Where do you stand on Pastor Jones?

[Anovah]

Gotta hand it to all the Christians in his community who seem to be universally panning this guy. I imagine all that pressure from his religious brethren helped him to reconsider.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You clearly failed to read this thread if you think "the left" don't defend this guy's right to free speech. The following posters all explicitly said they did:

Nathan45 (Green)
reverend B (Independent) I will change this if he doesn't want to be considered a leftist!
myself (Australian Green)
Ringo84 (Democrat)
Grizzly (Democrat)

Add myself to that list as well.

I would have thought that nailing things to the privately owned buildings without the express permission of the owner would be considered as stepping beyond the rights that this guy has to freedom of expression, I don't imagine many people would think he had that right.

I do believe that could be construed as vandalism, couldn't it?

There are similarities between this case and the mosque case. There is also a fundamental difference.

In both cases rights to property are clear.
In both cases people are being upset by the people who are legitimately acting within their rights.

In one case, though, a person is acting solely to provoke and antagonise. In the other, any provocation and antonism is an unfortunate unintended consequence. In one case the intention is to upset. In the other the intention is actually the opposite.

It is hardly surprising that people judge the different cases differently. I don't see what that judgment has to do with being on the left of being on the right.

Because there's a golden opportunity to smear the left without dealing with inconvenient facts, laws, or truths... and who can possibly pass that up?

But since the Quran burning is off, it's a moot point now.

 

[Threadkiller]

I support the right of people to burn whatever they like, within reason (such as, they own the object they are burning, they are not putting people in danger, breaking environmental laws etc.). So do the other leftists who posted in this thread. The point that is not debatable is that you have ideas in your head which are not related to reality and have no intention of changing them despite evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, I can see how much they support his right to freedom of speech, by wanting to stand on his throat, for example.

If you want to say you support his first amendement rights, logical people would then expect you to actually "support" them, and not give all the reasons why this guy should not do his thing.

I, on the other hand, would never burn ANY book, but if the guy wants to burn books he paid for, that is up to him, and my definition does not suffer the death of a thousand qualifications that yours does. I am not going to threaten to stand on his throat, send him to Afghanistan, have him arrested for arson, or call him "childish", a "nutcase" or anything of the kind.

But then again, I am consistent in my thinking.

 

[Grizzly]

Hmm. I always wondered why Emerson said that consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds.

Even the right to burn books has qualifications. I can't walk into a mall carrying my own books and set them on fire, nor can I hold a bonfire in my backyard if the local ordinance forbids open fires. Noting that there are exceptions to most rights is not a sign of weakness.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which is exactly the argument being made by those who oppose building the mosque near ground zero.

Except their argument isn't sound. It's based purely on emotion. A closer, more rational inspection reveals that the sentiment is barely justifiable.

 

[Mobiosity]

He has the right to do this, he shouldn't. It's wrong, amoral and vicious. Just like many other things that people have the right to do.

 

[Mobiosity]

Anyone who disagrees with the left gets the same line. "You're hateful, you suck". It's a very tired argument, and just as lame as it's always been.

Too true.

They're invariable surprised to find out that you are not a drooling, knuckle-dragging, reactionary; but a human with reasoned choices and not at all interested in forcing anyone to think the same way you do.

 

[David Brider]

will you be sending him a copy of the Qu'ran to add to the pire?

Well, as the Qur'an burning is off now, that's a bit of a moot point. But I wouldn't have done so anyway. I find the whole notion of book burning to be a bit bizarre and pointless, really. Unless you burn every copy of any given book, it's only ever going to be a symbollic gesture. And what, really, would this burning have symbollised? *shrug*

do you agree with gen. patreus that his actions could cost american lives?

I've no idea.

do you support his first amendment rights, or feel this is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

He's made it obvious by his statements that he has objections to the Islamic faith, but I think that he would make a better impression if he engaged in some form of serious debate and discussion; into which category burning loads of copies of the Qur'an doesn't really fall.

David.

 

[TG123]

will you be sending him a copy of the Qu'ran to add to the pire? do you agree with gen. patreus that his actions could cost american lives? do you support his first amendment rights, or feel this is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

whatcha think?

1. No. I wouldn't give the guy any books actually, since books are meant to be read and not burnt.
2. Possibly. If US soldiers weren't in Afghanistan in the first place they wouldn't have to fear it.
3. I think that burning a Quran is more or less on the same level as burning an Israeli flag, it is pretty hateful. What are the laws in the US regarding displaying open hatred towards other religions/peoples etc?

I think as well that the many Muslims who will be justifiably angered and may protest the pastor's actions should also be taking a stand against discrimination against non-Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Otherwise they will be hypocrites.

 

[kermit]

Which is exactly the argument being made by those who oppose building the mosque near ground zero.

The difference is that those who oppose the comnunity center not that near to Ground Zero and those whom oppose the Koran burning is that the former is trying to stop it rather than just opposing it. NotreDame actaually suggested that the federal or state government override the local government and have the building rezoned.

The other difference is that the comnunity center issue is inherently a local zoning issue, while book burning is a freedom of speech issue and therefore a federal issue.

 

[Aimiel]

I say that the pastor has bare feet, since his feet aren't shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace... he should be encouraging his congregation to read the Korans instead of burning them, so that they can be better equipped to speak the truth to Muslims, and not try to incite them to hate Christians.

 

[Maxwell511]

Yeah, I can see how much they support his right to freedom of speech, by wanting to stand on his throat, for example.

If you want to say you support his first amendement rights, logical people would then expect you to actually "support" them, and not give all the reasons why this guy should not do his thing.

I, on the other hand, would never burn ANY book, but if the guy wants to burn books he paid for, that is up to him, and my definition does not suffer the death of a thousand qualifications that yours does. I am not going to threaten to stand on his throat, send him to Afghanistan, have him arrested for arson, or call him "childish", a "nutcase" or anything of the kind.

But then again, I am consistent in my thinking.

This post is really irrational and inconsistent.

Let me get this straight. Support for freedom of speech , in your world, means that you cannot censure speech. So you are then censuring "censuring speech".

According to you, you call only be consistent with the idea of freedom of expression by not censuring speech. But this statement is a form of censuring speech. Therefore your statement is not consistent with your idea of support for freedom of expression.

 

[Mobiosity]

Yeah, I can see how much they support his right to freedom of speech, by wanting to stand on his throat, for example.

I can support his right to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say and still want to shut him up. I do and I do.

 

[reverend B]

I can support his right to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say and still want to shut him up. I do and I do.

this isn't even a challenging concept. it's obvious. those that can't understand it are just being adversarial for the joy of being contrary.

the dividing line is asking the law to shut him up. there is no basis for this, unless we conclude that it crosses the line into shouting "fire".

perhaps i would disagree that we are trying to "shut him up". rather, we are trying to appeal to some vestige of rationality that the man may cling to. people tried to "shut up" the disney people and the abortion doctor. we wish to appeal to good sense, while still supporting his rights. ultimately, standing down has to be his decision.

 

[Belk]

I can support his right to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say and still want to shut him up. I do and I do.

Agreed.

 

[salida]

I support his first amendment rights!

What I'm afraid of is that if that NY mosque gets built in an area most americans don't want it at-there will be a lot of quran burning because of anger. That mosque I believe is an radical islamic trojan horse-will cause the start of sharia law here sometime or could.

 

[salida]

this is not that difficult. there is a differnce between supporting someones right to say something and supporting the thing they say.

is that simple enough?

Agree.

 

[Belk]

I support his first amendment rights!

What I'm afraid of is that if that NY mosque gets built in an area most americans don't want it at-there will be a lot of quran burning because of anger. That mosque I believe is an radical islamic trojan horse-will cause the start of sharia law here sometime or could.

Uh... How? You know there are currently mosques all over the country and we are no closer to sharia law, yes?

 

[revanneosl]

Terry Jones is a Jim Jones wannabe


Islamophobe's Past in Germany: Terry Jones Accused of 'Spiritual Abuse' at Cologne Church - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[The Lady Kate]

I support his first amendment rights!

What I'm afraid of is that if that NY mosque gets built in an area most americans don't want it at-there will be a lot of quran burning because of anger.

Let them burn as many Qurans as they want... idiots will be idiots.

Let us pray, however, that Qurans are the only things that get burned.

That mosque I believe is an radical islamic trojan horse-will cause the start of sharia law here sometime or could.

Your beliefs are noted... btw, how would one go about establishing sharia law in America?