Defending murderous acts committed by religious extemists

[MadHound]

It has simply amazed me the number of people rushing to defend religious extremists abroad. Religious extremists who murdered innocents in cold blood because of the perceived insult committed by a person in the US, acting well within the boundaries of our First Amendment.

Really now, do we want to down that path, allowing religious extremists in other countries to limit our freedom of speech, in our own country? Is that what you folks are saying? If so, as much as I despise Terry Jones, Christian fundies, and what he did, I'm very tempted to go out and barbecue a Koran and a Bible in my back yard, simply as a big Fuck You to people who dare to suggest that we cave into religious extremists both abroad and at home.

It is the First Amendment that sets this country apart from so many others, and to even suggest curtailing it, is to sell this country out to religious extremists both at home and abroad. I don't care what religion they are, what country they are in, the onus is on them to learn how to act like civilized people in the modern world where our Freedom of Speech has become the model, the aspiration of countries large and small.

Do I condone what Jones did, no. I think he is an idiot Christian fundy who actually probably has more in common with the Muslim fundies than he, or they, would care to admit. Both wish to drag our modern civilization back into the Middle Ages when religion ruled supreme.

But I value the First Amendment far too much not to defend his right to express himself, just as I defend the right of Nazis to spread their verbal filth, just as I defend Code Pink and Move On to make their case to the public.

Adjusting our attitudes, our actions in regards to the First Amendment in order to take into account the sentiments of murderous religious fundies halfway around the world is to give those self-same religious fundies power over our speech, our freedom, our country. And I will not stand for that, our Freedom of Speech is already under attack from enemies here at home, we don't need to have the added burden of defending it from its enemies abroad.

The only people who are responsible for the murders in Afghanistan are the religious fundies who supported and committed those murders. Not Jones, not the US, but plainly and simply, those religious fundies. It is time that we actually held them responsible for their actions rather than suggesting that we somehow take into consideration their sentiments, and thus limit our Freedom of Speech.

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[PavePusher]

2. Well said.

Perhaps the next time some Muslim group kills/burns/pillages of some invented "outrage", we should respond in kind.

But then, I'm told I have a nasty vindictive streak. So be it.

[pnwmom]

3. Well said. Thank you for taking the time. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

5. k/r Jones is an ass, but that's as far as it goes

that we kow-tow to extremists of ANY stripe is sad.

[EFerrari]

6. No one here is defending murder. n/t

[MadHound]

7. Perusing the posts on this topic over the past few days, I would beg to differ. n/t

[EFerrari]

8. Trying to understand a series of events and defending murder

are two different activities.

[MadHound]

13. Yes, they are, your point?

The fact is some folks are putting the onus of responsibility for those murders on Jones, rather than the people who actually committed the murders. That is wrong, sorry.

[Arrowhead2k1]

19. I have yet to see anyone say the actual killers were justified or even suggest that.

Culpability does not have to be exclusive to one party. Jones is indirectly responsible for what happened in Afghanistan. That does not make him the only party responsible by far, but his actions created the spark which led to the heinous events. He knew that this would potentially happen too. I wonder if he still would have burned that Koran if he had a son serving over there?

[MadHound]

20. Indirectly responsible for what?

So are you saying that we should limit our Freedom of Speech because somewhere, somehow, some religious fundy halfway around the world will become insulted and go on a killing spree? Is that what you're saying?

If so, that directly discourages free speech and freedom of expression in this country, a direct attack on our First Amendment rights. That means going down a slippery slope where we now have to watch what we say, how we express ourselves because some religious nutcase might take offense.

Again, the only people who are responsible for those murders in Afghanistan are the people who committed them. Not Jones, but the actual religious nutcases who committed the murders.

[Arrowhead2k1]

21. I didn't say anything about limiting free speech.

But we do have to try to realize the power our speech can have. Our laws need not be restricted in order to accomplish that. We just need to be more responsible. And I don't mean responsiblity under the law, as I think this is the source of your confusion. Jones' act of burning the Koran clearly led to the deaths of those UN members. This is indisputable. He is responsible morally for what happened, as he knew this could have potentially happened. It's ok to call him out on that and discourage future incitement, we have the right to do so, as long as doing so does not threaten our civil liberties.

[MadHound]

23. He is in no such way responsible for the murders of those innocents

He did not wield a weapon, he did not exhort those religious fundies in Afghanistan to kill innocents. He exercised his First Amendment rights of freedom of expression, in this country. That is all.

You say that we needn't curtail our laws, but in essence that we need to exercise control over our own speech in order to not offend others. That is a much more insidious form of curtailing our freedom of speech. Watch what you say, watch what you do, be in fear that you might insult religious fundies halfway around the world.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. It is simply curtailing our First Amendment rights by other, non-legal means.

Why not place the responsibility where it truly belongs, with the religious fundies who murdered the innocents? Why not call for them to curtail their base impulses? Rather than dragging us all down to their level, prompt them to join civilization here in the twenty first century, rather than trying to accommodate their medieval religious views?

You are indeed advocating for the limiting of free speech, just in a different guise. Shame, shame on you.

[Arrowhead2k1]

24. Asking people to be more responsible has nothing to do with curtailing Freedom of Speech.

Otherwise I might argue that you are using non-legal means to curtail my Freedom of Speech by discouraging me from condemning the actions of people who are "just excersising their rights" in your eyes. Shame, shame on you... ?

Not really, you see, this is a red herring. You need not invoke the First Amendment anymore. I am as much a stuanch supporter of it as you believe that you are, trust me.

[MadHound]

25. Not at all,

We have the Constitutionally protected right to express ourselves in this country by any means we see fit. Not express ourselves "responsibily", not be mindful of not offending people halfway around the world, but the right to express ourselves as we see fit.

If we followed your logic, then much of the language of the sixties simply wouldn't have happened, Malcolm X wouldn't have shocked the country "by any means necessary", the anti-war movement would have been neutered, hell, even Ginsburg's "Howl" would never have come into being.

Given your post here about "responsible" speech, sorry, I cannot trust you on anything about this issue. Deal with it.

[Arrowhead2k1]

26. You do have the constitutional right, but nothing I am saying goes against the constitution.

I am not the government obviously, and I am not calling for Jones' prosecution. However, Freedom of Speech does not protect people from criticism by their peers. You are over reaching with the first ammendment. Everyone has the right to tell eachother to STFU, and that is the just of it. It ends here.

[MadHound]

27. No, nothing your are saying goes against the Constitution,

But rather it is promoting self censorship, to be "responsible", "realize the power our speech can have", "discourage future incitement". A far more insidious way of trying to curtail people's speech, namely watch what you say, practice self censorship.

Shame.

[Arrowhead2k1]

29. I don't see it that way.

As in it's not as insidious as you make it sound. Many people practice a form of "self-censorship" all of the time. Ever wanted to really tell your boss that he's a fucking asshole? Many do want to say it sometimes, but we don't. We try to be responsible, because with such speech we might get fired, or worse, a punch in the face? lol
That's all I'm simply saying. Be responsible, because with such speech there are consequences. You can burn a Koran and beam the images straight to Afghanistan if you want, it's your right! But please, don't. You don't need to do it either, and people serving in Afghanistan might get hurt as an indirect result. It's simply not worth it in my opinion. You might disagree, but that's simply my opinion and my wish.

[MadHound]

30. And again, we circle back to the crux of the matter,

Where does the responsibility for the actual murder of innocents lie? With somebody exercising their Constitutionally protected right to express their self, or with the actual people who committed the actual murder? Why should we have to pussyfoot around the sensibilities of murderous religious fundies halfway around the world? What if these selfsame murderous religious fundies decide that they take offense at being called religious fundies, should I censor myself?

Sorry, but the responsibility for those murders lies solely at the feet of those who committed those murders. Rather than trying to restrict free speech, why not exhort those religious fundies to control themselves, take responsibility for their actions, own up to the fact that they are batshit crazy, killing innocents who did them no wrong, all because they take offense at another religious fundy in a different country?

People in this country have the right to make an ass of themselves, to say cruel, brutal, incendiary things. We have the equal right to criticize them for it. But nobody has the right to kill innocents over mere expressions or perceived insults. That way lies barbarism and those people need to be held responsible for their criminal actions, not somebody exercising their Freedom of Speech.

[Arrowhead2k1]

31. I wouldn't say solely with the murdurers, but they are the ones who should be

held legally responsible. That is for certain. As I said before in my first response to you, responsibility does not have to be exclusive to one party.

Neither does it have to be equal between all parties. Nobody is arguing that what the extremist did in Afghanistan wasn't deplorable and that they shouldn't be punished. Pointing out that Jones' actions were irresponsible as the Koran burning created the spark which led to the riots in Afghanistan, does not exonerate the actions of anyone involved in any way. Those people are demented and need to be dealt with. And they are being dealt with as our forces are in there trying to bring reforms in Afghanistan and fight the extremists who would indeed hurt us.

Jones was warned well in advance about the implications of his actions. He knew full well the potential for violence his actions would cause. We pleaded with him for weeks not to do it, and for a while he mercifully backed down. It was relatively quiet for a while atleast in that town in Aghanistan until Jones went ahead with the Koran burning and beamed the images around the world. You can't say he wasn't warned, you can't say nobody saw what might happen. Now the reality is that a lot of people are going home to their families in body bags.

May I ask you again, do you think Jones would have gone through with this if he had a son who's life was on the line?

Would you be able to do this if someone dear to you had their life on the line?

The fact is, somebody dear, somebody's son is actually on the line out there. We have a responsibility as human beings not to make things worse for them while they are out in the field doing their jobs. The Koran burning in Florida helped defeat that purpose. This was gravely unfortunate. And I for one will never defend the actions of anyone involved, whether directly or indirectly.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. What is to 'understand'? They're mad, they're homicidal, and it doesn't matter

what 'justification' they think they have, it's inexcusable.

Unfortunately, some people here can't say that, and immediately let loose with a torrent of "ButButButButButButButButButButButButButButBut..."

[freshwest]

9. Cite the news stories here and the threads then.

[MadHound]

10. LOL, that would be calling out posters, against the rules here, and would get this locked,

Nice try though:rofl:

[freshwest]

17. Then you are making a blanket accusation of everyone here.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[ohheckyeah]

11. I agree.

I don't care what religious fundies it was. When they kill someone over a slight they are off the charts WRONG.

Jones is a nutcase but he is an American citizen nutcase with a right to free speech. I expect that if a Muslim burned a Bible and Christian extremists killed innocents over it nobody here would condone it.

[Edweird]

12. I agree. Fire it up.

[iwishiwas]

14. You are right.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I'm not defending them, but I do wonder if

their anger (supposedly at Jones) is REALLY against the U.S. occupation. Jones gives their anger a focus as opposed to the amorphous object of "foreigners lobbing rockets around our country since 2001."

[BeFree]

28. Indeed

If we weren't over there tossing bombs, they probably wouldn't have even noticed...
Even though Jones was made into a celebrity here for weeks and weeks....
And we train our soldiers to hate the Muslims.

There wouldn't be anybody trying to stir up more war, would there, ya wonder?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Jones is like Fred Phelps, a shameless publicity hound

The meanest thing you could do to either of those guys is ignore them.

[emilyg]

22. k/r

[devils chaplain]

33. This can't be said enough:

I think he is an idiot Christian fundy who actually probably has more in common with the Muslim fundies than he, or they, would care to admit. Both wish to drag our modern civilization back into the Middle Ages when religion ruled supreme.

They are the Crips and the Bloods of holy book banging. They are at each other's throats, neither are in the right, and they are soiling everything around them.

[LAGC]

34. K the fuck R.

Religious extremists on both sides take their religion way too seriously.

[girl gone mad]

35. k & r