*Hugs first amendment* British police arrest men over burning korans

[SAWYER]

I don't give a crap if it is Christians, Muslims or insert religion/group here getting their panties in a wad, that should not dictate freedom

 

[Malak]

I don't give a crap if it is Christians, Muslims or insert religion/group here getting their panties in a wad, that should not dictate freedom

Freedom isn't a win-all bag that allows you to perpetuate hate.

 

[Terzo]

You can't just do something intentionally offensive and then say it has to be allowed because it's his belief.

In general, yes you can. The belief bit isn't even necessary. I could go walk around chinatown making a slanty eyed face and pronouncing "l's" as "r's" (really a japanese thing) and it would be legal.

 

[SAWYER]

So what other fictional books are not allowed to be burned? Who decides what is and isn't allowed?

 

[SAWYER]

Freedom isn't a win-all bag that allows you to perpetuate hate.

and LOL these animals hated everything long before any fictional books was every burned

 

[Malak]

In general, yes you can. The belief bit isn't even necessary. I could go walk around chinatown making a slanty eyed face and pronouncing "l's" as "r's" (really a japanese thing) and it would be legal.

Again, as I've stated before, legality isn't the issue. It might presently be legal for you to be a racist prick, but it doesn't mean what you are doing is right, should be tolerated, or continued to be allowed.

 

[Perknose]

Not really. It's natural to want to do something when someone tells you it is forbidden, especially if you're five years old.

ftfy

 

[SAWYER]

As long as whatever act is legal, then yes it can continue.

 

[Perknose]

I agree^ but I don't care, people should be able to burn a book if they want. People need to suck it up and deal with people who don't share their same views

Isn't that the point? They shouldn't burn the books because they need to suck it up and deal with people who don't share their same views.

Zing!

 

[DominionSeraph]

So are you. You preach a dogma spoon-fed to you and believe you are righteous in your holy war. But you aren't.

What, the dogma that things that kill people kill people? There's no disagreement there, so the truth value doesn't even come into play.
After that comes the implementation of killing. I do believe Muslims would have a problem if we loaded several planes full of them and then crashed them into buildings full of other Muslims. So there's no disagreement that that's a bad thing.

The only practical disagreement is in the fanatics' beliefs that Muslims are the only ones who count. This lack of reciprocity leads to a psychopathic mindset. A Muslim wouldn't stand for a psychopath targeting them, so again there's no disagreement that that's a bad thing.

They would feel towards terrorists targeting them the same things that we feel. The only issue is in the lack of balance in their beliefs -- their conclusion that we aren't equals, and we don't get the same moral position towards their terrorism that they would get if we were on the same unholy crusade. And you cannot fix this lopsided view through appeasement. If a con artist is taking you for a ride, you won't get him to stop by throwing MORE money at him. He doesn't respect you, and the more money he gets out of you, the less he respects you. Passivity just doesn't work -- you give him no cause to reexamine his moral structure.

 

[Terzo]

Again, as I've stated before, legality isn't the issue. It might presently be legal for you to be a racist prick, but it doesn't mean what you are doing is right, should be tolerated, or continued to be allowed.

Fair enough, but stop saying can't then, since I keep thinking yes we can. Of course I disagree, but I don't you can come up with an argument to change my mind, and vice-versa.

ftfy

Meh. This has been around for ages. Even the concept of Original Sin stems from Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

Zing!

Seems like you're acting like a 5 year old rather than contributing to the discussion. :hmm:

 

[OCGuy]

lolislam

 

[amddude]

Ridiculous.

It doesn't matter if something is "hateful" or "intolerant" because those are subjective terms.

Free speech = free speech.

Each day we seem to watch europe and the UK in particular slide a bit farther down a deep chasm.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Freedom isn't a win-all bag that allows you to perpetuate hate.

There's no disagreement there. Muslims are not free to promote the default stance that non-Muslims should be killed. But what you don't seem to get is that THAT stance is not hate and intolerance.

You cannot equate "It is wrong to murder," with the counter of, "Well, it is wrong to say that I cannot murder so that means that I get to murder anybody I like and you can't say anything about it so nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!"

Counters don't regress infinitely. They stop where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Amused]

Freedom isn't a win-all bag that allows you to perpetuate hate.

If you are not free to hate and express it, you are not free at all.

What part of that do you not understand? Wouldn't you rather KNOW who the haters are? Do you actually think controlling what people say will stop hate???

And there is NO difference between politics and religion. NONE. Both are beliefs in an ideology. There is NO logical reason to ban speech that may be offensive to one religion, and then not to ban speech that may be offensive to a political ideology.

Once you start banning speech for the mere act of it being offensive to one, or a group, you have crossed a line that will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. You give the government a toe in the door, and it will use it to control you, your speech, and your thoughts.

FREEDOM. Why does it scare you?

 

[OCGuy]

He doesnt understand because he either isn't American, or he is a relig-nut. Or both.

 

[Amused]

Legal precedence has already been presented in this thread that says otherwise.

And I don't buy into the American religion. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be done, tolerated, or allowed to continue.

No it hasn't. Your internet law degree has failed you again.

 

[Amused]

I find it funny that there are people who want to support the first amendment in the right to burn a Koran, but want to ignore it as much as possible when a mosque is being built near ground zero.

Um, I'll have you know I was AGAINST any government restriction to the Mosque.

I was also against every iteration of the Flag Burning Amendment.

My support of the 1st Amendment is complete and without hypocrisy. For I know that unless I support that speech which offends me most, I do not support freedom of speech at all.

Too bad some of the others in this thread don't get that.

 

[Kirby]

i thought freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose...

:hmm:

 

[DangerAardvark]

I have a hard time caring about this. As though the right to burn Korans is a freedom we should be proud to embrace...

I'm proud of my right to burn whatever piece of my personal property I so choose in order to make whatever political statement I so choose... within the fire code.

 

[DangerAardvark]

It's downright disturbing to see, on almost a daily basis, the sheer amount of people in the world (and especially in this country) who simply do not believe in freedom of expression. Most people seem to subscribe to the "I believe in freedom of speech, but..." line of thinking where you insert whatever pet subject you happen to hold sacred after the "but". Well freedom of speech is what I hold sacred. And there's no but.

 

[theflyingpig]

Freedom isn't a win-all bag that allows you to perpetuate hate.

That's what religion does. Perpetuate hate. And ignorance. Everyone knows this.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Fail to see how this is worse than the President telling a Pastor of a congregation of 50 to not burn the Koran.

Well, he told Wall Street not to take bonuses too. Look how that turned out. That should tell you how much weight his presidential word has behind it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's what religion does. Perpetuate hate. And ignorance. Everyone knows this.

Well, it tends to. Religions are psychological parasites, and when they don't promote ignorance and exclusivity they die, so all the successful ones do.
But there's technically nothing that says a religion must do that.

 

[DangerAardvark]

i would like to see the OP walk into a Wal-Mart and yell "FIRE"

what will you be hugging then?

Do you know what Oliver Wendell Holmes was ruling against when he gave the example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater? Anti-war fliers.