• 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

Ikari said:
It is never wrong to exercise your rights. Other people are going to act irrationally and irresponsibly, but that cannot be proper argument for the restriction of our own exercise of rights. It's like saying that someone who burns the American Flag in demonstration should be liable if someone else gets pissed off and punches some other dude. But that's ridiculous. The pastor did nothing wrong, he was completely within his rights to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was completely within his rights. Now, it's time for him to face up to the responsibilities that go with those rights.

Ikari said:
But murdering people because they burn a book is not a reasonable response. You cannot blame the pastor for those actions.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is not a reasonable response, but it was the expected response.


Ikari said:
And Civil Court is still government force. The court system is part of government and essentially you're saying there should be repercussions for this man exercising his right. Which I do think is an irrational response.
Click to expand...

No, civil court is the way we determine when someone elses actions has impinged on our own liberties, not government force. Taking someone to court for the results of their having exercised the right to free speech is not the same as the government taking away that right.
 
theplaydrive said:
And here we are again. Remember the time I said that I distinguish criticism and unnecessary/reckless provocation.

There is a reason why I and others don't condemn academics and policymakers when they criticize Islam, but instead condemn ignorant fools who burn Korans/provoke murderers.
Click to expand...

Both are forms of speech that hurt no one, and shouldn't be held liable by the irrational response to it. Otherwise, you're endorsing silencing speech that is in anyway controversial, and may rile people
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, you don't. You are absolutely wrong, here. You have only chosen to not exercise your rights. They still exist... you could choose to re-exercise them at any time. I am NOT speaking figuratively... literally only.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that ONE may choose not to exercise a right and have it not disappear, but when someone else suggest another person should not exercise it may. I believe that such rights are diminished when we do not chose to exercise them out of fear or because others coerce us to do so.
 
I actually think the mosque was the right thing to do. It shows who we are. Proud of our diversity
Barbbtx said:
I believe he was protesting the ground zero mosque. You know, the one where everyone has agreed Rauf has the right to build, but is it the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
By the same logic, would those who say that Pastor Jones is blameless admit that liberals/media/hippies were not responsible for us losing in Vietnam? They were exercising their 1st Amendment rights, after all...
Click to expand...

lol, you're asking me to answer for the beliefs of others?

Vietnam was lost due to poor leadership, and political interests taking precedence over military ones.

The protests were just the symptoms of such ill planning, not the cause
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, he was completely within his rights. Now, it's time for him to face up to the responsibilities that go with those rights.
Click to expand...

He didn't do anything wrong though. He burned a piece of his property, that's it.

Dittohead not! said:
Of course, it is not a reasonable response, but it was the expected response.
Click to expand...

Yet you want to hold the Pastor responsible for the unreasonable responses of others. I don't see how that's justifiable in this case.


Dittohead not! said:
No, civil court is the way we determine when someone elses actions has impinged on our own liberties, not government force. Taking someone to court for the results of their having exercised the right to free speech is not the same as the government taking away that right.
Click to expand...

How are these judgements enforced? It's through government power. You're still looking to use government force. Sure, you won't say maybe he should be in jail. But you are saying that the government can rightfully be used to impose a form of punishment on this man for the actions other people had taken. I don't see that as a reasonable response. You can't punish someone for exercising their rights because other people reacted poorly to it.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
lol, you're asking me to answer for the beliefs of others?

Vietnam was lost due to poor leadership, and political interests taking precedence over military ones.

The protests were just the symptoms of such ill planning, not the cause
Click to expand...

sorry I wasn't addressing that question to you specifically I just thought that you brought up some good analogies. Thanks for being honest.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
Both are forms of speech that hurt no one, and shouldn't be held liable by the irrational response to it. Otherwise, you're endorsing silencing speech that is in anyway controversial, and may rile people
Click to expand...

I'm endorsing common sense. If I were endorsing silencing speech, I would have argued that he should be jailed, which I'm not.

I am arguing that he and others should accept his partial responsibility for the violence that has occurred.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm endorsing common sense. If I were endorsing silencing speech, I would have argued that he should be jailed, which I'm not.

I am arguing that he and others should accept his partial responsibility for the violence that has occurred.
Click to expand...

