• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

I don't see the problem. No one infringed on his right to free speech. He doesn't have a right to work for NJTransit, and I don't see what's wrong with an organization not wanting to be represented by someone who is not only a bigot, but a high profile one who appeared in the media. I wouldn't want someone like that working for my business and alienating customers.
 
Orion said:
I don't see the problem. No one infringed on his right to free speech. He doesn't have a right to work for NJTransit, and I don't see what's wrong with an organization not wanting to be represented by someone who is not only a bigot, but a high profile one who appeared in the media. I wouldn't want someone like that working for my business and alienating customers.
Click to expand...

It's run by the government though, and they can't fire him for this. If it was a private company this would be okay, but it's not, so he certainly has a beef with his former employer.
 
Orion said:
I don't see the problem. No one infringed on his right to free speech. He doesn't have a right to work for NJTransit, and I don't see what's wrong with an organization not wanting to be represented by someone who is not only a bigot, but a high profile one who appeared in the media. I wouldn't want someone like that working for my business and alienating customers.
Click to expand...

Unless you want to argue that every single government employee represents the government 24/7, this guy was not there representing NJTransit.

Step away from this situation and imagine what would happen if the position you're arguing for were actually the law. Imagine if GWB had decreed that anyone employed by the federal government in any capacity would be fired if they ever objected to any administration policies in public. Under your theory, because no one has a right to work for the government, that decree would not violate anyone's first amendment rights. That's clearly not how the first amendment was designed to work.
 
MrVicchio said:
I hope he sues the everlovin **** out them for this.
Click to expand...

My reaction reading the headline was, "Oh, I smell a court case."

Code-of-Ethics? My, I wish we had that level of ethical consideration when Clinton broke the law, lied in court under oath in an attempt to deny someone their day in court. Perhaps the NY Transit Authority should have been responsible for his case in Congress.

.
 
zimmer said:
My reaction reading the headline was, "Oh, I smell a court case."

Code-of-Ethics? My, I wish we had that level of ethical consideration when Clinton broke the law, lied in court under oath in an attempt to deny someone their day in court. Perhaps the NY Transit Authority should have been responsible for his case in Congress.

.
Click to expand...

Clinton got a blowjob.... Get over it. It's been happening since the beginning of time. The whole case with Clinton was a republicanazi smear tactic and nothing more.
 
Let's stick to the case at hand.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
NJtransit is more like Greyhound rather then Cityhall
Click to expand...

Greyhound isn't tax payer funded and managed, and he didn't commit this action on the job, but in his free time.
Perhaps we can start firing all those that slag Christians?

.
 
RightinNYC said:
Unless you want to argue that every single government employee represents the government 24/7, this guy was not there representing NJTransit.

Step away from this situation and imagine what would happen if the position you're arguing for were actually the law. Imagine if GWB had decreed that anyone employed by the federal government in any capacity would be fired if they ever objected to any administration policies in public. Under your theory, because no one has a right to work for the government, that decree would not violate anyone's first amendment rights. That's clearly not how the first amendment was designed to work.
Click to expand...

It is rather stupid that this law would only apply to the government though

What would be the difference if the CEO of Ford said that any one who criticized the government under XXXX president would be fired compared to the director of NJtransit
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is rather stupid that this law would only apply to the government though

What would be the difference if the CEO of Ford said that any one who criticized the government under XXXX president would be fired compared to the director of NJtransit
Click to expand...

This isn't a statute, it's the Constitution. The Constitution binds the government, not individuals.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
It's not a law, it's the Constitution. The Constitution binds the government, not individuals.
Click to expand...

Either way it is idiotic that someone who works for the government seems to have a greater right to free speech then someone working in private industry
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Either way it is idiotic that someone who works for the government seems to have a greater right to free speech then someone working in private industry
Click to expand...

We all have the same rights. None of us can be punished by the government for protected speech. All of us can be punished by private individuals for protected speech.
 
Ok, something's bugging me....It probably won't make any difference about how anyone feels about the guy..still

I know I heard this guy (or figured it was same guy) on TV talking about the specific pages he tore out and set fire to. They were violent pages talking of killing etc.

I can find nothing on this, just that he burned the Quran or that he ripped pages from the Koran and burned them.
If he ripped only certain pages out to burn, doesn't anyone think that would be a tiny bit newsworthy? Just askin'....
 
It's interesting to see how free-speech is used when defending someone's actions.
I have the right to call someone a nigger or a spic if I want - purely racist terms. That's protected the 1st Amendment.
However - if I worked for the state or federal government and said these things it would be quite understandable when they let me go, or when they pushed me to resign.

Someone has the right to do what they want.
And sometimes companies have the right to protect their public-perception, which includes firing people.

Especially fi that person's actions would somehow be brought around negatively to that business - and that's more so true when it's government related in any way.
 
Barbbtx said:
Ok, something's bugging me....It probably won't make any difference about how anyone feels about the guy..still

I know I heard this guy (or figured it was same guy) on TV talking about the specific pages he tore out and set fire to. They were violent pages talking of killing etc.

I can find nothing on this, just that he burned the Quran or that he ripped pages from the Koran and burned them.
If he ripped only certain pages out to burn, doesn't anyone think that would be a tiny bit newsworthy? Just askin'....
Click to expand...

To be honest, why would it matter? He is still burning the koran either way.
 
Your Star said:
To be honest, why would it matter? He is still burning the koran either way.
Click to expand...

Maybe I thought it mind change the perspective of some of those who would call him an Islamophobe. He seemed to have respect for some of the Quran, just not the parts that wanted him dead.
 
Barbbtx said:
Maybe I thought it mind change the perspective of some of those who would call him an Islamophobe. He seemed to have respect for some of the Quran, just not the parts that wanted him dead.
Click to expand...

You burn part of a holy book, you basically are burning it all. Would you find any difference of someone burning only parts of the Bible?
 
Your Star said:
You burn part of a holy book, you basically are burning it all. Would you find any difference of someone burning only parts of the Bible?
Click to expand...

Well yes. It would seem there might be some room for dialogue.
 
Barbbtx said:
Well yes. It would seem there might be some room for dialogue.
Click to expand...

Well, I would think that dialogue would happen before one resorts to burning something, but I guess it is a little more nuanced than just burning the whole book.
 
Barbbtx said:
Ok, something's bugging me....It probably won't make any difference about how anyone feels about the guy..still

I know I heard this guy (or figured it was same guy) on TV talking about the specific pages he tore out and set fire to. They were violent pages talking of killing etc.

I can find nothing on this, just that he burned the Quran or that he ripped pages from the Koran and burned them.
If he ripped only certain pages out to burn, doesn't anyone think that would be a tiny bit newsworthy? Just askin'....
Click to expand...

Why should a book burning be news worthy anyways?
 
MrVicchio said:
I hope he sues the everlovin **** out them for this.
Click to expand...

The guy was an idiot for burning the koran. It's a meaningless gesture, and he had to know it wasn't going to go over well with people.

That said, he absolutely has the right to do it. And although his firing was probably legal, it's still wrong. Hopefully he sues and wins.
 
I would like to see him win a suit and get his job back. I've done some idiot things in my day. Getting a second chance is really a good thing. Possibly an apology might be in order.

His free speech problem is that actions speak louder than words, yet are not words, thus are not speech.

There's a whole lot of information about this man and his employment that we will never hear about. Surely there are Muslims that work where he does. You cannot expect the Muslim co-workers to want to be around this guy at work. That could very well cause tensions and problems that would be detrimental to the smooth operation of the organization.

I'd like to see him reinstated. There's such a thing as getting caught up in the moment. At least he's famous now. If they don't reinstate him, there will be plenty of employers that would hire him simply for what he did do.
 
For every ones Information: Military burns Bibles sent to troops in Afghanistan. Now that is the US Military

This story is from last year and and for the life of me I don't for the life of me remember anyone raising hell about it or hearing about some Pastor issuing a call to have the General in charge in Afghanistan killed in some kind of Christian Jihad.

http://http://www.examiner.com/christian-in-louisville/military-burns-bibles-sent-to-troops-afghanistan

May 20th, 2009 4:44 pm ET

A story hit the media today, stating that the U.S. Military made a choice to burn Bibles sent to soldiers on base in Afghanistan. The military has a policy that unsolicited religious materials are not allowed to be sent or distributed by military personnel. Central Command General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice” and is to be strongly enforced in sectors which are predominantly Muslim, for fear such material distribution will be taken as an attempt on behalf of the U.S. to proselytize and convert the local people. If such actions were perceived in this manner, the military says it could jeopardize the safety of their mission and cause possible harm to come to the soldiers on base as well as the local Muslims who might show interest in another religion.

Afghanistan is a devout Muslim nation. Although there are various Christian organizations that support professional career missionaries in the field, most missionary efforts in the area are not publicized or promoted, for safety reasons. The Bibles that were sent to a Sgt. James Watt on base in Bargram, Afghanistan were a rare find due to the fact that they were written in Pashto and Dari, the predominant languages in that particular region. The church that sent the Bibles saved and held fundraisers in order to afford the cost of the Bibles and shipping. Instead of sending the Bibles back to the church the military officials chose to burn the Bibles, stating that if they sent the Bibles back to the church they feared the church would turn around and send them to another organization within Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom