How many DUers would advocate backing down to Christian fanatics who threaten murder if their

[Donald Ian Rankin]

religion is insulted?


I am really quite horrified by the number of DUers who are equivocating about apportioning the blame for the recent murders of UN staffers.



The people who committed the murder are to blame.

Mohammed, and all those before and since who advocated violence as an appropriate response for blasphemy against Islam, are to blame.

Pastor Jones is no more to blame than anyone who refuses to pay a ransom to someone holding a hostage. I loathe most of the man's views, and having to defend him sticks in my craw, but on this specific issue he's entirely right*.



The right to insult religions (including Pastor Jones' religion...) is a vital one, and giving it up to threat of violence is not a good step to take. Unless you're willing to refrain from insulting Pastor Jones and his bigotted and unpleasant views, it is hypocritical to demand that he give in to other peoples demands not to insult theirs.



*to be more accurate "there are perfectly good justifications for what he did" - my understanding is that the reasons he gives for burning the Koran are spectacularly bad ones.

[phleshdef]

1. The mob is to blame for the murders. Jones is to blame for inciting the mob.

If you do something that you've been told may incite a large mob of crazy fanatics to stir violence, then you are responsible for having done so when you follow through with that something. Yes, the actual murderers are responsible for the murdering. But that in no way absolves Jones of the part he played to incite them.

[pnwmom]

17. The 911 bombers incited Terry Jones by your reasoning.

And the Danish cartoonist who drew the picture of Mohammed -- apparently you blame him for the mob that subsequently lashed out.

Despite what you think, there is no equivalence between burning a Koran or drawing a cartoon of Mohammed and murdering innocent unrelated people.

[phleshdef]

27. Actually, the 911 bombers ARE responsible for much of the anti-Islamic sentiment in this country.

Would you care to offer an actual point next time?

No one drew an equivalence. I did not say that Terry Jones murdered anyone. I made it painfully clear that he is being criticized for inciting, not murdering. Those are 2 different things that should be regarded at 2 different levels of severity. Both are wrong.

The point stands that many people basically pleaded with his church not to pull this bigoted stunt because it could introduce unrest and even national security problems in Afghanistan. And now that he has done that, the events that have followed have proven EVERY SINGLE PERSON that made those claims 100% CORRECT in their predictions. And even after the evidence of their warnings not to rock that boat is flat in his face, he still refuses to claim any responsibility for inciting these events.

There was no point to him doing this koran burning nonsense. He didn't need to do it. It benefitted NO ONE. When faced with the knowledge that you are going to do something that is completely unnecessary, not even something your own religion actually asks you to do, and you are also faced with the knowledge that this unnecessary something is going to result in some very ugly trouble, a good and rational person would not fucking do it. Terry Jones is, by this evidence alone, not a good or rational person. He is an evil, filthy, piece of garbage and deserves every drop of criticism coming his way. He played this attention whore game with this stunt and has thus earned it.

[pnwmom]

32. I would have more sympathy toward your views if murders had not also taken place

in response to the picture the cartoonist drew of Mohammed. When mobs are so easily offended -- and take their offense to such extremes -- it is hard for me to blame anyone, even Jones, for "inciting" them.

Are we supposed to limit our freedom of speech here, in the U.S., because of concerns about what how some mob halfway across the world might react?


Go here to see the offensive cartoons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.
Danish Muslim organizations that objected to the depictions responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. Further examples of the cartoons were soon reprinted in newspapers in more than 50 other countries, further deepening the controversy.
This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths),<1> including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.<2><3> Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.<4>
Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist,<5> and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism.
Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship. They claim that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions (or their leaders) are frequently printed.<6> They question whether some of the riots were spontaneous outpourings as they took place where no spontaneous demonstrations are allowed, and whether the images of Muhammad per se are offensive to Muslims, as thousands of illustrations of Muhammad have appeared in books by and for Muslims.<7>

[Arrowhead2k1]

50. Why would we need to limit our speech per se?

This is not a civil liberties issue. It's about moral responsibility as a whole. Just because we have the freedom to do something doesn't mean it should be acceptable to do it and that the rest of us should defend it.

No one is talking about curtailing actual Freedom of Speech as per the constitution. It's a red herring.

[phleshdef]

68. Saying "don't be a fucking bigoted, shit stirring piece of human filth" is not an attempt to limit..

...freedom.

And I don't want your damn sympathies. I never said one word that suggested anything done by these extremists in Afghanistan was remotely justified and I clearly condemned their actions as senseless murder. You are arguing with the wind at this point, I imagine, just to argue and for no actual productive reason.

You have no choice but the blame Jones for inciting them. Its not up to you whether or not he is to blame. Its up to the facts. And the facts show his burning of the Koran to be the primary catalyst for the reaction from the extremists. This is not something that subjects itself to an opinion.

You can continue attempting to defending this bag of biological waste all you please. My point stands unrefuted. A good and reasonable human being would not have pulled this unnecessary, attention whoring stunt with the knowledge that it was going to set off the violent crazies. You can either admit the truth in that statement or you can continue trying to pathetically deflect the criticisms that are rightfully aimed his way.

[BlueMTexpat]

184. Terry Jones incited Terry Jones of, by and for the promotion of Terry Jones.

He didn't need any excuses, but he sure as heck jumped right on the anti-Muslim bandwagon with both feet. And he's glorying in the notoriety.
He is not just a single POS, he's a whole stinking pile. For his deliberately inflammatory and provocative words and actions (they qualify as hate speech - not a statement of religious belief in any way), he should suffer some consequences, if not criminal, at least civil, i.e., in some measure of compensation to the families of the victims.
Yes, the Afghan mob committed the murders. I do not justify their murderous and hateful actions in any way, shape or form. And I, by the way, had former colleagues among the victims so this is not theoretical, but real, for me.
Any person who deliberately sparks a latent fuse cannot evade at least some measure of responsibility for the consequences, at least not in any society that wants to call itself civilized.

[Taitertots]

72. Their fundamentalist religious institutions incited the mob

Jones is absolved because his actions are totally reasonable and their response is not.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

106. Wow, even people who defend his right to do what he did have

not gone so far as to call what he did 'reasonable'. It was anything but reasonable. He was warned by both the Pentagon and the State Dept. that if he did this he may be putting lives in danger. Is it reasonable to knowingly put the lives of other people in danger?

[Taitertots]

143. Burning a book is in no way unreasonable, the only thing unreasonable is some muslims reaction

The religiously insane don't determine what is and isn't reasonable.

The civil rights movement put lives in danger, do you oppose that too.
The fight for women's reproductive rights put lives in danger, do you oppose that too.

[sabrina 1]

162. You are equating a far-right, fundie operative with a very

questionable past to those who fought for the rights of others? A man who was run out of his German church because even for them, his views were so authoritarian, so abusive, and perhaps also corrupt, they had to get rid of him?

It's difficult to even address your post when you make such a far out comparison. Just what do you believe this phony pastor is fighting for other than to demonize an entire category of people and provoke violence against and by them, that even remotely compares to those movements you mentioned?

I mean if you want to join his 'movement' that is your choice, I'm just curious as to why you think a hatefilled lunatic is worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as those you just compared him to? What is he fighting for other than to target and create fear and hatred for one sixth of the world's population?

[Taitertots]

185. We can not allow the threat of violence to prevent our free expression

I don't have to agree with what someone is saying or doing to support their rights to do it. You have a right to be wrong.

The only difference between now the civil rights movement is that we both agree with the civil rights movement, and disagree with Jones. The key similarity is that both actions were likely to lead to extremists using violence.

[KoKo]

156. I've heard "conspiracy theorists" saying that Jones is

CIA...and that while the media in US was silent over the burning..videos somehow got over to the Afghani's. Convenient that...isn't it? Especially since CNN and MSNBC were all over Jones' first threat to burn and the frenzy went on for a week.

