WOW, just wow!
I will be attending the burn the Quran day in Gainesville on Sept. 11
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html
Not sure if I will be able to get in but I will be armed with my camera and I will damn sure try to document the "event"
Quote from: JC on August 28, 2010, 01:06:38 PM
WOW, just wow!
I will be attending the burn the Quran day in Gainesville on Sept. 11
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html
Not sure if I will be able to get in but I will be armed with my camera and I will damn sure try to document the "event"
For what purpose would anyone "attend" such an event? Would you "attend" a flag burning? There are some who attempt to grab attention by tearing down what they believe to be important to others. Why encourage such behavior? This kind of thing is just stupid and should be viewed in that light.
NotNow..............I agree with your view point!
Quote from: NotNow on August 28, 2010, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: JC on August 28, 2010, 01:06:38 PM
WOW, just wow!
I will be attending the burn the Quran day in Gainesville on Sept. 11
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html
Not sure if I will be able to get in but I will be armed with my camera and I will damn sure try to document the "event"
For what purpose would anyone "attend" such an event? Would you "attend" a flag burning? There are some who attempt to grab attention by tearing down what they believe to be important to others. Why encourage such behavior? This kind of thing is just stupid and should be viewed in that light.
Yes, it is stupid but it is indicative of a national trend and I think that these people simply have the nerve to do what many others want to but lack the fortitude! The event should be counter protested, it should be covered in the news and it should be denounced by anyone with an ounce of decency.
Quote from: JC on September 09, 2010, 12:32:10 PM
Yes, it is stupid but it is indicative of a national trend and I think that these people simply have the nerve to do what many others want to but lack the fortitude! The event should be counter protested, it should be covered in the news and it should be denounced by anyone with an ounce of decency.
No, not true. It is not indicative of a national trend, it is the mindset of a small fringe of stupid people. It doesn' take alot of nerve to be stupid.
This is from a conversation I had the other day:
Me: What's your thought on the Koran burnings.
Old Guy: I think what he's doing is wrong, but I believe in what he stands for.
Me: ???
Old Guy: I've been reading on the Muslim history and culture for about the past 5-6years, to know one's enemy so to speak, and the trend that I find is frightening. The preachings of the muslim teachers is similar to those of Christianity with the major exception being that if you are not a follower of Muhommed, then it is their (followers of Muslim) responsibility to convert you or kill you. Their is no place in their world for a non-believer.
Me: [Astounded look on my face]
Old Guy: [contiuing] The thing that annoys me the most about this entire situation is because of thier history, and history of all nations in general - When you declare victory, you erect a monument in it's honor. Look at the placement of the mosques in the mid-east - Several are placed on sites that the Muslim believe was a great victory over a foe. Now translate that into the mosque that's being built at ground zero?
I'll leave the conversation there, but it went deeper. I personally don't know any of this to be fact, but seeing it from someone else's (read less tolerable than I) point of view I feel that I need to do some more research before having a true opinion on the matter.
Anyone here have some more insight?
Quote from: Cricket on September 09, 2010, 01:01:29 PM
Quote from: JC on September 09, 2010, 12:32:10 PM
Yes, it is stupid but it is indicative of a national trend and I think that these people simply have the nerve to do what many others want to but lack the fortitude! The event should be counter protested, it should be covered in the news and it should be denounced by anyone with an ounce of decency.
No, not true. It is not indicative of a national trend, it is the mindset of a small fringe of stupid people. It doesn' take alot of nerve to be stupid.
Sadly I've observed stupidity, and perversely the outright pride in being stupid, are becoming a national trend.
I just read the headline on CNN? And why is the Governor not putting a stop to this?
They say its all going down at the Dove World Outreach Center on Saturday during the Gators game against USF. Man what is with these people. What a blackeye they are putting on gainsville, Florida & the US. those people that died in 9-11 will not come back....National Quran burn day?? Not a good look Gator fans....not a good look.
I think most Gator fans are actually horrified to be associated (even if purely geographically) with this crap...
http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?s=327018306efc9f82aeb059e6883d3a1f&t=163707
This is a nutty right-wing church doing this, it has nothing to do with the Gators or UF.
I wonder if this guy would be getting this much press if he were burning 200 American flags... :o
This just came across my desk.
The State Department has just issed a travel warining.
QuoteSeptember 9, 2010
The Department of State is issuing this Travel Alert to caution U.S. citizens of the potential for anti-U.S. demonstrations in many countries in response to stated plans by a church in Florida to burn Qur'ans on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Demonstrations, some violent, have already taken place in several countries, including Afghanistan and Indonesia, in response to media reports of the church's plans. The potential for further protests and demonstrations, some of which may turn violent, remains high. We urge you to pay attention to local reaction to the situation, and to avoid areas where demonstrations may take place. This Travel Alert expires on September 30, 2010.
We also remind you of the continuing threat to U.S. interests and citizens posed by various terrorist groups, as outlined in the Department's Worldwide Caution.
U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad are encouraged to register with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate through the State Department's travel registration website at in order that they can obtain updated information on travel and security. U.S. citizens without Internet access may register directly with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. By registering, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy or Consulate to contact them in case of emergency.
U.S. government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert. These facilities may temporarily close or periodically suspend public services to assess their security posture. In those instances, U.S. embassies and consulates will make every effort to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens abroad are urged to monitor the local news and maintain contact with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
As the Department of State continues to develop information on potential security threats to U.S. citizens overseas, it shares credible threat information through its Consular Information Program documents, such as the Worldwide Caution, Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as Country Information, which are available on the Bureau of Consular Affairs website at http://travel.state.gov/. In addition to information on the Internet, travelers may obtain up-to-date information on security conditions by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada or, outside the United States and Canada, on a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444. These numbers are available from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday, Eastern Time (except U.S. federal holidays).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 09, 2010, 02:04:58 PM
Sadly I've observed stupidity, and perversely the outright pride in being stupid, are becoming a national trend.
We tend to believe that stupidity is becoming a national trend because our media persists in giving every stupid person his 15 minutes of fame. Since we are all slaves of the media we can't get away from stupidity. A flight attendant sliding down an emergency chute gets alot more play than a fireman saving children from a burning building. The networks called him a hero, said he quit in style. This idiot in Gainsville is getting his 15 minutes whether or not he goes through with this burning. The difference is Americans may pay a price for his stupidity.
We have a muslim woman here at the job, when asked what she thought....her response was....Georgia Tech fans would NEVER do something like that. AWESOME! Ha ha ha ha....but seriously though who is this gator fan Terry Jones?? Talk about extremist...I am so glad a Jacksonville resident or preacher came up with this idea. How embarassing.
Oh great, Sarah Palin just weighed in and issued a public statement saying she essentially thinks it's reckless and inflammatory but he has a constitutional right to do it. Now the peanut gallery is complete.
Quote from: danno on September 09, 2010, 02:31:45 PM
This just came across my desk.
The State Department has just issed a travel warining.
QuoteSeptember 9, 2010
The Department of State is issuing this Travel Alert to caution U.S. citizens of the potential for anti-U.S. demonstrations in many countries in response to stated plans by a church in Florida to burn Qur'ans on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Demonstrations, some violent, have already taken place in several countries, including Afghanistan and Indonesia, in response to media reports of the church's plans. The potential for further protests and demonstrations, some of which may turn violent, remains high. We urge you to pay attention to local reaction to the situation, and to avoid areas where demonstrations may take place. This Travel Alert expires on September 30, 2010.
We also remind you of the continuing threat to U.S. interests and citizens posed by various terrorist groups, as outlined in the Department's Worldwide Caution.
U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad are encouraged to register with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate through the State Department's travel registration website at in order that they can obtain updated information on travel and security. U.S. citizens without Internet access may register directly with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. By registering, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy or Consulate to contact them in case of emergency.
U.S. government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert. These facilities may temporarily close or periodically suspend public services to assess their security posture. In those instances, U.S. embassies and consulates will make every effort to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens abroad are urged to monitor the local news and maintain contact with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
As the Department of State continues to develop information on potential security threats to U.S. citizens overseas, it shares credible threat information through its Consular Information Program documents, such as the Worldwide Caution, Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as Country Information, which are available on the Bureau of Consular Affairs website at http://travel.state.gov/. In addition to information on the Internet, travelers may obtain up-to-date information on security conditions by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada or, outside the United States and Canada, on a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444. These numbers are available from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday, Eastern Time (except U.S. federal holidays).
Im all for making history, this is not positive at all. Everyone at my job talking about it. This plan has been around since June??? I am just hearig about today. Its seem major, but seems minor because it lil ass gainsville. Now if this was happening in say Chicago or DC Id be a lil worried.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 09, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
Oh great, Sarah Palin just weighed in and issued a public statement saying she essentially thinks it's reckless and inflammatory but he has a constitutional right to do it. Now the peanut gallery is complete.
I think Palin should refudiate this guy
Quote from: copperfiend on September 09, 2010, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 09, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
Oh great, Sarah Palin just weighed in and issued a public statement saying she essentially thinks it's reckless and inflammatory but he has a constitutional right to do it. Now the peanut gallery is complete.
I think Palin should refudiate this guy
Unfortunately, she's an idiot. This was the exact statement;
QuoteBook burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation â€" much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.
As usual, she can't help but immediately turning the issue into a negative jab about another unrelated political item...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 09, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
Oh great, Sarah Palin just weighed in and issued a public statement saying she essentially thinks it's reckless and inflammatory but he has a constitutional right to do it. Now the peanut gallery is complete.
Peanut Gallery?
Quote from: Coolyfett on September 09, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 09, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
Oh great, Sarah Palin just weighed in and issued a public statement saying she essentially thinks it's reckless and inflammatory but he has a constitutional right to do it. Now the peanut gallery is complete.
Peanut Gallery?
Google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery
QuoteThe term originated in the days of vaudeville as a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater; the cheapest snack served at the theater would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw...
and,
QuoteThe phrases "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name.
Quote from: stephendare on September 09, 2010, 03:59:53 PM
Peanut Gallery: Monkey house.
They used to train monkeys with peanuts.
Hence the related expression: "He's paying peanuts!"
Haha, maybe wiki is wrong, but the result's the same either way. Whether it's a monkey or a human making incomprehensible noises and throwing peanuts around, it certainly describes Sarah Palin.
The Howdy Doody Show called its in studio audience the Peanut Gallery as well.
QuoteA distinctive feature was the peanut gallery, on-stage bleachers seating about 40 kids. Each show began with Buffalo Bob asking, "Say kids, what time is it?" and the kids yelling in unison, "It's Howdy Doody Time!" Then the kids all sang the show's theme song (set to the tune of "Ta-ra-ra Boom-de-ay"). It was thus one of the first television shows with audience participation as a major component.
Mike Myers should bring back Linda Richman to SNL just to use this one line:
The Ground Zero Mosque is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. Discuss.
This is just one more act of bigotry from the "Dove World Outreach Center":
QuoteA Gainesville, Florida church is urging voters to reject openly gay mayoral candidate Craig Lowe with a sign that says “No Homo Mayor†posted on its property.
City Commissioner Lowe, who captured just over 40% of the vote in a field of 5 candidates in the city's mayoral election last month, will face rival Don Marsh in an April 13 runoff election. Marsh trailed Lowe with 29% of the vote.
A sign posted on the property of the Dove World Outreach Center says “No Homo Mayor†â€" a slogan repeated in a video created by one of its pastors, Wayne Sapp.
“No homo mayor,†Sapp says in the video. “Here is Gainesville, they're getting ready to have a runoff election between two candidates and one of them is openly a homo, gay, fag â€" whatever you want to call him, I don't care. Bottom line is we cannot afford a homo mayor.â€
“We got one running for mayor of Gainesville, trying to convert Gainesville into Homoville,†Sapp adds. “We can't have it.â€
In a second video, posted on the church's website Saturday, Sapp goes on to defend his position.
“On the last video, I said we can't afford to have someone like a homo as mayor,†Sapp says, then adds that's because he believes gay men and lesbians are out to force themselves upon society.
“Speak out against homosexuality. Speak out against the ones trying to force themselves and their lifestyle on you, on your children.â€
“The world is going to hell,†he adds.
Before the March 16 election, Lowe was attacked for supporting a city ordinance that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (transgender protections) in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.
After city leaders in 2008 approved adding gender identity to an anti-discrimination measure that already included sexual orientation, opponents campaigned to place an initiative to repeal the law on the ballot. Voters in the college town, however, disagreed and the law remained in place.
One flier alleged that Lowe is “'responsible' for legally allowing men into women's restrooms!â€
Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot it's not bigotry if it's done in the name of religion.
I'm telling you, I'm burning that effigy of Tim Tebow (Gainesville's Jesus) Saturday.
Obviously the guy is an inbred Neanderthal.
Where are my mosque supporting constitutionalists in support of this guy's right to burn any book he wishes?
Were all of you guys up in arms over the publicly funded "Piss Christ"?
If this guy want's to burn a Quran, is it not his right? Should he be forcible prevented from doing so?
Now if the worldwide Islamic community is calling for death to any or all Americans because of the acts of a deranged hillbilly, what does that say for Islam?
Quote from: buckethead on September 09, 2010, 04:50:51 PM
Now if the worldwide Islamic community is calling for death to any or all Americans because of the acts of a deranged hillbilly, what does that say for Islam?
Well since they haven't...
I heard that St. Paul Methodist Church, in Arlington, is having a candlelight vigil at the same this nut job is doing his thing - 5:30 to 6:30 PM Saturday - to show that people from all faiths do not support the burning of the Q'uran. Wonder how much media attention this will get?
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2010/PR069.asp
Quote from: copperfiend on September 09, 2010, 04:52:56 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 09, 2010, 04:50:51 PM
Now if the worldwide Islamic community is calling for death to any or all Americans because of the acts of a deranged hillbilly, what does that say for Islam?
Well since they haven't...
Buckethead (as usual) makes an interesting point. Personally, I think
all religious zealots are potentially dangerous idiots, no matter what their faith. Oh, and
QuoteIn Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, protestors gathered to rally against Jones' plan. Some burned American flags and effigies of the pastor. In some cities, security has already been increased.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/09/2010-09-09_rev_terry_jones_koran_burning_rally_is_security_risk_for_americans_interpol_fbi_.html#ixzz0z4JYCsEb
This Gatorfan Rev Jones doesnt even have a fire permit...and his home is in foreclosure.....It sux when people use religion to hide behind there extreme choices. I also think the media has overhyped it and actually helping this Gatorfan Jones guy. Where it is the ultimate sports weekend and this guy has this to do?
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/09/44f3748d3ac875e03e8376ce7d1a1a74/340x.gif)
We know that Chicago and DC and NY have their own share of first class idiots. So why not Gainsville? ;D
If were just talking about the fact that the guy is an idiot, I agree. Just look at those handlebars.
Now which one of our resident legal minds can tell me how to start an LLC quickly with very limited funds?
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on September 09, 2010, 05:18:54 PM
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/09/44f3748d3ac875e03e8376ce7d1a1a74/340x.gif)
This! Classic
Quote from: Cricket on September 09, 2010, 05:25:35 PM
We know that Chicago and DC and NY have their own share of first class idiots. So why not Gainsville? ;D
The church has like 50 members....thats a small time church...how did a church like that get so much press...There facebook page could only do so much...unless they are on twitter? Man technology if used the wrong way.....Anyne could do this and get this instant fame. Signs of the times? Maybe....but you know this aint the last of the wackos we will see. No telling what we will experience in this next decade.
Some kook decided to act out. Some reporter decided it would get some hits on the interwebs.
Mission Accomplished!
Quote from: buckethead on September 09, 2010, 04:50:51 PM
Obviously the guy is an inbred Neanderthal.
Where are my mosque supporting constitutionalists in support of this guy's right to burn any book he wishes?
Were all of you guys up in arms over the publicly funded "Piss Christ"?
If this guy wants to burn a Quran, is it not his right? Should he be forcible prevented from doing so?
Now if the worldwide Islamic community is calling for death to any or all Americans because of the acts of a deranged hillbilly, what does that say for Islam?
Bolded above is a misstatement on my part. I suppose a vestige of my reactionary right wing indoctrination.
Looking at the loonybird who initiated this mess, it occurs to me that he is the counterpart to those who ultimately become tyrannical religio-political despots. Deadgirls correctly notes this about all religious zealots.
The Mosque issue comes back to mind and I should not lump the whole of Islam in with those rarified zealots calling for blood. I would not lump Christians into a group with the Right Reverend Handlebars.
Quote from: buckethead on September 09, 2010, 05:53:58 PM
Some kook decided to act out. Some reporter decided it would get some hits on the interwebs.
Mission Accomplished!
[/quote
Is that the right way to spell KOOK? I wont to use the word earlier but was unsure the official spelling. I like the word KOOK! its Kooky.
Do you believe the US government was right to fund the Piss Christ?
I understand your point, but if governments are to fund art, they are also to censor it. Any art not funded by the gov is censored (de facto).
Additionally, if art is publicly funded, should the public have any voice in which art is accepted for funding?
If Bridge Troll burns a quran, Koran whatevs... Photographs it and names it "The Book From Hell" should he be eligible for public funding to produce it and other similar works of "Art". {art being a hoax}?
You know how that BT is. :P
You also stated that "Teh religious right pretty much established it wasn't alright etc..."
What on earth does that mean?
Latest reports are that the NY Imam says he never talked to the FL Imam, and there is no deal in place. The FL Imam said he wanted to defuse the situation - and stop the Q'uran burning this weekend, a high holy time for Muslims. The pastor said he will be upset if he was lied to or misled.
This ain't over folks.
There'll be killin'.
Is it censorship to disallow pastor klampett his book burning statement?
I would argue the Piss Christ issue was about censorship. A majority of persons were offended by that particular work of "art", and demanded that their tax dollars not be used to subsidize it.
This church being tax exempt, though relevant (point taken as valid) is not the same as direct funding from taxpayers to perform his book burning jubilee.
I have often considered becoming a reverend myself, though book burning would not be part of my "ministry".
Quote from: buckethead on September 09, 2010, 08:08:01 PM
Is it censorship to disallow pastor klampett his book burning statement?
Is it censorship to stop somebody from running around drunkenly insulting people who may want to kick their ass? No. It is not censorship to apply social pressure to try to prevent somebody from acting like a douchebag.
Nobody is questioning his right to burn the Quran, but whether he should exercise that right. (Which he shouldn't, because if nothing else, it's atrocious bad manners.)
I agree with both comments as it pertains to social pressure. I would not support any of his actions. (I read the guy's rule book for "trainees".)
I disagree, however that the piss christ issue is the same. It was publicly funded and the public has the right to force it's government to refrain from funding that which it finds objectionable. It is different than having the limitation of social/peer pressure.
In short, PissChrist and other similar art works are still legal, and I'm sure they continue to be produced. Just not produced with public funding. There is also little audible opposition to such works of art or religious/political statements which are not publicly funded.
(no tangible threat of widespread violence or mass murder)
I don't know why all the big fuss. Tim Tebow was going to be in town anyway and you know that He would have interceded with His Almighty Wrath.
And if anybody dares to make a graven image of Tebow, I'm gonna bust 'em in the nose.
Quote from: stephendare on September 09, 2010, 08:41:10 PM
I disagree with your premise, Buckethead.
Why would religious groups have the right to withhold taxpayer monies from a program over a clear cut case of free speech when they are tax exempt?
Are you saying the millions of Catholics and Protestants that protested this being publicly funded were not taxpayers?
Are reverand klampett's parrisioners not taxpayers?
You support publicly funded arts. I get that. I am not necessarily opposed to it myself, but in a predominantly Christian nation one should know not to bite the hand that feeds it, regardless of post controversy pleas of non malice.
Quote from: stephendare on September 09, 2010, 09:19:41 PM
As 'catholics', no, they were not taxpayers.
Wait...is there a difference between 'Catholics' and Catholics? Because last I checked, my paycheck has taxes taken out. Good to know I can get all that back...
Therefore they have no right to address their representatives as taxpayers!? After all, they're Catholics!
Is that your contention? I would disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/v/nmJKY59NX8o
The government works for the taxpayer, not the transverse.
Oh, I get it...Dare is just parroting the contention that those that profess a religion shouldn't allow it to actually impact the way they live their life. Typical bigotry...moving on.
The protests was from far more than just catholics. It was so widespread the government reacted.
Democracy in action! ;)
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water:
QuoteWestboro Baptist Church, the small Topeka, Kan., church that pickets funerals of American soldiers to spread its message that God is punishing the country for being tolerant of homosexuals, has vowed to hold a Quran burning if Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center calls its off.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20100909/ARTICLES/100909743/1412?Title=Westboro-Baptish-Church-to-burn-Qurans-if-Dove-doesn-t
QuoteIf Bridge Troll burns a quran, Koran whatevs... Photographs it and names it "The Book From Hell" should he be eligible for public funding to produce it and other similar works of "Art". {art being a hoax}?
You know how that BT is.
Imagine my shock when I saw the above! I am about as religious as JC... ;) The only thing I burn on occaision is what I might put on my grill! I dont think you were lumping me in with our loony preacher but PLEASE.... :o :)
It is certainly reasonable for nearly everyone to be outraged by this idiots actions... I am also certainly amused by the reactions of many of our posters. I am amazed that these folks are outraged at some christian lunatic burning korans that is clearly offensive to muslims... while defending actions by their associates that is clearly offensive to christians or other groups of americans! Flag burning, bible burning, and desecration of christian symbols is a favorite tactic of groups on the left to make political statements. The mocking of christians seems to be a sport amongst them. Perhaps it is because these acts only produce hurt feelings and counter protest rather than riots and murder as this act will if completed...
QuoteDo we really want to get back to an environment where it is ok to offend the shit out of people based on their religions?
Absolutely not! Im glad you agree. :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 08:37:57 AM
I am amazed that these folks are outraged at some christian lunatic burning korans that is clearly offensive to muslims... while defending actions by their associates that is clearly offensive to christians or other groups of americans! Flag burning, bible burning, and desecration of christian symbols is a favorite tactic of groups on the left to make political statements. The mocking of christians seems to be a sport amongst them. Perhaps it is because these acts only produce hurt feelings and counter protest rather than riots and murder as this act will if completed...
The premise you are looking for is "...because Christianity doesn't issue fatwas."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:14:47 AM
QuoteDo we really want to get back to an environment where it is ok to offend the shit out of people based on their religions?
Absolutely not! Im glad you agree. :)
Then why is it that every time an incident like this happens, it's always some lunatic right-wing christians?
It's always these right-wing christian nutjobs. The same types who got all inflamed over the piss christ, ironically at the same time they were quietly waging a legal war trying to slap the 10 Commandments all over public buildings. And now this mess. Seems as though religious insensitivity is only a bad thing when not done by right-wing lunatic christians.
Piss christ? OMG a horrible slandering! Want to put a mosque near the WTC site? FU you dirty muslims.
Seems like a double-standard, no?
QuotePiss christ? OMG a horrible slandering!
I surprised you do not see the double standard! The "Piss Christ" was considered sacrilegious... just as a Koran burning. Yet you seem to be indifferent about that and outraged by the burning of a few books. Why?
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
Lesser volume does not dismiss the actions of Christian terrorists, but it's nowhere near the global threat that Islamofascists present. Not even in the ball park.
BT... I used you as a theoretical example because I did not think you'd be offended. I normally use myself. Thought I'd change it up a bit.
I hope no one is interpreting my stance as supporting the reverend hayseed. I do support political/religious free speech as well as the right of others to protest when they disagree with it.
I see free speech as an absolute, but being able to say anything is not without consequence.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
QuotePiss christ? OMG a horrible slandering!
I surprised you do not see the double standard! The "Piss Christ" was considered sacrilegious... just as a Koran burning. Yet you seem to be indifferent about that and outraged by the burning of a few books. Why?
No I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 10, 2010, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
QuotePiss christ? OMG a horrible slandering!
I surprised you do not see the double standard! The "Piss Christ" was considered sacrilegious... just as a Koran burning. Yet you seem to be indifferent about that and outraged by the burning of a few books. Why?
No I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
People are free to object to whatever they wish. The difference is that the pisschrist was publicly funded.
SD made a valid point that this church is tax exempt, but that is a bus stop short of being publicly funded.
QuoteBT... I used you as a theoretical example because I did not think you'd be offended. I normally use myself. Thought I'd change it up a bit.
I was not... surprised but not offended! :D
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:29:32 AM
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
Lesser volume does not dismiss the actions of Christian terrorists, but it's nowhere near the global threat that Islamofascists present. Not even in the ball park.
BT... I used you as a theoretical example because I did not think you'd be offended. I normally use myself. Thought I'd change it up a bit.
I hope no one is interpreting my stance as supporting the reverend hayseed. I do support political/religious free speech as well as the right of others to protest when they disagree with it.
I see free speech as an absolute, but being able to say anything is not without consequence.
In fairness, that has a more to do with the unstable political environments in many muslim countries than anything else. Instability that, frankly, the UK and US are almost entirely responsible for if you trace back the roots of the issues through the 20th century. The fraudulent US intelligence and subsequent unfounded Iraq war have reeeeeeeally not helped matters either.
QuoteNo I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
Cool. I look forward to your denunciations in the future when "left wing nutjobs" use sacrilegious symbolism to make a point.
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 10, 2010, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
QuotePiss christ? OMG a horrible slandering!
I surprised you do not see the double standard! The "Piss Christ" was considered sacrilegious... just as a Koran burning. Yet you seem to be indifferent about that and outraged by the burning of a few books. Why?
No I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
People are free to object to whatever they wish. The difference is that the pisschrist was publicly funded.
SD made a valid point that this church is tax exempt, but that is a bus stop short of being publicly funded.
That's a silly distraction from the real point here.
Gay pride rallies aren't publicly funded, yet there's always a bunch of right-wing christian nutjobs carrying "God Hates Fags" signs. All the abortion doctors who have been killed or firebombed weren't on the government payroll. Hell, the funny thing is, all that mess about 10 years ago when the conservative religo-nazis were trying to slap the 10 Commandments all over every public building, our courthouses, city halls, public parks, etc., ARE ACTUALLY PUBLICLY FUNDED.
So again, I guess it's only intolerance if it's happening TO them?
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 09:37:41 AM
My point is that tax exempt means that the tax monies shouldnt be subject to their approval if we are going to get all technical about government funding.
Except you seem to refuse to acknowledge that a congregation is comprised of individual taxpayers. The outcry over the PC was by churches AND individuals.
Are you also saying that any tax exempt group should not be allowed to seek political recourse?
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:42:25 AM
Are you also saying that any tax exempt group should not be allowed to seek political recourse?
"Can" doesn't = "Should" especially when these same people are the first ones to complain whenever anything happens that they consider intolerant of their faith.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 10, 2010, 09:41:07 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 10, 2010, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
QuotePiss christ? OMG a horrible slandering!
I surprised you do not see the double standard! The "Piss Christ" was considered sacrilegious... just as a Koran burning. Yet you seem to be indifferent about that and outraged by the burning of a few books. Why?
No I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
People are free to object to whatever they wish. The difference is that the pisschrist was publicly funded.
SD made a valid point that this church is tax exempt, but that is a bus stop short of being publicly funded.
That's a silly distraction from the real point here.
Gay pride rallies aren't publicly funded, yet there's always a bunch of right-wing christian nutjobs carrying "God Hates Fags" signs. All the abortion doctors who have been killed or firebombed weren't on the government payroll. Hell, the funny thing is, all that mess about 10 years ago when the conservative religo-nazis were trying to slap the 10 Commandments all over every public building, our courthouses, city halls, public parks, etc., ARE ACTUALLY PUBLICLY FUNDED.
So again, I guess it's only intolerance if it's happening TO them?
Gay Pride rallies have not been discontinued by the religious right. Publicly funded artwrok deemed offensive was shut down. I have no problem with people carrying "God Hates Fags" sign in protest of whatever from a free speech standpoint. I do have a problem with the content of the sign from a personal, moral standpoint.
I think dood is an idiot. His book burning stunt is indeed inflammatory and should be universally and LOUDLY denounced by those who feel the same.
What should not happen is for the government (at any level) to use force to compel him to refrain from being an idiot book burner.
We can argue the 10 commandment issue all day, but since I happen to agree with you on that, it would be silly.
Quote"Can" doesn't = "Should"
Great to hear! This should apply to our friends the "flag Burners" in this country also. While constitutionally protected... It most certainly should not be done. Lets spread the word!
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 09:48:55 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:42:25 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 09:37:41 AM
My point is that tax exempt means that the tax monies shouldnt be subject to their approval if we are going to get all technical about government funding.
Except you seem to refuse to acknowledge that a congregation is comprised of individual taxpayers. The outcry over the PC was by churches AND individuals.
Are you also saying that any tax exempt group should not be allowed to seek political recourse?
No. Are you under the impression that politics can solve any religious conviction?
If our wall of separation between church and state prevents the governor from legislating what can be said from the pulpit, it also prevents the preacher from legislating for the rest of us.
True, unless a majority of legislators feels compelled to act based on voter sentiment. Read: Piss christ
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 09:50:50 AM
But it seems like there are people on this board that would like to make aggressively offensive attacks on religion the norm again.
Could you please point those out to me?
It has been my experience that intolerance of religion is as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. 2¢
The most intolerance of religion I have seen is in the Christian right and the irreligious left.
The few Muslims I have know have seemed to be the most tolerant of others. (ironically)
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:51:28 AM
Quote"Can" doesn't = "Should"
Great to hear! This should apply to our friends the "flag Burners" in this country also. While constitutionally protected... It most certainly should not be done. Lets spread the word!
Because the flag is a religion? um. ok. I guess there are people who would literally worship anything.
So that makes it OK? It is a desecration of a symbol people hold dear. The Bible, Torah, Koran, National Flag are powerful symbols as indicated by the outrage at this latest incident. Desecrating or mocking them is offensive it seems... even to those NOT affiliated with the symbol.
While in SERE school(POW camp)... many years ago... We were held standing in formation for hours having not eaten or slept for hours... towards the end of this exercise an instructor pulled out a Bible... and slowly began ripping pages out, burning them, and mocking the characters within. They did the same with the American flag. The reactions of various participants was predictable and had it not been an exercise... they would have ended up dead.
QuoteThe most intolerance of religion I have seen is in the Christian right and the irreligious left.
The few Muslims I have know have seemed to be the most tolerant of others. (ironically)
Having lived in a few muslim countries I can assure you religous intolerance is quite visible. But like here... the vast majority ARE tolerant and respectful. Reverand goofball in Gainsville no more represents christians than does osama bin laden does muslims... bin laden is probably smarter though...
I'm surprised that you would not see flag burning and book burning in the same light. Most people would see both as a desecration and a morally abhorant method of making a political statement.
I'm shocked! :o
Quotebook burnings dont really bother me. Its hard to kill ideas.
Agreed... hence my anecdote regarding my experiance at SERE. Which brings us back to the outrage by some regarding the burning of korans by someone who has never even read it. Seems odd...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_in_gaza_fear_for_their_lives.html?cat=9
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html
For starters.
So you are claiming a difference between a koran burning and a flag burning?
My specimen? Not really. I was just spotting up a few examples.
Depending on who you ask, when the military burned the unsolicited bibles, it was due to the leftist in chief. Again, not my argument, but it was out there.
The equine mortality has been thouroughly demonstrated! ;D
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:37:46 AM
QuoteNo I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
Cool. I look forward to your denunciations in the future when "left wing nutjobs" use sacrilegious symbolism to make a point.
Yep. I await your denunciation...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece
Quote
*in my best Obi Wan voice*
"Those aren't the leftist nutcases you are looking for.
Those leftist nutcases are free to move along."
I must admit. Days with less to do would be much more boring without this site along with willing and capable debate opposition!
I must away! Duty calls!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 10, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 09:37:46 AM
QuoteNo I see the double standard fine, that's my point!
How can the same people object to that but then turn around and burn qurans, call women who get abortions whores, show up at every pride rally carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and on and on and on? WTF? Seriously? So it's only religious intolerance if it happens to them?
Cool. I look forward to your denunciations in the future when "left wing nutjobs" use sacrilegious symbolism to make a point.
Yep. I await your denunciation...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6723980.ece
Quote
Well you have to make exceptions for art, no?
If art never offended sensibilities, all we would have today would be baroque parlor scenes and oils of fruit sitting in a bowl. In fact, the Catholic church intentionally disposed of many of the world's greatest works following the collapse of the Roman empire because it offended their religious sensibilities. Not that they got rid of their own collections behind closed doors, mind you.
Much of what survived the various purges, including the destruction of virtually every historically significant bronze, survives because it escaped the detection of religious institutions. Art is art, and history has taught us we should cut a pass for that, lest we stifle creativity and deprive future generations of things they may find valuable, but which we may wrongly believe are immoral.
This Quran burning, along with Bible burning, etc., aren't any function of artistic expression. It's simply one religious group trying to piss off another. That's not art, it's just people treating each other like $h!t. This requires a different lens than the one we use to evaluate artistic expression.
But with all that said, I think that Bible-defacing exhibit in the UK is amateurish and in very poor taste.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 10, 2010, 11:16:52 AM
Well you have to make exceptions for art, no?
If art never offended sensibilities, all we would have today would be baroque parlor scenes and oils of fruit sitting in a bowl. In fact, the Catholic church intentionally disposed of many of the world's greatest works following the collapse of the Roman empire because it offended their religious sensibilities. Not that they got rid of their own collections behind closed doors, mind you.
Much of what survived the various purges, including the destruction of virtually every historically significant bronze, survives because it escaped the detection of religious institutions. Art is art, and history has taught us we should cut a pass for that, lest we stifle creativity and deprive future generations of things they may find valuable, but which we may wrongly believe are immoral.
This Quran burning, along with Bible burning, etc., aren't any function of artistic expression. It's simply one religious group trying to piss off another. That's not art, it's just people treating each other like $h!t. This requires a different lens than the one we use to evaluate artistic expression.
But with all that said, I think that Bible-defacing exhibit in the UK is amateurish and in very poor taste.
+1
And, IMO, the whole thing comes down to something along the lines of "my imaginary man in the sky is better than your imaginary man in the sky." It's ridiculous and should be an embarrassment for anyone who associates with either of these religions, whether they consider themselves 'moderate' or 'normal' adherents to the religion.
But that's my opinion.
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:29:32 AM
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
http://www.youtube.com/v/X5McSEU48Y8
Sorry, it's Jews being persecuted in this video, but I couldn't find a funny video about Muslims being butchered during the Crusades.
QuoteThis Quran burning, along with Bible burning, etc., aren't any function of artistic expression. It's simply one religious group trying to piss off another. That's not art, it's just people treating each other like $h!t. This requires a different lens than the one we use to evaluate artistic expression.
But with all that said, I think that Bible-defacing exhibit in the UK is amateurish and in very poor taste.
Agreed Chris. For the sake of discussion lets go a step further... Suppose a mutton chopped "artist" created a piece of "art" desecrating the koran or insulting islam? Apparently the Danes have a taste for it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
I really have no opinion on the act of burning anything, especially since I place no value in the Koran or Bible. My outrage is at the reasoning behind the proposed burning and the result of such an action. Again, there are too many US troops in places where people need a little nudge or excuse to further take up arms against our people. It is this type of callousness insensitivity and lack of respect for the cultures of others that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Is the life of one person worth what this church is proposing? I think the answer is no, but that is a conclusion he and his congregation need to reach because he has the right to be a moron, a right no one is taking away.
I agree with your entire statement JC...
QuoteIt is this type of callousness insensitivity and lack of respect for the cultures of others
This type of callousness and insensitivity... however... is not restricted to those on the religious right.
BT, you are right. I, for one, am completely callous and insensitive to those on the religious right of any religion.
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on September 10, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:29:32 AM
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
http://www.youtube.com/v/X5McSEU48Y8
Sorry, it's Jews being persecuted in this video, but I couldn't find a funny video about Muslims being butchered during the Crusades.
I don't think they had YouTube in those days. It's only a matter of time till the Crusades come into the debate. :)
Not sure how it factors in any relevant way today though.
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on September 10, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:29:32 AM
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
http://www.youtube.com/v/X5McSEU48Y8
Sorry, it's Jews being persecuted in this video, but I couldn't find a funny video about Muslims being butchered during the Crusades.
One of my all-time favorite movies ever! And tied for my favorite scene in that movie, I can never decide whether I like the inquisition better or the "It's Good to be the King!" scene where Mel Brooks as Louis XVI is shouting "Pull!" and doing some skeet shooting using peasants instead of a clay pigeon.
It's getting to be time for another movie night...
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 05:48:59 PM
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on September 10, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 09:29:32 AM
The level of terrorist attacks by Christian Fundamentalists is now where near the volume of terror by Islamic Fundamentalists.
http://www.youtube.com/v/X5McSEU48Y8
Sorry, it's Jews being persecuted in this video, but I couldn't find a funny video about Muslims being butchered during the Crusades.
I don't think they had YouTube in those days. It's only a matter of time till the Crusades come into the debate. :)
Not sure how it factors in any relevant way today though.
The Crusades are still relevant because there's Middle Eastern folks out there who are still rather pissed off about being constantly invaded by unbathed book-burning Christians for two hundred straight years.
The Spanish Inquisition didn't start until about 200 years after the Crusades ended, and is not relevant. I just think that clip from Mel Brooks' History of the World is hilarious.
Mel Brooks clips are always appropriate!
Ya'll are racist
Quote from: buckethead on September 10, 2010, 10:13:10 PM
Mel Brooks clips are always appropriate!
Mel Brooks clips are uniquely and invariably slap-stick ridiculously funny :)
Is stupid a race?
that too :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 01:42:31 PM
I agree with your entire statement JC...
QuoteIt is this type of callousness insensitivity and lack of respect for the cultures of others
This type of callousness and insensitivity... however... is not restricted to those on the religious right.
In this instance it is... isnt it?
Not so sure about that.
I suppose we could assume the reverend is a righty.
Well this may explain it...
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/09/who-knew-terry-jones-and-rush-limbaugh-were-high-school-classmates/1
Definitely something in the water!
Quote from: JC on September 11, 2010, 08:33:42 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 10, 2010, 01:42:31 PM
I agree with your entire statement JC...
QuoteIt is this type of callousness insensitivity and lack of respect for the cultures of others
This type of callousness and insensitivity... however... is not restricted to those on the religious right.
In this instance it is... isnt it?
Your quite observant... when you want to be...
Well I knew Jacksonville would get dragged into this eventually...
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-09-10/story/jacksonville-man-gainesville-preacher-lets-burn-qurans
QuoteJacksonville man to Gainesville preacher: 'Let's burn Qurans!"
Man says evil starts with Muslim holy book
By Jeff Brumley
Danny Lovely says he's an unemployed Baptist preacher and a huge fan of Pastor Terry Jones, the Gainesville minister whose threat to burn Qurans on Saturday caught the world on fire.
Lovely drove to Gainesville from Jacksonville on Friday evenign to show support for Jones, who indicated earlier in the day there would be no Quran burning going on Saturday afterall. Jones said he is hoping Muslim leaders in New York will cease plans to build a mosque at ground zero in return.
But that didn't deter Lovely's enthusiasm. Lovely said he plans to be at the Dove World Christian Center to burn Qurans with Jones if by some chance the latter's "International Burn A Quran Day" goes ahead.
"Burn, burn, burn," he said when asked what he was prepared to do with the Muslim holy book.
He also said he would not burn Qurans if Jones really has decided not to do so.
Lovely spoke beside his beat up, aging Dodge mini-van which was covered on three sides with posters expressing support for Jones' anti-Islamic views.
Two despicable acts: burning of Korans and building of a mosque at the site of a mass murder commited in the name of islam. The difference? Those on the left (including many here) were quick to dawn their constitutional rights hats and jump to the defense of those initiating the mosque construction in the name of "freedom of religion", and "this is America". Where are you in defense of this reverend's rights???? No where to be seen as is expected from the left. No consistency, as usual. Instead, you will demonize him and his church and call them "nut jobs". Why? Because appeasement and political correctness runs amok. I fully expect the left leaning (falling over) media to be investigating the reverend's past to try to dig up any dirt they can find. Watch the headlines in the next few days for stories about his past. In no way do i condone burning Korans, but I understand his point. He, like many of us are tired of the countless kidnappings, beheadings, flag burnings, etc that are covered as "no big deal" by journalists. This book burning would have no effect in Afghanistan what so ever. American troops walking the streets of kabul is more than enough justification (in their minds) to kill our troops. On the other hand, i see no real benefit to burning Korans. But go ahead and continue to kiss the rearends of Islamist and other enemies of America. See where it gets you.
Quote from: RMHoward on September 11, 2010, 01:00:29 PM
Two despicable acts: burning of Korans and building of a mosque at the site of a mass murder commited in the name of islam. The difference? Those on the left (including many here) were quick to dawn their constitutional rights hats and jump to the defense of those initiating the mosque construction in the name of "freedom of religion", and "this is America". Where are you in defense of this reverend's rights???? No where to be seen as is expected from the left. No consistency, as usual. Instead, you will demonize him and his church and call them "nut jobs". Why? Because appeasement and political correctness runs amok. I fully expect the left leaning (falling over) media to be investigating the reverend's past to try to dig up any dirt they can find. Watch the headlines in the next few days for stories about his past. In no way do i condone burning Korans, but I understand his point. He, like many of us are tired of the countless kidnappings, beheadings, flag burnings, etc that are covered as "no big deal" by journalists. This book burning would have no effect in Afghanistan what so ever. American troops walking the streets of kabul is more than enough justification (in their minds) to kill our troops. On the other hand, i see no real benefit to burning Korans. But go ahead and continue to kiss the rearends of Islamist and other enemies of America. See where it gets you.
