the particularly stupid things that get said by the fundamentalists.
My brush is equally broad regardless of who is on the receiving end. Yours, on the other hand, seems to vary in size. You refuse to acknowledge the crazy in your own house while going after the crazy in everyone else's.
I seem to remember learning an old saying about glass houses and stones in sunday school when I was a kid. That's been a long time ago now, so the details are fuzzy. I'm sure you can figure out what I'm referring to.
I know there are nutjobs in protestant/Catholic religions. My problem is that I cannot recall those folks flying jetliners into buildings and incinerating people or cutting the heads off of news reporters. And by the way, equating the small timer Fred Phelps (what's the size of his "congregation"?) who enjoys most likely universal disdain, to two grand ayatollahs that are part of the ruling Shiite government is straight up laughable. Now, if Pope Benedict starts calling for the deaths of those burning Bibles, we can talk.
Quote from: guido911 on September 13, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
I know there are nutjobs in protestant/Catholic religions. My problem is that I cannot recall those folks flying jetliners into buildings and incinerating people or cutting the heads off of news reporters. And by the way, equating the small timer Fred Phelps (what's the size of his "congregation"?) who enjoys most likely universal disdain, to two grand ayatollahs that are part of the ruling Shiite government is straight up laughable. Now, if Pope Benedict starts calling for the deaths of those burning Bibles, we can talk.
Now you are forgetting that whole crusades thing there buddy, that's relevant in this day and age ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2010, 03:12:02 PM
Now you are forgetting that whole crusades thing there buddy, that's relevant in this day and age ::)
I love it when I read moronic comparisons of the current Islamic Fundamentalist atrocities to the Crusades (what, 700-800 years ago) and the Spanish Inquisition (unsure how many centuries ago that was). Hell, let's throw in the Salem witch trials (400 years ago) while we are at it. I guess what those folks are saying is the modern Islam is what, 500 years behind the rest of humankind? I wonder why that position isn't considered a bigoted/intolerant towards Islam?
Quote from: guido911 on September 13, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
I love it when I read moronic comparisons of the current Islamic Fundamentalist atrocities to the Crusades (what, 700-800 years ago) and the Spanish Inquisition (unsure how many centuries ago that was). Hell, let's throw in the Salem witch trials (400 years ago) while we are at it. I guess what those folks are saying is the modern Islam is what, 500 years behind the rest of humankind? I wonder why that position isn't considered a bigoted/intolerant towards Islam?
Not that I think you're particularly interested in the historical context of the great religions -- or how that might play into the politics and culture of Islam vs the West -- but you're right. Islam never went through a Reformation process. Its authority was never challenged, and there's never been a movement -- the way the Reformation was -- that emphasized an individual response to God. It's very group oriented, very authoritarian, very top down. This dovetails, btw, with the traditional tribal structure of the places it first came about (the arabic peninsula), where the family is strong and big, and headed by a strong male chief.
Islam also didn't fragment as much as Christianity did. If you look around at the variety of options that could legitimately be considered Christian churches in America alone, it's easy to tell how much freedom to interpret the holy book has come to be valued. It wasn't always that way, but definitely is now. Islam is equally text-centered, but doesn't have nearly the freedom of interpretation. There's freedom along physical and political lines (groups in Indonesia will worship differently than groups in Somalia) but there's not the sort of institutional diversity that we have between and amongst Protestants.
So yeah, Christians went through centuries of stunning atrocities -- millions killed, on multiple continents -- but as a religion and a culture, it's settled into equilibrium, more or less. Islam hasn't settled yet, and I'd bet that's as much to do with the nations that make up the Umma (very few of whom are 1) industrialized, 2) globalized, 3) or democratized) than the religion itself.
Islam is, for whatever reason, one of the religions of the developing world. Christianity, at this point, is most definitely a first world religion.
Quote from: guido911 on September 13, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
I know there are nutjobs in protestant/Catholic religions. My problem is that I cannot recall those folks flying jetliners into buildings and incinerating people or cutting the heads off of news reporters.
The difference between Islamic fanatics flying jetliners into buildings and Christian fanatics bombing federal buildings, bombing abortion clinics, and shooting doctors is a difference of degree rather than kind. Across the board, they've all believed that God is on their side and that justifies their actions. Eric Rudolph isn't fundamentally different from the jihadists of September 11th. And they, in turn, are no different from the fanatics of the IRA.
Quote from: Ed W on September 13, 2010, 06:03:28 PM
The difference between Islamic fanatics flying jetliners into buildings and Christian fanatics bombing federal buildings, bombing abortion clinics, and shooting doctors is a difference of degree rather than kind. Across the board, they've all believed that God is on their side and that justifies their actions. Eric Rudolph isn't fundamentally different from the jihadists of September 11th. And they, in turn, are no different from the fanatics of the IRA.
That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. The point being that, yes, OBL and his merry band got incredibly lucky on 9/11, much to our dismay, but there are plenty of other nutsos around the world doing equally nutso things.
In case anybody is under the impression that crazy Christians are a relic of the past, I give you the Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army). They're doing their God's honest best to implement theocracy in Uganda.
and I did find this nice little article on Wikipedia. While I know not a source to hang everything up on, it is something to give pause and thought to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2010, 07:15:39 PM
In case anybody is under the impression that crazy Christians are a relic of the past, I give you the Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army). They're doing their God's honest best to implement theocracy in Uganda.
Yeah, I saw on TV that all the Protestant Christian leaders and the Pope were actively supporting the LRA. They threatened any one opposed with a death sentence. It was on FOX.
/sarcasm
I don't know for sure, but it just kind of seems that if one is a terrorist, that pretty much by definition excludes one from being Christian, no matter the rhetoric employed. And the same for Islam.
Sense of history, guido, as has been mentioned. Crusades started in the 1000's AD. Inquisition was in the late 1400's. (11th and 15th centuries)
Roughly coincide with the 'dark ages', the end of which was occurring at the time of the Inquisition. Perhaps the new enlightenment and education that started to come about as the dark ages ended also helped put an end to the more grotesque forms of religious extremism of the time. Maybe we are coming out of the darkness of religious extremism we have been embroiled in for the last few hundred years.
Or not....
I found a brief synopsis of the Crusades. I'm not so sure why the Muslims are still so vengeful. They pretty much kicked butt over the Christians after the 1st Crusade. The 4th Crusade pretty much opened the opportunity for the Muslim takeover of Constantinople. The Christians' justification of the 1st Crusade seems on the order of the modern Muslims' outrage over everything associated with the "West".
Running for cover now.....
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2010, 10:18:45 PM
Yeah, I saw on TV that all the Protestant Christian leaders and the Pope were actively supporting the LRA. They threatened any one opposed with a death sentence. It was on FOX.
/sarcasm
Threadwinner thus far to RA once again?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2010, 10:18:45 PM
Yeah, I saw on TV that all the Protestant Christian leaders and the Pope were actively supporting the LRA. They threatened any one opposed with a death sentence. It was on FOX.
/sarcasm
You think that all the Muslim leaders are in favor of terrorism, or was that supposed to be an attempt at humor rather than a sarcastic rebuttal?
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2010, 07:15:39 PM
That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. The point being that, yes, OBL and his merry band got incredibly lucky on 9/11, much to our dismay, but there are plenty of other nutsos around the world doing equally nutso things.
In case anybody is under the impression that crazy Christians are a relic of the past, I give you the Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army). They're doing their God's honest best to implement theocracy in Uganda.
Well, I did not know you wanted to go international on terrorism. Funny you chose to focus on Christians and overlooked:
2004 Madrid train bombing: 21 killed
2002 Bali bombing: 200+ killed
2005 London Bombing: 50+ killed, 700 injured
Here is what has happened in just the past two months:
Quote
Mazah Village is still counting its casualties following an attack in the early hours of 16 July by armed Fulani Muslims that left an estimated ten dead and churches and homes burned to the ground.
Mazah is the ancestral home of the Anaguta people of the troubled area of Jos North, in Nigeria's Plateau State. While the exact number of casualties is still unclear, children are known to be among those killed and seriously injured. The victims were frightened out of their homes with gun shots, then hacked with machetes by their attackers once they were outside. Similar tactics were used in attacks on the villages of Dogo Nahawa, Ratsat and Zot in March.
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/nigeria-children-amongst-injured-in-village-attack-in-jos/8681.htm
And finally, the Ramadan 2010 Scorecard:
QuoteRamadan 2010 Scorecard
Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam
2010.09.12 (Batak, Indonesia) - Holy Warriors beat a pastor with a board and stab a worshipper in the stomach as there are on their way to church.
2010.09.12 (Makhachkala, Dagestan) - Muslim extremists shot a man to death in his car.
2010.09.12 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Two locals are taken down by a bomb. A rocket attack elsewhere injures ten family members.
2010.09.12 (Buhriz, Iraq) - A woman and two children are among the casualties of a vicious bombing.
2010.09.12 (Baquba, Iraq) - Two Iraqis are blown up by Jihadi bombers.
2010.09.12 (Hudayyeb, Iraq) - Two men are shot, one of them an elderly man by his own al-Qaeda sons.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
By all means, let's focus on the Christian terrorist problem.
Is there a particular reason you're still trying to defend the idiotic claim that all Muslims are terrorists?
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Is there a particular reason you're still trying to defend the idiotic claim that all Muslims are terrorists?
No you stooge, if you (and especially our resident Christian-basher cust) cannot see the lunacy of your drawing an equivalency between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, then I cannot help you.
Quote from: guido911 on September 14, 2010, 01:53:58 PM
No you stooge, if you (and especially our resident Christian-basher cust) cannot see the lunacy of your drawing an equivalency between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, then I cannot help you.
So you don't think that mass murdering and conscripting children to fight is as bad as what extremist Muslims do? There is an equivalence there, but with both religions, the extremists make up a small minority of their adherents. Both extremist groups are just as nutty. Sorry you are unable to see that.
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 02:00:29 PM
So you don't think that mass murdering and conscripting children to fight is as bad as what extremist Muslims do? There is an equivalence there, but with both religions, the extremists make up a small minority of their adherents. Both extremist groups are just as nutty. Sorry you are unable to see that.
But you are unable to see that this drift began with me pointing out that two very high placed members of the Iranian ruling clerics in a country with a population of 72 MILLION Freakin people (small minority in your mind I guess) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran issued death fatwas against those burning Korans. Are those guys, persons with leadership roles in a country, "extremists" comparable to Eric Rudolph or the LRA? Hell No. So stop with your bs.
Quote from: guido911 on September 14, 2010, 02:14:28 PM
But you are unable to see that this drift began with me pointing out that two very high placed members of the Iranian ruling clerics in a country with a population of 72 MILLION Freakin people (small minority in your mind I guess) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran issued death fatwas against those burning Korans. Are those guys, persons with leadership roles in a country, "extremists" comparable to Eric Rudolph or the LRA? Hell No. So stop with your bs.
Does a death penalty for gays not count as extremist?
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 02:20:33 PM
Does a death penalty for gays not count as extremist?
In my mind the death penalty for anyone is extreme. To answer your question, it sure is extreme--but it's not terrorism. So is stoning women for adultery and any other vile penalty for personal/moral choices. But that is what this
Islamic Republic of Iran as a sovereign nation has decided what is illegal in their country.
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 02:00:29 PM
So you don't think that mass murdering and conscripting children to fight is as bad as what extremist Muslims do? There is an equivalence there, but with both religions, the extremists make up a small minority of their adherents. Both extremist groups are just as nutty. Sorry you are unable to see that.
The extremists in Islam may be a very small percentage but they are very powerful and have run and are running entire governments.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2010, 04:14:25 PM
The extremists in Islam may be a very small percentage but they are very powerful and have run and are running entire governments.
That is exactly my point. If Eric Rudolph or Fred Phelps or any other "Christian" nut was our president, or even senate/house leaders, and was issuing death fatwas against those burning Bibles, a reasonable comparison can be made. Instead, we have an overwhelming (and I would hope universal) number of people in this country, and I dare say many are in fact, gulp, Christian, condemning Rudolph and Phelps. Can the same be said of an overwhelming or universal number of Muslims in Iran condemning the not-so-grand ayatollahs? How about in this country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests
Many, if not most, Iranians despise the Ayatollahs in a similar way that Iraqis despised Saddam.
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 05:12:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests
Many, if not most, Iranians despise the Ayatollahs in a similar way that Iraqis despised Saddam.
Despising someone is not remotely the same as condemning their actions. And what about my point about Muslim outrage over the fatwas in this country?
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2010, 12:56:21 PM
You think that all the Muslim leaders are in favor of terrorism, or was that supposed to be an attempt at humor rather than a sarcastic rebuttal?
A little exaggeration to catch your attention. The way I see it is that there are a significant number of Muslim leaders with followers numbering significantly more than 50 issuing these fatwahs. Assuming it is true that the majority of Muslims are what we would like them to be, they have a serious PR problem in the USA and I see very little attempt to correct that perception. One person I know that has been to the Middle East frequently told me that attempts by mainstream Muslims to correct that image have been thwarted by our mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS).
So he "supervised" the burning of a Koran last month. Well done.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/21/134743260/controversial-florida-pastor-reneges-and-supervises-burning-of-quran (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/21/134743260/controversial-florida-pastor-reneges-and-supervises-burning-of-quran)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/21/103971250_custom.jpg?t=1300742894&s=3)
Well now, during a protest of the burning in Afghanistan, 7 or 8 people are reportedly killed. Nice job Terry. Jackass.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/01/135039030/reports-u-n-workers-killed-in-afghanistan-during-protest-of-quran-burning?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/01/135039030/reports-u-n-workers-killed-in-afghanistan-during-protest-of-quran-burning?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
It's this idiot's fault that those people were killed? I guess those actually doing the killing and why had nothing to do with it. This same sorta crap went on after the bogus Koran flushing story.
I guess burning flags, burning people in effigy, burning Korans or any other act of free speech should all be unlawful because of the effect it may have on dooshbags living in the 9-10 centuries.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 02:03:08 PM
It's this idiot's fault that those people were killed? I guess those actually doing the killing and why had nothing to do with it. This same sorta crap went on after the bogus Koran flushing story.
I guess burning flags, burning people in effigy, burning Korans or any other act of free speech should all be unlawful because of the effect it may have on dooshbags living in the 9-10 centuries.
Would they be gathered against a book burning that never happened?
One religious nut pushing other religious nuts.
It's disturbing that you think it's ok.
Quote from: Townsend on April 01, 2011, 02:10:09 PM
Would they be gathered against a book burning that never happened?
One religious nut pushing other religious nuts.
It's disturbing that you think it's ok.
All the religions need to lighten up a bit.
Quote from: Townsend on April 01, 2011, 02:10:09 PM
Would they be gathered against a book burning that never happened?
One religious nut pushing other religious nuts.
It's disturbing that you think it's ok.
Who in the hell said I thought it was okay. I said he was an idiot. And where were you when this "book abuse" was going on under Bush? And btw, if I was moronic enough to burn a religious book, my recovery excuse would be to say it was "art" and compare it to this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg)
What really is disturbing is your selective belief in the First Amendment. Maybe it shouldn't be.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 01, 2011, 02:14:12 PM
All the religions need to lighten up a bit.
They should, but in reading this thread, the one about the Christmas parade, and all those about Oklahoma buckle/Bible nonsense the only religion folks in here want lightened up is Christianity. Hell, we have one thread going where a cop didn't want to go to an event at a mosque for religious reasons and he's call a hater.
And no, I am not saying that we Christians are being persecuted or any other cutesy snide remark.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 02:18:19 PM
And where were you when this "book abuse" was going on under Bush?
What are you talking about?
QuoteWhat really is disturbing is your selective belief in the First Amendment. Maybe it shouldn't be.
What are you talking about?
The jackass should have the right but shouldn't pull the trigger. He's crazed by his beliefs and too stupid to realize the repercussions.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 02:18:19 PM
if I was moronic enough to burn a religious book, my recovery excuse would be to say it was "art" and compare it to this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg)
My opinion is piss is not art. But I don't appreciate several types of art.
If this is your best example, you need to work on it.
Our boy in Florida burned the Koran because he decided to make himself the decider and pit his form of Christianity against Islam.
The Piss Christ guy didn't go gross because he was religious. He was trying to garner attention for his "art". He also didn't destroy anything. He just dunked it in waste fluid.
Quote from: Townsend on April 01, 2011, 02:37:14 PM
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
The jackass should have the right but shouldn't pull the trigger. He's crazed by his beliefs and too stupid to realize the repercussions.
I was talking about the Koran flushing story at Gitmo in 2005. As for this zealot's stupidity, while I agree, I noticed you still haven't condemned the actual killers. You make it sound the Koran burning was worse than murder.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 04:12:18 PM
I was talking about the Koran flushing story at Gitmo in 2005. As for this zealot's stupidity, while I agree, I noticed you still haven't condemned the actual killers. You make it sound the Koran burning was worse than murder.
The condemnation should've been understood. Yes, they did something they should not have, absolutely.
This guy pulling them over the edge of stupidity was my point.
Well now he's not too fond of their violence.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koran-pastor-20110402,0,4120847.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koran-pastor-20110402,0,4120847.story)
QuotePastor of church that burned Koran calls Afghan mob killings 'very tragic'
I'm sure his god is giving him many back pats.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 04:12:18 PM
As for this zealot's stupidity, while I agree, I noticed you still haven't condemned the actual killers. You make it sound the Koran burning was worse than murder.
Some people (I'm not one of them) might argue that inflaming the rage of a billion people is in some ways worse than killing one.
Quote from: nathanm on April 01, 2011, 06:58:17 PM
Some people (I'm not one of them) might argue that inflaming the rage of a billion people is in some ways worse than killing one.
Then why go there? Just to show how some freak show in Florida can roil people on the other side of the planet to the point of murder?
Quote from: Townsend on April 01, 2011, 04:40:19 PM
Well now he's not too fond of their violence.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koran-pastor-20110402,0,4120847.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koran-pastor-20110402,0,4120847.story)
I'm sure his god is giving him many back pats.
This was the tack you took with me a while back. Tell me, who is your god?
Quote from: Townsend on April 01, 2011, 04:15:08 PM
The condemnation should've been understood. Yes, they did something they should not have, absolutely.
This guy pulling them over the edge of stupidity was my point.
How was it understood? You went after the pastor, right out of the gate, who burned the Koran and gave zero attention to the murderers.
edited.
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
How was it understood? You went after the pastor, right out of the gate, who burned the Koran and gave zero attention to the murderers.
edited.
Yes, I did. I'm too rough on him for you.
I'm sure you're right. He probably had no intention of causing this.
Quote from: Townsend on April 02, 2011, 12:02:05 AM
Yes, I did. I'm too rough on him for you.
I'm sure you're right. He probably had no intention of causing this.
Still waiting on who your "god" is...
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 11:57:05 AM
Still waiting on who your "god" is...
If you're that fixated on it you'll be waiting a really long time.
Quote from: Townsend on April 02, 2011, 12:14:32 PM
If you're that fixated on it you'll be waiting a really long time.
Must be nice to be a bleacher bum, lobbing attacks on other people's faith while being a wuss on your own. Coward.
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 12:19:18 PM
Must be nice to be a bleacher bum, lobbing attacks on other people's faith while being a wuss on your own. Coward.
Better than being a self righteous catbox with an attitude toward everyone with a better thought process.
Your god is different from everyone's. Terry's is different from his wife's/sister's.
If you choose poorly you attack others for being different. I'm taking my time and making sure I don't make the mistakes that jackass has made. Or that these killers in Afghanistan have made.
Quote from: Townsend on April 02, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
Better than being a self righteous catbox with an attitude toward everyone with a better thought process.
Your god is different from everyone's. Terry's is different from his wife's/sister's.
If you choose poorly you attack others for being different. I'm taking my time and making sure I don't make the mistakes that jackass has made. Or that these killers in Afghanistan have made.
Nope. Still a wuss. And as for a "better thought process", I'll stack my academic bona fides against yours any day.
edited. You know what? Nevermind. You are really becoming a bore.
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 12:31:32 PM
edited. You know what? Nevermind. You are really becoming a bore.
I was thinking the same of you catbox.
Quote from: Townsend on April 02, 2011, 01:00:30 PM
I was thinking the same of you catbox.
You? Thinking? Thanks for the laugh....
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 01:04:29 PM
You? Thinking? Thanks for the laugh....
Good one catbox
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 12:19:18 PM
Must be nice to be a bleacher bum, lobbing attacks on other people's faith while being a wuss on your own. Coward.
had to think real hard to come up with those insults, didn't ya? Gotta fall back to your standard name calling because you can come up with an actual argument.
Quote from: custosnox on April 02, 2011, 02:04:20 PM
had to think real hard to come up with those insults, didn't ya? Gotta fall back to your standard name calling because you can come up with an actual argument.
What's there to argue about? This guy criticizes people because of their faith and/or belief in "[their] god", and indeed belittles them for it such as his repeated quoted slap. And when I ask him to simply tell us what he believes, he balks. That in my book is cowardly. Sorry if it hurt your feelings.
Quote from: guido911 on April 02, 2011, 02:26:02 PM
What's there to argue about? This guy criticizes people because of their faith and/or belief in "[their] god", and indeed belittles them for it such as his repeated quoted slap. And when I ask him to simply tell us what he believes, he balks. That in my book is cowardly. Sorry if it hurt your feelings.
These threads never start about you CB. They sure get there though.
You think it's all an attack on you, your faith, your time in the military. It's not about you.
Quote from: Townsend on April 02, 2011, 02:59:22 PM
These threads never start about you CB. They sure get there though.
You think it's all an attack on you, your faith, your time in the military. It's not about you.
Full-on AW, isn't he?
Quote from: Hoss on April 02, 2011, 05:53:12 PM
Full-on AW, isn't he?
He's getting worse. Like they've adjusted his meds.
Quote from: Townsend on April 03, 2011, 09:41:50 AM
He's getting worse. Like they've adjusted his meds.
Just because you think their out to get you doesn't mean their not.
Quote from: Townsend on April 03, 2011, 09:41:50 AM
He's getting worse. Like they've adjusted his meds.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_omk7dxCwoak/Sn8nlAxqF7I/AAAAAAAAAF8/dm-bqQWwyu8/s400/im_a_bed_wetting_liberal_sissy_wuss_tshirt-p235386720201762293us19_400.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2011, 12:58:00 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_omk7dxCwoak/Sn8nlAxqF7I/AAAAAAAAAF8/dm-bqQWwyu8/s400/im_a_bed_wetting_liberal_sissy_wuss_tshirt-p235386720201762293us19_400.jpg)
He keeps proving the point...LOLZ.
Get a new schtick, please. The ad-hominem tripe is getting old. But I guess if you have nothing better....
Quote from: Hoss on April 03, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
He keeps proving the point...LOLZ.
Get a new schtick, please. The ad-hominem tripe is getting old. But I guess if you have nothing better....
The picture he chose...think he's finally admitting the race thing?
T. So now I'm a racist. Genius. Let's see all those in your stroke committee come out and condemn you for name calling or making "ad hominem" bullcrap (like "catbox"--, man that's HILARIOUS) comments. Tell me smart guy, what have you done to vindicate the rights of minorities, or women, or any other oppressed group in this country?
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2011, 10:54:44 PM
T. So now I'm a racist. Genius. Let's see all those in your stroke committee come out and condemn you for name calling or making "ad hominem" bullcrap (like "catbox"--, man that's HILARIOUS) comments. Tell me smart guy, what have you done to vindicate the rights of minorities, or women, or any other oppressed group in this country?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck Tony...oh, and just to specify, I'm not referring to you being a racist, but the fact that you're calling the ad-hominem allegations 'bullcrap'. That's the beauty of the interwebs Tony, you can't take it back once it's out there and people have seen it.
I see the "stroke committee" has weighed in, as anticipated. When are your meetings (so I can film you)?
edited.
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2011, 11:02:43 PM
I see the "stroke committee" has weighed in, as anticipated. When are your meetings (so I can film you)?
edited.
You tell us when you and BB have yours...quid pro quo.
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2011, 10:54:44 PM
Tell me smart guy, what have you done to vindicate the rights of minorities, or women, or any other oppressed group in this country?
All hail the MLK Jr. Of Tulsa.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 03, 2011, 11:29:07 PM
All hail the MLK Jr. Of Tulsa.
All hail the Charlie Sheen of TNF
Quote from: guido911 on April 04, 2011, 08:35:09 AM
All hail the Charlie Sheen of TNF
You are just a troll
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2011, 10:54:44 PM
Tell me smart guy, what have you done to vindicate the rights of minorities, or women, or any other oppressed group in this country?
In other words: "me, me, me...oh and also me. This and all other threads are about me."
Good job CB.
Quote from: Townsend on April 04, 2011, 09:14:39 AM
In other words: "me, me, me...oh and also me. This and all other threads are about me."
Good job CB.
Are you STILL running your mouth? Sheesh, move on.
Well isn't this nice:
(http://reddogreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Sarah-Palin-Crucified-Painting-300x188.jpg)
So if angry Palin supporters kill/behead people, can we blame this "artist"?
Quote from: guido911 on April 04, 2011, 09:27:13 AM
Well isn't this nice:
So if angry Palin supporters kill/behead people, can we blame this "artist"?
"Me, me, me...my seriously weird Palin hangups. Me, me, me."
Some else out there exercising their 1st Amendment rights:
QuoteFamily members say someone took wood from Pham's pile and placed it at the base of the statue before lighting it on fire. "You can see evidence on the ground, there's an aerosol can," Pham's son-in-law Dao Phan said.
It may have burned for a while; Pham's daughter took pictures of her father trying to knock down the flames.
Fire investigators were combing through the garden on Sunday. If they find evidence of arson, they are expected to forward the case to police.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/918755/391/Someone-set-fire-to-Jesus-statue-on-St-Paul-skyline
Let's riot!!!Who's with me.
Guido,
All that extra money I saved you going to your mental pleasure centers?? Channeling sauerkraut today!!
Here's a not-so-subtle view of this issue that I am sure will offend many in here:
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2010, 10:02:43 AM
Anyone following the story of Rev. Terry Jones? Sure, he's got the First Amendment right to do this, but it's a provocative move and defies common sense. Should the White House and other government figures butt out?
Did they butt in when when Muslims and Jews in the middle east burned bibles? Did they butt in when some fraud calling himself an artist pissed in a jar and throw in a plastic cross? Of course not. So why hypocritically even give any attention to this man? Yes they should butt out.
Dearborn, Michigan has a "free-speech zone" ? Seriously?
"DETROIT, April 24 (UPI) -- A Florida pastor arrested in Dearborn, Mich., before his planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America says he plans to file a lawsuit.
Controversial pastor Terry Jones said he would file a lawsuit against the Wayne County Prosecutor's office, The Detroit News reported Sunday.
The Koran-burning pastor was arrested Friday after a jury deliberating on a complaint filed by Wayne County prosecutors found Jones would likely create a "breach of the peace" if he were to proceed with his demonstration outside the mosque on Good Friday.
"It was a total violation of our constitutional rights," Jones told the Detroit Free Press Saturday at Detroit Metro Airport while waiting for a flight to Florida. "It was a mockery of the judicial process."
Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly Jr. said he would have had no problem with Jones rallying at City Hall, where the city has a free-speech zone.
"If he had done this in the first place, there would have been no issue to begin with," O'Reilly said.
The Wayne County Prosecutor's office had no comment on Jones's plans to sue, the News said.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/24/Protest-pastor-to-file-suit-over-arrest/UPI-58801303672557/#ixzz1KXlnzajs
This guy is a complete moron, but isn't that pretty much a preemptive arrest when he's done nothing wrong?
Sounds like his trip to Michigan was full of all sorts of fun:
"At 11:10 p.m. Wednesday, pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., had just completed an interview at WJBK-TV (Channel 2) studio in Southfield, and as he was entering the passenger side of a vehicle, he retrieved his handgun from the door of the vehicle and discharged it into the floorboard."
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110422/METRO02/104220403/No-charges-expected-for-Terry-Jones-in-Southfield-gun-incident#ixzz1KXn3yv9C
Quote from: Conan71 on April 25, 2011, 09:09:43 AM
Dearborn, Michigan has a "free-speech zone" ? Seriously?
These seemed to become popular in the 2002-2004 time frame. Disturbing, isn't it?
Threaten to burn a flag at LSU gets you this response:
(http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/flag-burner.jpg)
QuoteBATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) -
Several hundred people gathered on the LSU campus today and effectively stopped an LSU grad student from burning an American flag on campus.
The student announced Tuesday that he intended to burn the flag. The announcement set off a wave of angry protests on Facebook and talk radio stations.
As the student approached the Parade Grounds at LSU Wednesday, students chanted "USA! USA!". One man yelled "My brothers died for you!".
http://www.wafb.com/story/14626266/american-flag-supporters-stop-flag-burning-at-lsu
May need to rethink the SEC.