But he didn't endorse, support, or authorize any of the violence. That was a decision made by a different group of people. They are the ones at fault. We shouldn't curtail our own rights due to the irrational behavior of others. How much more fear mongering are we going to allow to erode our rights?
 
rocket88 said:
I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say. That we should all burn Korans to shove it in people's face?

What most of us are saying is that it wasn't a nice thing to do. Especially for someone who claims to follow Jesus, and is in a position to teach people how to do so. It's not a very Christian way of acting, IMO.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He's an ass and a poor excuse for a Christian. Just like I think anyone who burns the flag is a poor excuse for an American (if they are one) and if not, they are still dispicable and worthy of my condemnation. What they don't deserve is any kind of prosecution if their actions cause some fringe group to kill innocent people over it. Again, if everytime a flag was burned, a fringe group killed innocent people, don't you think their rights to burn the flag are being compromised? If that were to happen, I would be squarely on the side of the flag burner and against those who did the killing.
Here on DP, it seems some are quite willing to blame Jones for the deaths.
 
Ikari said:
But he didn't endorse, support, or authorize any of the violence. That was a decision made by a different group of people. They are the ones at fault. We shouldn't curtail our own rights due to the irrational behavior of others. How much more fear mongering are we going to allow to erode our rights?
Click to expand...

Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply the absence of responsibility. If I didn't see the stop sign and I didn't intend to drive by the stop sign, it doesn't mean that my actions are complete absent of responsibility for the ticket I receive or the car I hit.

I am not arguing that he is solely responsible or even that he shares a majority of the responsibility. I am arguing that he has a part in the cause.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm endorsing common sense. If I were endorsing silencing speech, I would have argued that he should be jailed, which I'm not.

I am arguing that he and others should accept his partial responsibility for the violence that has occurred.
Click to expand...

what responsibility though? Again, is MLK responsible for the unreasonable demands and actions of racists, when he was talking about equality, or were the racists the one's responsible for their own actions
 
theplaydrive said:
Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply the absence of responsibility. If I didn't see the stop sign and I didn't intend to drive by the stop sign, it doesn't mean that my actions are complete absent of responsibility for the ticket I receive or the car I hit.

I am not arguing that he is solely responsible or even that he shares a majority of the responsibility. I am arguing that he has a part in the cause.
Click to expand...

This isn't him breaking a law, like in your example. He stopped at the stop sign. It would be like blaming him for the accident which happens behind him if he stopped too long at the stop sign and pissed the person off behind him so that person decided not to stop at the stop sign. That's essentially what's going on.

This wasn't a panic situation. He didn't incite a riot. It's not like he was preaching to a crowd and caused the crowd to explode and go on a looting frenzy. The people had plenty of time to digest the information and formulate a response. They chose their actions, they are responsible for their actions. Not the preacher, he's just some lame ass looking for some press time.
 
theplaydrive said:
Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply the absence of responsibility.
Click to expand...

No, but clearly having no ability to actually compel people to do anything does resolve someone of the burden of their actions


theplaydrive said:
If I didn't see the stop sign and I didn't intend to drive by the stop sign, it doesn't mean that my actions are complete absent of responsibility for the ticket I receive or the car I hit.
Click to expand...

that's negligence on your part while performing an action. As a driver it's your responsibility to maintain attention on the road
 
PeteEU said:
He is no man of god. He is as cold blooded as the murders in Afghanistan. He knew exactly what he was doing and what reaction there would be against it. He provoked the murders of Afghanistan and should stand trial for at least man-slaughter if not out right murder. Alternatively he should be extradited to Afghanistan or any Muslim nation who wants him and let them deal with his hatemongering.
Click to expand...

EDIT: NVM (10 characters)
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
The whole issue boils down to knowns and unknowns. If you know for a fact that your action will incite someone to violence, unless there is a larger purpose to your actions in which you think the benefits of your actions will outweigh that violence, part of the responsibility lies with you.

If you meet a sleeping grizzly in the forest, you are entirely within your rights to poke it with a stick. But don't expect to be able to sue the bear for damages when he mauls you.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize poking bears with sticks was a right. In fact it may be against some kind of law.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
what responsibility though? Again, is MLK responsible for the unreasonable demands and actions of racists, when he was talking about equality, or were the racists the one's responsible for their own actions
Click to expand...

Why are policymakers who criticize terrorism (similar to MLK's role in civil rights) different from Pastors who burn Korans? Because the policymakers don't recklessly provoke murderers and the Pastors do.

You share responsibility when you recklessly provoke proven murderers - MLK wasn't reckless.
 
theplaydrive said:
Why are policymakers who criticize terrorism (similar to MLK's role in civil rights) different from Pastors who burn Korans? Because the policymakers don't recklessly provoke murderers and the Pastors do.

You share responsibility when you recklessly provoke proven murderers - MLK wasn't reckless.
Click to expand...

You might as well say that the woman that goes back to the dude who just beat her provokes the beating because she knows the dude is a woman beater and goes back into the situation. Thus she shares part of the blame of her own beating and the dude should be able to take her to civil court because he's in jail due to her provocation.
 
Barbbtx said:
I didn't realize poking bears with sticks was a right. In fact it may be against some kind of law.
Click to expand...

Well, not only that, but I don't know of any bears who react to being poked with a stick that go out and kill random people instead of the one that poked them.

They are certainly more evolved than the things that do.
 
theplaydrive said:
Why are policymakers who criticize terrorism (similar to MLK's role in civil rights) different from Pastors who burn Korans? Because the policymakers don't recklessly provoke murderers and the Pastors do.

You share responsibility when you recklessly provoke proven murderers - MLK wasn't reckless.
Click to expand...

Burning a quran isn't reckless, the reaction of killing random people is. Speaking for equal rights isn't reckless, the response of randomly attacking black people is. If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then they are the sole issue here. Not the person making a harmless statement

they have a choice to murder people, or not
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
This isn't him breaking a law, like in your example. He stopped at the stop sign. It would be like blaming him for the accident which happens behind him if he stopped too long at the stop sign and pissed the person off behind him so that person decided not to stop at the stop sign. That's essentially what's going on.

This wasn't a panic situation. He didn't incite a riot. It's not like he was preaching to a crowd and caused the crowd to explode and go on a looting frenzy. The people had plenty of time to digest the information and formulate a response. They chose their actions, they are responsible for their actions. Not the preacher, he's just some lame ass looking for some press time.
Click to expand...

Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply a lack of responsibility. The purpose of my example was to make that point. You can be ignorant and lack intention and still be responsible as the driver in the example shows.

As to your other points:
1. It would actually be like blaming the driver for being partially responsible for the deaths of twelve people if it was common knowledge that crazy people killed twelve people every time someone ran a stop sign.
2. People have responsibility in more situations than panic situations. For example, if a prankster calls in a bomb threat to a school, people find out about it and skip class, the prankster shares a was a cause for their choice to skip school.
 
Dittohead not! said:
His actions were irresponsible, and he should be held to account for it. As I just said, along with rights come responsibilities. The two can't be separated.
Click to expand...

{sigh} let's try this. If flag burning in Afghanistan caused a fringe element in the US to go out and kill and decapitate 12 moderate Muslims who should be held accountable for those actions? Would you be calling for the Afghans to be held accountable? If you say "yes" then we will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Ikari said:
You might as well say that the woman that goes back to the dude who just beat her provokes the beating because she knows the dude is a woman beater and goes back into the situation. Thus she shares part of the blame of her own beating and the dude should be able to take her to civil court because he's in jail due to her provocation.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about domestic abuse, we're talking about terrorism/Islamic extremism. The former is a whole other conversation with a whole slew of different factors.
 
theplaydrive said:
Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply a lack of responsibility. The purpose of my example was to make that point. You can be ignorant and lack intention and still be responsible as the driver in the example shows.
Click to expand...

you're responsible, as a driver, for watching the road because you have immediate control of the vehicle. The Pastor isn't responsible for the behavior of random people he has no immediate control over
 
Barbbtx said:
I didn't realize poking bears with sticks was a right. In fact it may be against some kind of law.
Click to expand...

Gardener said:
Well, not only that, but I don't know of any bears who react to being poked with a stick that go out and kill random people instead of the one that poked them.

They are certainly more evolved than the things that do.
Click to expand...

I'll admit it was a bad analogy. It all boils down to what degree Jones's actions can be considered provocation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom