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.
Why do you assume every American agrees with this? No one in their right mind would do that.
I for one do NOT believe that this is right....we have Freedom of religion in the country for a reason. One can't just pick and choose which one is allowed and which one isn't.
So please don't speak for me...I'm ashamed to be associatied with people who think they do.
No one ever said that ALL Americans support book burnings. However, not enough people push back on insane book burning to stop them.
The inbred, back water redneck will either back down or will be stopped by the government/law enforcement.
After watching the rambling ignorant press conference he just gave, announcing that the burning will go ahead, it's obvious he's just lapping up his 'glory moment'.
what a bigoted and racist remark you just made. just because this man wants to use his freedom of expression in his own way, you fault him his right to do so, how bigoted can you be.
People hurt or killed in the Thaeater example are hurt and killed unntentionally due to. Panic, not homicidal rage due to religion
You immediately assumed that a panic would arise from yelling "FIRE" in a crowd. And you assumed that people could potentially be hurt or killed as a direct result of that person's actions. You assumed it, because you know it to be true.
We now have military heads from two countries - ours and Canada - that say that this is stupid, childish, and is only going to make things worse. If there are already increasingly violent protests in areas where our military has made great strides - does that not serve as a warning or omen? If the minister of god knows that his actions have already started to cause problems... could his actions this Saturday therefore be Reckless Endangerment?
You call it "giving in to muslims"; I call it diplomacy. If you're trying to make peace in a nation, then it's not the best idea to have international attention (and support) on the burning of their sacred text.
A good analogy is that we willingly walked into a den of bears who really don't like us. We gave them salmon and technology... now we're going to destroy something they all hold sacred. Oh, and they have us surrounded in their den.
You immediately assumed that a panic would arise from yelling "FIRE" in a crowd. And you assumed that people could potentially be hurt or killed as a direct result of that person's actions. You assumed it, because you know it to be true.
We now have military heads from two countries - ours and Canada - that say that this is stupid, childish, and is only going to make things worse. If there are already increasingly violent protests in areas where our military has made great strides - does that not serve as a warning or omen? If the minister of god knows that his actions have already started to cause problems... could his actions this Saturday therefore be Reckless Endangerment?
You call it "giving in to muslims"; I call it diplomacy. If you're trying to make peace in a nation, then it's not the best idea to have international attention (and support) on the burning of their sacred text.
A good analogy is that we willingly walked into a den of bears who really don't like us. We gave them salmon and technology... now we're going to destroy something they all hold sacred. Oh, and they have us surrounded in their den.
Wrong. The people would be injured or die as a result of the panic of others, which would not be a deliberate thing on the part of those in the panic. However, if you upset a muslim, they deliberately act to kill. You're comparing a panic situation ot a deliberate act. They are not comparible..
It would be like you comparing someone sneezing and setting off a guy to someone who delibereately pulled the trigger..
The reality is, you liberals think that muslims can and will be violent as a response to a percieved insult, and thus we must do everything in our power to not insult them because they cannot control themselves, and thus we would be "provoking" them if we did anything to insult them...
Your logic, and Petraeus' logic is the same as the logic of blaming women for being raped by how they were dressed. You provoked the man, you provoked muslims by offending them. Rather than expect them to control themselves, you were to blame for making him rape you because of how you dressed, or you were responsible for provoking muslims to violence by offending them.
Stop making excuses. Expect muslims to act in a civilized manner and not to engage in violence every time they feel slighted, OR DO YOU BLAME WOMEN FOR BEING RAPED as well?
As someone who's been raped, your attempt to discredit me is extremely offensive. There is no connection between apparel and the motivation for rape. However, attacking people's religious beliefs throughout history has shown itself to be particularly provocative. There certainly is a connection between violence and attacking another person's belief systems, culture, ethnicity, religion and so on. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
This pastor is attacking someone's religion. It's especially egregious that he calls himself a man of religion. His actions could very well lead to an escalation of violence that could result in an American soldier's death.
Again, as regards free speech, the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evil.
And you have not been arguing that this pastor's remarks will not cause harm, you've only been arguing that it's not the pastor's fault if harm results from his actions. Unfortunately for you, the law says otherwise. Whether his intent is to cause harm or not, he has been told how and why his actions could cause such harm. He could not reasonably excuse himself if substantive evil did result from his actions.
Wrong. The people would be injured or die as a result of the panic of others, which would not be a deliberate thing on the part of those in the panic. However, if you upset a muslim, they deliberately act to kill. You're comparing a panic situation ot a deliberate act. They are not comparible..
It would be like you comparing someone sneezing and setting off a guy to someone who delibereately pulled the trigger..
The reality is, you liberals think that muslims can and will be violent as a response to a percieved insult, and thus we must do everything in our power to not insult them because they cannot control themselves, and thus we would be "provoking" them if we did anything to insult them...
Wrong. From an ethical perspective as well as a legal perspective.
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.
See bolded.
