US burn Koran, 14 killed in retaliation

[bud]

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.

lol.

"it's not about the pastor".

you're hilarious.

you are comparing and equating the crazy extremist muslims to the kkk and comparing terry jones, the book burning pastor to rosa parks.

you're either not bright enough and can't find a better analogy or you have a soft spot for terry jones and he's your rosa parks.

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Others can comment to their heart's desire, as they have been doing, but if there are no legal consequences and one feels no remorse, I fail to see how they are "bearing responsibility."

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

Of course it is, and it's subjective. Some Americans burn the flag. So the value of the flag isn't the flag itself but the feelings people have for it. So if I'm telling you that you can't burn it because of my feelings, then I am the one telling you how to think, not the other way around. So it's not anyone telling them how to feel about the Koran to say it's just a book, which it is, it's them telling us how to feel if we are expected to see it as more than a book.

I do have to say that I find it extremely ironic that they burned several Korans themselves during their rioting.

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.

If the media hadn't picked up on it, none of us would have heard about it. He didn't do it in public. He did do it on his own property. No one heard about it until about a month after the fact. He did not single Muslims out, he did not subject anyone to witnessing it, he did not target any individuals the way the flag burners in Canada did. If someone didn't want to be subjected to it, they need not have read about it, watched any news items about it. They could have easily ignored it. Not so with the kids in Canada. That's a fact. How you can say he was the one targeting people, while the Canadian flag burners weren't, is beyond me.

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.

It doesn't matter, which is the point. Can't you see that? It doesn't matter if we agree with the cause or not. That's the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression, so we can express ourselves even when the masses, powers that be don't agree with us. You seem to think it's ok to put others in harms way as long as you agree with the cause, and I'm saying that's not how it works. Who would get to determine who can express themselves and who can't? And how could freedom of expression exist in such an environment?

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

It depends on who you're trying to win over, right? Obviously he wasn't trying to win extremist Muslims over. In fact, he thinks Islam isn't a religion of peace and he thinks he proved that. Remember, he has a different target audience than you or me.

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

No need to have pointed it out. I already clearly said it had to be done within the law.

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.

The goal of motivational speakers is to inspire people. Their words are directed at people. They are hoping people will react and the people are willingly subjecting themselves to it. If people react positively, they have achieved their goal. The goal of the paster wasn't a killing spree. He didn't burn the Koran with that outcome as his goal. Same with the politician. They are saying what they are saying with the hope that they will get the desired result. In both instances, if someone reacted violently or illegally as a result of what they said, they would hardly be responsible. A lot of people tried to blame Sarah Palin for what happened in Arizona. I wasn't among them. I also don't blame the producers of a movie if some nut is 'inspired' to commit a crime after seeing it. I wouldn't have blamed the war protesters if some Bush hater was worked into a frenzy during all the emotion and tried to assassinate Bush.

I'm saying that we are crossing a dangerous line when we let others' reactions dictate what we can or cannot do, and that the result of letting people who commit violence and murder do the dictating will result in far worse consequences in the long run. You never comment on that. You never have anything to say about that. Why is that? Do you disagree?

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.

Who's "mimicking their behavior?" Surely the pastor wasn't. He didn't go out an kill any Muslims. He burned a book, a Koran, and people have been burning such items for eternity.

I do believe what you are saying about responsibility to an extent, but when the notion of "being responsible" means letting violent, extremist murderers dictate what we can or cannot do, I don't see that as falling into the category of being responsible. In fact, if you want to apply the concept of responsibility, I think acting on such a mindset would be to ultimately be responsible for more violence, worse conditions.

Edited to add: And again, as I pointed out with the Rosa Parks example, it doesn't seem to be so much about the possible effects on other people as it is about whether or not one agrees with the cause (again, who gets to make that determination), which is a direct contradiction to freedom of expression.

Edited April 16, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Yes, it is entirely within the law, which is why the law has done nothing to prevent it. As for whether or not it's "'considerate' to the feelings...of others" is a different matter entirely and whether or not those in charge of building there will be responsible if someone who doesn't like it goes out and murders innocent Muslims in response is still another matter entirely; and that's the matter at the crux of this discussion.

So in that respect, do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising those rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

[Sir Bandelot]

AW -> So in that respect, do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising those rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't do it. Only because I am a considerate guy, and I would ask, what is there really to be gained here, that could not be done somewhere else? But if I were a smart man, I would make the most of that decision so that it's understood for what it is. That is, reaching out with an olive branch, not a sword.

Of course in our society today that is boring, does not make for exciting headlines. Then the whole issue gets buried on page 33.

[Guest American Woman]

AW -> So in that respect, do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising those rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't do it. Only because I am a considerate guy, and I would ask, what is there really to be gained here, that could not be done somewhere else? But if I were a smart man, I would make the most of that decision so that it's understood for what it is. That is, reaching out with an olive branch, not a sword.

Of course in our society today that is boring, does not make for exciting headlines. Then the whole issue gets buried on page 33.

I wasn't asking you if you would do it or not and whether or not we'd burn the Koran isn't the issue being discussed. It's about responsibility. Do you hold the pastor responsible for the violence and murders that took place? That's the issue.

And I'll ask again: Do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising their rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

Edited to add: I'd appreciate answers to the above questions from anyone who is holding the pastor responsible for the murders and violence.

Edited April 16, 2011 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

I wasn't asking you if you would do it or not and whether or not we'd burn the Koran isn't the issue being discussed. It's about responsibility. Do you hold the pastor responsible for the violence and murders that took place? That's the issue.

And I'll ask again: Do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising their rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

Edited to add: I'd appreciate answers to the above questions from anyone who is holding the pastor responsible for the murders and violence.

You asked three questions, I answered the first two as best I could. Since I said I wouldn't do it, that shows my opinion on the matter. They shouldn't do it. But there's no law on the books preventing someone from doing it. Therefore answering the question is all about personal ethics and opinion.

Would I hold them responsible... a very very difficult issue to decide upon. I personally am inclined to say, within a free-speech society where the right to freedom of expression is sanctioned by law, my answer is NO. They would not be responsible. Because those who are offended and live in this same free-speech society are expected to abide by the law. In other words, tolerance. Note that tolerance does not mean approval however. Those who disapprove have the right to protest and effectively shut the place down, through legal and peaceful means. Not killing. If they do kill, would the Imam be responsible? No. Not within the free society.

But what if some action takes place, that affects people at a distance. And those peopla live outside the free-speech zone, or in a country where the issue at hand has some cultural or historic significance. We do have hate speech laws, and one form of that law is applied to holocaust deniers. That indicates that society has said, the right to protection from hate speech, or actions that express hatred towards other cultures, transcends the right to free speech. Words lead to ideas and ideas lead to actions.

In that light, the act of building a mosque at WTC is not as directly contemptible as publicly burning a koran.

[Sir Bandelot]

Then again, what about pre-meditated actions, where one knows beforehand that the release of some information, or the expression of an idea will likely lead to the death of others. Or specifically, where someone wants to do it for that very reason, either as a 'demonstration' or out of sheer contempt for the others. They should be held at least partly responsible, IMO. And would our media also be responsible, by giving a platform to someone who's promoting hate? By making a case out of it, and increasing the hysteria. Free speech is a noble idea but it really belongs in a free society where people are educated well enough to understand it. Sadly, reality is not idealistic and plenty of people are not able to handle it. The fact that we do need hate speech laws, is a concession that even within our own society, these things are not entirely open-ended. Where is the line... as we learn and grow the line moves. For a more oppressive society, the line is farther back.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

Then again, what about pre-meditated actions, where one knows beforehand that the release of some information, or the expression of an idea will likely lead to the death of others.

Are you saying you disapprove of what the WikiLeaks guy? That you don't think Bradley Manning should have done what he did?

Or specifically, where someone wants to do it for that very reason, either as a 'demonstration' or out of sheer contempt for the others. They should be held at least partly responsible, IMO.

If someone is stating that "I'm doing this so other people will kill innocent people" it's a threat, and no longer within the law.

And would our media also be responsible, by giving a platform to someone who's promoting hate? By making a case out of it, and increasing the hysteria.

If that's the case, then the media will be under control because many things that are reported "promote hate," including terrorist activity. So who should control the media, the government? And what are the standards that should be applied?

Free speech is a noble idea but it really belongs in a free society where people are educated well enough to understand it.

You couldn't be more wrong. Many positive things have been accomplished by uneducated people expressing their views.

Sadly, reality is not idealistic and plenty of people are not able to handle it. The fact that we do need hate speech laws, is a concession that even within our own society, these things are not entirely open-ended. Where is the line... as we learn and grow the line moves. For a more oppressive society, the line is farther back.

Who says we "need" hate speech laws? Canada, for one. The U.S. doesn't. As for the line moving, seems to me the line has been steadily moving forward in the United States, and the U.S. is about as un-oppressed as it gets. More and more rights have come about because of the right people have to express themselves. I don't want to see that changed. Furthermore, as I've stated repeatedly even as it's been repeatedly ignored, the line representing violent, murderous behavior will move forward as we let them dictate our behavior to us, and as far as I've observed, the more oppressive a society, the more likely that line is to move forward, in the undesired direction.

Last but not least, you still didn't answer the questions. Why is that, I wonder?

Edited April 16, 2011 by American Woman

[jbg]

AW -> So in that respect, do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising those rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

Of course, you expect that Christians and Jews who are offended are going to go on a murderous rampage as a result? If they were would that change your analysis?

[Sir Bandelot]

Are you saying you disapprove of what the WikiLeaks guy? That you don't think Bradley Manning should have done what he did?

If someone is stating that "I'm doing this so other people will kill innocent people" it's a threat, and no longer within the law.

If that's the case, then the media will be under control because many things that are reported "promote hate," including terrorist activity. So who should control the media, the government? And what are the standards that should be applied?

You couldn't be more wrong. Many positive things have been accomplished by uneducated people expressing their views.

Who says we "need" hate speech laws? Canada, for one. The U.S. doesn't. As for the line moving, seems to me the line has been steadily moving forward in the United States, and the U.S. is about as un-oppressed as it gets. More and more rights have come about because of the right people have to express themselves. I don't want to see that changed. Furthermore, as I've stated repeatedly even as it's been repeatedly ignored, the line representing violent, murderous behavior will move forward as we let them dictate our behavior to us, and as far as I've observed, the more oppressive a society, the more likely that line is to move forward, in the undesired direction.

Last but not least, you still didn't answer the questions. Why is that, I wonder?

It's pretty easy to find fault in other peoples views and opinions, isn't it. What I wonder is, why do even bother giving you an answer, on anything you ask at all.

[Sir Bandelot]

Of course, you expect that Christians and Jews who are offended are going to go on a murderous rampage as a result? If they were would that change your analysis?

No it would not. It actualy reinforces my analysis. Such events have taken place other countries, where free speech and tolerance is not a value. Like, in Africa and India. That's what I was alluding to when I said, free speech only works in a country where people are educated about it. I didn't mean a university education in mathematics, I meant, about tolerance of differences. Christians did riot and kill recently, but it was in far away lands where free speech and tolerance is not held in high regard.

My analysis is not absolute it's just my thoughts for today. It's more questions than answers. Even in my advanced age I am still learning. I'm not Kirkegaard! ;^)

[bush_cheney2004]

It's pretty easy to find fault in other peoples views and opinions, isn't it. What I wonder is, why do even bother giving you an answer, on anything you ask at all.

fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)

n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1.

a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

b. A public meeting place for open discussion.

c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

[Sir Bandelot]

fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)

n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1.

a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

b. A public meeting place for open discussion.

c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

understood

[Guest American Woman]

It's pretty easy to find fault in other peoples views and opinions, isn't it. What I wonder is, why do even bother giving you an answer, on anything you ask at all.

Ummmm. I didn't "find fault in [your] views and opinions;" it's that you DIDN'T give me an answer, which was my point.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ummmm. I didn't "find fault in [your] views and opinions;" it's that you DIDN'T give me an answer, which was my point.

this post has not been read by 'sir bandelot'

[Guest American Woman]

this post has not been read by 'sir bandelot'

:lol:

That's ok. I understand why you're refusing to answer the questions; your answers would completely contradict your views regarding the burning of the Koran.

And I know. You didn't read this post, either.

[Wilber]

Others can comment to their heart's desire, as they have been doing, but if there are no legal consequences and one feels no remorse, I fail to see how they are "bearing responsibility."

Because a persons act is not illegal and they feel no remorse doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for the results. People do lots of rotten things that aren't illegal.

Of course it is, and it's subjective. Some Americans burn the flag. So the value of the flag isn't the flag itself but the feelings people have for it. So if I'm telling you that you can't burn it because of my feelings, then I am the one telling you how to think, not the other way around. So it's not anyone telling them how to feel about the Koran to say it's just a book, which it is, it's them telling us how to feel if we are expected to see it as more than a book.

It isn't about saying you can't do something, it is about you knowing there may be very dire consequences for innocent people if you do but going ahead and doing it anyway. A little thing called personal responsibility.

I do have to say that I find it extremely ironic that they burned several Korans themselves during their rioting.

So do I but none of us are trying to make sense of their actions.

If the media hadn't picked up on it, none of us would have heard about it. He didn't do it in public. He did do it on his own property. No one heard about it until about a month after the fact. He did not single Muslims out, he did not subject anyone to witnessing it, he did not target any individuals the way the flag burners in Canada did. If someone didn't want to be subjected to it, they need not have read about it, watched any news items about it. They could have easily ignored it. Not so with the kids in Canada. That's a fact. How you can say he was the one targeting people, while the Canadian flag burners weren't, is beyond me.

And just how did the media pick up on it? He targeted the Muslim faith in general with the hope the crazy faction would react and make his point for him. In doing so, people died proving what we already knew. He must be very proud.

It doesn't matter, which is the point. Can't you see that? It doesn't matter if we agree with the cause or not. That's the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression, so we can express ourselves even when the masses, powers that be don't agree with us. You seem to think it's ok to put others in harms way as long as you agree with the cause, and I'm saying that's not how it works. Who would get to determine who can express themselves and who can't? And how could freedom of expression exist in such an environment?

We don't get to determine who can express themselves but we can hold them accountable in the court of public opinion for what they do. In fact, a society has a duty to do so in order to protect its freedoms. People like Jones are a threat to your freedoms because they use the same kind of tactics as those Muslim nutbars. Not as extreme but the same mentality never the less.

It depends on who you're trying to win over, right? Obviously he wasn't trying to win extremist Muslims over. In fact, he thinks Islam isn't a religion of peace and he thinks he proved that. Remember, he has a different target audience than you or me.

Yes he does and his target audience doesn't give a damn about innocent lives in far away places as long as their prejudices are reinforced.

No need to have pointed it out. I already clearly said it had to be done within the law.

As already pointed out, a lot of slimy things can be done within the law.

The goal of motivational speakers is to inspire people. Their words are directed at people. They are hoping people will react and the people are willingly subjecting themselves to it. If people react positively, they have achieved their goal. The goal of the paster wasn't a killing spree. He didn't burn the Koran with that outcome as his goal.

So now responsibility depends on the goal. Make up your mind. On Edit. I think the pastor did have that kind of outcome in mind.

I'm saying that we are crossing a dangerous line when we let others' reactions dictate what we can or cannot do, and that the result of letting people who commit violence and murder do the dictating will result in far worse consequences in the long run. You never comment on that. You never have anything to say about that. Why is that? Do you disagree?

We let others reactions do so on a daily basis. We lock our doors, we don't go to certain areas alone or at certain times a day, any number of things because of the potential for violence or other crime. Perfectly acceptable if it concerns the safety of ourselves or those we know but of no importance when it concerns the safety of someone we don't know in another part of the world.

Who's "mimicking their behavior?" Surely the pastor wasn't. He didn't go out an kill any Muslims. He burned a book, a Koran, and people have been burning such items for eternity.

He can't go out and kill anyone without going to jail or worse (does Florida have the death penalty?). So in fact we are putting limits on what he can do and he is doing the maximum allowed. Any bets on what he might do if those limits were expanded?

I do believe what you are saying about responsibility to an extent, but when the notion of "being responsible" means letting violent, extremist murderers dictate what we can or cannot do, I don't see that as falling into the category of being responsible. In fact, if you want to apply the concept of responsibility, I think acting on such a mindset would be to ultimately be responsible for more violence, worse conditions.

But baiting extremist murderers into killing innocent people is being responsible.

Edited to add: And again, as I pointed out with the Rosa Parks example, it doesn't seem to be so much about the possible effects on other people as it is about whether or not one agrees with the cause (again, who gets to make that determination), which is a direct contradiction to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression goes both ways. One has equal freedom to express contempt for a persons actions including holding them accountable for the consequences of those actions.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Because a persons act is not illegal and they feel no remorse doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for the results. People do lots of rotten things that aren't illegal.

Sure they do, but that doesn't mean they bear responsibility for other people's (re)actions. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that I feel burning a Koran is a "rotten thing to do." Perhaps I've been desensitized due to all of the burning of American flags, but I honestly don't ever recall thinking "what a rotten thing to do" when hearing about/watching the American flag being burned. In fact, I've always believed that people should be free to burn it regardless of how some felt about it. I realize that "value" is a subjective thing, and never expected others to feel as I did simply because I did.

It isn't about saying you can't do something, it is about you knowing there may be very dire consequences for innocent people if you do but going ahead and doing it anyway. A little thing called personal responsibility.

I've already covered this. We can't expect people to act or not act based on possible consequences for innocent people depending on whether or not we personally agree with the cause. As I said, who would get to decide when it's acceptable and when it's not? Again, that's why I brought up Rosa Parks.

So do I but none of us are trying to make sense of their actions.

I am to the extent that people expect us to live by the value they place on the Koran as they themselves don't. That just confuses the issue further.

And just how did the media pick up on it? He targeted the Muslim faith in general with the hope the crazy faction would react and make his point for him. In doing so, people died proving what we already knew. He must be very proud.

Please cite a source for your claim that he acted on "the hope that the crazy faction would react and make his point for him." That's quite the accusation as you are, in effect, saying that he burned the Koran hoping that innocent people would be killed. Just because you disagree with him doesn't give you the right to project such "hopes" on him. If anyone were to do that regarding Muslims, there would be quite the outcry from people here against such speculation, and I would be one of them.

We don't get to determine who can express themselves but we can hold them accountable in the court of public opinion for what they do. In fact, a society has a duty to do so in order to protect its freedoms. People like Jones are a threat to your freedoms because they use the same kind of tactics as those Muslim nutbars. Not as extreme but the same mentality never the less.

Burning a Koran is not even close to "using the same tactics as those Muslim nutbars;" how you could say it is is beyond me and your qualification of "not to the same extreme but the same mentality" doesn't change that fact. One mentality thinks it's acceptable to burn a Koran while the other thinks it's ok to kill innocent people.

And again, I see giving in to threats and acts of violence, letting such people dictate what can or cannot go on in my country, as a threat to my freedoms. I also see it as empowering those who issue such threats and commit acts of violence.

Yes he does and his target audience doesn't give a damn about innocent lives in far away places as long as their prejudices are reinforced.

How would you know that? Again, you are speculating, putting your beliefs on others. Did you see anyone celebrating? Dancing in the streets? Saying they don't give a damn that innocent people were killed? Of course not.

So now responsibility depends on the goal. Make up your mind. On Edit. I think the pastor did have that kind of outcome in mind.

Make up my mind?? That's coming out of left field. I already said I feel he would bear responsibility if he had targeted individuals, got in their face, went over there to burn the Koran, said he wanted them dead, etc. So yeah, the goal is part of the deal; of course when a motivational speaker is trying to get people to react positively, and they state that as their goal, and they are pleased when people react positively, they are responsible for the reactions. They act with the purpose of taking responsibility for specific reactions. On the other hand, if they were trying to teach people to have confidence and they were to embolden someone to the extent that they went out and did something violent in regards to a perceived injustice, would the motivational speaker bear responsibility for that? I hardly think so.

And again, what you think the pastor had in mind is nothing more than your perception; your speculation. You have nothing other than your own feelings towards what he did to draw your conclusion on.

We let others reactions do so on a daily basis. We lock our doors, we don't go to certain areas alone or at certain times a day, any number of things because of the potential for violence or other crime. Perfectly acceptable if it concerns the safety of ourselves or those we know but of no importance when it concerns the safety of someone we don't know in another part of the world.

This is off the wall. I could just as easily say the safety of someone we don't know or in another part of the world 'is of no importance to people when they agree with a cause.' You can't pick and choose when it's ok to act regardless of potential reactions and when it's not. That's been my point. Again, there is potential for violence whenever there's a war protest. Do you hold the organizers of the protest responsible when that happens? Should no one protest wars et al because of the potential for someone's reactions getting out of hand? If a group of Bush supporters had threatened violence if anyone protested the war, would you blame the ones who went ahead and protested if violence resulted? Do you think everyone should have refrained from protesting under the circumstances? And again, what Jones did most definitely concerns his own safety as well. Unless you think having a price on his head and receiving death threats doesn't concern his safety? Other people have been killed themselves.

He can't go out and kill anyone without going to jail or worse (does Florida have the death penalty?). So in fact we are putting limits on what he can do and he is doing the maximum allowed. Any bets on what he might do if those limits were expanded?

I don't go around projecting what he would do any more than I go around projecting what Muslims in this country would do if there were no limits on their behavior. He acted within the law. That's all that's pertinent to this situation. Furthermore, he's hardly doing "the maximum allowed."

But baiting extremist murderers into killing innocent people is being responsible.

That's not what he was doing. The fact that they reacted that way doesn't mean they were "baited."

Freedom of expression goes both ways. One has equal freedom to express contempt for a persons actions including holding them accountable for the consequences of those actions.

Anyone can, and does, express contempt for people's actions. They do it all the time. I don't know how you can hold him accountable for his actions, other than in your own mind, which you are free to do also, but beyond that, he bears no responsibility for the actions of others -- any more than people who give in to extremist demands are responsible for extremists feeling emboldened and carrying out more acts of violence.

[dre]

I wasn't asking you if you would do it or not and whether or not we'd burn the Koran isn't the issue being discussed. It's about responsibility. Do you hold the pastor responsible for the violence and murders that took place? That's the issue.

Its not as cut and dried as that. Different parties have different degrees of accountability. The mouth-breathers, and shit disturbers that intentional provoke and instigate violence are not guilty in the direct way that the actual perpetrators are, but no reasonable person would absolve them of all responsibility.

And I'll ask again: Do you think Muslims shouldn't build there because innocent people could get hurt as a result? Should the Muslims in charge of the project consider the effect exercising their rights can have on other people? Will you hold those in charge responsible if they do build there and someone murders Muslims out of anger in response?

Thats just a boneheaded comparison. Youre trying to compare a deliberate act of instigation and provocation with people that had a stupid but relatively benign idea.

[WIP]

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

This seems to be the only time rightwingers look to Europe as an example to follow! Western European nations have done a better job with economic issues than North America, but one thing they haven't done is figure a way to interpret their national identities while becoming more cosmopolitan, and taking in immigrants from third world nations. The first red flag is that many, like Germany, did not even extend citizenship to children born of guest workers in the country. That alone, created two classes of people. French leaders have tried to put forth that being French has nothing to do with race or place of origin....but everyone knows this is bullshit! North African immigrants that arrived in the 60's, were dispatched to specially built suburban ghettos so that they didn't contaminate the main cities. So liberal Europe is not liberal on every issue! And the fact that none of you rightwing hawks itching to pull the trigger on someone, stop for a second to ask why 'if it's an issue strictly about religion', why we don't have the same problems here with our Muslim communities? I live in a neighbourhood that has a significant number of Muslims, from the Middle East, and even those places that make you cringe like Somalia...but I don't see the scary shit that you guys frequently post up...I didn't see any mob violence or demonstrations over the Quran-burning.

One little factoid I recently came across about this story was that the Quran burning happened two weeks before anyone in Afghanistan knew about it, and it was President Karzai....yes the guy that the U.S. installed as leader, and you crazy rightwingers are insisting that we fight for, was the one who gave speeches and made it an issue over there. http://afghanistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/is-karzai-partly-responsible-for-recent-mob-violence/

[bush_cheney2004]

Its not as cut and dried as that. Different parties have different degrees of accountability. The mouth-breathers, and shit disturbers that intentional provoke and instigate violence are not guilty in the direct way that the actual perpetrators are, but no reasonable person would absolve them of all responsibility.

No...civil and criminal law is quite clear about such things. Anything else in the way of "responsibility" is purely subjective and the result of imagination.

[Guest American Woman]

Thats just a boneheaded comparison. Youre trying to compare a deliberate act of instigation and provocation with people that had a stupid but relatively benign idea.

I wasn't the one who brought up the "boneheaded comparison," but thanks for directing your opinion at me just the same.

[Wilber]

Make up my mind?? That's coming out of left field. I already said I feel he would bear responsibility if he had targeted individuals, got in their face, went over there to burn the Koran, said he wanted them dead, etc. So yeah, the goal is part of the deal; of course when a motivational speaker is trying to get people to react positively, and they state that as their goal, and they are pleased when people react positively, they are responsible for the reactions. They act with the purpose of taking responsibility for specific reactions. On the other hand, if they were trying to teach people to have confidence and they were to embolden someone to the extent that they went out and did something violent in regards to a perceived injustice, would the motivational speaker bear responsibility for that? I hardly think so.

Yes, make up your mind. A person who motivates someone to do something positive positive deserves credit. A person who motivates someone to do something negative has no responsibility. The logic of that defeats me.

As for the rest, we are not going to agree. We just keep saying the same things differently. I see no point in that.

[dre]

No...civil and criminal law is quite clear about such things. Anything else in the way of "responsibility" is purely subjective and the result of imagination.

I never said it was illegal. I said no reasonable person absolves the mouth breathers, and instigators of all responsibility. People like him SHOULD be allowed to instigate violence hatred. But just because you break the law doesnt mean you arent a weasley piece of shit. Anyhow... he got what what he wanted. Good for him!

[dre]

I wasn't the one who brought up the "boneheaded comparison," but thanks for directing your opinion at me just the same.

I dunno who origionally thought up that comparison but I believe it wasnt you.