• 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!

US Police arrest Florida pastor

Gardener said:
You are supporting the Islamist objective. Your own religion has nothing to do with it.

The actual Nazis used their state power to burn books in order to eliminate free expression. You want the state to use it's power to prevent certain thoughts from being expressed. Have you considered how you are much more like them in this regard than unlike?
Click to expand...

I could care less if he burned the qur'an, I could care less if he burned the bible, torah, das Kapital, etc. etc. etc.

I think he is an asshole for doing it, he prostitutes his church/religion for his own desire to get into the media and he could care less if his actions cause the death of others.

I would respect him if he chose not to burn the qur'an but to export it to some muslim country so that they can be given to the poor who do not have the money to buy qur'ans.

My opinion is that it was perfectly legal to arrest this idiot and I do not have an issue if he is prosecuted and jailed/fined for his crimes.
 
Peter King said:
I could care less if he burned the qur'an, I could care less if he burned the bible, torah, das Kapital, etc. etc. etc.

I think he is an asshole for doing it, he prostitutes his church/religion for his own desire to get into the media and he could care less if his actions cause the death of others.

I would respect him if he chose not to burn the qur'an but to export it to some muslim country so that they can be given to the poor who do not have the money to buy qur'ans.

My opinion is that it was perfectly legal to arrest this idiot and I do not have an issue if he is prosecuted and jailed/fined for his crimes.
Click to expand...

You obviously DO care if you support his being jailed.
 
Gardener said:
You obviously DO care if you support his being jailed.
Click to expand...

I support him being jailed for the crime he has committed, not that he wanted to burn qur'ans. As said the idiot can do what he wants but should expect all the backlash he will receive it blows up in his face.
 
Moot said:
.....Pastor Jone's book burning party did in fact cause violent protests in the Arab world that got at least twenty or more people killed. Historically, book burning is an act of censurship, intimidation and control...so perhaps Muslims just don't understand American humor, eh?...
Click to expand...

In the case of Jones, book burning was more akin to flag burning, it is a way of showing disrespect for a belief system and/or the people who accept it.

Exactly how would you word legislation to ban forms of expression that might piss off some violent people? How would you decide who to prosecute? Would it depend on the actual results of the expression, or the possible results? Do you agree that it would reuire a constitutional amendment?
 
Moot said:
I'm not the first or the only one who has made the obvious comparison. And Nazi's didn't just burn Jewish literature.

You're not very informed, are you? You don't even understand what your defending.

"Book burning" refers to the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials. Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question....
Book Burning

Since ancient times, people from virtually all religions and societies have burned books as a form of censorship, protest, or hate mongering.

As long as there have been materials deemed lewd or blasphemous, there have been attempts to ban them. Those burning books as an act of censorship on ideological grounds often display religious intolerance, such as that exhibited during the Spanish Inquisition or the reign of the Taliban....
Book Burning, 213 BC to 2011 AD

History : Book Burning and Censorship

History of Book Censorship


Censurship and religious intolerance....is that your idea of freedom?
Click to expand...

Burning books that were forcibly removed from libraries, book stores and homes is a form of censorship.

Burning books that the protesting burners purchased or acquired legitimately is not. It is a protest.

In the USA, people have burned Beatles and other rock records, disco records and books and magazines they find offensive. None of those acts resulted in censorship. They did raise awareness of the protester's objections to the content. The protests may or may not have succeeded in encouraging some sellers or libraries to remove the books from their inventories. If they did, it was because the sellers or libraries decided to remove the books. It was their free choice, and not censorship, unless they were compelled to remove the materials due to government action or threats of violence. Generally, content that has been widely protested or subject to censorship in the USA becomes more popular and has a greater, and longer lasting, social impact than if it had not been targetted. We know more about D.H. Lawrence, Mark Twain, JD Salinger, Radclyffe Hall, Hemingway, Henry Miller, William Buroughs, Allen Ginsburg et al more than most of their contemporaries.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Burning books that were forcibly removed from libraries, book stores and homes is a form of censorship.

Burning books that the protesting burners purchased or acquired legitimately is not. It is a protest.

In the USA, people have burned Beatles and other rock records, disco records and books and magazines they find offensive. None of those acts resulted in censorship. They did raise awareness of the protester's objections to the content. The protests may or may not have succeeded in encouraging some sellers or libraries to remove the books from their inventories. If they did, it was because the sellers or libraries decided to remove the books. It was their free choice, and not censorship, unless they were compelled to remove the materials due to government action or threats of violence. Generally, content that has been widely protested or subject to censorship in the USA becomes more popular and has a greater, and longer lasting, social impact than if it had not been targetted. We know more about D.H. Lawrence, Mark Twain, JD Salinger, Radclyffe Hall, Hemingway, Henry Miller, William Buroughs, Allen Ginsburg et al more than most of their contemporaries.
Click to expand...

but the man was not arrested because he wanted to protest, this is not a first amendment issues but a criminal offense issue.
 
Peter King said:
but the man was not arrested because he wanted to protest, this is not a first amendment issues but a criminal offense issue.
Click to expand...

As mentioned previously, denial of a permit and an arrest for other infractions does not amount to the motivation being to suppress an individuals speech. In fact, there have been plenty of attempts in the past to target certain individuals and groups through applying stringent standards to permitting processes in the past and nickle and diming them with the statutory code

And given the high profile and political nature of the event, I wouldn't assume such played no part here. Also, it seems many are praising the fact that his act of free expression was curtailed, so discussing censorship, the first amendment, and what they constitute seems more than appropiate
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
As mentioned previously, denial of a permit and an arrest for other infractions does not amount to the motivation being to suppress an individuals speech. In fact, there have been plenty of attempts in the past to target certain individuals and groups through applying stringent standards to permitting processes in the past and nickle and diming them with the statutory code

And given the high profile and political nature of the event, I wouldn't assume such played no part here. Also, it seems many are praising the fact that his act of free expression was curtailed, so discussing censorship, the first amendment, and what they constitute seems more than appropiate
Click to expand...

Terry Jones should take it back to Gainsville and see if that community wants his mess.
 
Hard Truth said:
Burning books that were forcibly removed from libraries, book stores and homes is a form of censorship.

Burning books that the protesting burners purchased or acquired legitimately is not. It is a protest.

In the USA, people have burned Beatles and other rock records, disco records and books and magazines they find offensive. None of those acts resulted in censorship. They did raise awareness of the protester's objections to the content. The protests may or may not have succeeded in encouraging some sellers or libraries to remove the books from their inventories. If they did, it was because the sellers or libraries decided to remove the books. It was their free choice, and not censorship, unless they were compelled to remove the materials due to government action or threats of violence. Generally, content that has been widely protested or subject to censorship in the USA becomes more popular and has a greater, and longer lasting, social impact than if it had not been targetted. We know more about D.H. Lawrence, Mark Twain, JD Salinger, Radclyffe Hall, Hemingway, Henry Miller, William Buroughs, Allen Ginsburg et al more than most of their contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are talking about a mass produced book here that is widely and freely available through numerous channels. Burning three thousand of them likely doesn't even account for a significant percentage of those that are produced daily
 
Sharona said:
Terry Jones should take it back to Gainsville and see if that community wants his mess.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense as a reply to what I wrote
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
As mentioned previously, denial of a permit and an arrest for other infractions does not amount to the motivation being to suppress an individuals speech. In fact, there have been plenty of attempts in the past to target certain individuals and groups through applying stringent standards to permitting processes in the past and nickle and diming them with the statutory code

And given the high profile and political nature of the event, I wouldn't assume such played no part here. Also, it seems many are praising the fact that his act of free expression was curtailed, so discussing censorship, the first amendment, and what they constitute seems more than appropiate
Click to expand...

He was not arrested for voicing his opinion, he was arrested because this moron (sorry, no other word describes him IMHO) drags a huge fire hazard around. And I am sorry, but thousands of qur'ans doused with kerosine are a huge fire hazard and he put fellow road users/citizens in huge danger by doing something that incredibly stupid.

If he had dragged a smoker filled with qur'ans and put the kerosine on them at the site I doubt very seriously he would have been arrested. He however was arrested for being a moron with a great disregard for the safety of others. That is why he has to be charged and sentenced.
 
Peter King said:
He was not arrested for voicing his opinion
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's an issue with english being your second language, or what. But you seem to have huge issues with basic reading comprehension: I was rather clear in my post that the arrest wasn't directly related to his speech. What I covered was how the permitting process and legal code have been abused in attempts to circumvent constitutional protections in the past
 
Peter King said:
but the man was not arrested because he wanted to protest, this is not a first amendment issues but a criminal offense issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. His act of driving with flammables does seem illegal and potentially dangerous. But the legitimacy of his arrest depends on whether he just happened to be caught, or if he was targeted by the authorities with the intent of stopping the protest. It also depends on whether he was denied a permit for legitimate safety or other reasons.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Because the states are involved. Don't you see yet why governmental control over rights is a BAD thing overall for everyone? I know others will say marriage isn't a right, but I would argue that two people wanting to marry as being covered under the "pursuit of happiness."
Click to expand...

I think the Civil Rights Act was a good thing.
 
Rand Paul and today's GOP does not.
They won't be happy until they roll back everything through FDR and give us another depression.
Bush's recession was not enough as we see with today's House.
lolabird said:
I think the Civil Rights Act was a good thing.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Rand Paul and today's GOP does not.
They won't be happy until they roll back everything through FDR and give us another depression.
Bush's recession was not enough as we see with today's House.
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to read your posts.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not sure if it's an issue with english being your second language, or what. But you seem to have huge issues with basic reading comprehension: I was rather clear in my post that the arrest wasn't directly related to his speech. What I covered was how the permitting process and legal code have been abused in attempts to circumvent constitutional protections in the past
Click to expand...

It is your opinion that the legal code is being abused to stop him but I think this was just a pleasant side effect from his arrest. If he had acted in accordance with the law he would not have been arrested. Now he gave the city/sheriff the grounds for arrest. This indeed is not an misunderstanding due to language issues but the issue is that I disagree with you that he was purely arrested to stop the book burning.
 
Hard Truth said:
I'm not sure about that. His act of driving with flammables does seem illegal and potentially dangerous. But the legitimacy of his arrest depends on whether he just happened to be caught, or if he was targeted by the authorities with the intent of stopping the protest. It also depends on whether he was denied a permit for legitimate safety or other reasons.
Click to expand...

He was not arrested from what I read for failing to have a permit but for transporting fuel in a manner that was not approved/dangerous.
 
Peter King said:
It is your opinion that the legal code is being abused to stop him
Click to expand...

Again, reading comprehension is key. What I wrote was "given the high profile and political nature of the event, I wouldn't assume such played no part here."

That is not asserting the legal code *was* abused, but indicating such abuse can happen and that the denial of a permit and arrest on other matters does not clear this as simply being a case of judicial application of the law

basically: might =/= is
 
Peter King said:
He was not arrested from what I read for failing to have a permit but for transporting fuel in a manner that was not approved/dangerous.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a number of things here that could still make it amount to an arrest, due to unconstitutional application of Govt force. Some possibilities:

1) The material was being transported in the above manner to help secure the act in the face of an unjustified denial of a permit and fear of govt intervention

2) He was specifically targeted due to his association with the protest (that it wasn't a random traffic stop)

But again, pointing to potential abuses, and why it shouldn't be simply assumed everything was kosher is not the same as stating such things did happen. It's just in high profile cases, where govt officials have a vested interest in curtailing rights, we should be skeptical that such just happened to occur out of pure chance
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Well, there are a number of things here that could still make it amount to an arrest, due to unconstitutional application of Govt force. Some possibilities:

1) The material was being in the above manner to help secure the act in the face of an unjustified denial of a permit and fear of govt intervention

2) He was specifically targeted due to his association with the protest (that it wasn't a random traffic stop)

But again, pointing to potential abuses, and why it shouldn't be simply assumed everything was kosher is not the same as stating such things did happen. It's just in high profile cases, where govt officials have a vested interest in curtailing rights, we should be skeptical that such just happened to occur out of pure chance
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you feel badly if the good preacher had lit a match and somehow the flaming pyre of books spread to him?
 
lolabird said:
Wouldn't you feel badly if the good preacher had lit a match and somehow the flaming pyre of books spread to him?
Click to expand...

Well, while I find his ideas deplorable, as far as I know he has never explicitly harmed anyone. I also tend to be very tolerant of disagreement and figure if jack-asses like him can find satisfaction in simply expressing their ideas peacefully more power to him.

After all, I much prefer the Fred Phelps klan to a bunch of asshole stoning homosexuals.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Well, while I find his ideas deplorable, as far as I know he has never explicitly harmed anyone. I also tend to be very tolerant of disagreement and figure if jack-asses like him can find satisfaction in simply expressing their ideas peacefully more power to him.

After all, I much prefer the Fred Phelps klan to a bunch of asshole stoning homosexuals.
Click to expand...

You do have a way with words.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Again, reading comprehension is key. What I wrote was "given the high profile and political nature of the event, I wouldn't assume such played no part here."

That is not asserting the legal code *was* abused, but indicating such abuse can happen and that the denial of a permit and arrest on other matters does not clear this as simply being a case of judicial application of the law

basically: might =/= is
Click to expand...

Basically the powers that be can misuse the law to frustrate legal endeavors like protests and things like that. But a public burning of books might need a bit more attention from the police/fire department/city hall/etc. when one compares it to a peaceful demonstration/protest rally.

And I am sure there are instances where protests are being frustrated/stopped by unwilling government officials, that should never happen if it is done out of malicious/unlawful reasons from the government but if there is a real and valid reason sometimes permits can and must be denied.

And I think you are right that these kinds of things (the pastor being willfully frustrated by the local government) will not have played a part, the county where it happens is a pretty republican area. As said, all city commissioners are republican and the sheriff is also a republican and I doubt that their voters would want to see the pastor's freedom of speech infringed upon.
 
Peter King said:
Basically the powers that be can misuse the law to frustrate legal endeavors like protests and things like that. But a public burning of books might need a bit more attention from the police/fire department/city hall/etc. when one compares it to a peaceful demonstration/protest rally.
Click to expand...

1) it is a peaceful protest

2) Yes, I fully understand that having a large open fire creates circumstances that are different than a general gathering. I never denied this and am unsure how it addresses what I wrote

And I am sure there are instances where protests are being frustrated/stopped by unwilling government officials, that should never happen if it is done out of malicious/unlawful reasons from the government but if there is a real and valid reason sometimes permits can and must be denied.
Click to expand...

Yes, Peter, but I never claimed otherwise ...


And I think you are right that these kinds of things (the pastor being willfully frustrated by the local government) will not have played a part, the county where it happens is a pretty republican area. As said, all city commissioners are republican and the sheriff is also a republican and I doubt that their voters would want to see the pastor's freedom of speech infringed upon.
Click to expand...

Peter, you seem to have an extremely simplistic view of american politics: we have two major political parties in this country, which people of varying political views and backgrounds align with. So someone simply being a republican, or democrat, does not determine where they would stand on this issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom