Consolator

This may be slightly jumbled, just going to try to get my thoughts out..

I think that it's important to remember that when the US' Constitution was written, we were not in war with several Muslim nations. Technology and international affairs are much, much different than they were back then. I've always felt that we could learn a thing or two from Canada's current system. They (and Canadians, please correct me if I'm wrong), have freedom of speech with the exception of hate speech. Yes, I know, then there's the whole semantics of arguing what is hate speech and what isn't, but I think it's fairly clear in most cases.

I agree that under our system in the US, he has every legal right to burn the Qurans. In most cases, I think it's pretty distasteful to burn religious scriptures. I'm agnostic (bordering on atheist), but the emotional connection that many have to religion is undeniable. By burning their texts, you're giving an easily-misconstrued message. I am sure there are many people around the world who are on the fence / who may not have a very clear picture on how we in the US view Islam and freedom of religion. By this pastor burning the Qurans and the media going as crazy as it is, it is extremely easy to twist this event into something much more twisted than it actually is. Do we really want other nations to hate us any more than they already do? Someone earlier in this thread said that if you know your actions are going to piss a whole lot of people off, and accomplish little (if anything), why would you do it? Speaking of which does the pastor want to accomplish? Does anybody know?

I disagree with Zaqarbal's arguement that abstractions are not people. People everywhere latch themselves onto various ideals, and things, constantly. I think it's a bit of a stretch to make such a claim. People take things like that as personal attacks, whether you want to admit it or not.

I think Dr. Suessicide and Zaqarbal (particularly you, Zaq) should tone down the language. You're not going to accomplish anything by insulting each other.

Finally, someone earlier in this thread said that by not allowing the pastor to burn the Qurans, we're letting the terrorists win. I encourage you to consider some of the different types of "Christians" we have here in America, and how much some of their actions appear to be "terrorist acts." I think you could argue that by letting him burn the Qurans, we're letting American pseudo-Christian terrorists win.

bungalow

thank you, for making no point whatsoever.

Dr.Seussicide

Likewise, now go watch an indie 60's movie and feel better about yourself.

__________________

bungalow

it would be cool for you to accuse me of not making a point if i actually didn't make a point. it's different to accuse me of not making a point if, while i was making it, you had your fingers in your ears and were yelling 'nananananananananananananananan.'

we can go over this once more for you: first amendment is a guarantee by the federal government to never infringe upon your unalienable right to express yourself. burning the koran is symbolic expression. because there is no natural right to not be offended, but there is a natural right to express yourself freely, this one man's expression warrants the protection of the government, while those offended by his actions do not.

that is called a point. you saying that man's law derives from religious doctrine is not. that's just you saying something, and i'm not even sure how it's explicitly related to this exchange.

Barnard17

Non sequiturs and regress arguments. You fail to even be internally rigorous in your claims.

Again, natural rights do not definitively exist. Back them up or drop the subject as a baseless point.

If the first amendment is enshrining what is, by your definition, a natural right then they refer to not only rights from the Government but also rights from others.
Burning the Koran in the mode with which Rev. Jones intended does not just cause offence but propagates persecution. That is to say his right of expression is a statement against, infringement upon and incitement that others should infringe upon the freedom of religion for Muslims.
If you claim that such rights are natural and self evident (which I maintain is mere rhetoric but not necessarily inept as a description of the way in which such things should function) then the purpose of the first amendment should not be just to protect from the Government but also against other citizens who would infringe those rights. If you do not maintain this is the merit of the document then you must cede that you do not believe your own claim that the rights are natural, or you must cede that your application of such rights have ethnocentric motivations. If you do not maintain that this is the capability of the document then you must cede that it is a simple law through it's capacity of writing and not in reality an actual, distinguished through universal application, right.

__________________

bungalow

the reverend jones has every right to express that he believes the rights of muslims should be infringed! isn't it beautiful! the line is drawn where he calls for violence. saying that burning the koran is an incitation to violence is a slippery slope.

Dr.Seussicide

Of course it's not illegal to burn the Qur'an but, it's also not illegal to tell your mother to go fuck herself, but you'd certainly try to refrain from such remarks. What it comes down to, I guess is abusing your right as an American citizen and using your right to foster the greater good. Your point provides no grey areas, however the world we live in doesn't consist of only two shades of contrasting colours.

__________________

P A N

i just think jones is an idiot and that the extremist reactionaries are idiots too, all of them together for not using logic at all.

Zaqarbal

True. In fact, hardly anyone uses logic these days. Jones gets offended. Integrists get offended. Everyone says Jones offended Muslims. However, no one in the World gets offended when reading this...

Paradoxically that proves his point.

__________________

Janszoon

So which days would you say were a time when a lot of people did use logic?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm