• 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

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

In the mean time innocent lives are lost. Why? I question if it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
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.

But see I'm not surprised by them anymore because this is how they react to these situations and they have done for a very long time. I would be fine with Cartoons and Book burnings if that's what people wanted to do but unfortunately we are in these countries trying to restore order and keep the peace and these actions interfere with our end goal. This isn't an ideological struggle and this isn't the Nazis, our society is not at threat despite what you read In the mainstream ratings obsessed media.

Anyway its early hours here and I have another late shift so goodnight and sleep tight x

Anyway it's
 
In the mean time innocent lives are lost. Why? It's not worth it.

It's not worth it to give up your way of life because someone goes above and beyond reasonable to find fault with it. Why should we be slaves to the feckless imagination of a distant mob that are not even citizens of our nation?
 
It's not worth it to give up your way of life because someone goes above and beyond reasonable to find fault with it. Why should we be slaves to the feckless imagination of a distant mob that are not even citizens of our nation?

You are exaggerating. The sky is not falling. We are not "giving up our way of life" I am suggesting that compromise in some situations is not an unreasonable thing to consider. We have done it before and should when we have a most certain loss of life vs a small compromise that is specific to situations such as this.

The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

These are already established limitations.
 
You are exaggerating. The sky is not falling. We are not "giving up our way of life" I am suggesting that compromise in some situations is not an unreasonable thing to consider. We have done it before and should when we have a most certain loss of life vs a small compromise that is specific to situations such as this.

The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

These are already established limitations.

When they are flipping their **** over a guy drawing a cartoon or an unknown person book burning..and because of that we need to restrict what goes on, yes, that compromise is way the hell too broad and reaches into far too many territories. Our freedoms and liberties will be dictated by the reactions of people we owe no allegiance to and whom owe no allegiance to us.

How ridiculous could you possibly be?
 
When they are flipping their **** over a guy drawing a cartoon or an unknown person book burning..and because of that we need to restrict what goes on, yes, that compromise is way the hell too broad and reaches into far too many territories. Our freedoms and liberties will be dictated by the reactions of people we owe no allegiance to and whom owe no allegiance to us.

How ridiculous could you possibly be?

Well..... I guess this conversation is over.
 
Well..... I guess this conversation is over.

Furthermore, when we clamped down on dissent, it was on our terms, not the enemy. If we are to clamp down on civil liberties, at least we should do it right.
 
Furthermore, when we clamped down on dissent, it was on our terms, not the enemy. If we are to clamp down on civil liberties, at least we should do it right.

This would be on our terms. It's simply a matter of how one chooses to see it.
 
This would be on our terms. It's simply a matter of how one chooses to see it.
"if you burn those korans we'll riot and put your troops at risk". That's not on our terms. That would be us kowtowing to terrorists tactics.
 
Ok its very late where I am and im up watching the Patriots play like **** so excuse my bluntness.

1. Please mind your tone and speak to me with some respect. I fought for my country and stood side by side with America in Iraq. I experienced the worst few days of my life in Basra Iraq because a tabloid newspaper printed a story with pictures which ended up to be false but the backlash from that story got people I know killed and put me through hell. So believe me when I say I know exactly how it feels to be put in danger because of some bull**** that is happening thousands of miles away.
2. Stop playing the victim card. I'm fed up of listening to American posters bitch and moan about being the " world police" and " cleaning up other peoples mess". America looks after her own interests first and you have military bases all over the world for the sole purpose of furthering your own countries interests. If you don't like it I suggest you write to your congressmen and ask him to take your chips of the table because right now you are a high roller and are very much game.
3. Why do you keep referring to bullies and standing up to bullies? Your powerful country on this planet no one bullies you and no one is bullying you in this instance. What I am talking about ( and many others) is keeping OUR SOLDIERS ( I still have friends in afghan with the British army as we speak) safe. No one is talking about surrendering, no one is talking about giving the enemy anything instead we are suggesting that it is in OUR best interests to allow our military and political personal do their job without the risk of extra pressures/ dangers which would happen if idiots like this pastor are allowed to do what he wants when he wants.
4. We have been taking care of the bad guy for over a decade and the West is winning the fight. Respecting middle eastern culture isn't surrendering its smart business especially when the West buys oil and trades with these countries. Again if you don't care about the middle east then have a word with your government because they care and they have been appeasing them for a very long time.

As soon as 'freedom of speech" comes into play you American turn into emotional wrecks but guess what its a very small world now and you are running the show so get used to it.

Well said.
 
I'm glad that an idiot wasn't allowed to burn thousands of religious texts and by doing so endanger nato soldiers in Afghan. Yes I'm very glad

So when religious extremists flip out and kill people, you blame the people who agitated them, not the people who actually committed the crime? Man, that is some pretty intense ****.

Two people get in an argument, one pulls out a gun and shoots the other. The guy who's shot should be blamed for aggrevating him to the point of violence?

Then pull back your forces...Your not this backwater country from the 1700's anymore your the most powerful country in the world by your own making but yet you seem to get confused by how certain actions by your citizens can directly effect your troops and allied troops in combat? You can't just say what you want anymore your the big kid in the playground which is something your government understands fully.

If the situation is so dire that an American expressing his own non-violent beliefs causes a "clear and present danger" for our troops, then we need to pull out, plain and simple. Curtailing liberty to appease the muslims is not the answer.

I think it's kind of sad that you value their hurt feelings over liberty.
 
Last edited:
but the Bush and Obama administrations have been very clear that they do not want to dramatically alter the United States in order to combat its enemies.

Does this mean you get to keep your shoes on at the airport now without paying the $85 background/fingerprint check that TSA encourages travelers to do in advance so that they can skip the long lineups at security checkpoints?
 
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...

See, your examples deal with words that fools may utter whereas mine deal with crimes of assault, murder and bombings. In western society we believe in the right to freely express oneself without government intervention. You seem to be promoting silence in order not to upset those who resort to violence at the drop of a pin.

Silence has led to far more death and violence in this world than noisy protest ever has.
 
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.

I'm Canadian, and have no problem with you raising this issue from your point of view, even though I reject the argument. One man's speech should not be silenced simply in order to protect against the potential of some other man committing a crime. Why should criminals rule our lives?

To use your logic, we should close all bars because some people get drunk and get into fights on the sidewalk outside, sometimes killing one another. Maybe shopping malls should be closed because some people are pushed into stealing at the sight of things they don't possess. Maybe cars should be banned since some people commit crimes while operating them.

The sad part is that some people actually think that radicals who'd commit crimes using Terry as an excuse would suddenly commit no crimes if Terry and others like him were silent. I'll bet far more terrorists are plotting in caves and tents right now because of Obama's drone program than anything else.
 
Godwin's Law is being invoked here. You lose all arguments.

Burning books is the context of this discussion and the Nazis burned books. You lose for invoking Godwin's Law.
 
I understand the grounds upon which he was arrested. What I would like to understand is what the justification for those grounds was.

Why was he denied a permit?

As far as I know, any peaceful protest should be granted grounds. Burning books is fundamentally peaceful, and it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that burning the American flag itself falls under that purview.

Why doesn't burning the Quaran?

I do not agree with the pastor's simplistic view of reality, or his vilification of millions of American citizens of a certain faith. But that does not alter his right to demonstrate.

Any speech at all -- including posting on this forum -- could be qualified as "endangering" American peace efforts, if you're willing to go through enough mental gymnastics. But ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions, and that is the basis of freedom of speech. Being pissed off that someone offended your own beliefs does not justify committing violence. You are responsible for what you do.

So under what laws was this man prohibited from getting a license to demonstrate as he saw fit?

As distasteful as I find his cause, this seems like a straight-up case of government censorship to me, and what he attempted to do seems like a straight-up display of meaningful civil disobedience in the truest possible form. Of what worth is "freedom of speech" if you will not defend it when you don't like it?

On what grounds was he prohibited from having a peaceful protest? On what grounds is the book of the Quaran protected, where the American flag is not? And on what grounds is protest in this way so egregious compared to other socially controversial means of peaceful protest?

I don't see any grounds, within the purview of American free speech, to have prohibited this man from burning the Quaran.
 
I'm Canadian, and have no problem with you raising this issue from your point of view, even though I reject the argument. One man's speech should not be silenced simply in order to protect against the potential of some other man committing a crime. Why should criminals rule our lives?

To use your logic, we should close all bars because some people get drunk and get into fights on the sidewalk outside, sometimes killing one another. Maybe shopping malls should be closed because some people are pushed into stealing at the sight of things they don't possess. Maybe cars should be banned since some people commit crimes while operating them.

The sad part is that some people actually think that radicals who'd commit crimes using Terry as an excuse would suddenly commit no crimes if Terry and others like him were silent. I'll bet far more terrorists are plotting in caves and tents right now because of Obama's drone program than anything else.

I thought Canada had some limits on free speech.
 
So when religious extremists flip out and kill people, you blame the people who agitated them, not the people who actually committed the crime? Man, that is some pretty intense ****.
Yeah, thats like blaming Charlie Manson instead of the Merry Pranksters who actually committed the crimes.

Two people get in an argument, one pulls out a gun and shoots the other. The guy who's shot should be blamed for aggrevating him to the point of violence?
The guy with the gun can just claim he was 'standing his ground'.

If the situation is so dire that an American expressing his own non-violent beliefs causes a "clear and present danger" for our troops, then we need to pull out, plain and simple. Curtailing liberty to appease the muslims is not the answer.

I think it's kind of sad that you value their hurt feelings over liberty.
I don't think he was expressing a "non violent belief". He knew he was inciting violence against our troops and Americans abroad. He doesn't have the right to put other peoples lives in danger anymore than Charlie Manson did.
 
Yeah, thats like blaming Charlie Manson instead of the Merry Pranksters who actually committed the crimes.

The guy with the gun can just claim he was 'standing his ground'.

I don't think he was expressing a "non violent belief". He knew he was inciting violence against our troops and Americans abroad. He doesn't have the right to put other peoples lives in danger anymore than Charlie Manson did.

Holy ****. You're really comparing burning books with ordering people to kill someone? That's like an all new level of hyperbolic garbage.

So in your mind, we should ban ANYTHING that will inspire the islamists to kill people? What if they started killing people every day until we gave up pork? Would you be down? Or would you do a complete 180 and start talking about freedom?

How dare some bastard eat pork when he KNOWS islamists will kill people for it!
 
As soon as 'freedom of speech" comes into play you American turn into emotional wrecks but guess what its a very small world now and you are running the show so get used to it.
It is not emotional wreckage you are seeing. It is passion about a right that was won with bloodshed, and we fortunately still have citizens who appreciate and value the high cost that was paid in order to give us that right. I personally am not willing to piss it away in honor of a jihadist crusade.
 
So when religious extremists flip out and kill people, you blame the people who agitated them, not the people who actually committed the crime? Man, that is some pretty intense ****.

Two people get in an argument, one pulls out a gun and shoots the other. The guy who's shot should be blamed for aggrevating him to the point of violence?



If the situation is so dire that an American expressing his own non-violent beliefs causes a "clear and present danger" for our troops, then we need to pull out, plain and simple. Curtailing liberty to appease the muslims is not the answer.

I think it's kind of sad that you value their hurt feelings over liberty.

AGAIN its not about their feeling its about our soldiers and the mission, mass civllian riots gets in the way of the mission and endanegrs lives.....

talking to myself at this point because you all seem to miss the point im making.
 
Yeah, thats like blaming Charlie Manson instead of the Merry Pranksters who actually committed the crimes.

The guy with the gun can just claim he was 'standing his ground'.

I don't think he was expressing a "non violent belief". He knew he was inciting violence against our troops and Americans abroad. He doesn't have the right to put other peoples lives in danger anymore than Charlie Manson did.

While I don't agree with what Terry was doing, living in fear of terrorists is exactly what they want. The katow of a powerful entity (USoA) to their demands, no matter how unreasonable, is a goal.

What some people don't seem to understand is that they HATE us, it wouldn't matter what we did, if they can find fault with it, it will be their excuse (not reason, but excuse) to commit more 'righteous' retaliatory actions against Americans. Just the fact that we breathe angers them.
 
AGAIN its not about their feeling its about our soldiers and the mission, mass civllian riots gets in the way of the mission and endanegrs lives.....

talking to myself at this point because you all seem to miss the point im making.

I don't think anybody is really missing your point. It's more a matter of disagreeing with you very strongly that we should support the Islamist objective of creating fundamental changes in our freedoms and finding your excuses for such support to be highly fallacious.
 
AGAIN its not about their feeling its about our soldiers and the mission, mass civllian riots gets in the way of the mission and endanegrs lives.....

talking to myself at this point because you all seem to miss the point im making.

It isn't about feelings at all. It's about principles, and adhering to them in the face of a threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom