• 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!

Pastor who burned Koran demands retribution

This act would be illegal in Australia, Western Europe or Canada so once again it is left to the Americans to step out in support of Free Speech, the linchpin which protects all other human rights and freedoms. Lose that and you can kiss the rest goodbye.

Do we need fear for the life of this woman?

If the answer is yes, then it would seem that despite all the platitudes we hear about the 'Religion of Peace', the truth lies elsewhere.

I looked at Ann's website. She came fully prepared to do this thing and understands the danger very well. Don't show up unexpectedly at her house. I was remembering the cartoonist from Seattle who promoted an "everyone draw Mohammed day" last year. As far as I know she is still living under an assumed i.d. away from her family and friends. A fatwa was declared against her and the FBI advised her to disappear.

Ann Barnhardt is hoping that many more Americans will follow her lead and burn Korans in defiance of Islamic radicalism and in support of free speech. I doubt many will have the sheer guts to do it.
 
I looked at Ann's website. She came fully prepared to do this thing and understands the danger very well. Don't show up unexpectedly at her house. I was remembering the cartoonist from Seattle who promoted an "everyone draw Mohammed day" last year. As far as I know she is still living under an assumed i.d. away from her family and friends. A fatwa was declared against her and the FBI advised her to disappear.

Ann Barnhardt is hoping that many more Americans will follow her lead and burn Korans in defiance of Islamic radicalism and in support of free speech. I doubt many will have the sheer guts to do it.

Maybe not, Marshabar, but I showed it to a couple of people and they were certainly inspired. Shared in her laughter also,

If any Muslims show up around her area I expect there'll be a couple of good ol' boys asking them their business.

She's not the only one speaking out on the Lindsay Graham backlash, by the way.

Re: Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online
 
As I've only seem mentioned a few rare times in here have the majority of you forgotten about the Limitations of the 1st Amendment?
 
You are not really speaking from any position of authority to analyse what the pastor may or may not have incited. You assert your own opinion, nothing more.

I speak with the authority of the United States Constitution, when I say that Jones was well within his rights to do what he did.

Top that!
 
His actions caused harm to others. That’s fundamentally wrong in my book. He was asked by countless prominent world leaders, agencies, and figures to cease his actions. If his family, his church, and other things he cared about found themselves in a bad situation related to this I wouldn’t mind in the slightest.

It seems that most of you that either oppose or support his decision are unwilling to consider both sides of the picture. There is not an easily painted picture to compare the situation to in the Western world vs. the Islamic world. It is a difference in culture that we cannot fathom. He committed one of the worst possible atrocities that the Islamic world could imagine. Wars have been waged for less offensive gestures.

No, the actions of those clowns in Afghanistan caused harm to others.
 
As I've only seem mentioned a few rare times in here have the majority of you forgotten about the Limitations of the 1st Amendment?

What limitations would those be?
 
Hrrm I wasnt expecting an 'islamic creep' argument. But somehow... I seriously doubt that any non-muslims would end up in Sharia courts in the west. The idea screams of pre-emptive victimization.

I'm just giving a voice to the argument Reverend Jones used in staging his protest. I don't think it's racist, and I don't think its the voice of a "religious nutter." It's a legitimate point of contention.

Shariah Law and Islamist Ideology in Western Europe :: Hudson New York
 
First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment) is an easy read if you have maybe forgotten your highschool government classes.
Freedom of speech has limitations and plenty of Supreme Court rulings to back it. I find it borderline loony that people support Pastor Jones who intentionally created violence.

It's a very long read, Bus.

As you seem quite familiar with it, could you please point out the section on Koran defacing?
 
Do you feel Bill O'Reilley was also responsible for what the Muslims did?

He predicted the violence, and condemned the publicity stunt of putting a Koran on trial. So did a lot of other people, including Obama. Now, when you get O'Reilly and Obama to agree on something, you have to wonder whether there is something worth agreeing on.
 
He predicted the violence, and condemned the publicity stunt of putting a Koran on trial. So did a lot of other people, including Obama. Now, when you get O'Reilly and Obama to agree on something, you have to wonder whether there is something worth agreeing on.

Then it was obviously Obama and O'Reilly who are responsible for what happened.

Had the media not reported what this obscure pastor said, had the US President remained silent, then no one would have heard of this guy and these murders on the other side of the world might not have happened. They are obviously responsible for giving this incident some publicity it wouldn't have otherwise received.

So instead of just shutting down freedom of speech we'll have to also censor the media and those media savvy politicians. Who else in the free world can we attack before we finally pin the responsibility where it belongs?

No matter what atrocities Muslims commit - to their families, to each other. or anyone who doesn't believe as they do - it seems they can never get bad press. The Muslim world is silent on this latest mass slaughter (actually there has been at least one more since then) while others are willing to go to any illogical and extraordinary lengths to defend their craziness.

Not since Communism had its day has any other international group been able to commit such violence and degradation against other human beings on such a mass scale and yet still, remarkably, find its many defenders. It is shameful.
 
Last edited:
I understand the analogy. I don't think it's valid.

No, not all Muslims are nutcases. Not all Christians are nutcases, either, but some are as this little incident illustrates.

On what basis are you claiming it invalid?

So you're basically going to continue to ignore those hard questions? Way to demonstrate some intellectual integrity, chief
 
The Muslim world is silent on this latest mass slaughter
did you bother to check your facts before you made that comment?

(Washington, DC - 4/1/11)—The Muslim Public Affairs Council today condemned the killing of at least 12 people, including seven United Nations workers, in Afghanistan by protesters as “barbaric, atrocious and senseless.” This afternoon, MPAC will hold press conferences in Washington, DC and Los Angeles to respond to today’s events.

MPAC Condemns Senseless Killing of U.N. Workers In Afghanistan - Muslim Public Affairs Council

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of Cordoba Initiative and Daisy Khan of American Society for Muslim Advancement Pronounce their unequivocal denunciation of the killings of United Nations workers in Afghanistan by those who were protesting the burning of the Qur’an by Terry Jones. Regardless of motive or rationalization or evidence or excuse, this action must be condemned. Violent Extremism which seeks to inflict harm on innocent people is an absolute corruption of Islamic Doctrine.

CAIR Condemns Attack on U.N. Compound in Afghanistan. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned an attack on a U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan that killed at least 12 people Friday, most of them U.N. workers.
In a statement, CAIR said: “We unequivocally condemn this act of senseless violence. Nothing can justify or excuse this attack.”


The American Muslim (TAM)
 
First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment) is an easy read if you have maybe forgotten your highschool government classes.
Freedom of speech has limitations and plenty of Supreme Court rulings to back it. I find it borderline loony that people support Pastor Jones who intentionally created violence.

Except, Jones didn't create any violence. The violence was created by the crazy bastards in Afghanistan.

By that logic, it's Planned Parenthood's fault that abortion clinics are getting blown up. I mean, hey, if there were no abortion clinics, no one would get pissed off and bomb them. Right?
 
Except, Jones didn't create any violence. The violence was created by the crazy bastards in Afghanistan.

I think some folks have been watching too many episodes of Law and Order. They've taken this idea of "incitement" to a whole new level. "Incitement" is a fundamentalist Islamic cleric standing before his faithful and telling them to kill foreigners because an American preacher burned a copy of the Koran. Using the liberal standard, there never would have been a Freedom Summer, because all of those Yankee college kids were warned by the Klan to stay in Yankeeland, else there'd be trouble. They didn't listen:

Freedom Schools were often targets of white mobs. So also were the homes of local African Americans involved in the campaign. That summer 30 black homes and 37 black churches were firebombed. Over 80 volunteers were beaten by white mobs or racist police officers and three men, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan on 21st June, 1964. This attempt to frighten others from joining the campaign failed and by late 1964 over 70,000 students had taken part in Freedom Summer.

Freedom Summer
 
First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment) is an easy read if you have maybe forgotten your highschool government classes.
Freedom of speech has limitations and plenty of Supreme Court rulings to back it. I find it borderline loony that people support Pastor Jones who intentionally created violence.

Those limitations are very strictly defined

I suggest looking into Black vs Virginia and Brandenburg v. Ohio

<<<395 U.S. 444 (1969), argued 27 Feb. 1969, decided 9 June 1969 by unanimous vote; per curiam decision. Brandenburg v. Ohio was decided in the context of the significant expansion of First Amendment freedoms in the 1960s. It was the final step in the Supreme Court's tortuous fifty‐year development of a constitutional test for speech that advocates illegal action.

Clarence Brandenburg was convicted of violating an Ohio criminal syndicalism statute for advocating racial strife during a televised Ku Klux Klan rally. The statute was identical to one previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Whitney v. California (1927). The Court fashioned a test that was significantly more protective of dangerous speech than the previous “clear and present danger” test employed in previous cases. Whitney was overturned.

In its various incarnations, the old clear and present danger test had permitted the punishment of speech if it had a “tendency” to encourage or cause lawlessness (Schenck v. U.S., 1919), or if the speech was part of a broader dangerous political movement, like the Communist party (Dennis v. U.S., 1951). (See Communism and Cold War.) The Brandenburg test, however, allowed government to punish the advocacy of illegal action only if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (p. 447). >>>

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Information from Answers.com

Being that the acts happened days after the burning of a quran, and that others have burned qurans without similar incident, I doubt anyone would be able to argue "imminent Lawless action" is the result of burning a quran
 
First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment) is an easy read if you have maybe forgotten your highschool government classes.
Freedom of speech has limitations and plenty of Supreme Court rulings to back it. I find it borderline loony that people support Pastor Jones who intentionally created violence.

I say if it bothers you, by all means. Take 'em to court. Let me know how that goes for you.

The beauty of America is that anyone can say basically anything. This is America, I have the right to annoy, the Pastor to an extent just as the Muslims have a right to annoy me.

People might not like it but the same laws that let Neo-Nazi's hold rally's protected the Civil Rights movement too. People think freedom of speech means freedom from offense. In fact, freedom of speech is the freedom TO offend.
 
Dittohead not! said:
He predicted the violence, and condemned the publicity stunt of putting a Koran on trial. So did a lot of other people, including Obama. Now, when you get O'Reilly and Obama to agree on something, you have to wonder whether there is something worth agreeing on.

Thats a steaming load of certified bull****.

I don't expect you to come to my Fish Fry or Christmas Party, but you can feel free to sue because the smoke from my barbeque (where pork is being prepared) has made your home "unclean"
 
did you bother to check your facts before you made that comment?

(Washington, DC - 4/1/11)—The Muslim Public Affairs Council today condemned the killing of at least 12 people, including seven United Nations workers, in Afghanistan by protesters as “barbaric, atrocious and senseless.” This afternoon, MPAC will hold press conferences in Washington, DC and Los Angeles to respond to today’s events.

MPAC Condemns Senseless Killing of U.N. Workers In Afghanistan - Muslim Public Affairs Council

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of Cordoba Initiative and Daisy Khan of American Society for Muslim Advancement Pronounce their unequivocal denunciation of the killings of United Nations workers in Afghanistan by those who were protesting the burning of the Qur’an by Terry Jones. Regardless of motive or rationalization or evidence or excuse, this action must be condemned. Violent Extremism which seeks to inflict harm on innocent people is an absolute corruption of Islamic Doctrine.

CAIR Condemns Attack on U.N. Compound in Afghanistan. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned an attack on a U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan that killed at least 12 people Friday, most of them U.N. workers.
In a statement, CAIR said: “We unequivocally condemn this act of senseless violence. Nothing can justify or excuse this attack.”


The American Muslim (TAM)

So they issued a Press Release?

Well done!

I've seen Muslims protesting in the streets all over the world, almost on a daily basis, but have never seen a significant march against Islamic violence, or against having their fellow Americans murdered by Muslims.

I don't think Press Releases cut it anymore.
 
Except, Jones didn't create any violence. The violence was created by the crazy bastards in Afghanistan.

By that logic, it's Planned Parenthood's fault that abortion clinics are getting blown up. I mean, hey, if there were no abortion clinics, no one would get pissed off and bomb them. Right?

Again the absurd abortion analogy, along with an illogical argument that the Koran burning stunt had nothing to do with the violence.

The absurd abortion analogy was as follows:

You are saying that people should be held liable for the actions of others, if such behavior is the possible reaction to a legal activity. If you truly believe this, then you must hold abortion doctors accountable for the violence leveled against them, and their practice, because abortions can lead to enraged people acting violently

It was offered simply as a red herring, and an emotional argument. What sparks unreason and emotion better than abortion, after all?

If a group of anti abortion extremists were to have been known beyond a doubt to be looking for an excuse to riot, if a doctor had performed an abortion publicly, perhaps put it on camera and posted it on UTube or something simply as a publicity stunt aimed at getting the extremists to resort to violence, then the analogy might hold water. Nothing like that has happened.

The Koran burning was done in order to incite violence. There was no other reason to have done it. There is no debate about Koran burning that is like the debate about abortion. There is no civil right to be gained by burning Korans, as there was in the civil rights marches and integrating schools. it was simply a publicity stunt that created predicted violent acts.

Why anyone wants to try to defend this guy is beyond me.
 
What sparks unreason and emotion better than abortion, after all?

How about any criticism of Islam? Can anything get more violent than Muslims on a rampage? There like a miniature tsunami in themselves, murdering everything in their wake.
The Koran burning was done in order to incite violence.

Well the US President and General Petraeus certainly played along with that idea. They could have said that Muslims are responsible people, will behave like adults, and ignore the craziness of some obscure Florida preacher.

But they didn't. instead they built up the story, predicting all Hell will break loose, and of course the Muslims didn't disappoint.

I hope they have a re-think on how all of this is handled in the future. Rather than treating Muslims like irresponsible children, perhaps we should start expecting more from them. I can't see the harm in that.
 
Where are the demonstrations and the expressions of outrage from all the 'moderate' Muslims decrying the acts of violence? I keep missing them. Dang I wish the MSM would show these so the world can see peaceful Islam...
 
It was offered simply as a red herring, and an emotional argument.

1) it speaks to the central issue of holding people accountable for the actions of others, simply because some might respond with violence to their legal activity. So clearly it isn't irrelevant and not a red herring, like you claim

2) an appeal to emotion would be some argument, that appeals to emotion, with no logical content to it. As you can see above, the argument is clearly logical because it is an analogy based on the fact that in both instances someone would be performing a legal act that aroused some to violence. You want the people performing the legal act to be held accountable, I say it's wrong and point to the larger consequences of such logic by making the above analogy




What sparks unreason and emotion better than abortion, after all?

so all argument dealing with the subject of abortion are appeals to emotion? That makes absolutely no sense

If a group of anti abortion extremists were to have been known beyond a doubt to be looking for an excuse to riot, if a doctor had performed an abortion publicly, perhaps put it on camera and posted it on UTube or something simply as a publicity stunt aimed at getting the extremists to resort to violence, then the analogy might hold water. Nothing like that has happened.

1) we already covered that your claims of intent was baseless

2) the objective of free speech is to allow one to publicly disseminate arguments and ideas, the objective of abortions is to perform abortions (there is no public character to it) . So it seems odd that your objection is based on both acts being performed in their proper sphere




The Koran burning was done in order to incite violence.

Based on what, your belief that it was? I'm sorry to inform you that mere belief isn't evidence


There was no other reason to have done it.

Sure there is: he was critiquing a religion, and religion has an immense influence on how the individual live their life


There is no debate about Koran burning that is like the debate about abortion.

I suggest looking up the term analogy


There is no civil right to be gained by burning Korans

Free speech isn't based on popular approval of the ideas being discussed. In fact, being that the majority opposed civil rights for a very long time, it only further speaks to the need of not limiting the right to ideas, that enjoy free dissemination, to those that the majority approve of

Why anyone wants to try to defend this guy is beyond me.

I honestly rather not but I view people who want to unnecessarily limit free speech as more dangerous than those simply making use of it
 
Last edited:
How about any criticism of Islam? Can anything get more violent than Muslims on a rampage? There like a miniature tsunami in themselves, murdering everything in their wake.


Well the US President and General Petraeus certainly played along with that idea. They could have said that Muslims are responsible people, will behave like adults, and ignore the craziness of some obscure Florida preacher.

But they didn't. instead they built up the story, predicting all Hell will break loose, and of course the Muslims didn't disappoint.

I hope they have a re-think on how all of this is handled in the future. Rather than treating Muslims like irresponsible children, perhaps we should start expecting more from them. I can't see the harm in that.

Again, not Muslims. Muslim extremists. The President and General didn't say that the Muslim extremists are responsible people, as that would have been obviously wrong.

I'm sure that Pastor Nutter thinks that his religion is the correct one, and that he was simply demonstrating that someone else's religion is wrong, violent, and evil.

His error is the same as the one I keep reading on this thread: Lumping all Muslims with the few extremists. Meanwhile, he is himself an extremist, and not a very good example of Christianity.
 
Again, not Muslims. Muslim extremists.

Are you quite sure you understand the difference between Muslims and Muslims extremists? Here's a guy who obviously knows something on the subject.

YouTube - Allan West: Islam will destory Western civilisation

The President and General didn't say that the Muslim extremists are responsible people, as that would have been obviously wrong.

Then why did they say anything? Wasn't it, at the very least, indiscreet of them to be broadcasting this pastor's act to the Muslim world and predicting violence? Wouldn't it have been smarter of them to just shut up?? If speaking out is the issue here, as seems to be the case. why not mention those two, as well as all the US media??


I'm sure that Pastor Nutter thinks that his religion is the correct one, and that he was simply demonstrating that someone else's religion is wrong, violent, and evil.

Well, he certainly made his case, didn't he?

His error is the same as the one I keep reading on this thread: Lumping all Muslims with the few extremists. Meanwhile, he is himself an extremist, and not a very good example of Christianity.

Again, you appear to know little about Muslims and Muslim extremists. Have you ever actually looked at the Koran? Visited Islamic websites? Heard their preachers? Listened to their leaders?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom