Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So spare me your faux outrage and predictable "you must love the muslims" nonsense. What this pastor did was unethical, period, and contrary to our goals. Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses in an entirely different context. And he's been misinterpreted to a degree. There's no misinterpretation of what the pastor did. It was intended to inflame.
When the debate veers off into correcting spelling errors and legalistic nitpicking about intent, that's the surest sign it's going nowhere.
But I'll take this thread and try to spin it into something more substantive.
First, I've not accused you of loving muslim terrorists, but I do accuse you of having a dangerously ambivalent attitude to our fundamental rights.
You suggest that our right to express an opinion is circumscribed by ethical and intentional boundaries. So where does that put those who question any establishment? What about George Carlin (peace be upon him) or Frankie Boyle? Certainly their art is all about intentionally insulting religious sensibilities. Would you call them unethical? Would the "smart thing to do" be to stick to fart jokes, or is the restriction on religious insult limited only to Islam?
And what of intent? So Rushdie is allowed to incide murderous rage because his intent was to create a good story? And what do you know about his intent that the rest of us don't?
So we have Pastor Jones. It makes no difference who he is or what he does, as an American it's his right to nonviolently express his opinion. In fact, those of us who subscribe to Natural Law insist that every human being has this right. Ethics and intent absolutely do not change that.
Freedom of expression is the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment, and I don't have to tell you that Enlightenment values have created the greatest advances in human happiness and well-being in history. But that was only possible because at long last people were able to question, criticize, and yes, insult the Catholic Church. The result? The Church was proven to be both fallible and durable. No longer was the West held back by dogma, and people were able to live their faith as free men. In fact, that most Christian sects have adopted Enlightenment Values as their own is the greatest demonstration of how thorough the victory of Reason has been.
I argue in favour of Pastor Jones, not because I like to insult people or because he's an articulate guy, but Islam needs its own Enlightenment as well. God knows it's about time. This is why I'll say a thousand times "NO" to any suggestion that curtailing our right to express any idea we wish just to please a bunch of primitives will bring peace.
Peace will come and Islamists will be marginalised when and if Muslims can come to terms with the fallibility of their own faith. That isn't going to happen by tiptoeing around their feelings, abandoning our values or by pointing a gun at them.
So the Islamist hoarde burns down a church because its congregation doesn't worship Allah. What's the smart choice for the Christian? Go Muslim?
Or some Mullah issues a fatwa that an author must die because of a work of fiction. What's the smart choice for Salman Rushdie? Write sitcoms?
Before you accuse me of hyperbole, the above scenarios are by no means hypothetical. One only need read the news.
Here's the point that many on the Postmodernist Left don't get: there is no appeasing Islamists. No matter how fervently one believes that all cultures are equally valid and no matter how long you pray to Gaia for peace, the the mere existence of the kuffar is reason enough drive the Islamist into a murderous rage.
Yup....
You cannot appease or satisfy those who do not believe in the same values as you....you can be used by them to further their cause but they care nothing for western principles.
I guess Jones accomplshed his mission. I wonder if he had a relative that was killed in the riots, would he have thought differently about his actions.
"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."
"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."
I guess Jones accomplshed his mission. I wonder if he had a relative that was killed in the riots, would he have thought differently about his actions.
"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."
When the debate veers off into correcting spelling errors and legalistic nitpicking about intent, that's the surest sign it's going nowhere.
But I'll take this thread and try to spin it into something more substantive.
First, I've not accused you of loving muslim terrorists, but I do accuse you of having a dangerously ambivalent attitude to our fundamental rights.
You suggest that our right to express an opinion is circumscribed by ethical and intentional boundaries. So where does that put those who question any establishment? What about George Carlin (peace be upon him) or Frankie Boyle? Certainly their art is all about intentionally insulting religious sensibilities. Would you call them unethical? Would the "smart thing to do" be to stick to fart jokes, or is the restriction on religious insult limited only to Islam?
And what of intent? So Rushdie is allowed to incide murderous rage because his intent was to create a good story? And what do you know about his intent that the rest of us don't?
So we have Pastor Jones. It makes no difference who he is or what he does, as an American it's his right to nonviolently express his opinion. In fact, those of us who subscribe to Natural Law insist that every human being has this right. Ethics and intent absolutely do not change that.
Freedom of expression is the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment, and I don't have to tell you that Enlightenment values have created the greatest advances in human happiness and well-being in history. But that was only possible because at long last people were able to question, criticize, and yes, insult the Catholic Church. The result? The Church was proven to be both fallible and durable. No longer was the West held back by dogma, and people were able to live their faith as free men. In fact, that most Christian sects have adopted Enlightenment Values as their own is the greatest demonstration of how thorough the victory of Reason has been.
I argue in favour of Pastor Jones, not because I like to insult people or because he's an articulate guy, but Islam needs its own Enlightenment as well. God knows it's about time. This is why I'll say a thousand times "NO" to any suggestion that curtailing our right to express any idea we wish just to please a bunch of primitives will bring peace.
Peace will come and Islamists will be marginalised when and if Muslims can come to terms with the fallibility of their own faith. That isn't going to happen by tiptoeing around their feelings, abandoning our values or by pointing a gun at them.
+1 wow awsome post it won't let me rep you again but that sums it up perfectly
as being of scots-Canadian descent I say alba gu brà th
When the debate veers off into correcting spelling errors and legalistic nitpicking about intent, that's the surest sign it's going nowhere.
But I'll take this thread and try to spin it into something more substantive.
First, I've not accused you of loving muslim terrorists, but I do accuse you of having a dangerously ambivalent attitude to our fundamental rights.
You suggest that our right to express an opinion is circumscribed by ethical and intentional boundaries. So where does that put those who question any establishment? What about George Carlin (peace be upon him) or Frankie Boyle? Certainly their art is all about intentionally insulting religious sensibilities. Would you call them unethical? Would the "smart thing to do" be to stick to fart jokes, or is the restriction on religious insult limited only to Islam?
And what of intent? So Rushdie is allowed to incide murderous rage because his intent was to create a good story? And what do you know about his intent that the rest of us don't?
So we have Pastor Jones. It makes no difference who he is or what he does, as an American it's his right to nonviolently express his opinion. In fact, those of us who subscribe to Natural Law insist that every human being has this right. Ethics and intent absolutely do not change that.
Freedom of expression is the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment, and I don't have to tell you that Enlightenment values have created the greatest advances in human happiness and well-being in history. But that was only possible because at long last people were able to question, criticize, and yes, insult the Catholic Church. The result? The Church was proven to be both fallible and durable. No longer was the West held back by dogma, and people were able to live their faith as free men. In fact, that most Christian sects have adopted Enlightenment Values as their own is the greatest demonstration of how thorough the victory of Reason has been.
I argue in favour of Pastor Jones, not because I like to insult people or because he's an articulate guy, but Islam needs its own Enlightenment as well. God knows it's about time. This is why I'll say a thousand times "NO" to any suggestion that curtailing our right to express any idea we wish just to please a bunch of primitives will bring peace.
Peace will come and Islamists will be marginalised when and if Muslims can come to terms with the fallibility of their own faith. That isn't going to happen by tiptoeing around their feelings, abandoning our values or by pointing a gun at them.
+1 Outstanding pownage.
Last edited by Calvinist; 04-06-2011 at 08:31 AM..
When the debate veers off into correcting spelling errors and legalistic nitpicking about intent, that's the surest sign it's going nowhere.
But I'll take this thread and try to spin it into something more substantive.
First, I've not accused you of loving muslim terrorists, but I do accuse you of having a dangerously ambivalent attitude to our fundamental rights.
You suggest that our right to express an opinion is circumscribed by ethical and intentional boundaries. So where does that put those who question any establishment? What about George Carlin (peace be upon him) or Frankie Boyle? Certainly their art is all about intentionally insulting religious sensibilities. Would you call them unethical? Would the "smart thing to do" be to stick to fart jokes, or is the restriction on religious insult limited only to Islam?
And what of intent? So Rushdie is allowed to incide murderous rage because his intent was to create a good story? And what do you know about his intent that the rest of us don't?
So we have Pastor Jones. It makes no difference who he is or what he does, as an American it's his right to nonviolently express his opinion. In fact, those of us who subscribe to Natural Law insist that every human being has this right. Ethics and intent absolutely do not change that.
Freedom of expression is the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment, and I don't have to tell you that Enlightenment values have created the greatest advances in human happiness and well-being in history. But that was only possible because at long last people were able to question, criticize, and yes, insult the Catholic Church. The result? The Church was proven to be both fallible and durable. No longer was the West held back by dogma, and people were able to live their faith as free men. In fact, that most Christian sects have adopted Enlightenment Values as their own is the greatest demonstration of how thorough the victory of Reason has been.
I argue in favour of Pastor Jones, not because I like to insult people or because he's an articulate guy, but Islam needs its own Enlightenment as well. God knows it's about time. This is why I'll say a thousand times "NO" to any suggestion that curtailing our right to express any idea we wish just to please a bunch of primitives will bring peace.
Peace will come and Islamists will be marginalised when and if Muslims can come to terms with the fallibility of their own faith. That isn't going to happen by tiptoeing around their feelings, abandoning our values or by pointing a gun at them.
Well said!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
