US burn Koran, 14 killed in retaliation

[bloodyminded]

I don't think anyone here has disputed that right.

True, Wilber. I think in the broadest terms, there is general agreement.

[Oleg Bach]

There's no law against burning the American flag, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of things aren't allowed on the White House lawn. And who's saying it was a good idea to burn the Koran? I'm defending his right to do so.

Would you defend my right to go out and start a street fight - envolve others- then at the last minute I retreat and hide - while those sucked into the fray stab each other to death? This was not free speech - It was common and nasty self serving mischief!

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think anyone here has disputed that right.

I would say anyone who is saying he should be held responsible is disputing that right. You can't say someone has the right to do something and then punish them for doing it.

[Guest American Woman]

Would you defend my right to go out and start a street fight - envolve others- then at the last minute I retreat and hide - while those sucked into the fray stab each other to death? This was not free speech - It was common and nasty self serving mischief!

Of course it was freedom of expression; and unlike your street fight scenario, a legal expression.

[Oleg Bach]

True, Wilber. I think in the broadest terms, there is general agreement.

The Pastor instead of being a trouble maker should have behaved like a Christian....and brought about a "general agreement" between Muslims and Christians. What he did do was prolong the violence - To do so for even five seconds - trumps the right to speak freely and with out consequence.

[Wilber]

I would say anyone who is saying he should be held responsible is disputing that right. You can't say someone has the right to do something and then punish them for doing it.

How so? Since when did having the right to say something absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of what you say? If so, it would be legal to shout fire in a crowded theater.

[Oleg Bach]

Of course it was freedom of expression; and unlike your street fight scenario, a legal expression.

Okay - Now I will give the most telling quote from a lawyer that I ever heard...."it may be immoral but it is LEGAL' - legality does not always mean something is good for society...All it means is that a privledged group of people have the power to create laws that are bad - and only serve the few. LAWS - freedom of expression is NOT classed as a law - It is classed as a right or privledge...To have privledge you must earn it..The Pastor wanted fame for free - and I guess that's the way the new bling bling America now works.

[Guest American Woman]

How so? Since when did having the right to say something absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of what you say? If so, it would be legal to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Except it's NOT legal to shout fire in a crowded theater and it IS legal to burn a book which one bought and paid for and owns. There are no legal consequences for carrying out a legal act. If there were, then it wouldn't be a "right" to be able to do it, would it?

[Wilber]

Except it's NOT legal to shout fire in a crowded theater and it IS legal to burn a book which one bought and paid for and owns. There are no legal consequences for carrying out a legal act. If there were, then it wouldn't be a "right" to be able to do it, would it?

What are you saying, anything that is legal is also moral? Nothing is irresponsible as long as it isn't illegal?

Again, who has said he is legally responsible? The only thing anyone has done is hold him accountable on a public forum. All anyone has done is criticize his actions and say he bears some responsibility for the results of his actions. That is called free speech.

I barked at you once because I was frustrated at the continual first amendment lectures I was getting when at no time had I disputed his right to do what he did. I thought it was being used as a smoke screen. I got over it but I see you are still on the same tack.

The pastor and his ilk can publicly display their ignorance all they want but too often others have to pay so they can get their jollies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Accountability:

The state of being accountable; liability to be called on to render an account; the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected; accountableness.

Clearly the pastor is not accountable either.

[Guest American Woman]

What are you saying, anything that is legal is also moral? Nothing is irresponsible as long as it isn't illegal?

Of course I'm not saying that. There are a lot of legal things that aren't moral. Moral is relative. In this instance you seem to think the morality of an act is based on the response it produces.

Again, who has said he is legally responsible? The only thing anyone has done is hold him accountable on a public forum. All anyone has done is criticize his actions and say he bears some responsibility for the results of his actions. That is called free speech.

People have called for holding him responsible; said he should be held responsible. Weren't you among them?

I barked at you once because I was frustrated at the continual first amendment lectures I was getting when at no time had I disputed his right to do what he did. I thought it was being used as a smoke screen. I got over it but I see you are still on the same tack.

Ummmmm ....I'm on the same tack because it's at the crux of the arguments. So frustrated or not, too bad. If you don't like it, then stop posting your views/stop reading mine. But here's the thing -- I'm no more "lecturing" you when I respond than you are "lecturing" me.

The pastor and his ilk can publicly display their ignorance all they want but too often others have to pay so they can get their jollies.

Yes, he can. And "others pay" because there are other people reacting illegally, violently. And THEY are the ones who are at fault, responsible for the murders. I'll repeat again. When threats of violence curb our behavior, what we would otherwise do, we are reinforcing threats and violence as an effective means of controlling others' behavior. Either the act is wrong or it's not. Either the act is immoral or it's not. It doesn't become moral or immoral based on other people's illegal responses.

Edited April 7, 2011 by American Woman

[scouterjim]

Do you think they should be killed?

The US Supreme Court said flag burning was legal and Constitutional.

[Oleg Bach]

The US Supreme Court said flag burning was legal and Constitutional.

Just show you that the Supreme court was never a friend to it`s own people.. Most of American elite are internationalists anyway - just like our Canadian big dogs - They don`t have time to mess with common America and flags and constitions and so on...They are too busy making money with their mulit-national corporations that know no boarder - nor do they really recognize a flag...It`s not that the Supreme Court in America made a good or meaningful ruling - they ruled in order to keep the ruling class ruling...so what if the peasants burn their own stupid flag.

[Wilber]

Of course I'm not saying that. There are a lot of legal things that aren't moral. Moral is relative. In this instance you seem to think the morality of an act is based on the response it produces.

If the intent of the act is to provoke. Yes it is.

People have called for holding him responsible; said he should be held responsible. Weren't you among them?

Yes I was. Holding someone responsible doesn't have to mean throwing them in jail, it can be as simple as condemning their actions.

Ummmmm ....I'm on the same tack because it's at the crux of the arguments. So frustrated or not, too bad. If you don't like it, then stop posting your views/stop reading mine. But here's the thing -- I'm no more "lecturing" you when I respond than you are "lecturing" me.

A: It's a non issue, no one is disputing it. B: Point taken.

Yes, he can. And "others pay" because there are other people reacting illegally, violently. And THEY are the ones who are at fault, responsible for the murders. I'll repeat again. When threats of violence curb our behavior, what we would otherwise do, we are reinforcing threats and violence as an effective means of controlling others' behavior. Either the act is wrong or it's not. Either the act is immoral or it's not. It doesn't become moral or immoral based on other people's illegal responses.

They are all at fault. Legality has nothing to do with it. What is legal in the US is not legal elsewhere. Telling other cultures what they should think is important is stupid and will get you nothing but grief.

Threats of violence should make you consider your behavior carefully. When it comes to appeasement, there is a big difference between say, stopping someone from invading another country and pissing on their shoes just because you feel like it.

If all the restraints were lifted and he knew he could get away with it, how much confidence do you have that the good pastor's actions would be that much different from the Imams? I think there are a lot of similarities in the way they see the world.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

If the intent of the act is to provoke. Yes it is.

Every time someone burns something in this manner, be it a Koran, a flag, a Bible, the "intent" is to provoke.

Yes I was. Holding someone responsible doesn't have to mean throwing them in jail, it can be as simple as condemning their actions.

So every time someone burns a flag, we are to condemn them? Surely you realize that the intent in the incident I cited in this thread regarding Canadians burning the American flag was to provoke. Yet I didn't see the world calling for condemnation of the event. Why? Why the different response to Americans being provoked than Muslims being provoked? Why should the feelings of one group of people be any more or less important than the feelings of the other group? If that had been a Koran that was burned in Canada in place of the U.S. flag and Muslims that were being taunted instead of Americans, the reaction would have been totally different. Why?

I repeat. Calling for condemnation only when there are threats and acts of violence in response only reinforces the idea that threats and violence are effective; that they get the desired response. I can't help but notice your complete lack of response to that fact.

They are all at fault. Legality has nothing to do with it. What is legal in the US is not legal elsewhere. Telling other cultures what they should think is important is stupid and will get you nothing but grief.

No one is telling them what they should think, so I don't know where that is coming from, but they are telling us what we can, or in this case, cannot do. Why do you think they have the right to dictate our actions to us when you obviously realize we have no right to tell them what they should or shouldn't think is important? Why is it not stupid for them to tell us what we can or cannot do in our own country? We think freedom of expression is important. They think not burning the Koran is important. So we practice freedom of expression in our country and they practice not burning the Koran in theirs.

Threats of violence should make you consider your behavior carefully. When it comes to appeasement, there is a big difference between say, stopping someone from invading another country and pissing on their shoes just because you feel like it.

I disagree that threats of violence should make us consider our behavior carefully. As I said, when violent people realize that threats and violence are effective, things will only get worse; they will become more violent.

If all the restraints were lifted and he knew he could get away with it, how much confidence do you have that the good pastor's actions would be that much different from the Imams? I think there are a lot of similarities in the way they see the world.

Say you are right and there are a lot of similarities in how they see the world; that doesn't mean they'd act similarly. I think it's a real stretch to say that he would commit murder or incite people to commit murder of innocents if he could only get away with it based on the fact that he burned a book; an inanimate object. Furthermore, if we would suggest that imams living in the U.S./Canada would be committing the murder of infidels if only they could get away with it, we'd be slapped down immediately, so I have to wonder why it's acceptable to project such behavior on this pastor.

Edited April 7, 2011 by American Woman

[Saipan]

Would you defend my right to go out and start a street fight

That's not your right. It's against the law.

[jbg]

That's not your right. It's against the law.

Why are you responding to his/her/its ravings?

[GostHacked]

Why are you responding to his/her/its ravings?

Why do we respond to you? Same reasons.

[Rue]

Some Christians, Jews and Muslims are mad dogs.

Suddenly I have this urge to bark....bow wowowwowowowowow.

[Saipan]

[sunsettommy]

One book burned = 14 people killed.

Maybe if we burned 1000 of the books,would that kill 14,000 people?

I consider murdering Muslims barbarians of the lowest level.

[guyser]

One book burned = 14 people killed.

Maybe if we burned 1000 of the books,would that kill 14,000 people?

I consider murdering Muslims barbarians of the lowest level.

You forgot to link that to our esteemed poster.

tsk tsk

[Wilber]

Every time someone burns something in this manner, be it a Koran, a flag, a Bible, the "intent" is to provoke.

Why else would they do it? If your intent is to provoke, your intent is also to get a reaction. You don't get to decide what the reaction will be.

So every time someone burns a flag, we are to condemn them? Surely you realize that the intent in the incident I cited in this thread regarding Canadians burning the American flag was to provoke. Yet I didn't see the world calling for condemnation of the event. Why? Why the different response to Americans being provoked than Muslims being provoked? Why should the feelings of one group of people be any more or less important than the feelings of the other group? If that had been a Koran that was burned in Canada in place of the U.S. flag and Muslims that were being taunted instead of Americans, the reaction would have been totally different. Why?

I repeat. Calling for condemnation only when there are threats and acts of violence in response only reinforces the idea that threats and violence are effective; that they get the desired response. I can't help but notice your complete lack of response to that fact.

There is a double standard in my country obviously and I make no excuses for it. Their behavior is no more acceptable than the pastor's.

No one is telling them what they should think, so I don't know where that is coming from, but they are telling us what we can, or in this case, cannot do. Why do you think they have the right to dictate our actions to us when you obviously realize we have no right to tell them what they should or shouldn't think is important? Why is it not stupid for them to tell us what we can or cannot do in our own country? We think freedom of expression is important. They think not burning the Koran is important. So we practice freedom of expression in our country and they practice not burning the Koran in theirs.

Actually we are with comments like "it is just a book". Books are ideas and ideas have different meanings for all of us. Why do you keep bringing them up as an excuse for what we do? I have no wish to live by their standards. The pastor does.

I disagree that threats of violence should make us consider our behavior carefully. As I said, when violent people realize that threats and violence are effective, things will only get worse; they will become more violent.

When our behavior can have catastrophic consequences for others, we should. Particularly when our behavior is based on little more than self gratification.

Say you are right and there are a lot of similarities in how they see the world; that doesn't mean they'd act similarly. I think it's a real stretch to say that he would commit murder or incite people to commit murder of innocents if he could only get away with it based on the fact that he burned a book; an inanimate object. Furthermore, if we would suggest that imams living in the U.S./Canada would be committing the murder of infidels if only they could get away with it, we'd be slapped down immediately, so I have to wonder why it's acceptable to project such behavior on this pastor.

I think it is reasonable to project such behavior on extremists in both religions. Why should their place of residence make a difference other than the consequences they would face for their actions?

Have a good time in Vegas.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Why else would they do it? If your intent is to provoke, your intent is also to get a reaction. You don't get to decide what the reaction will be.

No, we don't get to decide what the reaction will be, which is why we don't bear responsibility for the reaction.

There is a double standard in my country obviously and I make no excuses for it. Their behavior is no more acceptable than the pastor's.

I appreciate that, and if the pastor had harassed Muslims the way the Canadians did in the example I cited and burned the Koran in front of them, cheering out against Islam, I would be in full agreement that his behavior wasn't acceptable. When people are involved, when the behavior is directed specifically at innocent people, I think it's a different matter. Still legal, in your country, too (at least against Americans), but I find it distasteful. But had they just burned the flag on their property, I would defend their right to do so. And that's what this paster did; he burned the Koran on his property, without harassing or directing it personally at anyone.

Actually we are with comments like "it is just a book". Books are ideas and ideas have different meanings for all of us. Why do you keep bringing them up as an excuse for what we do? I have no wish to live by their standards. The pastor does.

No, we aren't telling them what to think when we make comments like "it's just a book." We are stating a fact. It IS just a book, an inanimate object. No one is telling them how to feel about it, but the fact is, it is a book and there is no comparison to actual, live people (which is why I keep stressing that it's just a book). If they want to feel differently in their countries, they can, no one is telling them they can't. They can even feel differently about it in our countries, and I'm sure some do. Perhaps all Muslims, I don't know. But this didn't happen in their country, it happened in ours, and it wasn't just directed at people in their countries, but at Islam; and that includes Islam within our nations.

Furthermore, I don't keep bringing just "them" up, which is why I brought up the flag burning in Canada. People all over the world burn flags and certainly Bibles have been burned. I agree with people's right to do so. I see it as freedom of expression, and that is a standard I wish to live by; a standard that I wish to exist in my country. I don't want to see that right repressed because of threats/acts of violence.

When our behavior can have catastrophic consequences for others, we should. Particularly when our behavior is based on little more than self gratification.

Even though I'm in disagreement with the pastor's beliefs, I don't think burning the Koran was based on little more than self gratification. He has strong beliefs, and he wants to get his message out there. He has a price on his head and has received several death threats and I believe he realizes that his life is in danger; he says he believes his cause is worth dying for.

I think it is reasonable to project such behavior on extremists in both religions. Why should their place of residence make a difference other than the consequences they would face for their actions?

I don't think it's reasonable or fair to project such violent behavior at anyone who has shown no propensity to violence. Burning a book is a non-violent act.

Edited to add: One final thought. If we are expected to totally respect Islamic beliefs, then we must totally respect this pastor's beliefs; we can't pick and choose which religions/beliefs deserve total respect and which ones don't.

Have a good time in Vegas.

Thank you very much! I hope you realize how much I appreciate that.

Edited April 9, 2011 by American Woman

[jbg]

Actually we are with comments like "it is just a book". Books are ideas and ideas have different meanings for all of us. Why do you keep bringing them up as an excuse for what we do? I have no wish to live by their standards. The pastor does. When our behavior can have catastrophic consequences for others, we should. Particularly when our behavior is based on little more than self gratification.

Was it any more justified when a cartoon was the cause?

1. Muslim Rage Over Cartoon
   
2. The Cartoon Dispute
   
3. Prime Minister Harper of Canada Whispers out on the Mulsim Cartoon Iss (sic); or
   
4. The Left, Denmark, Cartoon & Mahommet - Contradiction
   

Are you saying that we have to be "sensitive" to how anyone in the world may feel in order to express our opinions? Are the Muslims some worldwide "thought police"?