US Police arrest Florida pastor

DiAnna said:

I tire of you telling us what we and our government should do. Tell Cameron to take it up with Obama. This one-way whinefest now bores me.

Click to expand...

As always Dianna the debate has gone over your head even though on many occasions I mentioned the fact your government would agree with me based on their actions over the last 10 years and apparently have agreed with me given the fact the Good pastor was unable to burn the books.

DiAnna said:

So should we suspend our constitutional rights whenever someone around the world might take offense and retaliate? That kind of fear would keep us from putting Muslim mass murderers like Hassan on trial, because some Muslim group might threaten to kill Americans if we do. You can see how that would snowball: Release everyone from Gitmo in two hours or Americans will die; release convicted Islamists terrorist or Americans will die; drop bombs on Tel Aviv or Americans will die... and on it goes. The constitution, as I've said, is not a suggestion. It protects the rights of all Americans, even those we despise. If we start picking out people we don't want to have free speech because of fear or offense, then none of us will ever have free speech again.

Click to expand...

I understand your point but I question whether this instance is not consistent with other situations where we have chosen to put limitations on an individuals First Amendment rights.

IE:
Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The consistencies I see here is when harm is likely to be done to innocent bystanders because of your actions. This seems like it would fall inline with this criteria. I do not advocate or take lightly the notion of limits to our rights but life has taught us that there are times when we must and have chosen to do so. Like I said before, if his actions only put HIM as risk then say whatever you want, but he is making that choice for others and I don't believe he has that right. Also, I don't see Americans surrendering their rights easily. I don't think it is sensible to fear an exception for situations like this would lead us to a greater loss or larger compromise of our rights.

Higgins86 said:

No its wasn't insurgents shooting at us it was regular people who turned to the insurgents who had before that had been very co-operative however they turned violent because of this particular story and the pictures showing British troops torturing local prisoners. Yes you expect to be shot at in a hostile environment but you don't expect your own country to make the situation worse which was the point I was trying to make.

( I was in basra Iraq not afghan sorry might of been confusing).

Click to expand...

Ahh, so you were dealing with civil riots and protests. I thought about that after I posted the prior response. Hmmm, this is actually about another problem I've always had concerns with in recent uses of military forces...soldiers are not really "policemen" and we should never be used like that. Occupying forces yes, but only until we can transition government back to the people we've defeated ASAP. Sitting there for years trying to be cops is not right.

Police are trained to deal with civilian issues, and the sooner local government can take over, the less likely civilians will riot. But as long as foreign forces are there to be targeted, insurgents will use any excuse to incite public support and hurt troops. Unfortunately, our governments are slow learners.

I feel for you and understand what you are saying. The problem doesn't lie with exercising freedoms back home though. It really lies with governments automatic use of military intervention without a clearly defined and rapidly executed exit plan.

Higgins86 said:

As always Dianna the debate has gone over your head even though on many occasions I mentioned the fact your government would agree with me based on their actions over the last 10 years and apparently have agreed with me given the fact the Good pastor was unable to burn the books.

Click to expand...

:rofl

If you really want to insult me, you'll have to do better than accusing me of not understanding the argument, when everyone watching can see it's the other way around. :lol:

I'm done here. Or am I.... :ninja:

:2wave:

Higgins86 said:

well none of us have a say because this a debate forum and I am merely offering my opinion not trying to enforce anything. Trust me if had that kind of power I would tear the Webster dictionary up and make you speak the Queens English

Click to expand...

Why? Does it include a bunch more words for "capitulation" that I'm not familiar with? :2razz:

CanadaJohn said:

Sorry, but we're talking about trying to restict a person in the USA burning qurans because muslims will attack American troops and others in other parts of the world. Are you aware of any other religious group issuing a fatwa calling for the death of all members of another religious group or specifically an individual deemed to have insulted their spiritual leader? Let's not play games and pretend all are equal in the way they treat those outside their faith or with no religious affiliation at all.

Click to expand...

I agree that ignorant actions of some attention whores can cause violent reactions in areas traditionally suppressed by both outside and internal forces. Let's not pretend the conditions around the world are the same as in this country so we can compare our idiots to others overseas.

But of course we also can't pretend the fact that 99% of Muslims ignore these fatwas doesn't exist as well.

But there are a variety of ignorant attention whores who have and can cause problems with other nations and people... BushII's administration mocking 'old europe' for not blindly following the USofA into Iraq for instance.

Didn't Rep King of New York support the IRA attacks in England as righteous and the English have only themselves to blame for the terrorist attacks?

Terry can talk all the crap he wants, book burning, especially religious book burning crosses a line.

But it does seem as though in this country it is the so-called christians and 'patriots' who attacks the Muslim faith not the other way round...

Why should we worry about what Americans say and do to America when we let foreign enemy dictators write op-eds in our papers and a huge segment of a certain political party cheers him on.

Fiddytree said:

Then by all means, we should start asking for their governments to jail every single person that rails against Americans in a demonstration. Then, at home, we should start looting and becoming dogs because of a youtube video.

Click to expand...

opendebate said:

I understand your point but I question whether this instance is not consistent with other situations where we have chosen to put limitations on an individuals First Amendment rights.

IE:
Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The consistencies I see here is when harm is likely to be done to innocent bystanders because of your actions. This seems like it would fall inline with this criteria. I do not advocate or take lightly the notion of limits to our rights but life has taught us that there are times when we must and have chosen to do so. Like I said before, if his actions only put HIM as risk then say whatever you want, but he is making that choice for others and I don't believe he has that right. Also, I don't see Americans surrendering their rights easily. I don't think it is sensible to fear an exception for situations like this would lead us to a greater loss or larger compromise.

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has already ruled that burning flags and books, even religious books, is protected "speech" under the first amendment. If our government suddenly bans the burning of one book... the Koran... bans creating cartoons or other images of one historical figure... Mohammad, then how many other groups will be in line to have their religious icons and deities protected from criticism as well. And what punishment should the government... the US government... mete out to those who dare exercise their constitutional rights against these protected exceptions... and all the other protected exceptions that will follow? Trial and imprisonment? Imprisonment without trial? For how long... months, years, decades? You see where this must eventually lead?

The dominos only stand until the first one is kicked over.

NIMBY said:

Why should we worry about what Americans say and do to America when we let foreign enemy dictators write op-eds in our papers and a huge segment of a certain political party cheers him on.

Click to expand...

You got no argument from me about certain folks somehow turning into pro-Ruskies because they hate Obama.

opendebate said:

I understand your point but I question whether this instance is not consistent with other situations where we have chosen to put limitations on an individuals First Amendment rights.

IE:
Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The consistencies I see here is when harm is likely to be done to innocent bystanders because of your actions. This seems like it would fall inline with this criteria. I do not advocate or take lightly the notion of limits to our rights but life has taught us that there are times when we must and have chosen to do so. Like I said before, if his actions only put HIM as risk then say whatever you want, but he is making that choice for others and I don't believe he has that right. Also, I don't see Americans surrendering their rights easily. I don't think it is sensible to fear an exception for situations like this would lead us to a greater loss or larger compromise of our rights.

Click to expand...

You cannot claim that Americans don't "surrender their rights easily" in the same post that you gleefully roll over. You'll make the same argument for next right you want us to give up (guns maybe?) I thought liberals placed a high value on free speech. Has that changed?

DiAnna said:

:rofl

If you really want to insult me, you'll have to do better than accusing me of not understanding the argument, when everyone watching can see it's the other way around. :lol:

I'm done here. Or am I.... :ninja:

:2wave:

Click to expand...

It just saddens me that you guys and gals jump over any non American post on here with contempt and suspicion. I'm not anti American I am in fact married to one and love your country like a second home. I offered many compelling reasons why this man shouldn't burn any religious texts mainly to protect American/ Nato soldiers and American Diplomatic workers. I have nothing but respect for Amrican history and your constitution which was a master piece written by very smart men however I value human life more especially the men and women in uniform and don't feel its in our interest to make they already heavy workload heavier.

I guess it is what it is and in this instance we are miles apart.

DiAnna said:

The SCOTUS has already ruled that burning flags and books, even religious books, is protected "speech" under the first amendment. If our government suddenly bans the burning of one book... the Koran... bans creating cartoons or other images of one historical figure... Mohammad, then how many other groups will be in line to have their religious icons and deities protected from criticism as well. And what punishment should the government... the US government... mete out to those who dare exercise their constitutional rights against these protected exceptions... and all the other protected exceptions that will follow? Trial and imprisonment? Imprisonment without trial? For how long... months, years, decades? You see where this must eventually lead?

The dominos only stand until the first one is kicked over.

Click to expand...

More than that, the outrage here is incredibly removed. They are halfway around the world, reacting to a video no one has seen, a book burning no one knows about, and so on. I'm sorry, but even if you can somehow erode the entire legal structure for freedom of speech, we are bending over backwards because someone had to spend all of that time looking for something to be outraged at.

Higgins86 said:

It just saddens me that you guys and gals jump over any non American post on here with contempt and suspicion. I'm not anti American I am in fact married to one and love your country like a second home. I offered many compelling reasons why this man shouldn't burn any religious texts mainly to protect American/ Nato soldiers and American Diplomatic workers.
.

Click to expand...

Conceding to terrorists only makes them stronger. If you keep giving in to pressures to change, in the name of security, you eventually lose your freedom, and the terrorists still hold the same threat, and the same hatred, that they did initially.

lizzie said:

Conceding to terrorists only makes them stronger. If you keep giving in to pressures to change, in the name of security, you eventually lose your freedom, and the terrorists still hold the same threat, and the same hatred, that they did initially.

Click to expand...

again I don't see it as conceding I see it as taking the moral highground, let them be animals. But obviously this sentiment is not shared with you guys.


and im pissed because its the am here and im up watching my Patriots play the worst game of American football I have ever seen

Higgins86 said:

again I don't see it as conceding I see it as taking the moral highground, let them be animals. But obviously this sentiment is not shared with you guys.


and im pissed because its the am here and im up watching my Patriots play the worst game of American football I have ever seen

Click to expand...

If we would let them be animals, we would not lock up Jones and we wouldn't be having that conversation. Their reaction would be all theirs, and they would have to own it.

Thank you.
I was beginning to worry if I was all alone out here watching this Country fade away due to politics on foreign relations.

Fiddytree said:

You got no argument from me about certain folks somehow turning into pro-Ruskies because they hate Obama.

Click to expand...

Higgins86 said:

again I don't see it as conceding I see it as taking the moral highground, let them be animals. But obviously this sentiment is not shared with you guys.

Click to expand...

If you are changing tactics and policies in response to fear, it is conceding.

Higgins86 said:

It just saddens me that you guys and gals jump over any non American post on here with contempt and suspicion. I'm not anti American I am in fact married to one and love your country like a second home. I offered many compelling reasons why this man shouldn't burn any religious texts mainly to protect American/ Nato soldiers and American Diplomatic workers. I have nothing but respect for Amrican history and your constitution which was a master piece written by very smart men however I value human life more especially the men and women in uniform and don't feel its in our interest to make they already heavy workload heavier.

I guess it is what it is and in this instance we are miles apart.

Click to expand...

Many people have already died for the principles in the Constitution. What you want to do it make all that basically meaningless by saying it wasn't (and isn't) worth it. I don't find that particularly repectful.

X Factor said:

You cannot claim that Americans don't "surrender their rights easily" in the same post that you gleefully roll over. You'll make the same argument for next right you want us to give up (guns maybe?) I thought liberals placed a high value on free speech. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

Everyone one is too touchy about this too even have an objective conversation. If you are gonna label me with things like "gleefully" then clearly you care more about inflaming things so you can create an opportunity for yourself to rant rather than actually read my post. And yes, I do support limits on gun rights.

X Factor said:

Many people have already died for the principles in the Constitution. What you want to do it make all that basically meaningless by saying it wasn't (and isn't) worth it. I don't find that particularly repectful.

Click to expand...

Different war and a very different time. American had never occupied a Muslim country before 2001 and they have found that you must adapt if you want to limit casualties and succeed ( something they discovered the hard way in Iraq). If you don't adapt to your surroundings you will fail something we found out during the Revolutionary wars.

Higgins86 said:

Different war and a very different time. American had never occupied a Muslim country before 2001 and they have found that you must adapt if you want to limit casualties and succeed ( something they discovered the hard way in Iraq). If you don't adapt to your surroundings you will fail something we found out during the Revolutionary wars.

Click to expand...

Did the British tolerate anti-Indian or anti-Iraqi sentiment in the home country?

Higgins86 said:

im not excusing their actions at all you misunderstanding me. I don't give a flying **** about extremist Muslims and their rights but I do care about the Collation forces still in Afghan who's job would get even more dangerous and harder than it already is. It isn't about the extremist Muslims its about getting our lads home and supporting them the best we can from home and if that means this idiot doesn't get to burn 3000 books then so be it.

Click to expand...

What I hope would be obvious by this point is that you think that's all your doing, but there's a major side effect to your view called letting them have whatever they want because they threw a big tantrum. . .Remember that one episode of the Twilight Zone where the kids had the supernatural powers to hurt people? And everyone gave him anything he wanted because they feared for their lives? Yeah, your view is like that. Exactly like that.

. . . and what happened in that episode? Mmhmm - rent the DVD, I think it would be a good lesson, here. (Episode 31 - season 1). (And it is just that pathetic that I can compare a 'religious thug group' to an episode of the Twilight Zone - they are just that bizarre and out of control)

You don't want to give the extremists what they want, but you are, anyway, and you're getting nothing in return. There is no 'oh, well since you played fair, we'll not drill out the eyes of our prisoner's, over here.'

Have you paid attention to what sets them off? I have - things like a cartoon pictures and a painting of Mohammed that wasn't offensive. I'm surprised that when McD's designed the 'offensive icecream' that they didn't hack off their own hands and gouge out their own eyes (before they hacked off their hands, of course). Oh, but when the McD's cone incident did occur I bet they threatened the CEO to repent and recant, which she did, out of fear.

We're not dealing with reasonable people.

Heck - earlier I griped that *if you actually cared* - but really, it should be *if anyone in the entire world actually cared.*

The Catholic Church behaved in the same way - and it led to the 100 years war, but guess what? They no longer torch non-believers and plague the world like Devils.

DiAnna said:

The SCOTUS has already ruled that burning flags and books, even religious books, is protected "speech" under the first amendment. If our government suddenly bans the burning of one book... the Koran... bans creating cartoons or other images of one historical figure... Mohammad, then how many other groups will be in line to have their religious icons and deities protected from criticism as well. And what punishment should the government... the US government... mete out to those who dare exercise their constitutional rights against these protected exceptions... and all the other protected exceptions that will follow? Trial and imprisonment? Imprisonment without trial? For how long... months, years, decades? You see where this must eventually lead?

The dominos only stand until the first one is kicked over.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are hearing my point Di. I agree, those idiots who retaliate with violence should exhibit greater control ...but they won't, and that is the first and most important reality here. Because it is a greater certainty that they will retaliate by the taking of innocent lives than that Americans will be asked to surrender more of their rights or freedoms. It seems a bit selfish and stubborn for anyone to suggest we stand with our feet firmly planted refusing to give an inch so that we don't appear weak when lives are at risk. I think we have a greater obligation to address the reality or what we know rather than risk those lives because of what we "fear" will happen if we do. That is a slippery slope fallacy and I never have much respect for those. I think they are rooted in unreasoned fear.

Fiddytree said:

Did the British tolerate anti-Indian or anti-Iraqi sentiment in the home country?

Click to expand...

no we didn't adapt and we lost India and the US and eventually the rest of the empire.

opendebate said:

I don't think you are hearing my point Di. I agree, those idiots who retaliate with violence should exhibit greater control ...but they won't, and that is the first and most important reality here. Because it is a greater certainty that they will retaliate by the taking of innocent lives than that Americans will be asked to surrender more of their rights or freedoms. It seems a bit selfish and stubborn for anyone to suggest we stand with our feet firmly planted refusing to give an inch so that we don't appear weak when lives are at risk. I think we have a greater obligation to address the reality or what we know rather than risk those lives because of what we "fear" will happen if we do. That is a slippery slope fallacy and I never have much respect for those. I think they are rooted in unreasoned fear.

Click to expand...

If they think it is a reasonable response to the innocuous to kill, then they deserved to be killed in return. Simple as that.