US burn Koran, 14 killed in retaliation

[Guest American Woman]

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"?

To be fair, I think he's made it clear that he himself thinks the behavior/that type of act is wrong no matter who is doing it.

[sunsettommy]

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"?

Yeah they will murder a number of people over something that was said against Muslim beliefs,a few thousand miles away from where they live.

Sounds like savages to me.

[Wilber]

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

So you maintain you are free to provoke anyone you want, any way you want without having any responsibility for the results of that provocation. That is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. Rights without responsibility is a concept I will never accept.

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.

Yes, you are telling them "it's just a book". They disagree. You are imposing your values on them. What we do in our country can have a major impact on innocent people in other countries. We need to take that into account before we act. Is the act worth the consequences it may have for others?

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.

That act was widely condemned in Canada. Even people who agreed with the sentiment were appalled by what was done to those kids. If a few Canadians in the US had been beaten up because of it, I would have held the demonstrators partly responsible. Because of their actions, innocent people were hurt.

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.

So the pastor has a cause he believes is worth dieing for, bully for him. Let him do so, he has no right to expect others to die for it without their consent. A cause is just an idea and can range from noble to just plain evil. Every side in every conflict has a cause it believes is worth dieing for. How many of your people died fighting for a cause that included keeping other humans in slavery?

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.

Depends on what you call a violent act. We consider verbal abuse to be a form of violence.

I respect their right to believe. That doesn't mean I respect their beliefs or their actions. Because I might not respect their beliefs doesn't give me unlimited license to show them disrespect and not expect consequences. The pastors beliefs are not typical of Christians I know. Those homicidal Imams don't represent the beliefs of any Muslims I know either.

[WIP]

No, there weren't. Not sure what you're getting at, but as I already pointed out, if you know you can't get away with it, you tend not to do it. If any extremist Muslims in America had killed anyone, they would be the ones being held responsible.

What I'm getting at is that the murders did not occur in the U.S., so they are not an American justice issue. The only reason why it is related to the U.S. is because the Quran-burning provided a catalyst for mob violence against America, and unfortunately for anyone considered an American proxy in their absence.

your soldiers are there fighting to protect our nations, our way of life, too. Does it make sense to you that as they are over there fighting extremists we at home are willingly giving up our freedoms to appease the extremists?

No, unfortunately our troops are cannon fodder for a mission that has no clear objectives or exit strategy; and all we are doing is trying to find local cronies to support. This has been the failure of past wars of occupation from Vietnam on down, and it will end up a failure here as well.

As I said before, if we are going to do that, we should have never sent troops there in the first place. We should have just surrendered our freedoms, our way of life, to the extremists.

And as I said before, if you want to impose an empire on others, you have to accept all of the costs. The people who are most adamant about finding some way to limit such outrageous displays of personal freedom are the military commanders who have troops on the front lines and at risk from increasing the amount of hatred they are exposed to from the locals.

But, my own pov is that I would like to know why this sort of freedom of speech is declared absolute, so that burning Qurans, Bibles, flags, defiling sacraments (see P.Z. Myers), funeral protests, nazi and kkk marches, are all freedoms that have to be absolute and unrestrained. Just about every other freedom is restrained...some being effectively abolished, like our right to know what our governments are doing as they conduct business behind closed doors!

[bush_cheney2004]

....But, my own pov is that I would like to know why this sort of freedom of speech is declared absolute, so that burning Qurans, Bibles, flags, defiling sacraments (see P.Z. Myers), funeral protests, nazi and kkk marches, are all freedoms that have to be absolute and unrestrained. Just about every other freedom is restrained...some being effectively abolished, like our right to know what our governments are doing as they conduct business behind closed doors!

Because there is no such right to know such things. That's why it is called "need to know".

[Saipan]

Just about every other freedom is restrained...some being effectively abolished, like our right to know what our governments are doing as they conduct business behind closed doors!

Liberals called it "Cabinet Secret".

[Tilter]

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.

And the truces signed by the Arab world were honored by them----- when?

Name one

[Guest American Woman]

What I'm getting at is that the murders did not occur in the U.S., so they are not an American justice issue. The only reason why it is related to the U.S. is because the Quran-burning provided a catalyst for mob violence against America, and unfortunately for anyone considered an American proxy in their absence.

No one has said that the murders were an American justice issue. Furthermore, if the only way we can prevent violence directed at the U.S. is to do as they say, I hardly see it as a desirable solution to preventing violence. Right now it's not burning Korans. Once they've got that under control, what next? And where do we draw the line?

No, unfortunately our troops are cannon fodder for a mission that has no clear objectives or exit strategy; and all we are doing is trying to find local cronies to support. This has been the failure of past wars of occupation from Vietnam on down, and it will end up a failure here as well.

That's your opinion, and it goes without saying that you're entitled to it. However, that doesn't make it any more fact than what the next person might think.

And as I said before, if you want to impose an empire on others, you have to accept all of the costs. The people who are most adamant about finding some way to limit such outrageous displays of personal freedom are the military commanders who have troops on the front lines and at risk from increasing the amount of hatred they are exposed to from the locals.

We don't know what all of the military commanders think regarding "finding ways to limit such outrageous displays of personal freedoms..." nor have we heard from enough of them to even know if they consider burning a Koran to be outrageous.

But, my own pov is that I would like to know why this sort of freedom of speech is declared absolute, so that burning Qurans, Bibles, flags, defiling sacraments (see P.Z. Myers), funeral protests, nazi and kkk marches, are all freedoms that have to be absolute and unrestrained. Just about every other freedom is restrained...some being effectively abolished, like our right to know what our governments are doing as they conduct business behind closed doors!

The constitution protects freedom of speech/expression, while it says nothing about the right to know what goes on in the government behind closed doors.

This sort of freedom isn't totally absolute and unrestrained, though. The pastor burned a copy of the Koran that he owned, on his property; he didn't burn it on public property or the property of a Mosque or in a Muslim's front yard. The right to expression is not absolute -- it must fall within the boundaries of other laws, such as disturbing the peace and staying off of others property, etc.

Personally, I find nothing outrageous about burning a Koran or a Bible or a flag et al and I seem to recall that the criticism used to be directed at Americans who took offense at the U.S. flag being burned, not at those burning the flag.

[Guest American Woman]

So you maintain you are free to provoke anyone you want, any way you want without having any responsibility for the results of that provocation. That is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. Rights without responsibility is a concept I will never accept.

No, I don't maintain that; I said that when the behavior is directed at a particular individual, when the sole purpose of the behavior is to harass, hurt, emotionally harm someone, I feel that the person/people who are engaging in the behavior are responsible to a certain degree for some results of their behavior. But as I also said, if they are condemned for it and feel no remorse themselves, it's really a moot point whether they are considered morally responsible or not.

Yes, you are telling them "it's just a book". They disagree. You are imposing your values on them. What we do in our country can have a major impact on innocent people in other countries. We need to take that into account before we act. Is the act worth the consequences it may have for others?

It is just a book. That's a fact. Physically, by definition, it is a book. That's not a value judgement. Their belief that it's more than a book is what's a value judgement; a judgement that they are expecting us to respect. They can think it's more than a book, no one is saying otherwise. But by the same token, they have no right to impose their belief that it's more than a book on us; so they are the ones imposing their values on us, telling us what to think when they expect us to see it as more than a book. As for whether or not it's worth the consequences it may have -- as I already pointed out, I think the consequences of basing our actions on their threats and acts of violence would result in the worst consequences by far.

That act was widely condemned in Canada. Even people who agreed with the sentiment were appalled by what was done to those kids. If a few Canadians in the US had been beaten up because of it, I would have held the demonstrators partly responsible. Because of their actions, innocent people were hurt.

Actually, the incident in Canada differs quite a bit from the incident in Florida. As I already pointed out, the pastor's action was not in front of any Muslims; individual Muslims weren't targeted and singled out and subjected to verbal abuse or subjected to the burning of the Koran the way the American children in Canada were. If the pastor had done that, I would have been appalled too.

So the pastor has a cause he believes is worth dieing for, bully for him. Let him do so, he has no right to expect others to die for it without their consent.

I doubt he "expects" others to die for his cause, but the point is, we don't need consent from others regarding our views or it wouldn't be a "right" to be able to express ourselves. Rosa Parks didn't get "consent" before she made her stand on the bus, and other Blacks could, and perhaps did, 'pay the price' for her standing up for her cause.

A cause is just an idea and can range from noble to just plain evil. Every side in every conflict has a cause it believes is worth dieing for. How many of your people died fighting for a cause that included keeping other humans in slavery?

I agree that a cause in and of itself isn't "noble" and can indeed be evil. My point was, and remains, that his reason for burning the Koran wasn't simply to provoke or done purely out of selfishness et al, but was because he has a cause that he feels is important. That's quite different from burning the Koran purely to provoke, as was stated.

Depends on what you call a violent act. We consider verbal abuse to be a form of violence.

If the verbal abuse includes threats, then yes, it is considered a form of violence. We cannot freely express threats. As I said, expression not an absolute right. There is, however, nothing violent about burning one's own property on their property.

I respect their right to believe. That doesn't mean I respect their beliefs or their actions. Because I might not respect their beliefs doesn't give me unlimited license to show them disrespect and not expect consequences. The pastors beliefs are not typical of Christians I know. Those homicidal Imams don't represent the beliefs of any Muslims I know either.

No, the pastor's beliefs aren't typical of most Christians; he only had a few dozen followers. The homicidal Imams don't represent the beliefs of most Muslims, either, but they do have a much larger following. That's evidenced by the number of incidents each is responsible for. There's also a huge difference in the degree of their behavior; one burned one book, the others killed many innocent people.

As for respect, we most definitely do not have to respect their beliefs or actions, and as such, aren't bound by their beliefs. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, the pastor doesn't have "unlimited license" to show them disrespect.

[bud]

the pastor is an idiot and what he's doing is out of hate. anyone who tries to defend his intent is an idiot just like him. however, i would defend his right to freedom of speech and expression.

i'm sure those who defend the right for the pastor to express his thoughts would also defend david irving's right to express himself and would oppose the various holocaust denial laws in europe. right?

this is what i'm talking about:

David Irving entered the historic Vienna courtroom with a cheeky swagger yesterday morning and left in the evening a stooped and defeated man.

The 67-year-old was sentenced to three years in jail by an Austrian judge for denying, in two speeches he made 16 years ago, the existence of the gas chambers of the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews.

link

[bud]

speaking of idiots:

As the dust settles in Afghanistan after sustained protest over a Florida pastor's Quran burning, many residents in Kandahar are facing an unpleasant truth: More Qurans were burned in the course of their protests than by Terry Jones.

The demonstrations, which started peacefully, quickly turned violent, killing at least nine people and injuring scores in Kandahar City alone. And as protesters vandalized a girls’ school and set fire to shops, Qurans also inadvertently went up in flames.

link

[Guest American Woman]

the pastor is an idiot and what he's doing is out of hate. anyone who tries to defend his intent is an idiot just like him. however, i would defend his right to freedom of speech and expression.

Speaking of idiots, you do realize that stating his intent and defending his intent are two very different things, right?

i'm sure those who defend the right for the pastor to express his thoughts would also defend david irving's right to express himself and would oppose the various holocaust denial laws in europe. right?

The U.S. doesn't have holocaust denial laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

...i'm sure those who defend the right for the pastor to express his thoughts would also defend david irving's right to express himself and would oppose the various holocaust denial laws in europe. right?

Yep...sure as hell would. Pastor Jones doesn't live in Europe any more. If you would defend the pastor's right to freedom of expression, why make an exception for Holocaust denials?

[Saipan]

Yep...sure as hell would. Pastor Jones doesn't live in Europe any more. If you would defend the pastor's right to freedom of expression, why make an exception for Holocaust denials?

They can burn Jewish books. If they pay for them first

And no one will be killed

[Wilber]

No, I don't maintain that; I said that when the behavior is directed at a particular individual, when the sole purpose of the behavior is to harass, hurt, emotionally harm someone, I feel that the person/people who are engaging in the behavior are responsible to a certain degree for some results of their behavior. But as I also said, if they are condemned for it and feel no remorse themselves, it's really a moot point whether they are considered morally responsible or not.

It may be moot but that is no reason not to condemn them for it. Because they feel no remorse they should not be held responsible? I don't think so.

It is just a book. That's a fact. Physically, by definition, it is a book. That's not a value judgement. Their belief that it's more than a book is what's a value judgement; a judgement that they are expecting us to respect. They can think it's more than a book, no one is saying otherwise. But by the same token, they have no right to impose their belief that it's more than a book on us; so they are the ones imposing their values on us, telling us what to think when they expect us to see it as more than a book. As for whether or not it's worth the consequences it may have -- as I already pointed out, I think the consequences of basing our actions on their threats and acts of violence would result in the worst consequences by far.

Now you are making the value judgement. Is your flag just some patterns printed on a piece of cloth?

Actually, the incident in Canada differs quite a bit from the incident in Florida. As I already pointed out, the pastor's action was not in front of any Muslims; individual Muslims weren't targeted and singled out and subjected to verbal abuse or subjected to the burning of the Koran the way the American children in Canada were. If the pastor had done that, I would have been appalled too.

You are right, there is a difference. The kids were collateral damage in an incident that had nothing to do with them. The pastor has his target firmly in his sights.

I doubt he "expects" others to die for his cause, but the point is, we don't need consent from others regarding our views or it wouldn't be a "right" to be able to express ourselves. Rosa Parks didn't get "consent" before she made her stand on the bus, and other Blacks could, and perhaps did, 'pay the price' for her standing up for her cause.

I can't believe you would put Rosa Parks in the same universe as this clown. Who was she trying to offend? Who is repressing Jones or denying him his rights?

Iagree that a cause in and of itself isn't "noble" and can indeed be evil. My point was, and remains, that his reason for burning the Koran wasn't simply to provoke or done purely out of selfishness et al, but was because he has a cause that he feels is important. That's quite different from burning the Koran purely to provoke, as was stated.

I'm missing something here. What is his cause? If someone burns your flag, they are expressing contempt for you and what it stands for. If I decide to publicly burn a Bible, I am expressing contempt for the ideas in it and those who believe in them. Putting religion aside, what would be the intent of someone who publicly burned a copy of your Constitution? While the reaction to it would vary from person to person, the intent would be the same, to insult and provoke. So what is his cause?

If the verbal abuse includes threats, then yes, it is considered a form of violence. We cannot freely express threats. As I said, expression not an absolute right. There is, however, nothing violent about burning one's own property on their property.

Try burning down your own house and see if the cops aren't at your door, or what's left of it.

No, the pastor's beliefs aren't typical of most Christians; he only had a few dozen followers. The homicidal Imams don't represent the beliefs of most Muslims, either, but they do have a much larger following. That's evidenced by the number of incidents each is responsible for. There's also a huge difference in the degree of their behavior; one burned one book, the others killed many innocent people.

I've never said they share equal blame, just that if you shoot off your mouth and shit happens as a result, you bear some responsibility.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Wilber

[bud]

Rosa Parks didn't get "consent" before she made her stand on the bus, and other Blacks could, and perhaps did, 'pay the price' for her standing up for her cause.

lol.

terry jones is aw's rosa parks.

[Bob]

The not-so-simple solution is to destroy those people that murder others because of a sick sense of entitlement: that others should respect and submit to their religious values. The types of people that went on the murder spree at the UN base in Afghanistan using the Terry Jones stunt as an excuse must be destroyed.

[Saipan]

Moslems are setting precedence at every turn. Respect and fear Islam or we'll kill you. And the stupid little liberals everywhere gobble it hook line and sinker.

Time to turn the tables. Just look at the monkeys. And this is EUROPE!!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xRNkKmg53L0/StnThqYLFhI/AAAAAAAACEM/q4xBkLHx7sk/s400/Islam+Will+Dominate+the+World.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/TUuwe91WsWI/AAAAAAAAGgc/_A3nvx96li4/s1600/islam_will_dominate_world1.jpg

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/ISLAM_-_UK.jpg

http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam6.jpg

http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/islam_dominate.jpg

http://newstime.co.nz/uploads/2010/08/nazi22.jpg

[jbg]

the pastor is an idiot and what he's doing is out of hate. anyone who tries to defend his intent is an idiot just like him. however, i would defend his right to freedom of speech and expression.

You and I are on the same side on this issue, and on Holocaust denial. A rare time we agree.

[Bonam]

Moslems are setting precedence at every turn. Respect and fear Islam or we'll kill you. And the stupid little liberals everywhere gobble it hook line and sinker.

Time to turn the tables. Just look at the monkeys. And this is EUROPE!!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xRNkKmg53L0/StnThqYLFhI/AAAAAAAACEM/q4xBkLHx7sk/s400/Islam+Will+Dominate+the+World.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/TUuwe91WsWI/AAAAAAAAGgc/_A3nvx96li4/s1600/islam_will_dominate_world1.jpg

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/ISLAM_-_UK.jpg

http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam6.jpg

http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/islam_dominate.jpg

http://newstime.co.nz/uploads/2010/08/nazi22.jpg

Gotta especially like the little girl holding that sign up in the last picture on that list...

[GostHacked]

Gotta especially like the little girl holding that sign up in the last picture on that list...

The swastika used to be a sign of peace, until the Nazi's hijacked it. The sign really reads, 'The Jews need peace more than before.' At least that is what I hope it reads.

[Bonam]

The swastika used to be a sign of peace, until the Nazi's hijacked it. The sign really reads, 'The Jews need peace more than before.' At least that is what I hope it reads.

Ha, I'm sure that's exactly what they meant

[Guest American Woman]

It may be moot but that is no reason not to condemn them for it. Because they feel no remorse they should not be held responsible? I don't think so.

How are they being "held" responsible if there are no legal consequences and they feel no remorse?

Now you are making the value judgement. Is your flag just some patterns printed on a piece of cloth?

Yes, that's physically what it is. Any feeling beyond that is my personal feeling and I sure don't expect others to feel it. The flag is simply a symbol of what I feel for my country. When someone burns it, it does nothing to change that or to change anything that my country is. Had the reaction to the burning of the Koran been to burn the flag, yet again, it would have made sense. So I'm not making a value judgement. Again. The Koran, the physical copy of it, IS a book. It's the feelings that are ascribed to it that's a value judgement.

You are right, there is a difference. The kids were collateral damage in an incident that had nothing to do with them. The pastor has his target firmly in his sights.

You've got to be kidding. The pastor burned the Koran in the privacy of his home. No one was intruded on, no one was forced to bear witness to it like the kids in Canada were. The kids in Canada are the ones who were targeted.

I can't believe you would put Rosa Parks in the same universe as this clown. Who was she trying to offend? Who is repressing Jones or denying him his rights?

And I can't believe you think this issue is about individuals. It's not about the pastor. It's not about Rosa Parks. It's about freedom of expression. I used Rosa Parks as an example to make a point. I think it's safe to say that her standing up for her right to express herself angered the KKK and I would wager that a few other Blacks paid the price because of their anger. So should she have thought of that before she did what she did? Should she have allowed the KKK's threats and violence dictate her behavior? I honestly see these extremists as the same as the KKK and I will no more have them dictating what we can or cannot do than I would have had the KKK do the dictating. Freedom of expression doesn't just exist when we agree with the cause. If that were the case, who would decide when it's ok and when it's not? That's why freedom of expression was written into the Constitution, to prevent "others" from dictating what causes are ok to express and which ones aren't. Again. It's not about the individuals. It's about their right to express themselves, and as long as you are going to hold them accountable when you don't agree with the cause while giving a pass when you do, you are not recognizing the right of freedom of expression.

I'm missing something here. What is his cause? If someone burns your flag, they are expressing contempt for you and what it stands for. If I decide to publicly burn a Bible, I am expressing contempt for the ideas in it and those who believe in them. Putting religion aside, what would be the intent of someone who publicly burned a copy of your Constitution? While the reaction to it would vary from person to person, the intent would be the same, to insult and provoke. So what is his cause?

According to what he himself has said, his intent was to draw attention to his beliefs regarding Islam. To get his point across. So basically, it's the same intent as when people burn the flag or burn the Bible or burn the Constitution.

Try burning down your own house and see if the cops aren't at your door, or what's left of it.

Excuse me, but I'M the one who pointed out that freedom of expression must be within the law, and he did burn his copy of Koran within the law, as I also previously pointed out.

I've never said they share equal blame, just that if you shoot off your mouth and shit happens as a result, you bear some responsibility.

I understand that's your belief. I believe that the ones doing the "shit" are the ones responsible for "the shit that happens." I believe that if one bears responsibility for shit that others do, there is no freedom of expression. I believe that if we let extremists, violent murderers, dictate what is or isn't acceptable, there will ultimately be a much bigger price to pay.

[Wilber]

How are they being "held" responsible if there are no legal consequences and they feel no remorse?

So, because someone feels no remorse and there are no legal consequences, no one bears any responsibility for their actions and others need not comment?

The flag is simply a symbol of what I feel for my country.

My point exactly. The object of the insult is not your flag, it is you.

You've got to be kidding. The pastor burned the Koran in the privacy of his home. No one was intruded on, no one was forced to bear witness to it like the kids in Canada were. The kids in Canada are the ones who were targeted.

The guy has tried to get as much publicity as he could over this thing. I he had done it in the privacy of his own home, none of us would have heard of it.

It's not about Rosa Parks. It's about freedom of expression

I can't help but wonder how Parks would feel about having to share the same podium as Jones but of course we will never know.

According to what he himself has said, his intent was to draw attention to his beliefs regarding Islam. To get his point across. So basically, it's the same intent as when people burn the flag or burn the Bible or burn the Constitution.

Agreed. If getting your point across means insulting others beliefs, don't count on winning anyone over.

Excuse me, but I'M the one who pointed out that freedom of expression must be within the law, and he did burn his copy of Koran within the law, as I also previously pointed out.

Just pointing out that burning your own property is not always acceptable or legal.

I

understand that's your belief. I believe that the ones doing the "shit" are the ones responsible for "the shit that happens." I believe that if one bears responsibility for shit that others do, there is no freedom of expression. I believe that if we let extremists, violent murderers, dictate what is or isn't acceptable, there will ultimately be a much bigger price to pay.

By that standard, no motivational speaker deserves an ounce of credit for anything positive that comes out of any speech they have made and no politician should have any expectation that what they say will have any effect on the way a person votes.

My belief is that the more rights you have, the greater your responsibility to consider the effect exercising those rights can have on other people. Legal doesn't always mean responsible, we can't have laws that govern every facet of our behavior. Trying to mimic the type of behavior we dislike in them will accomplish nothing. It is just a race to the bottom.

[Sir Bandelot]

By the same token, anyone should be able to worship Islam at the site of the WTC. It is entirely within the law. Nevermind what's "considerate" to the feelings or beliefs of others.

As my mentor GWB once said, "There's doing what's legal, and there's doing what's RIGHT."