US Police arrest Florida pastor

notquiteright said:

But I have ZERO tolerance for someone desecrating other people's religious objects breaking the law while doing so.

Click to expand...

Other peoples religious objects? As far as I am aware, they were purchased by him, and am pretty sure someone feeling something is sacred does not dictate what I can do with it.

Are you against flag burning?

He has the perfect right to burn whatever religious materials he owns. But when one exercises a right in such a way they know folks are going to pissed off about, common sense dictates they should dot their Is and cross their Ts in a legal sense when doing so. Because any reasonable man will know the PTB will be gunning for you, looking to see if there's another avenue to shut you down.

I think his motivations are irrelevant to the essential issue,

Click to expand...

I didn't disagree with you that what his motivations are are irrelevant, we agree on that point.

since all people who protest are seeking to be seen and heard. As I stated in that analysis one's freedom of expression should not be limited simply because someone else might get angry and react with violence. The fact that they might should not be a deterrent, because then THEY control what is and is not Free Speech simply by threat and violence.

Click to expand...

And I understand your point regarding protecting even the idiots rights as we would our own quite honestly I generally fall on the side of protecting everyone's right to free speech and expression (even when I loathe what they have to say) This just seems different to me because of the nature of the threats or risks he is making the choice to subject others to. In this instance he is endangering more than just himself with the threat of retaliation. That fact gives me pause.

we must be careful on THAT date NOT to further offend THEM? If you accept this limitation then they now control how we can demonstrate on the date of OUR national tragedy

Click to expand...

I'm playing devils advocate here because I am undecided on this issue. Sometimes though don't we have a greater obligation to protect innocent lives? I wonder if the integrity of that freedom would not be affected by limiting this one mans actions because of the nature of the threats it imposes. Like searches at the airport.

Aunt Spiker said:

I read into this thread, and just don't agree with your view.

It wouldn't have been *his fault* if *they responded* negatively. . . it would have been *their fault* for being total freaking idiots and willing to kill each other over what someone does with a freaking book.

They want to flip out and not care, cause a riot and kill each other - that's their ridiculous problem.

They are responsible for their own actions.

Hold the people who do the killing at fault for THEIR OWN emotions and out of control actions. Every time they do it 'in the name of their belief' they give people another legitimate reason to oppose their 'faith' - and that's their own damned fault, their own damned choice.

They're throwing them selves on the ground and demanding all sorts of things be done - and you're just wanting the entire world to give in, do whatever it takes to appease the bully.

Do you honestly think the bully is going to stop being the bully if we give them everything they want? WWII - the Bully was Germany, and the appeasement didn't end well.

Click to expand...

again its fine for you to take this is moral high ground but you are not the one who will be put in harms way when the Islamic world reacts to events like this. Its not even a case of being "bullied" its just common sense.

opendebate said:

This just seems different to me because of the nature of the threats or risks he is making the choice to subject others to. In this instance he is endangering more than just himself with the threat of retaliation. That fact gives me pause.

I'm playing devils advocate here because I am undecided on this issue. Sometimes though don't we have a greater obligation to protect innocent lives? I wonder if the integrity of that freedom would not be affected by limiting this one mans actions because of the nature of the threats it imposes. Like searches at the airport.

Click to expand...

I see. Well the problem as I see it is that the people who "react" to his protest method are wholly and completely responsible for their action. They chose to act in such a manner and they could very well choose NOT to act in such a manner. Simply because some are likely to react as expected is no justification for curbing freedom of expresssion.

Once they see that the response to their action is represssion of the very freedoms they despise and hope to eliminate, what's to stop them from reacting violently to ANYTHING they see in our society that they oppose? Do we begin to curb more and more liberty out of fear of negative harms other's might afflict us with? If we start doing that...THEY WIN! Actually, we lose...everything we represent.

ChrisL said:

Of course you have the right to criticize, and I have the right to ask why you are criticizing. Is it the equivalent when people burn Bibles or flags? Do you think those forms of symbolic expression should be outlawed?

Click to expand...

I am criticizing because the man is a hateful douchebag who uses the death of americans to endanger the lives of more americans.

And yes, it is the legal equivalent. Neither should be outlawed unless they pose a threat of imminent harm. However, this asshole wasn't prevented from expressing himself.

Captain Adverse said:

.

.

Click to expand...

I see. Well the problem as I see it is that the people who "react" to his protest method are wholly and completely responsible for their action

Click to expand...

What if we can not access those people to hold them accountable.

Once they see that the response to their action is represssion of the very freedoms they despise and hope to eliminate, what's to stop them from reacting violently to ANYTHING they see in our society that they oppose? Do we begin to curb more and more liberty out of fear of negative harms other's might afflict us with? If we start doing that...THEY WIN! Actually, we lose...everything we represent

Click to expand...

It appears you are arguing with the slippery slope fallacy here. Let me know if I am misunderstanding you. I really do not see that as a real threat, how real is the threat of extreme limitations on our freedom of speech. The threat of violent retaliation against innocent people seems more real and more dangerous. If we could have some guarantee that he would be the only person any retaliation was directed at I would feel more comfortable saying go ahead and say any stupid stuff you want. But since it is not the case. Also, I don't see Americans surrendering any great depth of their freedoms any time soon. It seems similar to me to arguing that is SSM is allowed people will want to marry animals etc. Ain't gonna happen.

Neither do I believe that they "despise our freedoms" I am leaning towards that being a slogan and not what is actually motivating violent acts against the US

Gardener said:

So, you opt for complete hypocrisy. Duly noted.

You favor eliminating free speech when it is one crazy Christian hating on Muslims, but see no problem with countless Muslims hating on Jews or Christians.

Click to expand...

You're out there, aren't you?

sangha said:

I am criticizing because the man is a hateful douchebag who uses the death of americans to endanger the lives of more americans.

And yes, it is the legal equivalent. Neither should be outlawed unless they pose a threat of imminent harm. However, this asshole wasn't prevented from expressing himself.

Click to expand...

No, the people who would kill others because of this kind of thing are the REAL douchebags.

I support the right of people to safely burn qurans, bibles or flags as part of a protest. It is first amendment protected activity.

However, I don't support the hateful sentiment, I think that he's a jerk, and I am concerned about the repercussions.

ChrisL said:

No, the people who would kill others because of this kind of thing are the REAL douchebags.

Click to expand...

Them too

lolabird said:

So I take it you emphatically uphold the rights of the bullies who expressed their freedom of speech against Karen Klein on the school bus. They didn't cause physical harm; only emotional trauma. But you know, words can kill.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the details on the Klein situation, so I won't comment on that. There is a legal distinction between free expression and harassment. Harassment applies to institutions where people are forced to associate, intent is a factor and in most cases, it has to be repeated unwanted behavior, not just some rude or offensive comment on one occasion. A one time quran burning is not harassment and should not be subject to legal prohibition.

If our constitutional freedom of speech allows burning the American flags and carrying insulting posters at military funerals, then it allows burning a bunch of books. Muslims are not special little snowflakes on US soil or in the US constitution. :shrug:

notquiteright said:

The police routinely detain suspects with the formal charges coming later, so no conspiracy there.

I see the freedoms associated with religion like most others, yours ends at my nose. Praise GAWD all you want, but attacking another religion is over the line. Would we sit by and claim 1st amendment rights to burn a BBQ full of Torahs coz them Jews kilt Jesus?

Click to expand...

Yes we would and have. I'm a Christian. I don't agree with people burning the Bible, but I recognize their first amendment right to do it.

X Factor said:

Yes we would and have. I'm a Christian. I don't agree with people burning the Bible, but I recognize their first amendment right to do it.

Click to expand...

I agree. The constitution is not a suggestion, nor is it something to be ignored when convenient to do so. Lots of people say and do crap everyday that makes me want to punch 'em in the throat, but the constitution gives them the right to express themselves, even hatefully.

Dr. Chuckles said:

1) Burning a book, regardless of how offensive some may perceive it, dies not "cost anyone their lives". Surely people may react to violence to such, but that is their own choice, and they are responding with violence to an action that harms no one.

Click to expand...

This is such a simple truth, I really don't get the difficulty in understanding it.

Hard Truth said:

I don't know about the details on the Klein situation, so I won't comment on that. There is a legal distinction between free expression and harassment. Harassment applies to institutions where people are forced to associate, intent is a factor and in most cases, it has to be repeated unwanted behavior, not just some rude or offensive comment on one occasion. A one time quran burning is not harassment and should not be subject to legal prohibition.

Click to expand...

This is not the first time this man of God? has burned a Quran. Any intent to cause a riot should be protected under the First Amendment, right?

DiAnna said:

I agree. The constitution is not a suggestion, nor is it something to be ignored when convenient to do so. Lots of people say and do crap everyday that makes me want to punch 'em in the throat, but the constitution gives them the right to express themselves, even hatefully.

Click to expand...

It's easy to be pro 1st amendment when the speech is inoffensive.

lolabird said:

You're out there, aren't you?

Click to expand...

On the west coast, yes.

opendebate said:

What if we can not access those people to hold them accountable.

Click to expand...

Sorry, and you think this is relevant because???

They are simply responsible for their actions and we hold tem accountable even though we may not be able to punish them immediately if ever. If I murder you and then escape to a nation where I cannot be extradited to the USA, do you no longer hold me accountable? As you can see you point has no merit in discussing how WE handle free speech rights.

opendebate said:

It appears you are arguing with the slippery slope fallacy here. Let me know if I am misunderstanding you. I really do not see that as a real threat, how real is the threat of extreme limitations on our freedom of speech. The threat of violent retaliation against innocent people seems more real and more dangerous. If we could have some guarantee that he would be the only person any retaliation was directed at I would feel more comfortable saying go ahead and say any stupid stuff you want. But since it is not the case. Also, I don't see Americans surrendering any great depth of their freedoms any time soon. It seems similar to me to arguing that is SSM is allowed people will want to marry animals etc. Ain't gonna happen.

Neither do I believe that they "despise our freedoms" I am leaning towards that being a slogan and not what is actually motivating violent acts against the US

Click to expand...

On the contrary, your argument is circular. Why? Simply because you would hold the individual engaging in free expression accountable for the possible actions of OTHERS who might not like the message and thus might act out. So you believe to prevent others from acting to harm us, you would pre-empt freedom of expression as a preventative measure. Your argument is that since they will likely act out we must assume responsibility for this so we cannot express ourselves for fear they will act out.

They are going to act out anyway. We have seen this time and again. It is not a slippery slope argument because it has already happened. This case is a prime example; acting in fear of prior bad acts on the part of muslim fundamentalists, a level of our government has acted to curb freedom of expression. This is not the first time people seeking to prevent possible reaction to protest have acted to curb First Amendment (and other Constitutional) rights. Look at all the gun control measures linked to mad-man mass killings. Look at all the violations of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights linked to fear of the harms of drugs and terrorism.

The slope is heavily greased.

DiAnna said:

If our constitutional freedom of speech allows burning the American flags and carrying insulting posters at military funerals, then it allows burning a bunch of books. Muslims are not special little snowflakes on US soil or in the US constitution. :shrug:

Click to expand...

But apparently you are, snowflake.

X Factor said:

Yes we would and have. I'm a Christian. I don't agree with people burning the Bible, but I recognize their first amendment right to do it.

Click to expand...

Actually the Romans crucified Jesus.

DiAnna said:

I agree. The constitution is not a suggestion, nor is it something to be ignored when convenient to do so. Lots of people say and do crap everyday that makes me want to punch 'em in the throat, but the constitution gives them the right to express themselves, even hatefully.

Click to expand...

What happened to Paula Deen's rights?

Captain Adverse said:

Click to expand...

Sorry, and you think this is relevant because???

They are simply responsible for their actions and we hold tem accountable even though we may not be able to punish them immediately if ever. If I murder you and then escape to a nation where I cannot be extradited to the USA, do you no longer hold me accountable? As you can see you point has no merit in discussing how WE handle free speech rights.

Click to expand...

I feel comfortable saying that I place protecting innocent lives above anyones right to free speech. It sounds like that is your point. It seems people are usually all over protecting rights until its their life that is traded for that right. Then you better be damn sure that freedom is actually at risk.

DiAnna said:

If our constitutional freedom of speech allows burning the American flags and carrying insulting posters at military funerals, then it allows burning a bunch of books. Muslims are not special little snowflakes on US soil or in the US constitution. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Its not the muslims in the US that are the issue