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.

bungalow

you're right, our founding documents do make very few references to a specific god. i'm sure we can agree, though, the references that are made are moderately important---like the one that says "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." this was of course, the declaration of independence, which is the basest of american foundational documents. it was the ultimate intention of the founders in composing the bill of rights to expound upon this ideal, and to establish a country whereby that ideal would be respected. how do i know the intentions of the founders? because they composed dozens of documents and gave dozens of speeches debating these ideas. madison, in particular, specifically alludes to john locke's philosophy of the state of nature and natural rights in his address presenting the bill of rights to the delegates of the constitutional convention: "It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth..."

it wasn't debatable to the men who founded the united states, and since that is the country in question i regret that your opinion on the matter doesn't weigh much. the point is, the founders of this country felt that certain rights were granted to humanity by God, and that no government can infringe upon them. and the fact of the matter is, as free-thinking, free individuals we do have natural rights (feel free to read kant's dissertation proving this through the use of--your favorite--reason!). the first amendment is not enforced through legal means, it isn't enforced at all because there is nothing to enforce. what the government enforces are laws that prohibit one person from violating the natural rights of another. the rights themselves just are. and there is, ostensibly, no provision for altering the first amendment, or any contained in the bill of rights. madison made clear that the first amendment, above all, was inviolable.



it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not chief. i have no power to speak of. but the men who established this country shared my beliefs, and DID have power, and DID establish a country that recognizes natural rights and recognizes expression as one of them. and the bold is an absolutely absurd statement. how is he breaking their right to freedom of religion? they are just as free to believe as they believe and practice as they practice whether he and the 4 other members of his church burn korans or not. what sort of power are you investing in this man?

it surprises me that so many of you are having trouble grasping the concept of total freedom of expression.

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.

supermarlin

I'm a christian myself, and whilst I live in Australia not USA I think this guy is an idiot, religious extremeists aren't ever good...I'm glad for people who are passionate in their faith, but it shouldn't become some sort of a persecution of differing opinions

Barnard17

Because so many of us have an understanding for the need of toleration for those rights to be respected. Which is to say toleration of both sides, not just toleration of Muslims to have their beliefs trampled because it's popular to do so.

I explained the bold statement you highlight, which is a conclusion provided based on those explanations, so why not attack those explanations instead of secluding the conclusion from them and claiming it unsupported? I will not fall for your strawman.

In general I'd re-read Article V if I were you.

More specifically to natural rights, to simply say that they're believed by others and therefore inviolable is a failure to confront the argument at hand. Cede that they are based upon an unsupported regress argument (which your yourself contradict, quad erat demonstrandum), or back up the claim that there exist universal rights without using circular logic. Personally I'm much more inclined towards the existence of a social contract in which "rights" exist as a function. If a "right" can be infringed it isn't truly a "right", the term becomes rhetoric but not necessarily negatively so as long as it's thoroughly inspected and understood.

I argue within the bounds of what you want to argue within to the extent of what is plausible. I am, however, capable of using my brain to think, debate and assess the merits of what those bounds are rather than being tied purely within them. Socrates is the father of modern philosophy because he was willing to question rather than simply accept.

__________________

Trauma

Haha nice contradiction.
Don't "walk on egg shells... but seriously..."
This is the whole problem with government regulation of rights; complete contradictions.
I say that if YOU'RE afraid of international thermonuclear war, why don't YOU travel across the country and stop him?
Otherwise, shit's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.

The real joke in this situation is this: religion.
If crazy Muslims burned Bibles in the Middle East, people here would be outraged... but not vengeful.
Citizens of the United States would think, "They are so barbaric and crazy." Then they would laugh at them in a pretentious manner.
If some crazy Christian nut, or a bigoted nut (whatever), in the United States burns Qu'rans, level headed Muslims should be thinking "They are so barbaric and crazy," not "We need to kill them."

I'm not sure why this is so publicized.
It's giving credit to the ignorant and idiotic.

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño

Freebase Dali

It's not a contradiction. It's a compromise.
If you have a caged, rabid dog that you know will bite you... you're perfectly free to put your hand in the cage. That's your decision. But it's a stupid move.
The problem is that he's not just putting his hand in the cage... he's opening the door. I do realize that it's probably not going to change the fact that there will be extremist violence either way, but if you want to burn someone's bible, do it in private. Nothing is gained by provoking.
And I'm not saying all Muslims are extremists... but you'd have to be an idiot to not predict the effects of such a move.

RVCA

I've been following the arguments in this thread, and I have something relative to say, but I don't think I'm addressing anyone in particular. More or less, it's my general opinion on this horrendous non-issue.

A few of you have thrown around the idea of "tolerance". But here's the thing: The point is not that hate is bad or that acceptance is good, but whether we're doing so based upon rational reasons. Open-mindedness is only a virtue if it's tempered with wisdom.

I fully support burning the Quran. It's a horrendous, disgusting piece of literature. But then again, I also fully support burning the Bible because it's also horrendously disgusting. Would I ever actually burn either holy book? No. And I certainly wouldn't do it on the anniversary of a national tragedy. The guy is an extremist, and an attention whore. He's an idiot. And everyone who's making such a huge deal out of it is just playing along. They're mafia-wife idiots.

Zaqarbal

I'll do you a favor: I won't continue this battle of insults. Your satiric skills are very poor, and I feel sorry for you because you'd probably end up being dialectically sodomized. BTW, I exaggerated all those things: actually I'm not a know-all, I don't care about your age and I'm not so old (I'm only a few years older than you). I was only pretending to have an "owerwhelming intelectual superiority" to make you feel ankward, and thus soften that annoying tone of insolent enfant terrible you had (you cannot bug a person that way ). Anyway, now you mentioned you're about to be a chemist, if you're able to make amphetamines I'd be interested to buy them at a good price.

My thoughts about what? Maybe you didn't get my point. Let's go back to the beginning:

I mean "to separate" in order to make moral judgements. Perhaps there's a problem with the meaning of respect. I know it's an ambiguous word, but keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker, and sometimes I can't find the accurate terms. I thought the video would clarify that what I mean better than me (I feel clumsy when writing about meticulous concepts in English). It seems to be that, strictly speaking, respect denotes esteem or a positive feeling. Considering that, and to avoid confusion, we better use a more proper word when talking about people (although we'll keep the word respect regarding ideas). I've thought of tolerate, but according to some definitions tolerance does not necessarily exclude contempt. I can't find a perfect verb for it, but the underlying concept is clear: TO BE CIVIL. That is, to treat him, at least, according to our common minimum ethical values. There are certain minimum standards, and thanks to them people live together as members of the same society. The aim is to express, at least, normalcy, coexistence as usual, lack of conflict or contempt. That there's nothing "anomalous" that could disrupt our life in society.

So, to sum up, the question would be: Is it possible to be civil to someone, and, at the same time, not to respect his ideas (or some of his his ideas)?

Obviously yes. I think nowadays most of the people distinguish between the two concepts: "to be a good citizen" and "to be an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Buddhist, etc."

Edit: "popular wisdom" corroborates my answer: "Live and let live".

__________________

Zaqarbal

To atheists, in case you didn't know: Last Friday Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated an excelent argument in favor of burning the Koran:

I gotta buy gasoline...

__________________