But, that is just conspiracy stuff that's rattling around some places on the web. Hard to take it seriously, but it is curious that media was silent on this latest..and videos got to Afghanistan when they weren't seen here in the US.

[BobbyBoring]

171. It's totally reasonable

to put a religion on trial in a kangaroo court, find it guilty, and sentence it to having it's book burned??

I never knew reasonable could be interpreted in so many ways. Religion itself is beyond reason. Jones knew exactly what would happen when he burned the Quoran just as the real people behind 9/11 knew what the response would be.

There are people gearing up for an all out war between Fake christians and fake muslims. Nothing reasonable about that at all.

[pipi_k]

94. OK, question...

Sporting teams play in their respective games.

Many of them know that whether they win or lose, many of their fans will probably start a mob and riot. They're either overjoyed, or they're pissed off.

This, in fact, has happened many times.


Who is responsible for "inciting" the riot?

The team, for playing (and winning or losing)?

Or the fans who could not control themselves?

[BreweryYardRat]

187. That's exactly correct. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

2. In my opinion, this was the last straw, not the SOLE REASON for the attack

Muslims in the region have watched westerners invade their countries, bomb the shit out of their towns and villages, torture their people, rape their women, dis their culture AND their religion.

I can't condone their actions, but I DO understand their rage.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Except this behaviour predates that by a millenium and more. N.T.

[Skidmore]

8. And actions provoking people go back to time in memoriam too.

Jones has responsibility in the same way that someone who burns a cross on a yard or paints a swastika on a building does for an act of hatred.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Big difference: those are both implicit threats of violence.

No-one sane could claim that Pastor Jones' Koran-burning was meant to be an implicit or explicit threat of violence.

[Skidmore]

11. Yeah, right, it was an act of love.

[hlthe2b]

16. Apparently in your mind, hate speech and hateful symbols

targeted towards African Americans or Jews is worthy of denunciation as we would all agree, but those hateful acts targeted towards Muslims are just okee dokie. I see now and so, too does all of DU, I think. :eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. In my view, "hate speech" that isn't a threat of violence is protected, regardless its target.

I am in favour of criminalising threats of violence against Africans, Jews or Muslims.

I am in favour of protecting people saying nasty things about Africans, Jews or Muslims that do not amount to threats of violence or other illegal activity.



I unambiguously condemn all saying of nasty things about Africans, and about Jews (the ethnic and cultural group).

I condemn some saying cases of nasty things about Jews (followers of the religion) and Muslims, and support others.

[hlthe2b]

22. Point made. You fail to denounce hate speech and acts towards

Muslims. The issue isn't whether it is legal. You try to change the argument, which remains that you are not ok with hateful speech and actions towards the two groups I cited, but are just fine with it being targeted towards Muslims. Sad for you.

I'll add you to my ignore list and recommend you do the same. Life is too short to interact with those who defend hate or bigotry. Sadly, I believe that you will continue to do so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. I'm entirely happy with condemning people on the basis of their opinions, yes.

There is virtually no opinion held by all Muslims, which is why I think that blanket condemnations of all Muslims are nearly always wrong, but I think that e.g. "The teachings of Mohammed as laid out in the Koran, as I understand them and the majority of Muslims interpret them, are in many ways extremely wicked, and neither Mohammed nor the Koran should ever be treated as a moral authority" is a perfectly reasonable statement.

It's also, I think, is speech most Muslims would find hateful. So yes, I'm in favour of some of what you term "hate speech" when it's directed at Muslims.

If you're not, you're effectively endorsing wife-beating, the criminalisation of homosexuality and the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. If you are, then like me you don't unabiguously condemn "hate speech" directed at Islam.

[hack89]

40. While worthy of denunciation it is still protected by the Constitution

there is no right to not have you feelings hurt. If you are offended to the point that you have to murder innocent people, that's your problem.

Do you really want your civil rights defined and limited by the violent acts of mobs on the other side of the world?

[sabrina 1]

44. He was warned by a U..S. General that his actions could

cause harm to U.S. troops. Are you saying he is stupid? He did it without any regard for the possibility of what the General warned him about, happening to U.S. troops. I don't know why people are excusing this moron.

Once you are told that your behavior is potentially dangerous to others, and you decide you don't care, then you definitely share the blame when it happens.

[hack89]

48. We are not excusing - we are saying there is no legal culpability

he broke no laws. His was not an explicit call for violence. We don't let the violent acts of others limit our civil rights.

[Bragi]

111. So crazy people get to set the limits on free speech?

According to your construct, if some Xian group announced they will randomly hunt down and kill their neighbours if someone burns a dashboard bobble head Jesus, this would mean that it would thus become illegal to burn a dashboard bobble-head jesus.

Me, I'm not so keen to have crazy people define the limits of free speech.

[sabrina 1]

168. Once again, crazy people DO restrict our freedoms, all the time.

Most of our laws are a result of the actions of crazy people. And then we have all the latest Constitutional destroying laws, necessary we are told, because there are crazy people trying to kill us.

[Daninmo]

169. How about

Some far right-winger threatens to kill Mexicans because some of them burn the USA flag?

[catenary]

57. A hypothetical: If I were to burn a cross in my own yard, would you be outraged?

I wouldn't do it, I'm just trying to learn the rules as interpreted by DUers hereabouts. Please don't yell at me, I'm just asking.

[emilyg]

13. Correct.

[sabrina 1]

91. Yes, Henry V111 among others, ordered the executions of

anyone who did not 'convert' to his religion. Throughout history, people have killed for religion.

It was this propensity to kill those who refused to accept religion they did not believe in, that influenced the FFs to forbid the government here from doing the same thing. That is only a couple of centuries ago. Muslims do not have a monopoly on this kind of religious oppression as your post implies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

159. Nowadays they mostly - although not completely - do.

Most other religions have gone in for religious oppression in a big way in the past.

In the present, a majority of it - although by no means all - is by Muslims.

[sabrina 1]

163. You think Muslims have killed more Christians in recent times

than the Christian Crusade led by George Bush has accomplished regarding Muslims? Muslims are being killed by our military every, single day now in one of at least four countries, that we know of?

Eg, Iraq has seen the slaughter of possibly close to 3 million Muslims over the past 20 years. Sanctions, wars etc and the ongoing deaths for future generations caused by the chemicals etc. we have poisoned their country with.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. How many Muslims deaths have there been?

Do you have any numbers of Christians killed by Muslims in this same time period, 20 years or so? Frankly considering what we've done to them, I've always been amazed that the response has not been far more deadly. If someone blew up my children eg, I can't say how rational I might be, especially if my neighbors, friends and others were also brutalized, tortured etc by the same 'enemy'. I'd like to think I could remain rational, but we are all human, so who knows.

I just think it's amazing how we ignore the daily destruction of Muslim lives being pertpetrated by us and then we wonder when a few of them react violently .... it's not a mystery really, the reasons are obvious. We went berserk when 9/11 happened deciding that massive, military violence WAS the answer. So where is the difference, other than the numbers, regarding their radicals choosing violence to respond to violence and ours?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

164. I think Muslims have killed innumerably more Muslims than Christians have.

The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq etc have been Muslims killing other Muslims, not Christians killing Muslims. The US is guilty of making that possible, but the number of people actually killed in those conflicts by US forces is far, far smaller (I suspect by a factor of ten or more) than the number killed by Muslim militants of one stripe or another.

I don't believe that Islam poses a meaningful threat to the West. I do know that it's a horrific burden on life in Islamic-majority countries.

[sabrina 1]

180. Well, that's what the Bush administration claimed but most

credible sources do not agree at all. My Iraqi friend, eg, backed up by much of what I read myself, stated that Sunis and Shiites in Iraq got along fine for the most part, many families were inter-married and there was no real division between them among ordinary people.

We sent in death squads to Iraq, a fact actually reported in the MSM even here. Those murders were made to look like Iraqis killing Iraqis when in fact they were not.

The initial bombing killed untold numbers of Iraqis. 'We don't do body counts'! For a reason.

And we killed at least 300,000 Iraqis in Gulf War 1. Sorry, but I do not agree. The Western powers have outdone themselves regarding the killing Muslims, and it continues to this day, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, men, women and children. We don't keep count we are told.

So, other than those questionable claims regarding the Iraq invasion, how many Christians have Muslims killed over the past 20 years? And how many of those killings were not a retaliation for the deaths of Muslims? Aside from 9/11?

The sanctions on Iraq alone killed over 500,000 Muslim children. Albright thought it was 'worth it'. What was worth it?? Sorry, but we won't get anywhere regarding ending this by denying the role of the Western powers in the horrendous slaughter of people who did nothing to us.

[BobbyBoring]

172. I thought

They hated us for our freedom!

You're absolutely right IMHO. We have murdered a shit load of Muslims in the ME and that's really the basis of their beef with us. We would be pissed too if foreigners were killing us here.

OH WAIT! They are! Think of all the murders those Mexican bastages commit in the US! Do we give them a pass??

[freshwest]

3. No justification being given at DU. We are surrounded by a world full of hateful fanatics.

BTW, People in this country are doing an excellent job of backing down to christian and other fanatics of every persuasion every single day. For a variety of reasons, mainly economic.

[hlthe2b]

4. Only the most simplistic thinker would not be able to apportion

the blame to the murderous assailants. That said, there is culpability. Your trying to equate denouncing hate and bigotry with "advocataing backing down" in terms of holding the murderous responsible is so incredibly dishonest. YOU should be ashamed.

[freshwest]

6. Right. Words and deeds are not the same thing.

[hack89]

49. There is no legal culpability

I have no problem condemning his act in the harshest terms possible. I draw the line at the government taking legal action against him. We don't allow our civil rights to be defined and limited by the acts of violent fanatics.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcane1]

10. Had he burned a Koran in a muslim family's back yard...

it would be a different story. But otherwise he is free to do what he did.


I thought he was a religious kook when he made the news with those antics, but I had no idea that random people would be killed months later, on the other side of the world, because of it.

[emilyg]

12. +1

[Skidmore]

14. Pretty darned naive thinking.

[Bragi]

112. There was a second instance in March blacked out by media

Many Americans don't know he came back and did the deed in March because American media largely self-censored and refused to cover it. Most Afghans found out through their President and at their mosques on Friday last week.

That's why a lot of people here, such as yourself, are confused about what happened.

For me, it's a classic case of what happens when media self-censor, and for political reasons, choose to not do their jobs.

[polmaven]

115. Just an FYI...

He did not burn the Koran on 9/11/10, but he did burn it on March 20, 2011. The press - responsibly, in my opinion, - did not give it any (or very much) coverage, but apparently there was coverage where it did the most harm.

[sabrina 1]

15. Is this same protection afforded to Extremist Islamic preachers whose

religious rhetoric also instigates violence?

Jones' extremist religious rhetoric has now been proven to have inspired violence against innocent people.

He may be subject now to the laws of other countries. Hate speech, particularly speech that results in violence, is not protected in many other countries. We are not the only country on the planet.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Depends if they intend it to.

If one can make a reasonable case that the goal of a speaker was to incite others to violence (or any other form of crime) then that's not protected speech. If not, it is.*

If evidence comes to light that Pastor Jones wanted this violence then I will change my tune; if as seems almost certainly the case it was an unwanted side effect of something he did want (to stick two fingers up at Islam) then it's entirely legal.


* How much benefit of the doubt one gives also depends on if it's a supporter or an opponent of the speaker resorting to violence. If I, a Redlander, say "All Bluelanders are evil" and a Redtowner hears this and goes and shoots a Bluelander, that's more likely to constitute a crime on my part than if a Bluelander hears it, thinks "the Redlanders are our enemy" and goes and shoots a Redlander, I think.

[sabrina 1]

30. Thank you for your response.

I agree with your last paragraph. It does seem that for the U.S. govenment at least, the rights to free speech depend on who is speaking.

But wrt to your statement 'if as seems almost certainly the case it was an unwanted side effect of something he did want (to stick two fingers up at Islam) then it's entirely legal.

From the beginning I was not at all certain that for this 'pastor' any violence resulting from his words was an unwanted side effect. I had a feeling that violence by Muslims would have pleased him enormously. And now, I am even more skeptical that he is merely exercising his rights to free speech to condemn a religion he disagrees with.

I suspect he may be using the protections of the 1st Amendment to cover a deliberate attempt to incite violence. Of course it's hard to prove what is in someone's mind, but their actions do tell us a lot about them. Eg, he was warned by the U.S. military that his words could have disastrous results in Afghanistan especially for U.S. forces there. Any sincere and innocent person would not continue to do what he is doing after having received such a warning.

But aside from that, you might want to read more about 'Pastor' Jones in this thread ~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x794849

None of this, regardless of how responsible HE may be or even what his intentions are, excuses the actual killers. But if his reasons are to get those results, then imho, he is not protected at all. He is equally culpable. The question is why would someone deliberately go out of their way to keep doing something they have been told could cost innocent lives? What motivates such a person? Those are MY questions regarding this very, imo, suspect individual.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. What motivates him appears to be hatred of Islam.

I can't read his mind, but my impression is that what he wanted was to stick up two fingers at Islam, and people getting killed was an unintended side effect of that.

[sabrina 1]

38. We do not know that at all. We only know what he says.

And the Extremist Islamic Pastor can make the same claims. Yet, we have issued an assassination order against a U.S. Islamic preacher who has also denied any intention of inciting violence. We have heard claims as to why he is condemned to death without trial or even charges, but we have seen nothing, other than his words.

He too denied any responsibiltiy, as Jones does, for any violent consequences of his words. But one is protected and the other is not only NOT protected but denied even a trial.

This is not consistent with the claim that we must not deny the right to speech no matter how inflamatory it may be.

[kelly1mm]

55. Actually, it is not illegal to incite violence against others as long as it is

not imminent. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[sabrina 1]

97. Once you incite people to violence, the threat is imminent until

it is carried out. Are you saying that people always act instantly and only if they do are you responsible for inciting them? Most times that is not how it works. People get riled up, they talk to others about it, they plot and plan what to do about it, and all during that time, the victims are in imminent danger of being attacked.

[kelly1mm]

103. Did you read the SC opinion I cited? If not you probably should. nt

[MadHound]

24. So we should adjust our country's laws, our Constituion, to comply with other countries?

That opens the door to an entire range of previous "criminal acts" that we now take for granted as our lawful civil liberties and rights in this country.

[sabrina 1]

31. No, but we should be certain that people are not taking advantage

of our laws to do harm here or elsewhere. And we do that when the 'preacher' is an Fundie Islamic preacher even when that 'preacher' is a U.S. citizen. Why not when it's a Fundie Christian preacher?

As for what other countries do, if they feel this person has caused the deaths of their citizens, they have the right to prosecute him under their laws.

[MadHound]

36. How was Jones "taking advantage of our laws"?

He was exercising his First Amendment rights, that's all. Are you suggesting that we modify or do away with the First Amendment?

[sabrina 1]

39. No, I am suggesting that we are selective in who

is protected by the 1st Amendment. Is an Islamic preacher whose words are likely to incite violence also protected? No, apparently. Otherwise why is a U.S. Islamic preacher targeted for assassination? True, his words were heard by two people who ended up committing acts of violence. But surely that is not his fault? He claimed not to have intended to cause violence. Is he responsible for the acts of a killer because he exercised his constitutional rights? The U.S. Government thinks so.

[MadHound]

41. So we should apply such criteria to a fundy Christian pastor,

And fuck up the First Amendment even more. That's a real bright solution, NOT:eyes:

[sabrina 1]

46. So you do not agree with the president ordering the assassination

of a fundie Islamic preacher? Fine, neither do I. I am just not convinced that all this support for the 1sr Amendment is sincere. If it was, everyone could say whatever they wanted to even if acts of violence are committed as a result of their words. But since that is not the case, what are we to conclude about the 1st Amendment?

[MadHound]

52. Umm, actually people in this country can say anything they want,

Including words that result in acts of violence. That is why Nazis are allowed to spew their hate, Malcolm X able to call white men "devils" and other incendiary speech throughout our history.

[sabrina 1]

54. People in any country can say what they want.

But there are consequences.

And apparently the same is true here. As that Islamic Preacher has discovered. How do you explain the severe consequences for him if people can say anything they want?

[MadHound]

53. Umm, actually people in this country can say anything they want,

Including words that result in acts of violence. That is why Nazis are allowed to spew their hate, Malcolm X able to call white men "devils" and other incendiary speech throughout our history.

[Bragi]

121. +1

[sabrina 1]

58. Do you advocate that the Islamic Pastor be protected also?

If we cannot be consistent then we cannot be taken seriously.

[leftynyc]

141. Is the islamic pastor you're so heroically

defending here in this country spouting off? You're only protected by the American constiution when you're here - you do realize that, don't you?

[sabrina 1]

165. Apparently he wasn't protected, which is why he left the country.

And you are missing the point completely, btw. Far from defending him or Jones, I am asking for consistency, that is all. One is protected the other is not, the question is why the inconsistency for those arguing that you can 'say whatever you like, even advocate violence'. As I said, one had to flee the country, the other is here, protected.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

167. Did Jones advocate violence? I haven't seen any quotes from him doing so.

"Advocating violence" is not the same thing at all as "saying things people are likely to react to violently".

[sabrina 1]

173. Of course he did and most sensible people know that.

Actions speak way louder than words and his actions provoked, which he himself has now admitted, violent murderers in Afghanistan. Worse, he's planning on provoking more violence now that he was so successful this time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

174. So that's a "no", then?

I did not ask "did his actions provoke violence". I asked "did he advocate violence". The two are completely different questions.

[sabrina 1]

176. Yes, he did advocate violence. And he got what he wanted.

Rather than use the information given to him by the president, Gates and Petraeas, to make sure not to contribute, advocate, promomte and/or provoke violence, he did the opposite. He used that information and did exactly what they asked him not to do in order to save lives. Once he knew the liklihood of his actions, and from such credible sources, he knew he could achieve what he wanted. And he did it.

'I did not ask'. Why didn't you? Because you know and do not like the answer. So you played with words trying to get a different answer. Sorry, not interested in playing games with people's lives to try to protect a dangerous hater like Jones. He is what he is and he is dangerous.

Did people die or did they not? Did the murderers state their reasons for their brutal, criminal acts? Did Jones use the warnings of the President, the Sec. of Def. and Gen. Petraeas, NOT to save lives, but armed with that information, to contribute to the loss of life?

Actions always speak louder than words.

And if he does it again, as he is promising to do now that he is certain of success, will you continue to defend him?

[leftynyc]

183. Jones wasn't preaching violence

Let's be very clear about this. He burned a book - stupid, yes. Insensitive, yes. But the blame goes to the morons who heard about a burning book (not even watch it themselves) and thought it would be a good idea to commit murder against people who had nothing to do with the burning. They thought it would help to prove Jones right. Schmucks.

You don't get to preach violence here but we can burn books, flags and other things that are important and bring a strong emotional response. You're wrong to try and compare them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

166. What do you mean by "are likely to incite violence"?

"Incitement to violence" is not the same thing as "saying things likely to result in violence", it's much more specific.

Jones arguably provoked violence, but he certainly didn't incite it.

[Nye Bevan]

63. What's the point of having a law, if people shouldn't "take advantage" of it? (nt)

[NutmegYankee]

26. It's a stretch to state that burning a book instigates violence.

[sabrina 1]

42. How is it a stretch when it has, we are told, actually happened?

There have been other incidences of violence when the Koran has been abused. It's not like we don't know that there are people who are likely to become violent over it.

In fact, we know that our torture policies were based on an awareness of part of a culture where insulting their Holy Book was about the worst thing you could do. Why would anyone knowing this, deliberately goad those extreme elements knowing what might happen?

A U.S. General already warned this 'pastor' that his goading of these elements could cause harm to U.S. soldiers. But he did it anyhow. So how can anyone say he was not aware of the possible consequences of his actions? Did he not care if U.S. troops were placed in danger by his actions? And if not, why not?

[NutmegYankee]

43. Burning a book didn't cause the violence.

Imams inciting a riot for their cause caused it. They just used the burning as an excuse.

[sabrina 1]

47. So, do you think that the man who killed the troops in Texas

who was a follower of a fundie Islamic Preacher, was not influenced by that preacher, but the Government is just using it as an excuse?

The president has issued an order to assassinate that Islamic Preacher whose words apparently were heard by at least two terrorists, one of whom succeeded in killing many troops. Why is he not protected by the 1st Amendment? He is not responsible is he, for what others did after hearing his words? Yet, he is condemned to death without even a trial.

So, my question is, if the 1st Amendment protects even hateful speech that leads to violence, why is one preacher NOT protected by it while another is?

[NutmegYankee]

66. You highlighted right in your post.

One preacher used his speech to promote attacking and killing people.

The other burned a book.

[sabrina 1]

67. So what? I am told here over and over again, in post after post

that we can say anything we want to in this country, including provoking violence, so long as WE do not commit any violent acts. We are not responsible, I am told, even if we are promoting violence, for the acts of others.

Alwaki didn't commit any violence, he just talked about it. SPEECH!! It's FREE!! NO??

Except when it's a Muslim Preacher!

Such hypocrites we are.

As for Jones 'just burning a book'??

But it was more than the book, wasn't it? Every week in that country Jones' Government is responsible for slaughtering their loved ones.

Just last week nine little boys were murdered by our drones. And that was just one incident of so many. We treat them and their women and children worse than insects. And then they see another American, Jones, abuse even their Holy Book to add insult to enormous injury.

Sometimes I think that we will deserve whatever revenge these people take on us. Because I know that if someone killed just one of our children we would start a war over it.

I think I have given up on this country. With this kind of attitude, this kind of complete disrespect of other people, I am surprised that there has not been way more violence.

[NutmegYankee]

74. Inciting violence through speech is not protected.

A classic example is telling your followers to go off and kill people. That is a criminal act, and not protected. Burning a book or flag or picture on the other hand may offend people, but it doesn't tell them "go kill the others".
Is burning a holy book or the American flag disrespectful? Absolutely. But rational and civil people do not engage in violence because they were offended or disrespected.

I'm sorry you are giving up on the USA, but we proudly cherish our right to free speech, no matter what violence is threatened against us to silence it. We do not back down to terror.

[sabrina 1]

90. Yes, I understand all that. However when the Pentagon and

the State Dept. who know a bit more about these things, warn you that the very act of burning the book could cause the deaths of innocent people, that adds another dimension to what he did. They didn't say he needed to tell them to harm others, they told him what they knew to be a fact, that there were insane people who only needed the act of him burning their holy book to go harm others.

Now, he says, even though he has seen the result, that he intends to go put more innocent people at risk. He is a dangerous man and he does not care about innocent lives. He is also a coward who apparently wouldn't do this in a country where the lives he is willing to risk have to live.

[NutmegYankee]

92. Why should we be silenced by extremists?

What happens if conservatives adopt this philosophy and hurt people every time a same-sex marriage occurs? Is the couple responsible for those deaths just because they exercised their civil right to marry? Do they need to stop getting married to ensure that people are not hurt? What becomes of their "right".

I seriously doubt that the men who murdered the UN workers were mentally ill. This is a cultural problem where they feel violence is justified when they are offended. They need to grow up and join the 21st century. Christians get mocked daily. Jews get mocked daily. Hindus get mocked daily. I don't see organized protests and mobs murdering people because they were offended in these cultural groups. There are a few lone acts here or there, but nothing like the mobs that erupt over cartoons or a burning book.

[sabrina 1]

95. Well you must have missed the two wars that were launched

by our very own Christian Crusader who announced that he listened to his heavenly father before the bombing a country that never even threatened to attack us, and the torture videos, and the brutal killings of innocent people for sport. Are those acts 'a cultural problem' also?

We are never violent, only those savages whose countries we invaded! The rapes of Iraqi women and children. Are they a 'cultural problem' also? Are Americans a brutal, torturing, raping culture of violence?

Why should be silenced by extremists?

We have given up more of our rights over the past decade because, we are told, of 'extremists' in order to 'keep us safe'. The Patriot Act? Spying on the American people by their own government? I agree, why did we submit to extremists by throwing away our Constitutional rights? But Americans agreed to the loss of rights in order to be safe.

I am not the one to ask about this. Ask everyone who argues that we cannot refuse to be groped at the airport, because of 'extremists'.

You don't know much about the people of Afghanistan obviously. You are accepting the propaganda that they are all savages which makes it okay for us to kill them and torture them and hunt them down like prey.

I suggest you start learning a bit more about 'these people'. You worry about the right taking away our rights because of THEIR prejudices? I worry about posts like yours which paint an entire group of people as people who 'justify violence' because of the actions of some of them. People whose countries are under occupation. How would YOU act if this country was occupied and our children were dying from drone attacks on a regular basis?

FYI, no one justifies violence more than this country has over the past decade. Are you completely unaware of the violence we have inflicted on people who did nothing to us?

[NutmegYankee]

100. You have a lot of nerve

I was out there in the streets protesting in early March 2003. Where were you?

Granted, your entire post is a Red Herring - including the hated Patriot Act and TSA searches. Honey, I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU! Put a few bucks where it's worth and fight back!

As for knowing about Afghanistan - LOL - I actually know quite a lot about them. I was even angry when Massoud was assassinated on Sept 9, 2001. Do you remember that event? Did you even follow world events back then?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. Provoking yes, inciting no.

I think you're being deliberately disingenuous on this one.

Provoking violence is legal, inciting it is not.

If you instruct your followers to go out and commit violence, that's inciting.

If you refuse to back down to people trying to blackmail you with threats of violence, that's (arguably) provoking; it's certainly not inciting.

There are parts of America where wearing a "gay rights" T-shirt is provoking violence; it's never inciting it.

[bighart]

131. From what I understand the words of a religious leader in Afghanistan

instigated the violence. The actions of the pastor in Florida were just used as a reason to do so.

[Nevernose]

45. So you're suggesting that many Muslims are inherently violent

And therefore we should take precautions not to provoke them? I suggest that blaming that lunatic in Florida in any way, no matter how small, is an act of bigotry towards Muslims, because it's assuming that at least a percentage of Muslims are inherently violent and irrational -- and worse, that violent and irrational people should be catered to.

And how on earth is burning a copy of someone's favorite book an incitement of violence? I promise you that, were an imam in Kabul to burn a copy of "The Velveteen Rabbit," my reaction would not be to murder a dozen foreigners.

[sabrina 1]

60. Why do you assume that the mob were Muslims?

What do we know about them? How do you know they were not sent there by some other group who has in interest in creating havoc in that country?

We don't know anything at this point. It is a war zone, anything is possible.

[cigsandcoffee]

79. It's fairly safe to assume they were Muslims.

Practicing any other religion there is punishable by death.

[cali]

80. oh for the love of reason

we do know. the mob was comprised of Afghans who had just attended prayers. try logic- just for fucking once.

[ReggieVeggie]

86. mullahs called for action

I don't think non-Muslims would answer a call for revenge of a Quran burning

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. Of course they were muslims, stop being so silly. N.T.

[Bragi]

120. "We don't know anything at this point"

You seem to be the only person in this discussion who is unclear about the religious persuasion of the mob that went on a killing spree to protest the burning of a Quran.

You're thinking they were maybe Baptists?

[snagglepuss]

69. Jones riled people up. It was the Iman who incited them to violence.

[sabrina 1]

96. They both contributed.

Jones could have listened to the State Dept and the Pentagon, and the Imam wouldn't have had that weapon to use to rile them up with. But once the weapon was handed to him, he picked it up and used it.

[snagglepuss]

104. Getting under someone skin is no way similar to inciting violence.

They are two very different things. Jones is a jerk but the iman is a criminal.

[sabrina 1]

105. Violence is always a result of something or someone getting under

someone's skin. Jones admitted he was not just exercising his 1st Amendment rights. He was hoping to 'stir the pot' and he's glad he did. That is beyond the protection of the 1st Amendment now that we know he intended to incite people and he also knew the potential for harm to others from doing so.

The Imam and the killers are criminals, but they would not have had the weapon he handed them had he just burned his Koran on his own property with people who are similarly afflicted with the desease of hatred.

[Bragi]

119. So your rights are gone if you intend to "stir the pot"?

Or is it only if you "stir the pot" and word reaches insane violent people who might be offended?

Either way, you again make the possible reactions of crazy people dictate the limits to free speech.

[sabrina 1]

161. Only if you have been informed by the POTUS, The SOD

and a top U.S. General in the battlefield, that your 'stirring of the pot' is likely to get people killled. See the statements of all three, (video of President Obama issuing the warning and mentioning Afghanistan and Pakistan as countries where people might die as a result of Jones little stunt it is clear he was very serious. Listening to it now in retrospect, sadly validates those who had the sense that the president was certain of what he was saying at the time. There was a sense that because he issued the warning invoking his status as CIC, his message was meant to be taken very seriously. Now we know why.

The warnings from the Sec. of Def. and Gen. Petraeas were no less serious.

I believe it is possible that this man who has now admitted that he intended to provoke these elements, and who disregarded the warnings from those three top officials leaving no doubt that it was inadvertent, may be subject to prosecution.

[Bragi]

116. By your logic, the Danish cartoonists should be in jail

I mean, they drew cartoons, and 50 people died around the world at the hands of mobs outraged that Mohammed was depicted in art, in violation of alleged-sacred teachings.

So the cartoonists should be in jail for provoking this reaction, right?

[Bragi]

113. Deleted by author

[Goblinmonger]

127. This is not the same as some KKK guy telling people to kill blacks.

So you are saying if someone expresses themselves in a manner protected by SCOTUS precedent, and someone takes offense to that protected speech and kills someone as some bizarre form of retaliation for the protected speech, that said protected speech suddenly becomes hate speech? Did I wake up in Bizarro world?

[beac]

20. Your analogy of a "ransom" fails.

To pay a ransom costs something. To refrain from burning the Koran would have cost Jones nothing. How would he be poorer if he DIDN't burn those books? It's not as if the whole world didn't already know how he felt about Islam.

No, I say that he actually PROFITED by the burning as a few people who are as religiously insane as he is did something horrible in retaliation and he got the benefit of being able to say that proves ALL Muslims are violent.

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and he got EXACTLY what he wanted.

[TK421]

21. Is he doing it to make his own faith look better?

is that it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I guess he's doing it to stick two fingers up at Muslims. N.T.

[Mz Pip]

23. Jones is an asshole fundy jerk.

Those who murdered people are the murderers.

What someone does 10 thousand miles away is not grounds to randomly kill innocent people and I will not make excuses for their behavior.

[seabeyond]

28. bullshit. there are all kinds of actions we dont do because of consequence and responsibility

in our actions

jones responsible for the actual murder? no. fuckin jerk off asshole that should be shunned, rejected, shamed for his ugliness.... you betcha.

pile of crap post.

i am as tired of the atheist that feel they must always cry out if god is mentioned as i am of the fundamentalist that uses religion for hate and control as i am of the muslims that kill in the name of their religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Not this one.

Predictably, though, some people are going to fall all over themselves to justify, excuse, or 'understand' the homicidal behavior of religion-drunk fundy fuckheads.

[Edweird]

34. If that's 'the religion of peace' I wanna see 'the religion of I'm gonna fucking kill you'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Consider who popularised the phrase "religion of peace" in the USA... N.T.

[snagglepuss]

71. lol You nailed it. nt

[Raine1967]

51. Terry Jones killed no one , Same can be said for Manson

One is in jail. The other we are defending -- for what? Religion or a cult? Jones is on the fringe. I would not consider what he does as a religion but more of a cult.

People are dead. Ideas & actions have consequences, If people think this is about free speech, remember -- Manson didn't kill anyone either.

Just some food for thought.

[cali]

81. uh, no. Manson directed that his followers kill.

big difference.

[Capitalocracy]

93. Jones knew what he was doing. nt

[pipi_k]

107. He did, but...

burning the Koran wasn't illegal, and he didn't direct anyone else to kill for him.


If someone threatens to cause a riot and kill people if you exercise one of your rights, are you going to back down and let that person control your actions?


People don't have enough self control to keep them from acting like maniacs over something like burning a book?

[Capitalocracy]

158. I'm not taking blame away from anyone who committed the acts.

I'm just saying I doubt Jones would be surprised that his actions inspired violence. The difference here between directing someone else to kill and performing an act you know others will use as an excuse to kill is a fine line. Glenn Beck doesn't actually tell people to kill, but his over the top rhetoric makes it clear that they should. There's a level of culpability there... maybe not on a legal level, but on a moral level, there is.

[pipi_k]

186. I realize that, and agree but...

Once we start holding people responsible for the acts someone else does, it starts getting a bit hairy.


It's the argument that many RWers use when they want to ban certain music. Some songs, they claim, "make" kids do what the lyrics suggest.

Distributing condoms or birth control, or making birth control information available "makes" the kids run out and have sex. Even if they never thought of doing it before.


Alcohol companies make and sell the stuff knowing that their product will injure or kill thousands a year. Are they responsible? Should we maybe ban all alcohol products because we know people will use it and die or kill someone else?

Cigarettes...junk food....gambling...

Where do we stop?

Someone else said it and I agree...it's a sad, sad situation when a bunch of people riot over something that they probably didn't even see with their own eyes, for one thing....and for another, it happened thousands of miles away.

Stupid.

I could understand if they decided to put a contract out on Terry Jones for what he did, but to riot amongst themselves and kill some of their own over what he did?

And who knows...maybe his problem was that he didn't automatically assume those people were unwashed savages without minds and wills of their own, like it appears some want to make them seem.

In the end, look at how many Muslims there are in the world and how many did NOT riot and kill each other. That goes to show that human beings can control how they react to what someone else does.

[Critters2]

56. No one in this scenario comes off looking good.

Trying to incite violence=bad

Allowing oneself to be incited to violence=bad

Not a lot of clean hands in this mess.

[defendandprotect]

59. Organized patriarchal religion is to blame in its fanaticsm ...on both sides ...

Leaders don't want challenges to their religion --

they therefore send their members/troops out into the world ready to

fight anyone who threatens them or the beliefs they teach -- or their "books."

Fundamentalist whaackos here in States are the same --

[susanr516]

84. +1000

It's the fundamentalist wing of any religion, with its intolerant "Repent or Die" gang of mindless adherents, causing the problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. No, in this case the blame should be on only one side.

The people who say "we will commit murder if you don't obey our demands" are to blame.

The people who refuse to back down to that demand are not.

[bighart]

132. Please site the last instances of mass murder commited in the

US because a pastor was offended by the acts of a lone individual or religious group.

[Yo_Mama]

61. It's not really a hypothetical when you look at history

For a long time in Europe, you could be executed for heresy.

I agree that the right to insult religions is vital. Not only is it vital to having a sane society, it's vital to having freedom of religion. Therefore logically religious people should be the first to protest at blasphemy laws of any sort, or any sort of prohibition on the criticism of religion.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Quite a few DUers are fully in favor of free speech, provided that it's speech that they like (nt)

[Bragi]

118. I've noted that too

It happens all the time here. However, if and when debate is allowed to continue, I find that the advocates of free speech usually win out.

[L0oniX]

138. +1 ...and are stupid polls about it too.

[pipi_k]

142. then again....

There is speech that is totally offensive that is still worthy of support...not for itself, but for the larger concept of free speech.


I think the Nazi Skinheads are about the lowest of the low.

But, while clenching my jaw with the thought that they should be allowed to spew their crap, I support their right to hold rallies and do whatever they do as long as it's within the law.

[Matariki]

64. Could you please provide proof of Mohammed advocating murder

for blasphemy against Islam.

Thank you. I'll be waiting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. 5:33. Your wait is over

Chapter 5 (Surat Al-Ma'idah), verse 33:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.


(That's just from a brief google search; there may well be others).

[uppityperson]

178. It isn't that simple, taking one passage out of context with the rest.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_533_commentary

The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:

[tnlefty]

65. As I stated to my family yesterday, if they really wanted to

get back at Terry Jones and others, they would've burned them in effigy and burned the bible alongside.

Burning the bible would've hurt them much worse and they couldn't use the 'savages' excuse that I know they're just dying for.

[Snoutport]

70. If you threw a hornets nest into a car window you can't cry "it's not my fault they got stung"

[Taitertots]

73. Throwing a hornets nest at someone directly causes them injury

Nothing Jones did directly harmed anyone.

If you throw a hornets nest it is not your fault if someone thousands of miles away murders someone unrelated because they hate hornets.

[Snoutport]

85. the nest didn't hurt them.

but there was full knowledge that the bees WOULD.

He knew it would incite violence (bee stinging) but burned their holy book anyway (threw the hornets nest).

You can talk semantics and blame and responsibility all you want but there was NO doubt in ANYBODY's mind that this would make things worse.

The same way you could make it worse if you went outside and burned some holy books that you knew would cause even more stress and anger in a country where we have vulnerable service members and workers. But, I'm guessing, you understand that burning a holy book might hurt people far far way so you don't do it.

Because you are ethical.

[pipi_k]

98. So basically...

If we don't like what someone has done, we have the right to commit mayhem and murder, and then blame that person for "making" us do it?

Because, like, even though we're adults, we have ZERO self-control.

Really.

this is the type of behavior we expect to find in toddlers.

[Snoutport]

130. No, you are twisting my words...but if you KNOW there will be backlash and do it anyway

at least on some level you are getting what you asked for. Do you think he burned it with the thought that nobody would care? No, he burned it to cause pain. The pain turned into anger, the anger was unleashed on unsuspecting people. Did he do the acts of violence? no. Are the people who did the violence responsible? yes.

would those people be alive if he had stopped his grandstanding and book burning? yes.

morally could he have made a better decision? yes.

is he to blame? he has made himself, by choice, part of the problem. Should he be arrested? no. Should he be punished by society? yes.

be that shunning or contempt of all who know him or see him.

actions have consequences and if you know your actions will start bad things...well, then you are a person who starts bad things and society can most certainly judge that behavior.

[pipi_k]

137. I'm sure I didn't misunderstand...

because you feel he should be punished by society for what he did.

Your words:

"Should he be punished by society? yes."



OK, here's an example...

Soccer games are known for being the trigger for riots in certain places.

It's a known fact that some sports cause certain reactions in certain fans.

Yet teams play sports KNOWING that their wins or losses could result in riots, injuries, and sometimes death.

Are they responsible? Should they be punished by society for knowing the results and doing it anyway?

Or, how about gays...we all know there are people who WILL commit violent acts on something or someone over the issue of homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is actually illegal in some places. Unlike book burning.

What...are gays responsible for the feelings and actions of people who don't like homosexuality? Should they be punished by society for doing what they do, all the while knowing that their expression of sexuality will incite violence in others?

I understand part of the point you're making, and agree, except when it comes to where someone should be punished by society (censure? shunning? being beaten or whipped?) for doing something others can choose not to respond to.

We all have that choice.

[nessa]

125. You're saying those people are equal to angry insects? ....

They don't have free will, like the rest of us?

[ReggieVeggie]

75. If muslims get murderous about a book, then they're fucked up

period

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Amen. Attachment is the root all suffering. Know who suffered when the Taliban

bombed Buddhist statues? The Taliban. They were just too blinded by their attachment to realize it. But all the women and children dying from medical neglect because of the Taliban's attachment----it was perfectly clear to them.

Note that not all Muslims---or Christians---are obessed to the point of being self destructive over their religion. Check out Sufi writings.

[ReggieVeggie]

77. Not sure about Islam, but what ever happened to "Turn the other cheek"?

certain Christians, who would most certainly get violent if someone in this country publically burned a bible, don't seem to live their "beliefs"

[cali]

82. oh, please.

[northernlights]

83. It depends

If they are American Christians, then I suggest arresting them for making threats because that is patently illegal. If you don't believe me, try it sometime and find out.

If they are not American Christians, and they have a history and track record of killing innocent people visiting their country when their compatriots disrespect their laws and holy book, the I suggest NOT DISRESPECTING THEIR HOLY BOOK.

Furthermore -- when somebody THREATENS TO DELIBERATELY DISRESPECT THEIR HOLY BOOK, with FULL KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT TO PROVOKE VIOLENCE -- then I suggest arresting THAT person for MAKING THREATS.

Jones was complicit in the murders. He intended for them to happen. He planned for them to happen. He deliberately instigated them. AND NOW HE HAS EVEN PUBLICALLY ADMITTED TO HIS MURDEROUS PLAN.

While the murders were carried out by others, the were pre-meditated by Jones.

[johnaries]

99. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not Free Speech.

And that is exactly what Jones has done. He knew his symbolic actions would result in the deaths of innocent people, and he did it anyway. Sure, the people who did performed the murders are certainly guilty, but Jones is just as guilty.

[pipi_k]

101. He didn't do anything of the sort

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when one KNOWS there is no fire and people get hurt is called "reckless endangerment" and is illegal in most states.

Burning a book, no matter what the book, is not illegal.

One might just as well say that a football team that continues to play in games knowing that its fans will riot whether they win or lose is also the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

After all, the team has, from past experience, knowledge that its wins and/or losses will incite violence amongst its fans.

Who is responsible for the acts of others?

The person who "made" them do it? Or the people who can't summon up enough self control to avoid committing violence because they don't like what someone else did?

If you burn a bunch of Teabagger literature and those Teabaggers riot and some die, is it your fault? Are you just as responsible as they are for "making them" riot?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. Of course he's not "just as guilty".

Shame on you for suggesting it.

Jones refused to back down to blackmail. He's no more guilty of murder than someone who refuses to pay a ransom, knowing that the kidnappers will burn their hostage is.

You're also wrong that he "knew" his actions would result in deaths - plenty of people have burned Korans before without similar consequences. He knew they *might* result in deaths; that's not the same thing.

[akohut]

153. Serrano

All right, so you're saying that if there had been riots and murders over Serrano's "Piss Christ" HE should be held accountable ?!?

Holy fuck - what world did I wake up in this morning?

[apocalypsehow]

102. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[girl_interrupted]

108. K&R

[Dogtown]

109. How many Xian apologists

and haters of Islam can show up in one loaded thread?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. You're half wrong and half right.

There is very little apology for Christianity in this thread - I haven't noticed any, although I missed some. There's a great deal of defence of a specific action of a specific Christian (one whom pretty much all the posters in this thread hold in contempt as an individual), but not of anything more general.

There is a good deal of hatred of *some forms and manifestations of* Islam in this thread, not least from me. I think that this is entirely merited - anyone who claims to be in favour of gay rights, religious freedom, feminism, freedom of speech etc but doesn't hate most forms of Islam is a complete hypocrite. I haven't seen any blanket "All muslims are evil" or similar posts - have you? - and I would unambiguously condemn them if I did, but I think that failing to condemn and oppose the interpretation of the teachings of Mohammed and the Koran followed by a majority of self-proclaimed Muslims is deeply illiberal.

I think that most DUers are far to willing to promote the idea of moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity. I think this is nonsense. Firstly, Neither Islam nor Christianity is a monolithic belief system, there is a very wide range of opinions and beliefs among the followers of each religion, so it doesn't make sense to talk about either of them being equivalent to anything; Secondly, I think that we should admit that the proportion of people who hold opinions which I would regard as "bad" or "very bad" is very significantly higher in Islam than in Christianity or other religions.

What would your idea of an "unloaded" thread be? One in which the OP does not express an opinion?

[Dogtown]

128. An unloaded thread

would be one that did not excuse (or solicit excuses) for the unforgivable actions of a racist and religious bigot intent on inciting violence.

"I think that this is entirely merited - anyone who claims to be in favour of gay rights, religious freedom, feminism, freedom of speech etc but doesn't hate most forms of Islam is a complete hypocrite." The very same criticism applies equally to Christianity, with negligible exceptions.

I don't agree that "we should admit that the proportion of people who hold opinions which I would regard as "bad" or "very bad" is very significantly higher in Islam than in Christianity".

The statement is biased and indefensible. If it was remotely true, this "pastor" would have been openly censured and shunned by the Christian community at large and would have been disenfranchised and defrocked by the authorities of his particular sect. Please realize that you are making a biased presumption based on the very visible actions of a small segment of Islam, a segment brutalized and dehumanized to a large degree by our unlawful and savage occupations of their lands.

There really are millions of Muslims who have never beheaded or stoned anyone. Also, we currently occupy a very small window of Christian history not overtly involved in indiscriminant torture, killing, and maiming in the name of God. In reality, it's only the 1st world Christians that can even make that dubious claim. Exorcism, and the execution of suspected "witches" is rife amongst 3rd World Christians. Once again, our Christian leaders encourage those actions, though they seldom actively participate.

It's clear that even that distinction is becoming more blurred as the current Crusade progresses.



Instead, he is excused and lauded based on the legality of his act. I don't care a rat's ass about how legal his bigotry is. Morally it is reprehensible on the same plane with the actions of the small segment of Islam that participated in the reactionary atrocities, and his guilt is no less. He *knew* the reaction was likely, and admits he intentionally generated it. His end game is clear (to those not trying to rationalize a "stranger-danger" mentality); he seeks a world wide Christian-versus-Islam war. He's another Crusader that will never have the courage to actually spill blood himself, but he's quite willing to unleash havoc and misery on an umber people who believe in a slightly different version of his mythology.

If you're trying to include the "week-end warrior" Christians or those that attend Midnight mass and Easter sun-rise ceremonies as "Christian", you're being completely disingenuous. Those folks are no more Christian than I am, the depth of their conviction is so negligible as to be hypocritical. At least the Evangelicals (though clearly insane) actually try to *live* their misconceptions of a supreme and omnipotent deity.

Thus, it's clear that among *actual* believers, Christianity is no less brutal and uncivilized as the more radical elements of Islam. The only difference is that, for the most part, their hands don't get as bloody, whilst their souls are clearly as begrimed with gore.

Look to your beliefs, David. Defending this particular monster on the flimsy pretext of "legality" is the real slippery-slope, and it will lead inevitable to Holocaust and the Armageddon that these Christians so fervently long for.

[Bragi]

133. Free speech rights are not a "flimsy pretext"

Free speech rights are central to every other democratic and legal right held by Americans.

And the idea that defending the free speech right of people like Jones to say offensive things will lead to some kind of Holocaust is pure hyperbole.

You seem to be asking Americans to limit their free speech rights so as not to offend hyper-sensitive murderous mobs abroad.

I'm not seeing that as either likely or desirable.

have you a solution to this situation that doesn't involve limiting free speech?

[Dogtown]

134. Not about free speech.

There's no possibility of a government sanction of this heinous act.

Christian "morality" is the true topic here, but you want to hate Islam, and muddy the issue with legality.

Your agenda is clear, and as morally bankrupt as the burner-of-books.

You've exposed yourself, and I'm done with you.

[Bragi]

139. Yeah right, it's all about "Christian morality"

So a murderous mob goes on a rampage allegedly to defend the Koran, and what we need to think about is "Christian morality."

Right. If anyone can rescue this poster's logic, do let us know.

As for an agenda, I have none here beyond defending free speech.

In this regard, I am please to see that the overwhelming majority here seems to concur that we should not limit free speech because crazy people may turn murderous.

[pipi_k]

148. A whole lot of other things

would have to be limited/banned too, because they have caused/may cause stupid people to riot.

Homosexuality...Matthew Shepard must have "caused" his murderers to kill him. Many other gays have also been killed or seriously injured by people who hate them. Therefore, we ban homosexuality.

Sports....sports have caused lots of stupid people to injure and/or kill others. The rioters? Well, they just couldn't help themselves. Get rid of sports.

Alcohol...how many deaths has it caused when it's used by people to fuel their passions while they riot over sports? Of course, it's a good excuse for rioters who do mayhem after a sporting event, and really it's not their fault that they drank and went crazy. Ban sporting events and the sale of alcohol.


And the list goes on...basically any activity that we know from past experience has caused stupid people to do stupid things, resulting in injury and death to others, should be banned.


Of course, I'm not serious...

[Bragi]

154. Quite so

I can't see how free speech could possibly survive if it no longer exists if any group announces that they will become a lawless mob if they hear views they find offensive.

[leftynyc]

144. Yes, Heaven forbid

we expect people to look at an asshole burning what they consider a holy book and simply call him an asshole. Apparently, Muslims are so freeking childlike that they simply cannot be held responsible for murders committed because someone burned a book several thousand miles away. Blech.

[Skittles]

110. how fragile is one's faith

if it is threatened by some nutjob in Florida burning a book?

[Bragi]

114. Thanks to DU mods for letting this discussion happen

I'm glad the mods are allowing this discussion kind of to occur here.

All too often in the past here, critical discussion of political Islam has been quickly shut down, with just about anyone who is critical of Islamic radicals seeing their posts deleted after complaints by hyper-sensitive participants who generally blame others for atrocities by Islamic radicals.

I'm grateful that people are being allowed to vent and debate this time. This is what we need to do if we are to sort out what matters here and what doesn't.

[sabrina 1]

179. I agree. I actually couldn't help laughing though when I saw

so many 'deleted' comments in threads supporting Jones' bigoted speech. Just struck me as very funny that so many defending free speech were obviously alerting on speech they did not like.

[Bragi]

117. Thanks for your spirited defense of free speech

Good work.

[CJvR]

123. I support...

...Jones right to burn whatever book he want, although book burning tend to say more about the burner than the book.
I support media's right to report it in the hope of making controversy, and thus - money.
I support the local bigotted Mullahs right to preach fire and brimstone over it and call for protests.
I support the Afghanis right to protest and show just how seriously pissed they are about the whole affair.
I also support the right of innocent bystanders, like the UN crew, to machinegun a bloodthirsty lynchmob after their blood.

[L0oniX]

136. I support anything that gets us out or forces us out of their countries.

[lynne]

129. The extremists don't like Free Speech and I'm betting they don't like Freedom of Religion either -

- I find it shocking that American's are willing to compromise any of our "Freedoms" in the name of extremist Islam. Jones is a jerk but the blame belongs only to those who did the killing.

[L0oniX]

135. If we all burned Korans maybe they would force us out of their countries.

Thought about this the other day. How do we get our troops out and stop the wars? It seems to me it would be better if the civilians over there would rise up against the occupation and force us out. Our gov couldn't use the psych that we are there to protect them and deliver freedom and democracy. As is stands we will be over there for years if not a decade or more. When will it end? So yea I'd be all for burning every Koran we can to piss them off so much that we get forced to leave. The bottom line for me is ...stop the damned wars.

[Bragi]

140. Note the "danger to troops" meme being used by US govt

I note that Petreaus is once again trying to convince people that burning a Koran puts troops in danger.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050372-503544.html

Yeah right, because we were making such headway in pacifying Afghanistan that, but for Jones, the Taliban lacked the motivation needed to keep fighting.

I agree with the poster that there is a much better way to get troops out of harm's way in Afghanistan: end this stupid war, and just leave the place to the tribal lords, drug barons and religious medievilists who have run the place for the last 200 years.

No good can come from staying there.

[krabigirl]

145. The problem isn't the burning of a book, it is that we are bombing their countries.

If we weren't, they either woudnt care or wouldn't know about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

150. That's not what they say.

It's possible that you're right, and they either don't understand their own motivations or are lying about them.

But, as I understand it, what the mob who killed those people say motivated them to do it was anger at Jones burning a Koran.

[Bragi]

152. Of course

The fact that the riots took place immediately after people departed the Mosque following last Friday's (Karzai-inspired) sermon on Jones' Koran-burning is also a clue as to what motivated these murderous mobs.

[LeftishBrit]

146. I would not justify murder and violence in the name of ANY religion, no

Pastor Jones is an idiot and a nasty piece of work, and if the response had been to burn a Bible or an American flag, that would have been understandable. But murder is not! And the victims were not even in any way associated with the Koran-burning; this is 'collective punishment' which would be wrong even if the provocation had been an actual act of violence.

Just because the Christian Right is bad, that doesn't mean that the Muslim Right is any better (in many places, it's worse).

[Bragi]

149. +1

[Initech]

155. +2 well said.

[walldude]

147. So let me ask you this...

You believe these murders, protests, the flag burnings and effigy burnings of Obama are all because of a Koran burning?

The Koran burning was nothing but a match that lit the fire.

Look at the pictures that the Pentagon has been hiding.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

151. I think it's easy to underestimate its importance.

I think that you're right that the atmosphere existing beforehand is also a factor.

But, as I understand it, what the mob who killed those people say motivated them to do it was anger at Jones burning a Koran, not anything more general.

It may be that they don't fully understand their own motivations, or are lying about them; it may very well be that all I've read reported is an "edited highlights", and if they were asked to explain in more detail they'd refer to the wider background. But I think that the Koran-burning - and the 1300 years of tradition that violence is an appropriate response to Koran-burning - was probably a large part of what set it off.

[Arugula Latte]

157. A pox on all religions.

[Hugabear]

160. Sorry, but Jones knew damned well that his actions would incite violence

He was warned about the backlash that would occur if he went ahead with his actions. In the face of such knowledge, he went ahead and did it anyway.

[uppityperson]

170. "Mohammed...is to blame"? WHAT the hell? That's like saying Jesus is to blame for Tiller's killing

Apportioning blame is not "backing down" either. It is possible to say Jones is partially to blame but in no way meaning that the killers are not to blame.

And WTF is "Mohammed is to blame" crap? Seriously. Did he advocate violence or are those extremists who claim they act in his name responsible? If Jesus responsible for all that has been done by extremists in his name? No? Then wtf is "Mohammed is to blame?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

175. Yes, Mohammed did in fact advocate violence as the correct response to blasphemy.

For example, verse 5:33 of the Qu'ran

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment."

[uppityperson]

177. It is not that simple.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_533_commentary/

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:

5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered “terrorism”. This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:

The present participle la-musrifun indicates their “continuously committing excesses” (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as “they go on committing” them. In view of the preceding passages, these “excesses” obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)

It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of “inciting Muslims to kill and wage war”, whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur’an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God’s prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia writes about this verse:...(much more)

Like taking a single passage from the Bible or any other book, especially one which has been translated, it isn't that simple.

[LeftishBrit]

182. The Bible does too.

In Leviticus:

'He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.'


Probably elsewhere too.

Fortunately it's been a very long time since people in the West were executed for blasphemy (a bit over 300 years in the case of the UK). But it's the level of people's fundamentalism that's the crucial factor here, not the actual statements in the holy book.

[StarsInHerHair]

181. too religious=insane

nt

[WatsonT]

188. Precisely zero

Good question, one I've been asking for some time.

There seems to be a major double standard here when it comes to Islam.