I will tell you where our religious tolerance has gotten US we have form the greatest society on the planet and have become the leaders of the free world. This from a country less than 250 years old founded on religious freedom and tolerance. I say let's stick to our high road. If you want religious fanaticism there are lots of options on this world.
By the way the Reverend was allowed to express himself no one censored him. The opposition were just allowed to express the opposite views also.
QuoteTwo despicable acts: burning of Korans and building of a mosque at the site of a mass murder commited in the name of islam. The difference? Those on the left (including many here) were quick to dawn their constitutional rights hats and jump to the defense of those initiating the mosque construction in the name of "freedom of religion", and "this is America". Where are you in defense of this reverend's rights? No where to be seen as is expected from the left. No consistency, as usual. Instead, you will demonize him and his church and call them "nut jobs". Why? Because appeasement and political correctness runs amok. I fully expect the left leaning (falling over) media to be investigating the reverend's past to try to dig up any dirt they can find. Watch the headlines in the next few days for stories about his past. In no way do i condone burning Korans, but I understand his point. He, like many of us are tired of the countless kidnappings, beheadings, flag burnings, etc that are covered as "no big deal" by journalists. This book burning would have no effect in Afghanistan what so ever. American troops walking the streets of kabul is more than enough justification (in their minds) to kill our troops. On the other hand, i see no real benefit to burning Korans. But go ahead and continue to kiss the rearends of Islamist and other enemies of America. See where it gets you.
There is a big difference between allowing American citizens to peacefully practice their religion and wanting to hold a 15th-century style book-burning. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. Regardless, no one is stopping Rev Jones from holding his book burning. But it's not unreasonable to ask him to reconsider doing something that is clearly intended to offend hundreds of millions of people all over the world and makes our country look like an intolerant backwater. In contrast, the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan (it's not a mosque and it's not at Ground Zero) is not being built with the intention of offending people. In fact, the purpose is to be a sort of outreach to other faiths for promoting understanding and cooperation. I can't figure out why people find that so threatening.
Also, Muslims are not our enemy. Radical, fundamentalist, homicidal death-cultists who pervert the teachings of Islam as a way to manipulate the ignorant into doing stupid things are our enemy. Please do not confuse the two.
Quote from: RMHoward on September 11, 2010, 01:00:29 PM
Two despicable acts: burning of Korans and building of a mosque at the site of a mass murder commited in the name of islam. The difference? Those on the left (including many here) were quick to dawn their constitutional rights hats and jump to the defense of those initiating the mosque construction in the name of "freedom of religion", and "this is America". Where are you in defense of this reverend's rights???? No where to be seen as is expected from the left. No consistency, as usual. Instead, you will demonize him and his church and call them "nut jobs". Why? Because appeasement and political correctness runs amok. I fully expect the left leaning (falling over) media to be investigating the reverend's past to try to dig up any dirt they can find. Watch the headlines in the next few days for stories about his past. In no way do i condone burning Korans, but I understand his point. He, like many of us are tired of the countless kidnappings, beheadings, flag burnings, etc that are covered as "no big deal" by journalists. This book burning would have no effect in Afghanistan what so ever. American troops walking the streets of kabul is more than enough justification (in their minds) to kill our troops. On the other hand, i see no real benefit to burning Korans. But go ahead and continue to kiss the rearends of Islamist and other enemies of America. See where it gets you.
Buddy, seriously? The Obama administration has taken a stance on the side of freedom of speech and not said that the rev. 'cant' but it has said that this would be a recruitment bonanza for AQ(which is incidentally true!). I have not said he does not have the right to burn the book, on the contrary, I think that he should do as he chooses but know that he is a moron because this selfish act and just he mere threat will cost some soldier his/her life. I think maybe you need to learn how to read!
Quote from: RMHoward on September 11, 2010, 01:00:29 PM
building of a mosque at the site of a mass murder commited in the name of islam.
This is a bald-face lie. No mosque is proposed to be built on the site of ground zero.
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
Hey if they cut your head off remember its all your fault! Fortunately they aren't mormons so its okay. Quite frankly its not new that they don't like us. christopher hitchens was right if you want to live your life according to outrage boy standards, thats up to you. But you'll never make them happy short of submitting.
http://snappedshot.com/archives/976-Islamic-Rage-Boy-Parody-Roundup.html
My point is; while it's uncouth of a person of one religion to openly defile the religious icons of another religion, the violence enacted by the other religion is the fault/responsibility of the ones committing the violence.
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
My point is; while it's uncouth of a person of one religion to openly defile the religious icons of another religion, the violence enacted by the other religion is the fault/responsibility of the ones committing the violence.
That would seem to go without saying buckethead but I'm not so sure thats true here
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
So we should not be concerned with the ramifications of our actions? I am not sure I am following your logic here.
Quote from: JC on September 13, 2010, 11:15:00 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
So we should not be concerned with the ramifications of our actions? I am not sure I am following your logic here.
Thats a good dhimmi
I think the media might be overblowing this a little bit (shock! right?). There's really not very much evidence that these people were totally cool with America until this whole Koran-burning mess started and then that's what caused them to start killing people. My guess is that they see it as a good excuse but really any excuse will do.
Quote from: JC on September 13, 2010, 11:15:00 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
So we should not be concerned with the ramifications of our actions? I am not sure I am following your logic here.
Speaking of logic, your response seems to be missing any. Looking at my previous post, I see no claim indicating that anyone should not consider the ramifications of ones actions.
Ramifications of book burning: It could piss people off. If I get pissed off about something you do, whose responsibility/fault is it?
Ramifications of killing people: People die. If I kill someone and blame it on the fact that I was pissed about something you did, whose responsibility is that?
Ramifications of multi-quoting: It builds a quote pyramid. If I continue multi-quoting until I have a post over 3 feet long, whose fault is that?
:) Thanks Civil! I always learn new things here!
QuoteThats a good dhimmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
QuoteA dhimmi (Arabic: ذمي [ˈðɪmːiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma or people of the contract") is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law. The dhimma is a theoretical contract based on a widely held Islamic doctrine granting special status to Jewish, Christian, and other non-Muslim subjects. Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes.[1] Dhimmi have fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslims.[2] They are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation.[3]
:o Jeez Stephen... try some decaf. :D I was simply unaware of the what a dhimmi was... I looked it up and posted it. ::)
Quote from: buckethead on September 14, 2010, 05:51:02 AM
Quote from: JC on September 13, 2010, 11:15:00 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
So we should not be concerned with the ramifications of our actions? I am not sure I am following your logic here.
Speaking of logic, your response seems to be missing any. Looking at my previous post, I see no claim indicating that anyone should not consider the ramifications of ones actions.
Ramifications of book burning: It could piss people off. If I get pissed off about something you do, whose responsibility/fault is it?
Ramifications of killing people: People die. If I kill someone and blame it on the fact that I was pissed about something you did, whose responsibility is that?
Ramifications of multi-quoting: It builds a quote pyramid. If I continue multi-quoting until I have a post over 3 feet long, whose fault is that?
Your logic is what makes no sense.
If I intentionally undertake some act that I know will produce a certain result, then I become partially responsible even though I may not have physically caused the actual harm. Because it wouldn't have happened except for me. So by your logic I guess it's OK to run around yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theaters and then blame the resulting deaths and injuries on people not watching where they're stepping? Or shoot a nuclear missile at Russia and then act perplexed when we get one right back? "We didn't MAKE them do it." Come on, that's nonsensical. Nobody physically "makes" anybody do much of anything, that doesn't mean we're not responsible for our actions.
Quote from: civil42806 on September 14, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
Thats a good dhimmi
Just shut up!
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2010, 07:46:22 AM
I do not want to hear another word from any of you guys about people disrespecting christian sensibilities.
Apparently that whole thing from people on the Right about respecting people's deeply held religious beliefs was just bollocks.
Well good to know. I could really care less about the issue, except that it seemed designed to kill additional soldiers in the Middle East, and I actually do try to take it seriously when General Petraeus, (a dhimmi? I suppose) has to stop what hes doing to personally request some homeless dumbass with a bible to kindly pipe the hell down before he gets somebody killed.
You guys will defend absolutely any action as long as the person being affected is either brown or foreign, apparently. So, which Moslem country, civil and BT, are either of you under the impression invaded the US? Incidentally. Are either of you aware that we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq a few years ago, and began torturing people?
Or are you under the impression, that afghanistan invaded Cleveland, and only the good dhimmi of that town are now allowed to own businesses?
Your stupid chimperor president managed to bomb millions of people who had nothing to do with 911, and you wasted 3 trillion dollars of our money with this bullshit---after which you suddenly found jesus on the subject of Deficits.
Now, as a spiteful afterthought you apparently endorse defiling religious artifacts as a method of preventing muslims from exerting their property rights in manhattan.
awesome. And you wonder why the country got driven into a ditch by your mind control superiors?
Here here!
Thought so... :) Good Morning BTW! 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 14, 2010, 06:29:35 AM
:) Thanks Civil! I always learn new things here!
QuoteThats a good dhimmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
QuoteA dhimmi (Arabic: ذمي [ˈðɪmːiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-dhimmah, "the people of the dhimma or people of the contract") is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law. The dhimma is a theoretical contract based on a widely held Islamic doctrine granting special status to Jewish, Christian, and other non-Muslim subjects. Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes.[1] Dhimmi have fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslims.[2] They are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation.[3]
Hey I should know I was one for a few years.
QuoteAbout Us
Our purpose and our goal here at Dove World Outreach Center is to get people to stand up. We, as the church, need to stand up for righteousness and for the truth of the Bible. That truth is not only love, healing and prosperity, but it is also about getting up. It is not about being entertained on Sunday morning, but about being equipped to do the work of the service: motivating, equipping to get up, organize, and show the world that there is a true and living church.
Christians must return to the truth and stop hiding. We need to speak up against sin and call the people to repentance. Abortion is murder. Homosexuality is sin. We need to call these things what they are and bring the world the true message: that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).
Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil. This is why we also take a stand against Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell.
It is our vision to go around, to preach and to challenge, and to get the church involved and ready. We must go outside of the walls, and march for righteousness.
I love the similarities between the rigid dogma of this guys fire and brimstone Christianity and of strict adherence to Islam or Sharia law. The only thing the Muslims are missing is Jesus, although he makes cameos in the Koran repeatedly.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2010, 07:46:22 AM
I do not want to hear another word from any of you guys about people disrespecting christian sensibilities.
Apparently that whole thing from people on the Right about respecting people's deeply held religious beliefs was just bollocks.
Well good to know. I could really care less about the issue, except that it seemed designed to kill additional soldiers in the Middle East, and I actually do try to take it seriously when General Petraeus, (a dhimmi? I suppose) has to stop what hes doing to personally request some homeless dumbass with a bible to kindly pipe the hell down before he gets somebody killed.
You guys will defend absolutely any action as long as the person being affected is either brown or foreign, apparently. So, which Moslem country, civil and BT, are either of you under the impression invaded the US? Incidentally. Are either of you aware that we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq a few years ago, and began torturing people?
Or are you under the impression, that afghanistan invaded Cleveland, and only the good dhimmi of that town are now allowed to own businesses?
Your stupid chimperor president managed to bomb millions of people who had nothing to do with 911, and you wasted 3 trillion dollars of our money with this bullshit---after which you suddenly found jesus on the subject of Deficits.
Now, as a spiteful afterthought you apparently endorse defiling religious artifacts as a method of preventing muslims from exerting their property rights in manhattan.
awesome. And you wonder why the country got driven into a ditch by your mind control superiors?
I knew George Bush had something to do with this! And I'm a racist to boot. are we going for a trifecta here?
Maybe he means these truths?
Quote"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)
Quote"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)
Quote"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)
"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)
Quote"And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots..." (II Chronicles 14:9)
So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (II Chronicles 14:12)
Quote"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)
Quote"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
Quote"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)
"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)
Quote"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Quote"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Quote"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
I really love these quotes, they could have come out of the Koran with their killing, stoning and oppression of women! Again, what truth does Terry want to return to?
Quote from: civil42806 on September 14, 2010, 08:34:45 AM
I knew George Bush had something to do with this! And I'm a racist to boot. are we going for a trifecta here?
if the shoe fits!
well if i was a devout christian, which I'm not, an atheist here I would point out that they are old testament quotes which mean that they are the old covnenant. The old covenant was superseded by the new covenant IE the new testament. But I d believe we are straying from the basic discusion here. But I guess I should just shut up
Quote from: civil42806 on September 14, 2010, 08:45:15 AM
well if i was a devout christian, which I'm not, an atheist here I would point out that they are old testament quotes which mean that they are the old covnenant. The old covenant was superseded by the new covenant IE the new testament. But I d believe we are straying from the basic discusion here. But I guess I should just shut up
So wait, its aight for Christians to 'reform' and all their bullshit can be overlooked but when American Muslims attempt to assimilate and be reformists its somehow not ok? You do know that there was a Mosque in tower two dont you? I am sure you also realize that moderate Muslims are also infidels in the eyes of extremists?
But yeah, you probably should shut up if all you are going to do is make wild ass assertions! There is no sharia law in the US, this is not a Muslim controlled country so your use of the word Dhimmi was just dumb.
Has there been a change in direction here. I'm quite aware of what moderate and reform islamist have to go through and the terror they have to live. in 1993 I was setting in an iranian exiles home in bahrain listeing to cheech and chong albums. They would have thrown him in jail, at least, for that. He fled iran because he didn't want his wife to be a piece of meat and owned by him. In the states they have freedom to do as will as far as the twin towers issue goes that hasnt been and issue in this thread until you brought it up. dhimmi is not a law its a state of mind
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 14, 2010, 08:17:47 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 14, 2010, 05:51:02 AM
Quote from: JC on September 13, 2010, 11:15:00 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 13, 2010, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 13, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Well I certainly hope Terry Jones and his religious nutjobs are happy, there was an article in the New York Times today and some more stuff online, apparently this became quite a big deal in Afghanistan. There were riots and demonstrations, and apparently at least 2 people were killed. Wonderful. Like the US wasn't unpopular enough already.
Reverend gassbag's book burning threat was no more than an act of disrespect. He is hardly to blame for people getting killed overseas.
If you threaten to burn a bible and I pledge to kill someone if you do, is it your fault that I killed a person?
So we should not be concerned with the ramifications of our actions? I am not sure I am following your logic here.
Speaking of logic, your response seems to be missing any. Looking at my previous post, I see no claim indicating that anyone should not consider the ramifications of ones actions.
Ramifications of book burning: It could piss people off. If I get pissed off about something you do, whose responsibility/fault is it?
Ramifications of killing people: People die. If I kill someone and blame it on the fact that I was pissed about something you did, whose responsibility is that?
Ramifications of multi-quoting: It builds a quote pyramid. If I continue multi-quoting until I have a post over 3 feet long, whose fault is that?
Your logic is what makes no sense.
If I intentionally undertake some act that I know will produce a certain result, then I become partially responsible even though I may not have physically caused the actual harm. Because it wouldn't have happened except for me. So by your logic I guess it's OK to run around yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theaters and then blame the resulting deaths and injuries on people not watching where they're stepping? Or shoot a nuclear missile at Russia and then act perplexed when we get one right back? "We didn't MAKE them do it." Come on, that's nonsensical. Nobody physically "makes" anybody do much of anything, that doesn't mean we're not responsible for our actions.
Bollocks!
Yelling fire in a theater? Please.
Launching a nuke! C'mon, dood!
If you burn my copy of
The Goblet of Fire in spite of my warning that I would kill Harry Potter if you did, you have ash to clean up and I have a wizard corpse on my hands.
It is so telling how so many who rush to defend the right of Muslims to build their community center/mosque (capable of holding services for 1000 worshipers, BTW) in an area so sensitive in the eyes of many New Yorkers, yet because the reverend is a hick Christian who threatened to burn a Koran, you fall over yourselves to hold him responsible for the violence perpetrated by muslims across the ocean.
BTW, it is the right thing to do in standing for freedom of religion. Allowing the fact that someone is offended to affect public policy and essentially discriminate against one religion would be unconstitutional.
I get it. You are for freedom of speech, for those of which you approve.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html
Quote
The protestor who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero was fired from NJ Transit over the controversial act, sources and authorities said yesterday.
Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.
Fenton was ushered from the protests by police and questioned, but he was released without charges.
Howzabout some opinions on this?
Quote from: civil42806 on September 14, 2010, 08:45:15 AM
well if i was a devout christian, which I'm not, an atheist here I would point out that they are old testament quotes which mean that they are the old covnenant. The old covenant was superseded by the new covenant IE the new testament. But I d believe we are straying from the basic discusion here. But I guess I should just shut up
Not to split hairs but the quote from Ephesians is in the New Testament. But your general point is certainly what a devout Christian might say in defense although it's a weak argument.
I really hate it when people in positions of power attempt to silence speech (even the speech of idiots) by saying that it puts our troops in danger. It always bothered me when republicans did it and it bothers me now too. It's a false statement and a cheap ploy.
Our troops are already in danger and one dope threatening to burn a Koran isn't going to make Afghanistan MORE dangerous than it already is.
Quote from: buckethead on September 14, 2010, 09:03:29 PM
Yelling fire in a theater? Please.
Launching a nuke! C'mon, dood!
If you burn my copy of The Goblet of Fire in spite of my warning that I would kill Harry Potter if you did, you have ash to clean up and I have a wizard corpse on my hands.
It is so telling how so many who rush to defend the right of Muslims to build their community center/mosque (capable of holding services for 1000 worshipers, BTW) in an area so sensitive in the eyes of many New Yorkers, yet because the reverend is a hick Christian who threatened to burn a Koran, you fall over yourselves to hold him responsible for the violence perpetrated by muslims across the ocean.
BTW, it is the right thing to do in standing for freedom of religion. Allowing the fact that someone is offended to affect public policy and essentially discriminate against one religion would be unconstitutional.
I get it. You are for freedom of speech, for those of which you approve.
You are correct there are some inconsistencies but please remember that no one here is attempting to silence Terry, we just disapprove of his action or threatened action. You do see the difference dont you?
The problem with the community center is that it has been politicized so badly that no one knows which way is up anymore. Some argue that Obama is in "favor" of building the "mosque." I have not heard anything that says he is in "favor" of building the thing, simply that he is in favor of equal application of the law. Just because we favor free speech and Terry Jones wants to be hateful, and is allowed to be because of said free speech does not mean we "favor" Terry and his actions, it means that most of us who find his activities distasteful are willing to be offended so everyone can say what they chose.
Quote from: RainDoggie on September 15, 2010, 04:22:04 AM
I really hate it when people in positions of power attempt to silence speech (even the speech of idiots) by saying that it puts our troops in danger. It always bothered me when republicans did it and it bothers me now too. It's a false statement and a cheap ploy.
Our troops are already in danger and one dope threatening to burn a Koran isn't going to make Afghanistan MORE dangerous than it already is.
Really?
Quote from: JC on September 15, 2010, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: buckethead on September 14, 2010, 09:03:29 PM
Yelling fire in a theater? Please.
Launching a nuke! C'mon, dood!
If you burn my copy of The Goblet of Fire in spite of my warning that I would kill Harry Potter if you did, you have ash to clean up and I have a wizard corpse on my hands.
It is so telling how so many who rush to defend the right of Muslims to build their community center/mosque (capable of holding services for 1000 worshipers, BTW) in an area so sensitive in the eyes of many New Yorkers, yet because the reverend is a hick Christian who threatened to burn a Koran, you fall over yourselves to hold him responsible for the violence perpetrated by muslims across the ocean.
BTW, it is the right thing to do in standing for freedom of religion. Allowing the fact that someone is offended to affect public policy and essentially discriminate against one religion would be unconstitutional.
I get it. You are for freedom of speech, for those of which you approve.
You are correct there are some inconsistencies but please remember that no one here is attempting to silence Terry, we just disapprove of his action or threatened action. You do see the difference dont you?
The problem with the community center is that it has been politicized so badly that no one knows which way is up anymore. Some argue that Obama is in "favor" of building the "mosque." I have not heard anything that says he is in "favor" of building the thing, simply that he is in favor of equal application of the law. Just because we favor free speech and Terry Jones wants to be hateful, and is allowed to be because of said free speech does not mean we "favor" Terry and his actions, it means that most of us who find his activities distasteful are willing to be offended so everyone can say what they chose.
I agree with every word. Good post.
For the record, I believe Obama took the proper stance concerning the "mosque". He could have stayed away, which would have been more expedient domestically.
I absolutely agree with your statement about equal application of the law.
Quote from: buckethead on September 15, 2010, 07:22:55 PM
I agree with every word. Good post.
For the record, I believe Obama took the proper stance concerning the "mosque". He could have stayed away, which would have been more expedient domestically.
I absolutely agree with your statement about equal application of the law.
Awww, group hug!
I think he should have stayed away and I find it interesting that he is willing to go to the mat on such polarizing social incidents yet chooses to be the great compromisor on larger issues like health care and infrastructure repair.
He hardly "went to the mat". He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction. On an issue that the government has no part.
Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.
Quote from: NotNow on September 16, 2010, 12:05:13 PM
He hardly "went to the mat". He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction. On an issue that the government has no part.
Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.
Correct, I should have said, 'took a firm uncompromising stance'
What "ridiculous" demands do you mean? Accurate spending analysis? Reading the bill? IT looks to me like the Reps were right. The spending forecasts are way beyond what the Dems told us the bill would cost. Our current medical insurance, which we were promised would not rise in price, is rising astronomically.
No Dem running now is running on Obamacare. IT was bad legislation from the start.
Quote from: JC on September 16, 2010, 12:13:56 PM
Quote from: NotNow on September 16, 2010, 12:05:13 PM
He hardly "went to the mat". He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction. On an issue that the government has no part.
Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.
Correct, I should have said, 'took a firm uncompromising stance'
Um, Ok. Do you watch the news at all?
Quote from: NotNow on September 16, 2010, 12:17:16 PM
What "ridiculous" demands do you mean? Accurate spending analysis? Reading the bill? IT looks to me like the Reps were right. The spending forecasts are way beyond what the Dems told us the bill would cost. Our current medical insurance, which we were promised would not rise in price, is rising astronomically.
No Dem running now is running on Obamacare. IT was bad legislation from the start.
Mainly, they killed the public option, at the corrupt behest of the healthcare lobby...
Well then "ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder. Conservatives oppose a public option because they don't believe the Federal government should be in the medical insurance business. I agree and believe that it is unconstitutional for the Fed to do so.
I know that you and others here disagree. That's OK. But it is a political difference, my opinion is not "ridiculous".
And of course, the Reps didn't "kill" anything. The Dems have the votes to install any legislation they want. The truth is that they couldn't sell all of their own on the public option. But of course, you know that.
If we want to talk ridiculous, we can go health INSURANCE reform bill, but we've pretty much beaten that poor horses corpse sufficiently. I would have enjoyed JCs input on that topic as I do on most.
I know this wouldn't work but it would be interesting if anyone entering the debate on HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM would first address these simple questions ...
1. Do you currently have adequate health insurance?
2. Do you care about people who don't have it and can't afford it?
3. Are you okay with the status quo of our health insurance system being among the worst of developed countries?
4. Have you ever been denied health insurance?
5. Have you or anyone in your family suffered a serious ailment which would have been bankrupting without health insurance?
I think honest answers would pretty much show where we stand on one side or the other.
Sooo, you want the Federal government to ensure that "people" have what they need even if they can't afford it and should prevent financial hazard to those who fail to protect themselves? I know some people who need "adequate" housing. Should the USG (US taxpayer) provide that as well? I have an acquaintance who built a home in a place that I think is subject to flooding (Porpoise Point). I mean, there are sea shells on the ground there! Should the USG insure his property against loss? The truth is that the USG can not solve every "person's" problems. The truth is that it is not and has never been a mission of the US Federal government to do so.
I would propose that it is more efficient to encourage competition among insurers and medical providers. Experience has shown us over and over again that the central government can not provide the service as well as the private sector. I won't mention the fact that the US Constitution does not authorize such an effort (witness the verbal gymnastics of the current administration). But different "people" require different versions of medical insurance. Or none at all. It's a choice that I don't want to give up.
Just to be clear, the questions that I posited have nothing to do with my personal position on the subject. It just shows that our own personal life circumstances tend to shape how we come down on things like health insurance reform. Try to answer them honestly and you will see what I mean. Other countries to which we feel superior have seemingly solved this problem of providing decent health insurance at a manageable cost while we Americans continue pissing on a rock.
Duh. So those that have not protected themselves with health insurance, and those that have suffered tragic medical disasters, and those who have for what ever reason wound up in circumstances that they think they cannot afford medical insurance think that the USG should provide the insurance to them at little or no cost (except to the taxpayers). Wow, that's news.
Just out of curiosity Cricket, what "other countries" are you referring to?
This sounds like a new(or old?) topic... ;)
Well duh yerself, NotNow. Wake up, who do you think is paying indirectly for the uninsured now but the insured like yourself?
QuoteJust out of curiosity Cricket, what "other countries" are you referring to?
Why bother? Whichever country's health system is referred to is going to be inferior because we lead the world and all others should follow. ::)
Quote from: NotNow on September 16, 2010, 11:38:38 PM
Duh. So those that have not protected themselves with health insurance, and those that have suffered tragic medical disasters, and those who have for what ever reason wound up in circumstances that they think they cannot afford medical insurance think that the USG should provide the insurance to them at little or no cost (except to the taxpayers). Wow, that's news.
Just out of curiosity Cricket, what "other countries" are you referring to?
You consistently fail to address the 800-lb gorilla in the room, NotNow. It simply must be intentional. The problem with healthcare isn't that people are unwilling to pick up a phone a "protect themselves" with health insurance, as you're making it sound. The problem is that health insurance has become so unnecessarily expensive that 1/3'rd of the country cannot afford it. And everyone else is forced to pay the bill for that anyway.
So the net result is that we're already giving free treatment to the "unprotected" who you seem to so revile, and the other 2/3'rds of us are getting gouged on our own costs, while providers and insurers have turned in steadily growing profits. It's a runaway train at this point, totally out of control. At the end of the day maybe it's time to take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that not everything was meant to be a business, and not everything was supposed to be about making money.
ALL of the OTHER developed countries in the world have some form of "universal" health care and they ALL have better morbidity and mortality statistics (better health outcomes) than we do. ALL of them also spend less of their GDP on health care.
Switzerland and Germany use highly regulated, private insurance companies and everyone is required to have insurance. France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavian countries all have a single payer, government unit that pays for health care. Britain has a dual system. National Health Service has physicians as employees and owns hospitals or you can buy private insurance from a private insurance company and go to private physicians and hospitals.
There are several models out there and all of them have their drawbacks, but all of them are better and less expensive than what we have now.
The problem with NotNow (and this is true of most conservatives) he sees social issues through the same prism: "Every man is an island".
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2010, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: NotNow on September 16, 2010, 11:38:38 PM
Duh. So those that have not protected themselves with health insurance, and those that have suffered tragic medical disasters, and those who have for what ever reason wound up in circumstances that they think they cannot afford medical insurance think that the USG should provide the insurance to them at little or no cost (except to the taxpayers). Wow, that's news.
Just out of curiosity Cricket, what "other countries" are you referring to?
You consistently fail to address the 800-lb gorilla in the room, NotNow. It simply must be intentional. The problem with healthcare isn't that people are unwilling to pick up a phone a "protect themselves" with health insurance, as you're making it sound. The problem is that health insurance has become so unnecessarily expensive that 1/3'rd of the country cannot afford it. And everyone else is forced to pay the bill for that anyway.
So the net result is that we're already giving free treatment to the "unprotected" who you seem to so revile, and the other 2/3'rds of us are getting gouged on our own costs, while providers and insurers have turned in steadily growing profits. It's a runaway train at this point, totally out of control. At the end of the day maybe it's time to take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that not everything was meant to be a business, and not everything was supposed to be about making money.
+1 !
Well, we could always build a health care system like that in India. Absolutely world-class medical care if you can afford it and people who die in the streets if they cannot. And that is NOT a figure of speech.
That's all we need now in Jacksonville ... a magnet for some Muslim crazies!
He could join up with some of our city councilmen and gain an even larger audience.
Dude you beat me to it! I was going to say Don Redman already cornered the market on religo-bigotry here...
how in hell did this move from burning the koran to a health care issue.
Oh by the way the latest take from the religion of peace. Am amazed by the newly found sensitivity of our resident progressives about religion.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/
Pastor Jones will have to ask his congregation for a special offering this Sunday.
QuoteOrlando, Florida (CNN) -- The city of Gainesville, Florida, plans to send a bill estimated at more than $180,000 to Pastor Terry Jones for security costs surrounding his controversial threat to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September, 11, 2001, attacks, a police spokeswoman said Friday.
Police agencies spent more than a month working on security plans to ensure the community surrounding Jones' Dove World Outreach Center -- the planned site of the burning -- was safe, according to Gainesville police spokeswoman Cpl. Tscharna Senn.
Jones also told authorities he received numerous death threats because of the planned protest, which he called off amid increasing pressure from world leaders.
The Gainesville Police Department said it spent more than $100,000 while the Alachua County Sheriff's Office spent an estimated $80,000 during the weekend of the planned demonstration.
"We have 286 sworn officers and almost everyone was working either at the Dove Center or at other soft targets," Senn said. "Unless you were sick or injured you were working" the day the burning was to take place.
Officers secured malls in the region, the University of Florida's football stadium and areas around the church in the days leading up to the planned event.
Jones said Friday that the church was "not aware that we would be billed for security."
"If we had known this in advance, then we would have refused to have security," he said.
Some have accused authorities of over preparing.
"It's easy to say we over prepared but if something horrible had happened we would have been criticized for being unprepared," Senn said.
The planned burning prompted demonstrations by Muslims around the world this week, including Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and India.
Quote from: NotNow on September 17, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
This country was founded with a great distrust of government, and a great respect for the empowerment of the individual. It is a concept that I agree with heartily.
I find it curious that so many who are rightly suspicious of big government seem to have no problem at all with an individual's rights being crushed if it's a big corporation doing the crushing, 'cause you know, it's the "free market" at work.
I find it curious that this discussion has found it's way so far off topic. :-X
Quote from: Cricket on September 17, 2010, 07:48:57 PM
Pastor Jones will have to ask his congregation for a special offering this Sunday.
QuoteOrlando, Florida (CNN) -- The city of Gainesville, Florida, plans to send a bill estimated at more than $180,000 to Pastor Terry Jones for security costs surrounding his controversial threat to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September, 11, 2001, attacks, a police spokeswoman said Friday.
Police agencies spent more than a month working on security plans to ensure the community surrounding Jones' Dove World Outreach Center -- the planned site of the burning -- was safe, according to Gainesville police spokeswoman Cpl. Tscharna Senn.
Jones also told authorities he received numerous death threats because of the planned protest, which he called off amid increasing pressure from world leaders.
The Gainesville Police Department said it spent more than $100,000 while the Alachua County Sheriff's Office spent an estimated $80,000 during the weekend of the planned demonstration.
"We have 286 sworn officers and almost everyone was working either at the Dove Center or at other soft targets," Senn said. "Unless you were sick or injured you were working" the day the burning was to take place.
Officers secured malls in the region, the University of Florida's football stadium and areas around the church in the days leading up to the planned event.
Jones said Friday that the church was "not aware that we would be billed for security."
"If we had known this in advance, then we would have refused to have security," he said.
Some have accused authorities of over preparing.
"It's easy to say we over prepared but if something horrible had happened we would have been criticized for being unprepared," Senn said.
The planned burning prompted demonstrations by Muslims around the world this week, including Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and India.
They won't get a dime.
Perhaps they should seek money from those making the death threats and those posing a security threat.
OK, I get it, Bucket. Threaten a firestorm in your neighborhood and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for security just in case there is a fire. Even though the pastor didn't ask for protection, it was merited for those people who lived in the same town as the idiot.
The city will get their refund one way or the other.
Quote from: NotNow on September 17, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 17, 2010, 09:54:53 AM
ALL of the OTHER developed countries in the world have some form of "universal" health care and they ALL have better morbidity and mortality statistics (better health outcomes) than we do. ALL of them also spend less of their GDP on health care.
Switzerland and Germany use highly regulated, private insurance companies and everyone is required to have insurance. France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavian countries all have a single payer, government unit that pays for health care. Britain has a dual system. National Health Service has physicians as employees and owns hospitals or you can buy private insurance from a private insurance company and go to private physicians and hospitals.
There are several models out there and all of them have their drawbacks, but all of them are better and less expensive than what we have now.
And yet the upper crust of those countries consistently come to the US when facing serious medical issues.
What is the source of your statements about these havens of medical care?
The CBO has already said that our NEW system will be MUCH more expensive than what we have now. How does that square with your theory?
Although you guys like to rush to judgement and demonize me for disagreeing with you politically by accusing me of "intentionally" ignoring facts and "reviling" someone, it is just obvious to me and many others that this "health care reform" will do just the opposite of what we have been told. The quality of care for the majority will deteriorate and the cost of that care will rise substantially. And yet, just as in the "war on poverty" of the last fifty years many of you can feel morally superior supporting unprecedented spending and worsening the lot of the poor souls you think you are helping. A large central government has never been the "savior" of the people. The largest majority of citizens have ALWAYS fared best under a free enterprise system throughout history.
This country was founded with a great distrust of government, and a great respect for the empowerment of the individual. It is a concept that I agree with heartily.
Now, on with the name calling.
LOL.. Have you not heard of Medical Tourism? http://medicaltourism.com/
I personally have a very wealthy friend that had his life threatening cancer treated and put in remission in South Africa because it was less expensive and he felt the care was superior. He was living there during his diagnosis but came back to the states and then traveled for his treatments, how do you account for that? How do you account for insurance companies paying their 'customers' to travel abroad for treatment?
I would point to that as an example of free choice and free enterprise. Exactly what I am arguing for, thanks.
Quote from: Cricket on September 18, 2010, 08:28:33 AM
OK, I get it, Bucket. Threaten a firestorm in your neighborhood and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for security just in case there is a fire. Even though the pastor didn't ask for protection, it was merited for those people who lived in the same town as the idiot.
The city will get their refund one way or the other.
He threatened to burn a religious icon. Zealots threatened to KILL PEOPLE IN RETALIATION. There is no moral equivalency here.
Firstly, let me assure you that I don't for one second consider Cricket any less intelligent than myself. If anything, the opposite.
Secondly, Handing someone a knife is not murder. Burning a Koran is not handing someone a knife.
The basic point I am making (and it is oh so very basic) is; Burning religious icons is certainly disrespectful.
Killing people is criminal.
Let's try this analogy: I profess to the world that I am gay. A religious zealot tells me I must renounce homosexuality and become a born again Christian or he will kill my mother.
I suppose my actions are partly responsible for my mother's demise if I refuse and he carries out his threat.
Quote from: rainfrog on September 18, 2010, 05:15:38 PM
It's more like this:
Let's try this analogy: A religious zealot tells me if I profess to be a homosexual, he will kill my mother. I profess to the world that I am gay.
Pizzactly. Therefore the person doing the professing becomes an accessory to murder, right?
It doesn't stand to reason.
This topic been split with the medical tourism discussion moved to the science and technology board
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=9810.0
OCKLAWAHA
Me being a horrible human being notwithstanding, we are talking about legal implications when a book burner is sued for security costs.
Burning a koran does possibly make the right reverend a horrible human being. It does not make him a criminal. It does not make him responsible for the actions of others. Try to grasp that concept for just a minute.
When Civil rights protesters marched in Alabama, should they have been held liable for the "security" costs?
Should they be forced to pay for the police and dogs which were attacking them? Clearly they knew they were offending those who would keep Jim Crow laws in place. They knew the racists would react violently.
So it seems we can tolerate freedom of speech/assembly/demonstration/protest so long as you deem the subject matter worthy?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 08:14:42 AM
Meh.
Im perfectly comfortable with the Asinine clause of local law enforcement. For public acts of asinineness, I think a little reciprocal hemmorhoidal flareup is reasonable. Nothing backbreaking, just correspondingly asinine.
I can agree with that. Dood has some grief coming and I wouldn't deny him a bit of it any more than I would deny him his right to idiocy.
A lawsuit by local/fed/state govs? meh. ;)
Not at all, rainfrog. I can see you are as intelligent as anyone on the board. Disagreeing with me does not invalidate that. ;D
I happen to believe that Muslims should be held to the same standards of behavior as anyone else in society. Specifically, to refrain from killing people when someone offends Islamic sensibilities.
Rev is responsible for offending Muslims. The persons retaliating violently are SOLEY responsible for their actions.
Is an doctor who performs an abortion partly responsible for his own murder after a zealot threatens to kill any who performs abortions? Using your argument, He knew it was offensive to the person making threats.
Agian, none of this is in support of book burning. Actions have consequences. Buuuuut, book burners are not responsible for murders committed by others in response to the burning of books. (even if the murderers and their defenders say otherwise)
JMHO
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2010, 02:54:11 PM
I happen to believe that Muslims should be held to the same standards of behavior as anyone else in society. Specifically, to refrain from killing people when someone offends Islamic sensibilities.
Again, we're back to the guy who yells "fire!" in a crowded theatre...
If your actions are bound to produce an undesireable result, and you know this before doing it, you should most certainly be held responsible for them, don't you think?
So the abortion doctor is responsible for his own murder?
Free expression should not be threatened by those who would use violence to suppress it.
Legal action should not be made undoable due to the fact that others might act illegally.
I see no similarity to yelling fire in a theater here.
What I can't understand is the reluctance to hold perpetrators of illegal violence solely responsible for their own actions.
This is like someone who publicly threatens he's going to entice a serial killer to come his neighborhood
This is like someone yelling slurs in a prison yard
Well I wouldn't call radical muslims serial killers but some have been, nor do I see the similarity of the prison yard. Bucketheads point is that we are all responsible for our own actions. No one should have a veto threat on our actions in this country whether they be the cathlic league, the sbc or the Radical islam. Pity this poor woman that learned a lesson
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie4WkjL1gozckeHn_zsQg-hr0ipAD9I9AHBO0
the religon of peace strikes again
QuoteIf your actions are bound to produce an undesireable result, and you know this before doing it, you should most certainly be held responsible for them, don't you think?
Salmon Rushdie? Danish cartoonist? Countless others "offending islam"? C'mon dude... ::)
I think I've been missing the point. I get it now.
If I do anything that offends someone, knowing they may or may not kill someone else in supposed retaliation for my allegedly offensive actions, I am responsible for the other person's actions.
Now that I can finally see the truth, I feel like a better human being.
Please don't try to distort my position. I am the one who has been consistent on both the Mosque issue and this one.
I default to freedom of speech/thought/religion/expression whereas too many here have taken the position of being in favor of freedom of speech and religion for some but not others.
Not once have I defended the would be book burner. I have insisted that it is his right to burn books though.
Quote from: rainfrog on September 19, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2010, 08:48:43 PM
If I do anything that offends someone, knowing they may or may not kill someone else in supposed retaliation for my allegedly offensive actions, I am responsible for the other person's actions.
Replace "may or may not kill" with "will definitely pose a threat to" (hence the security), "supposed retaliation" with "retaliation", "allegedly offensive" with "offensive", "responsible" with "partially responsible"
....and you've got it. *applause* ;)
All together:
If I do anything that offends someone, knowing they will definitely pose a threat to someone else in retaliation for my offensive actions, I am partially responsible for the other person's actions.
Yes!
I disagree.... respectfully.
Of course you should be respectful of other people's religions.
However should you choose, you remain free to violate that socially accepted norm. You also remain free of governmental persecution should your one true religion compel you to violate said social norm.
Stephen, do you think a person is responsible for a murder committed by another who was offended by the actions of the first?
I suppose you've seen my countless analogies regarding the responsibility for murder being placed solely on the murderer?
Was the abortion doctor you like to mention so often partially responsible for his own murder? He aborted babies after being threatened by a zealot who saw it as a sin against his religious convictions.
I would argue the guy who killed the abortionist was guilty of murder. The abortionist was acting in a legal manner. (despite any raving lunatic feeling justified in committing murder)
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 09:34:34 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2010, 09:30:40 PM
Of course you should be respectful of other people's religions.
However should you choose, you remain free to violate that socially accepted norm. You also remain free of governmental persecution should your one true religion compel you to violate said social norm.
Was there some possibility of this guy not being free? Is he not being persecuted by the local municipality for the cost of unsolicited security?
Now that that is settled, another question comes up.
Are we persecuting rastafarians or thuggis when they violate the social norm by smoking copious amounts of ganga (i think we are) or by betraying and strangling a traveller as a sacrifice to Kali once a year( I don't think so)
First, smoking ganga is socially accepted, and all but legal. (soon it will be.) Regarding the kali sacrifice, I have no clue. Never heard of such. I suppose i should hang around more dopers?
If a religion demands the ritual killing of a human, it is most certainly illegal.
I really don't get your point.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 09:50:36 PM
meh. Christianity certainly doesnt demand that anybody burn a book that was completed 900 years after the bible was written, so I have a problem with the idea that bookburning was the exercise of Christianity. Perhaps I missed that part. Clearly this guy felt compelled to burn the koran for whatever reason. I never claimed christianity. read: "religious convictions"
He is being held accountable for raising the security risks in the small town that hes from, by recklessly inviting the possibility of retaliation to that community around him.
Now the question is whether or not his right to free speech is being dampened down by the possibility of being asked to reimburse security costs.
Well, this practice arises not from the attempt to quiet speech so much as it does from the tough on crime crowd, in which law breakers did he break any laws? are then also required to pay for the costs of dealing with their bullshit.
Should we revisit the underlying basis of those laws?
probably.
No one has presented an argument that convinces me that the book burner is responsible for the actions of the "retalitory" murderers.
It is debatable whether he can be held responsible for "securty" costs. My guess is no.
Wanna put a benji on it?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
No Ricker, im not the type of person who gets high.
The point is that we don't have a universal consensus that all acts are not automatically constitutionally protected simply because they are connected to the practice of a religion.
Did rev book burner violate any laws?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:03:24 PM
There is in fact, precedent, Buckethead.
I don't bet 'benjamins', but you are welcome to join our practice of placing gentlemanly wagers. The amount is always for a dollar. ;)
Precedent?
Are you saying a judge will order him to pay?
I'm saying the opposite. He will not have to pay a dime.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:04:36 PM
Two separate issues.
You mentioned some rastafarian human sacrifice issue and compared it to this case. Human sacrifice deprives someone of their right to life. Now that's offensive. Burning a book is a legal course of action even if it is offensive (though hardly as much as murder).
Let me ask
again: Can the Reverend be held responsible for the actions of others who would react violently to his offensive behavior?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:06:57 PM
If you don't think he will pay a dime, how are you maintaining that this is a case of religious persecution?
Im afraid your argument is falling apart, Bucket.
Its in a shambles.
I own this thread!
You're trying to sidetrack the issue. He is (at least according to one of your previous posts) being sued for security costs. If that isn't government persecution, then WTF?
Let me ask again: Can the Reverend be held responsible for the actions of others who would react violently to his offensive behavior?
In case you missed it:
Let me ask again: Can the Reverend be held responsible for the actions of others who would react violently to his offensive behavior?
That was difficult. No. Of course I don't think that is happening.
There have been others in this thread insisting he is partly responsible for violence and murder committed by others. This is the point I have been arguing against for the latter part of the thread.
Whether he will be held financially responsible for security costs is debatable and we'll know the outcome soon enough.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2010, 10:11:26 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:06:57 PM
If you don't think he will pay a dime, how are you maintaining that this is a case of religious persecution?
Im afraid your argument is falling apart, Bucket.
Its in a shambles.
I own this thread!
You're trying to sidetrack the issue. He is (at least according to one of your previous posts) being sued for security costs. If that isn't government persecution, then WTF?
But you just maintained that he won't be charged a dime for it. Im sorry old chap. your argument is just a mess. One big hot mess of contradictions. ;)
Show me the contradictions!
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2010, 10:29:05 PM
Is he exercising his freedom of religion? Or is he merely motivated by spiritual belief? I'll leave the mind reading to those more qualified than me.
Is he being persecuted for his religion? Or is he being penalized for being such an asshole that extra security had to be ordered? With regard to the litigation, the latter.
Is he being credibly charged with something? Or is the truth as you claim, that he won't have to pay a single dime of these penalties? It seems he is being sued for financial damages, again; a separate issue from what I have been arguing, but I will venture a guess that nothing will come from it. Time will tell.
Quote from: rainfrog on September 19, 2010, 11:13:04 PM
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2010, 10:19:41 PM
That was difficult. No. Of course I don't think that is happening.
There have been others in this thread insisting he is partly responsible for violence and murder committed by others. This is the point I have been arguing against for the latter part of the thread.
Whether he will be held financially responsible for security costs is debatable and we'll know the outcome soon enough.
How can you really separate the two? If it's debatable he's responsible for security costs, then it must be debatable that he's responsible for the security threat. And it certainly is. We're clearly not on page 18 of saying "hear hear!" :)
And I thought you already knew the outcome. ??? You usually say so matter-of-fact that he's not going to have to pay. Clearly the city of Gainesville thinks otherwise, so it's good that you finally acknowledge that the outcome remains to be seen.
Was there a security threat or was there a perceived security threat? Is it possible the City of Gainseville over reacted?
Additionally, being found liable for the cost of unsolicited security from an overzealous municipality is not quite the same as being guilty of murder. If you recall, you insisted earlier that he was at least partially responsible for any retalitory violence or murders committed by others. Being found liable for security costs by a cash strapped municipality is a far cry from a murder conviction. BTW people were killed in violence overseas and it was attributed to his threat to burn the book.
I stand by my prediction (a link to google if you are unfamiliar with the concept of prediction) (http://google.com) that he will not have to pay a dime.
Well, what did we learn from this whole discussion? We learned that the Constitution gives us the freedom to offend and provoke with impunity. Bucket is right in this regard. What we don't have is a mandate to respect others and be conscious of other countries' sensibilities like their religious symbols. That consciousness we learn from our own values, our parents, teachers, churches, etc. Without that sense of responsibility, we can hide behind the Constitution and claim freedom from all consequences for our actions. This is only my take.
I agree with you Cricket. You say...
QuoteWhat we don't have is a mandate to respect others and be conscious of other countries' sensibilities like their religious symbols. That consciousness we learn from our own values, our parents, teachers, churches, etc.
I think we DO have a mandate. It is a social contract that MOST of us HAVE learned from our parents, teachers, churches, etc. The preacher was wrong and most of us posting on this subject have said so over and over. Your "take" is correct... it is mine and Buckets, and Stephens etc.
Most of the discussion and disagreement have been about topics orbiting around this central theme.
But couldn't you see how it could have escalated without the sheriff's office providing security.
Christian nutcase burns Quran.
Muslim nutcase burns Christian nutcase.
Muslim nutcase put in prison.
Muslim nutcases around world riot and burn American embassies to free imprisoned nutcase.
Muslim nutcase governments make threatening speeches.
US invades Muslim countries because of threatening speeches.
UH wait! We already have, haven't we. (OK, Taliban did more than make speeches.)
I think if we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan, Christian nutcases wouldn't be talking about burning the Quran or at least no one would care much.
I see now why our system is a Republic instead of a Direct Democracy. It's a lot easier to convince ONE person to change their minds then it is to convince an entire army of people to change their minds. Imagine that instead of convincing this single pastor of this church you needed to convince the entire congregation!
Even if that person isn't the smartest person in the room, convincing that ONE person allows our system to function without any violence, massive argument to a scale we haven't seen, and so forth.
While I agree the guy is scum culpability has to fall first on the people who committed the killings. I would love someone to find a legal recourse against that agent of Satan.
+1
If it could be proven that he has been given enough information that people would likely die as a direct result of his actions. I could support pretty strong punishment. I want to reiterate the people most responsible are the killers.
The whole thing is just ridiculous.
One nutjob burns a book that another religion considers holy. So the followers of that religion go out and kill people over it.
Barbaric.
Monkey see monkey do
It is crazy. It is crazy when the KKK marches in the streets, or the Black Panthers, or for a church to protest at soldiers funerals over the governments policy on homosexuality. But this is America, and we can burn any book we want to.
Free speech means you can say what you want, but it does not mean there will not be consequences for saying it.
All the latest posts are correct. Yeah, the guy was stupid & just trying to get a rise outta people, but still. These people are seriously fucked in the head & are just looking for violence. Remember the whole cartoon thing?? A CARTOON!
This is really the basis of why we shouldn't even be over there trying to inject our form of freedom & democracy. Two completely different cultures & it'll never work. You simply can't deal with this type of instilled craziness on this large of a scale.
Quote from: finehoe on April 04, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
Free speech means you can say what you want, but it does not mean there will not be consequences for saying it.
I think that is the point. Freedom of speech can cause uneasiness, riots, even injuries and deaths. But the government doesn't get to decide what speech is allowed.
Quote from: peestandingup on April 04, 2011, 03:38:21 PM
All the latest posts are correct. Yeah, the guy was stupid & just trying to get a rise outta people, but still. These people are seriously fucked in the head & are just looking for violence. Remember the whole cartoon thing?? A CARTOON!
This is really the basis of why we shouldn't even be over there trying to inject our form of freedom & democracy. Two completely different cultures & it'll never work. You simply can't deal with this type of instilled craziness on this large of a scale.
It's like this whole thing is about
who has the most honor. If you are going to fight with speech, FIGHT back with speech. If you are going get hit by speech, then your response is violence, then you have NO honor of whatever.
People who resorts to violence are animals.
-Josh
I would imagine the FBI will be keeping a close eye on this 'pastor'... mostly investigating any terrorist plots to seek him harm... maybe they'll uncover something dirty on the pastor himself in the process.
Quote from: NotNow on April 04, 2011, 03:59:08 PM
But the government doesn't get to decide what speech is allowed.
Untrue.
QuoteThe First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of TPM restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be contentneutral, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this analysis varies in accordance with the circumstances of each case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions
With all due respect Faye, time, place, and manner simply refers to preserving the peace and preserving property. The government cannot restrict the nature of ANY speech, especially political speech.
There was a debate when the Bill of Rights was proposed that some would infer that the Constitution "granted" rights. A careful reading of the document will verify that the rights of human beings are "God given", or universal, and cannot be "granted" or taken away by any government. The purpose of the US Constitution was to establish the guidelines that the Federal government was to work in, or its "limits". Therefore the Supreme Court decides on the limits of what the government can do, not the citizens. We should never forget that.
You all need to shut up.
I get to determine who may say what, and when they may say it.
If I get killed by a teabagger, it's your fault.
Quote from: NotNow on April 04, 2011, 05:05:59 PM
A careful reading of the document will verify that the rights of human beings are "God given"
I'm not sure where you get that from. "God" isn't mentioned at all. What the document says is that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Not a word about where these rights originate from.
I'm only saying that while it is true you can say whatever you want, it is not true that by doing so you will suffer no consequences. You certainly can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but there are consequences for doing so.
I do recall a little ditty, and it goes something like this:
...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable...
That said, I haven't given permission for further posting.
Submit to my authority.
Too bad the Islams overseas don't really give a shit about freedom of speech in America. This ass-clown is protected by our government to say what he pleases and it is costing lives of others that are overseas.
This guy is only there to stir the pot and get on camera and he'll use the killings overseas to further his message here that the 'Koran is evil.' This is feeding the fire, and I hope that he crosses a line here that will allow for some 'vigilante' justice.
Bucket, can I tell Faye to read the Declaration of Independence?
Only if it's the buckethead revised edition. :D
Quote from: buckethead on April 04, 2011, 05:09:24 PM
You all need to shut up.
I get to determine who may say what, and when they may say it.
If I get killed by a teabagger, it's your fault.
Hey I didn't say anything ;)
If this A^%wipe believed in real Christianity he would NEVER have jeopardized the lives of other human beings. Yes, the people who committed these senseless murders are a*&wipes too, but they don't claim to be Christians. WWJD? He would have NEVER endangered the lives of others just to make a stupid point. So maybe by law he is innocent, but by the higher power, if you believe that way, HE IS A TOOL AND FOLLOWER OF HIS REAL GOD, THE DEVIL......
So in this observers eyes, he IS the real murderer.
I absolutely hate the fact that I have to be the guy to do this, but since there are so many who feel the need to misplace responsibility, I'll do my duty.
The Good Reverend Clusterfuck is responsible for burning a book.
The Murderous mobs who decided to kill people in protest of a book burning are responsible for murder.
It's really no more complex than that.
Assigning responsibility to the wrong person is marching down the road to tyranny. (Goose stepping, no less)
Carry on...
^
What he said!
^
+2
^^^^ Marvelous! Bravo! Bravo! +1001 ^^^^
+ ME TOO!
OCKLAWAHA
It's a battle of the books..."my book is right and your book is wrong".....nither is right....both are wrong....everyone's killing over some pontificant know it all years and years ago...stories and lies and truths.
When talking about books in general, some may in fact be "right" while others might be "wrong".
Truth as it relates to facts and evidence is verifiable.
Now regarding religion (and it's various books) as a means of political dominance and expansion, I agree with your assessment of "books".
Quote from: buckethead on April 05, 2011, 06:34:40 AM
I absolutely hate the fact that I have to be the guy to do this, but since there are so many who feel the need to misplace responsibility, I'll do my duty.
The Good Reverend Clusterfuck is responsible for burning a book.
The Murderous mobs who decided to kill people in protest of a book burning are responsible for murder.
It's really no more complex than that.
Assigning responsibility to the wrong person is marching down the road to tyranny. (Goose stepping, no less)
Carry on...
I agree to a point, but I don't think it's quite that black and white. Of course the blame rests on those who committed these terrible acts, but that doesn't mean that the (quite aptly named) Rev. CF doesn't have the blood of those murdered on his hands. Actions have consequences. Though you may consider the Q'uran as just a "book," that doesn't dismiss the fact that, to the 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world (the vast majority of which are not extremists), it is the holiest of texts. To burn it like he did is a direct slap in the face to a quarter of the world's population. He should have known there would be some heavy trickle down for his actions. Did he murder these people himselves? Of course not. Were these murders wrong on every level imaginable? Of course they were, and those who carried them out deserve to be hunted down. BUT, would these people still be alive if not for this idiot's ignorant, racist actions. Yes, you'd have to think they would be. Thus, yes, I personally feel justified in assigning him some of the blame. It's not binary. The world is complex. This guy gets no free pass from me.
Quote from: buckethead on April 05, 2011, 09:30:22 AM
When talking about books in general, some may in fact be "right" while others might be "wrong".
Truth as it relates to facts and evidence is verifiable.
Now regarding religion (and it's various books) as a means of political dominance and expansion, I agree with your assessment of "books".
These religious books have fucked our whole world up...one day we'll realize that our sucess and growth as a species is within us and not within some god....we are the gods....we are the most evolved species capable of wonderous things and what do we do..we bitch and complain and kill over words.
Well... If you say so...
(http://troglopundit.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/possum.jpg)(http://www.j-lenterprises.com/images/possumpeck.jpg)
Quote from: buckethead on April 05, 2011, 06:34:40 AM
I absolutely hate the fact that I have to be the guy to do this, but since there are so many who feel the need to misplace responsibility, I'll do my duty.
The Good Reverend Clusterfuck is responsible for burning a book.
The Murderous mobs who decided to kill people in protest of a book burning are responsible for murder.
It's really no more complex than that.
Assigning responsibility to the wrong person is marching down the road to tyranny. (Goose stepping, no less)
Carry on...
I would guess "The Good Reverend Clusterfuck" wanted the biggest reaction he could get including murderous attacks. This was what he figured was the best way he thought he could get people to act the way he wanted he incited. Talking is acting and we should be held responsible for our actions.
As Ock correctly points out; using that standard, we are all guilty because we read the stories printed by news outlets who are also guilty. The advertisers are guilty as well.
Would dood have even done the thang if he wasn't getting attention? Even if he had, so what? No one would have ever known.
Of course he acted without regard for what other lunatics might do in reaction.
He is backward.
The murderers are simply more backward.
Q: If the State brought up charges of accessory to murder (ignoring jurisdictional issues) would they stand?
Should they?
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110422/LIFESTYLE04/104220401/Pastor-jailed-for-refusing-$1-Ã,‘peace-bondÃ,’
Quote
Pastor released from jail after being held on $1 'peace bond'
Oralandar Brand-Williams and Tom Greenwood / The Detroit News
Dearborn â€"A controversial Florida pastor and his associate were released from jail tonight after being held briefly for refusing to pay a $1 "peace bond" after a jury ruled they would "likely breach the peace" with plans to protest a mosque.
Judge Mark Somers of Dearborn's 19th District Court jailed pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp about 7 p.m. The order came after a six-member jury at 6:30 p.m. sided with prosecutors who argued the Quran-burning minister's demonstration outside the Islamic Center of America could spark a riot.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110422/LIFESTYLE04/104220401/Pastor-released-from-jail-after-being-held-on-$1-‘peace-bond’#ixzz1KMWCJedH
Wow! They jailed him for what they thought he MIGHT do? Now Detroit just adds to this CF.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110422/LIFESTYLE04/104220401/Pastor-jailed-for-refusing-$1-Ã,‘peace-bondÃ,’
Quote
Pastor released from jail after being held on $1 'peace bond'
Oralandar Brand-Williams and Tom Greenwood / The Detroit News
Dearborn â€"A controversial Florida pastor and his associate were released from jail tonight after being held briefly for refusing to pay a $1 "peace bond" after a jury ruled they would "likely breach the peace" with plans to protest a mosque.
Judge Mark Somers of Dearborn's 19th District Court jailed pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp about 7 p.m. The order came after a six-member jury at 6:30 p.m. sided with prosecutors who argued the Quran-burning minister's demonstration outside the Islamic Center of America could spark a riot.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110422/LIFESTYLE04/104220401/Pastor-released-from-jail-after-being-held-on-$1-‘peace-bond’#ixzz1KMWCJedH
For one dollar, I can buy and make my own navy beans to eat then fart obnoxiously in the jail.
-Josh
"MANKIND HAS GROWN STRONG IN ETERNAL STRUGGLE AND WILL ONLY PERISH THROUGH ETERNAL PEACE"
Under the homeland security, there is NO SECURITY...FOR ANYONE. On star, GPS and all the toys could be turned against us with the click of a mouse. Any car that a cop can This nut is probably preaching the classic rapture/no-place-to-hide theory of most evangelical Christians and he is too stupid to realize he is a self fulfilling prophecy. A few dozen of his kind, the Tim Mc Veigh's, Arian Nation, Klan and such might be enough to bring on a Lincoln style suspension of Habeas Corpus and an even more violent military occupation.
Don't believe the old Hippie? Hey when most of you were just born, I could run wild with a camera anywhere I wanted at the Port, the Airport, and for me, more importantly the railroad yard.... Try that today and see what happens. The boys over at Talleyrand Terminal Railroad got in hot water photographing a "new" locomotive on Talleyrand Avenue. Seems the camera was pointed east and the view across the street is Port property. BOOM! Armed strong-man security issues a cease and desist. Amtrak? Hell, you can get busted just for taking a photo of crazy aunt Clair and YOU WILL BE TAKEN DOWNTOWN AND QUESTIONED! The airport once had open concourses and you could run from one end to the other unhindered, the middle concourse had a door with "sightseeing deck" stenciled on it. Through that door and up a flight of open air steps took you to the rooftop perch where anything was visible...not any more.
Hey but then I stood (under some cover) and watched as M-19 Guerrilla's shelled Bogota from a mountain top back in the 85'. So I've experienced what a lack of self control and due diligence will buy us, be afraid people, be VERY AFRAID!
Here are some pictures from "home"... This is where exactly this type of lack of self discipline once imperiled an entire country, its cities, its railroads, and one gringo railroader.
(http://inlinethumb33.webshots.com/48416/2984064690104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
As much as I love and respect these guys, wouldn't you rather have them at NAS or Mayport then up your neighborhood street?
(http://inlinethumb08.webshots.com/45767/2697598060104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Somebody's dead or soon will be... remember Sargent Shultz? "I see NOTHING, I know NOTHING! I am going to go away!"
(http://inlinethumb64.webshots.com/46143/2957519850104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
That WAS a steel door with a dead bolt, I actually watched a real raid on a relatives house when we got a bogus call that she was in trouble. My God the boys are efficient, 3 explosions and they were inside with almost no damage.
(http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/47604/2187008890104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
This generally means UH OH, we are in a world of shit.
(http://inlinethumb14.webshots.com/47629/2010915490104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Yeah its an ancient form of German torture called the GOOSE STEP.
(http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/46100/2512513540104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Damn, all this way down and she forgot her piece.
(http://inlinethumb52.webshots.com/45747/2349978020104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
One of a dozen or so large surface ships in the Armada Republica Colombia (ARC)
(http://inlinethumb31.webshots.com/47134/2680495000104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Marines? Oh yeah, and those little one man submersibles by the carload.
(http://inlinethumb62.webshots.com/48125/2770882400104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)
Fight for your homes, for your hearths, for your... uh... homes, for your hearths... No really fella's for you hearts and homes, no, I mean for your hearths and your, uh, your, oh damn!
(http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/kfir/kfir_ce_1.jpg)
One of nearly 100 KFIR Israeli built fighter bombers built up on a Super Mirage airframe.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ycjCnUHg_jc&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3
When things get crazy, you might be surprised how fast we will turn into an armed camp. I saw my other country go from a land nearly as old as the USA, 200 years in 2010, always democratic, NEVER having a true popular revolution, with a tiny much disdained military, become the mightiest dog on the block overnight. Today the signs say, YES WE HAVE HEROES...(INSERT PHOTO COLOMBIAN MILITARY OR POLICE)
If the people don't police themselves, someone will gladly do it for them, and they'll go like lambs.
Because the masses are stupid, and likely to buy into a political lie that we're making things safer, better, etc..."AN INTELLIGENT VICTOR WILL, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, PRESENT HIS DEMANDS TO THE VANQUISHED IN INSTALLMENTS"
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
"GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came under fire for using a press conference Wednesday morning to double down on an attack on the Obama administration's handling of the crisis overseas. Romney said the US must defend its constitutional values."
When he criticized any apology about mocking Muslims he said he would not apologize for American values.
QuoteAlthough there was initial confusion about who made the film, The Wall Street Journal reported that the drama, titled “Innocence of Muslims,†was produced and directed by an Israeli-American, Sam Bacile, a California real-estate developer who called Islam “a cancer,†in an interview. Mr. Bacile told The Journal that he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors and shot the two-hour movie in California last year.
There is no way that movie cost $5M to make. I watched the trailer and it seriously looks like it cost $5,000 at most to produce.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
What logical thought process brought you to this conclusion?
It's a bit of a stretch meant to be a zinger. He complained about the embassy apologizing for the recent Muslim bashing befor the protests. Saying we shouldn't apologize for American values.
I did not realize that Romney was trying to pretend the statement was from Obama after the violence.
Quote from: Lunican on September 12, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
Crazy, those idiots over there are always burning the US Flag, hanging presidential dolls, but when some nobody makes a movie in America those idiots get upset. :-\
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
"GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came under fire for using a press conference Wednesday morning to double down on an attack on the Obama administration's handling of the crisis overseas. Romney said the US must defend its constitutional values."
The US must defend its Constitutional values? What part of the Constitution is Romney referring to........
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 23, 2011, 04:47:21 PM
(http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/kfir/kfir_ce_1.jpg)
One of nearly 100 KFIR Israeli built fighter bombers built up on a Super Mirage airframe.
To be truthful it's really more like 25 airplanes, most have been modernized by the Israelis in the last few years. If you watch the skies around Jacksonville you will see a Kfir blasting around every few months. The roar of that J79 will wake you up, nothing sounds like a J79. The Kfir is a great little plane. The Navy contracts a company called ATAC that uses the Kfir and Hawker Hunters in the adversary role against carriers groups training offshore. When they are in town they fly out of NAS Jax. The Kfirs put on a great show when they come into he landing pattern, that delta wing on it's side looks out of place considering all of our fighters use a conventional wing.
Quote from: acme54321 on September 12, 2012, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 23, 2011, 04:47:21 PM
(http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/kfir/kfir_ce_1.jpg)
One of nearly 100 KFIR Israeli built fighter bombers built up on a Super Mirage airframe.
To be truthful it's really more like 25 airplanes, most have been modernized by the Israelis in the last few years. If you watch the skies around Jacksonville you will see a Kfir blasting around every few months. The roar of that J79 will wake you up, nothing sounds like a J79. The Kfir is a great little plane. The Navy contracts a company called ATAC that uses the Kfir and Hawker Hunters in the adversary role against carriers groups training offshore. When they are in town they fly out of NAS Jax. The Kfirs put on a great show when they come into he landing pattern, that delta wing on it's side looks out of place considering all of our fighters use a conventional wing.
Sorry to continue on the tangent...
A couple years back I was going to Target one day and I thought I saw a Dassault Rafale....after some research I found out it was ATAC.
Here is a link for more info.
http://www.atacusa.com/atac_aircraft.html
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
"GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came under fire for using a press conference Wednesday morning to double down on an attack on the Obama administration's handling of the crisis overseas. Romney said the US must defend its constitutional values."
The US must defend its Constitutional values? What part of the Constitution is Romney referring to........
perhaps Freedom of Speech....
Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 01:03:36 AM
Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
Well at least Romney thinks this guy represents the American values we should never apologize for. Romney's boy for sure.
"GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came under fire for using a press conference Wednesday morning to double down on an attack on the Obama administration's handling of the crisis overseas. Romney said the US must defend its constitutional values."
The US must defend its Constitutional values? What part of the Constitution is Romney referring to........
perhaps Freedom of Speech....
OMG
Freedom of Speech is important but......good sense comes in handy most of the time. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you always should.
I can't argue with that. This site is a good example. But in this country, we allow opposing views. Even contraversial views. It IS a Constitutional value. I believe that Mr. Romney is correct when he says that we should defend the Constitution.
I don't agree with Terry Jones, or Mikhail Muhammud. Or even you most of the time. But all of you have every right to voice your opinion.
Let's be honest here. Romney was trying to score political points by inserting the subject of "constitutionality".
strawman-PHAIL.
Obama did not attempt to stifle any free speech, he just apologized for certain Americans utilizing their free speech where one bully attempted to provoke another bully.
Perhaps it was a political ploy as well, but since it was the right thing to do, no strawman-PHAIL for President Obama (on this one)
Romney: send in the MIC, guns ablazin'.
Obama: sorry about the asswipes, but Libya needs to deal swiftly and effectively with these murders.
(Side note: The MIC has already been in Libya with Guns Ablazin' so painting Obama as the dove here is just a little disingenuous, but in terms of politics, he played it far better than Romney)
Well said Bucket you and your darn voice of reason. Making me look petty with my spin on Romney' s statement.
Nuke them all and let God sort them out!
Ock... please add a winky... For God's sake. I love you. Please don't make that remark which nullifies every word uttered henceforth.
Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 01:27:12 AM
I can't argue with that. This site is a good example. But in this country, we allow opposing views. Even contraversial views. It IS a Constitutional value. I believe that Mr. Romney is correct when he says that we should defend the Constitution.
I don't agree with Terry Jones, or Mikhail Muhammud. Or even you most of the time. But all of you have every right to voice your opinion.
Notnow most people here on MJ don't agree with you and this is a FACT!
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 09:31:04 AM
Notnow most people here on MJ don't agree with you and this is a FACT!
Source?
Facts can be sourced, opinions and bullshit can not.
Edit:
BTW, this isn't in defense of Notnow, he can handle that himself, but this is a comment based on the total absurdity of your claim IILY.
How can you opt out of following threads?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 13, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 09:31:04 AM
Notnow most people here on MJ don't agree with you and this is a FACT!
Source?
Facts can be sourced, opinions and bullshit can not.
Edit:
BTW, this isn't in defense of Notnow, he can handle that himself, but this is a comment based on the total absurdity of your claim IILY.
How can you opt out of following threads?
How can you opt out of following threads? As an American I also have Freedom of Speech. ;D
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 09:31:04 AM
Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 01:27:12 AM
I can't argue with that. This site is a good example. But in this country, we allow opposing views. Even contraversial views. It IS a Constitutional value. I believe that Mr. Romney is correct when he says that we should defend the Constitution.
I don't agree with Terry Jones, or Mikhail Muhammud. Or even you most of the time. But all of you have every right to voice your opinion.
Notnow most people here on MJ don't agree with you and this is a FACT!
Should he be jailed then?
How is it even possible that this nimrod even has a platform? I would never forward his spewing of stupidity. I have been wondering if there might be more than 15 people on the entire planet which give his rantings any consideration of validity.
However, he is a very useful tool for those who would perpetuate wars through hatred. He doesn't need to provoke Americans into acts of aggression, just Muslims. The reaction by Islamic radicals simply fuels American's fear and anger and further rationalization for more of the same.
Food for thought.