• 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

They will bring charges. You can't build a bonfire in a public park.. In most towns and cities you can't even burn leaves. Terry Jones is crazy.. that's why he was deported from Germany. He abused his congregation.

Did he build a bonfire, or light up a bbq pit?
 
Come on, transporting 3000 books soaked in a flammable liquid on the highway is stupid. Otherwise I would be all for him practicing his free speech, no matter how stupid.

Dont buy Matchlight charcoal and haul it home in your car, because guess what...you're breaking the law.
 
I am not a proponent of book burning... that includes all sorts of books...

The Nazis burned books.

Most of the SA members were gay, too.
 
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

He wasn't breaking the law, we have the first amendment, he shouldn't have been arrested.
 
Is it really a slippery slope fallacy when they are rioting over a man who wants to burn or flush their holy book, and no one in America has even heard of the guy, let alone joined his congregation? (I'm especially speaking of the first time he became a target of rage)
Since Pastor Jones put Arabic subtitles on his youtube video of the koran burning suggests that Americans weren't his intended audience.


Is it really a slippery slope fallacy when the administration blamed a pretty unknown Facebook video from an unknown director for the initial mass wave of violent protests at our embassies?
I think it was the CIA who intitially said in a memo that the video was to blame for the attack on Benghazi.....

On September 16, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five major interview shows to discuss the attacks. Prior to her appearance, Rice was provided with "talking points" from a CIA memo,[177]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/u...ttack-under-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Let's face it. This is utterly ridiculous.
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?


The slippery slope pork analogy didn't fly. oink oink
 
Last edited:
He wasn't breaking the law, we have the first amendment, he shouldn't have been arrested.

Somewhere on this thread or maybe another one, someone said Jones was arrested for openly carrying a gun and towing volitale substances on public roads without a permit....or something like that. He wasn't arrested for burning korans because they stopped him before he could.
 
So, you're ok with someone's 1st Amendment rights being crapped on?

But you're okay with censorship and inciting violence?

So, by not burning the Korans, the islamofacists hate us less? They won't try to kill our troops, now? Combat in Afghanistan will just be dangerous vice real dangerous?
Bush apologized for the desecration of the Koran. I assume he did that to protect our troops and Americans abroad.


"....On Saturday, the top American commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, and other officers held a formal ceremony apologizing to tribal chiefs in Radwaniyah.

Bush's apology followed similar moves by the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq to placate the Iraqis, apologizing in separate meetings Monday with al-Maliki, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

The U.S. military said Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III paid individual visits to al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, al-Hashemi and al-Mashhadani, both Sunni Arabs - moves underlining the American eagerness to make amends for the incident, particularly among Sunni Arabs who have become key allies in the fight against insurgents.

In their meeting in his office, al-Hashemi, the top Sunni Arab in the government, told Austin that "the feelings of bitterness and anger cannot be eased unless there is a deterrent punishment and real guarantees" such an incident won't be repeated, according to al-Hashemi's office.

Al-Hashemi expressed his appreciation for the visit but asked for a written apology from the U.S. military.

Austin underlined in all three meetings that "the soldier had in fact been removed from Iraq. He assured them that the matter was serious and that we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions," a U.S. military statement said.

Al-Hashemi's Iraqi Islamic Party also issued a tough statement Monday saying that an apology alone was not enough and the U.S. military should impose the "severest punishment" on the soldier to ensure others do not repeat his act....

Bush Apologizes For Quran Desecration - CBS News
 
It's always interesting to watch First Amendment rights come into conflict with current government memoranda.

Yeah he was towing a BBQ down the highway, but don't kid yourselves if you think that's what all the hubbub is about. I personally think this pastor is scum and doesn't deserve to have any title that would associate him with spirituality and faith, but that doesn't mean I approve of the government taking away his First Amendment right.

"Inciting violence" is BS. That's what the government says about ANY protest they want to shut down now. They claim some hypothetical person will be offended and start attacking someone else (i.e. terrorism) if the activists aren't stopped. Since when are rights granted or taken away based on hypotheticals?

The Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore.

I am sorry, but in this case you are wrong. He arrest was very much justified.
 
You truly do not understand the great difference between the state conducting a systematic clensing of materials and a lone nut job performing a symbolic protest?

Or perhaps it's the Arab world that doesn't understand the difference....



Bush Apologizes To Iraqi Prime Minister Over Quran 'Target Practice'

U.S. General Apologizes for Desecration of Koran

J'lem mufti demands U.S. apology for Guantanamo Koran desecration Israel News | Haaretz

Afghans vent fury over Koran burning, U.S. apologizes | Reuters


Oh my, how embarrassing for the free world when our leaders have to apologize for the desecration of the Koran by Americans. Hey, maybe they don't understand the difference between the state and nut jobs, either. lol
 
This particular asshole has a history in Florida. If you know Gainesville Florida you know this guy. He threatened to burn Qurans during a Florida football game (90K fans in the stadium), which of course could server as a lovely place to target for some other radical nut. The guy is a problem. I have no issue with him going to jail really...accept I do.

He has his first amendment right. He is allowed to protest. The question is was the smoker lit when he drove it down the road? I mean did he actively violate the law? I don't know if I can agree with this or not.

I do know that I could care less with the Muslims in the Middle East thing though. They can be offended and beat their burka clad wives in protest. This isn't about them. This is about free speech. We shouldn't pander to groups of people who protests a protest because they are offended. That just isn't a good precedent.
 
This particular asshole has a history in Florida. If you know Gainesville Florida you know this guy. He threatened to burn Qurans during a Florida football game (90K fans in the stadium), which of course could server as a lovely place to target for some other radical nut. The guy is a problem. I have no issue with him going to jail really...accept I do.

He has his first amendment right. He is allowed to protest. The question is was the smoker lit when he drove it down the road? I mean did he actively violate the law? I don't know if I can agree with this or not.

I do know that I could care less with the Muslims in the Middle East thing though. They can be offended and beat their burka clad wives in protest. This isn't about them. This is about free speech. We shouldn't pander to groups of people who protests a protest because they are offended. That just isn't a good precedent.

Yes, he violated the law. The Florida law 316.80 Unlawful conveyance of fuel; obtaining fuel fraudulently states:

1) It is unlawful for any person to maintain, or possess any conveyance or vehicle that is equipped with, fuel tanks, bladders, drums, or other containers that do not conform to 49 C.F.R. or have not been approved by the United States Department of Transportation for the purpose of hauling, transporting, or conveying motor or diesel fuel over any public highway. Any person who violates any provision of this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and, in addition, is subject to the revocation of driver license privileges as provided in s. 322.26.

And I seriously doubt that dragging a smoker filled with kerosine drenched books with a pick up truck conforms with 49 C.F.R. and he almost certainly did not have the approval of the US department of transportation to drag that smoker on public roads.
 
It helps to know the kind of person you're defending.

No, he's abusing the right to free speech to incite violence.


I thought your question about "pork" was a rhetorical slippery slope fallacy....


Flying_pig.gif

I don't care who I'm defending. If he's an American he has rights, and no amount of whining on your part will change that. Burning books is not inciting violence.

I find it beyond disgusting that you blame him over the islamists. Keep giving up freedom out of your morbid fear. You must be a BIG fan of the patriot act.

And no, my question wasn't a rhetorical slippery slope fallacy, it was an example showing that you're inconsistent. If they started killing people over anything we were doing, you would throw your liberties at them in an attempt to save your neck.
 
I don't care who I'm defending. If he's an American he has rights, and no amount of whining on your part will change that.
Rights are not absolute and no amount of hysterical exaggerated fallacious ranting on your part will change that either.

Burning books is not inciting violence.
Burning books is censurship. But desecrating the holy book of Islam incites violence. You seem to be defending both.

I find it beyond disgusting that you blame him over the islamists. Keep giving up freedom out of your morbid fear. You must be a BIG fan of the patriot act.
"First they burn the books, then they burn the people." You must be a BIG fan of fascism.

And no, my question wasn't a rhetorical slippery slope fallacy, it was an example showing that you're inconsistent. If they started killing people over anything we were doing, you would throw your liberties at them in an attempt to save your neck.
If someone put a burning cross on your lawn you'd defend their right to do it, right?
 
Rights are not absolute and no amount of hysterical exaggerated fallacious ranting on your part will change that either.

Burning books is censurship. But desecrating the holy book of Islam incites violence. You seem to be defending both.

"First they burn the books, then they burn the people." You must be a BIG fan of fascism.

If someone put a burning cross on your lawn you'd defend their right to do it, right?

You're really comparing some loon burning books to the nazi's systematical campaign to destroy all jewish literature?

You're just a big ball of hyperbole aren't you?

Sorry, burning books isn't censorship, and I for one don't make my decisions out of fear like you do. Burning books isn't illegal. Americans have rights, even assholes. I guess you want to ban drawing Muhammad too, right? More of your security over freedom?
 
You're really comparing some loon burning books to the nazi's systematical campaign to destroy all jewish literature?

You're just a big ball of hyperbole aren't you?

Sorry, burning books isn't censorship, and I for one don't make my decisions out of fear like you do. Burning books isn't illegal. Americans have rights, even assholes.

It wasn't just "Jewish literature" the Nazis burned.
 
It wasn't just "Jewish literature" the Nazis burned.

They were targeting all foreign literature, which happened to be largely Jewish, but clearly they burned other things. I think you're honing in on stupid details instead of actually addressing the point.

I'm not moot, I don't think we should give up rights because the muslims will throw temper tantrums.
 
They were targeting all foreign literature, which happened to be largely Jewish, but clearly they burned other things. I think you're honing in on stupid details instead of actually addressing the point.

I'm not moot, I don't think we should give up rights because the muslims will throw temper tantrums.

I think most Muslims would likely ignore this idiot Terry Jones.

I also think that people would be ticked off if he was going to burn 3,000 Bibles or Torahs.
 
You're really comparing some loon burning books to the nazi's systematical campaign to destroy all jewish literature?
I'm not the first or the only one who has made the obvious comparison. And Nazi's didn't just burn Jewish literature.

Sorry, burning books isn't censorship, and I for one don't make my decisions out of fear like you do. Burning books isn't illegal. Americans have rights, even assholes.
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?
 
......
Censurship and religious intolerance....is that your idea of freedom?

Political statements are often offensive--a tactic you don't mind using--and burning religious texts can be an offensive political statement. Here is a clue--Jews often bury their old books because they believe that destroying printed documents referring to God as a Sacrilege.
 
I think most Muslims would likely ignore this idiot Terry Jones.

I also think that people would be ticked off if he was going to burn 3,000 Bibles or Torahs.

You have a right as an American to get ticked off, just as he has a right to burn his property if he chooses.

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?

An individual burning a book is not censorship. When you're ready to answer my question instead of ignoring it, I will address your posts.

If Bob were to threaten John that if John didn't stop listening to rap music, he would kill someone. John, knowing this, decides to listen to rap music anyway, and Bob, as promised, kills someone.

You really want to blame John in this situation?


Curtailing your freedom based on threats is the true sign of a coward.
 
Last edited:
But you're okay with censorship and inciting violence?

Bush apologized for the desecration of the Koran. I assume he did that to protect our troops and Americans abroad.


"....On Saturday, the top American commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, and other officers held a formal ceremony apologizing to tribal chiefs in Radwaniyah.

Bush's apology followed similar moves by the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq to placate the Iraqis, apologizing in separate meetings Monday with al-Maliki, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

The U.S. military said Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III paid individual visits to al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, al-Hashemi and al-Mashhadani, both Sunni Arabs - moves underlining the American eagerness to make amends for the incident, particularly among Sunni Arabs who have become key allies in the fight against insurgents.

In their meeting in his office, al-Hashemi, the top Sunni Arab in the government, told Austin that "the feelings of bitterness and anger cannot be eased unless there is a deterrent punishment and real guarantees" such an incident won't be repeated, according to al-Hashemi's office.

Al-Hashemi expressed his appreciation for the visit but asked for a written apology from the U.S. military.

Austin underlined in all three meetings that "the soldier had in fact been removed from Iraq. He assured them that the matter was serious and that we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions," a U.S. military statement said.

Al-Hashemi's Iraqi Islamic Party also issued a tough statement Monday saying that an apology alone was not enough and the U.S. military should impose the "severest punishment" on the soldier to ensure others do not repeat his act....

Bush Apologizes For Quran Desecration - CBS News

Inciting what violence? That's stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom