Q'uran Burning By Gainesville Nutcase.

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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)

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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?

[buckethead]

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?

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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?

[buckethead]

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?

[buckethead]

Let me ask again: Can the Reverend be held responsible for the actions of others who would react violently to his offensive behavior?

[buckethead]

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?

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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!

[buckethead]

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.