jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (133 posts)

Michigan prosecutor files to stop Koran-burning pastor

  1. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    (Reuters) - A Detroit prosecutor has filed a petition in district court to stop a Florida fundamentalist Christian preacher, who recently caused riots in Afghanistan after he burned a Koran, from holding a rally outside a large Michigan mosque.

    Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said the threat of violence was too great to allow Terry Jones to hold the planned gathering on Friday near the Islamic Center of America -- the largest U.S. mosque -- in the heavily Muslim Detroit suburb of Dearborn.

    A hearing on Worthy's bid to block Jones and his supporters from holding the rally at the mosque will be held on Thursday in a Dearborn court. The petition is dated April 15.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ … ;ca=rsstmb

    is this freedom of speech going to far?...who is right?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As long as the homosexual agenda activists are allowed to picket in the streets of ANY U.S. city, AND as long as Muslims are allowed to entrench their religion into our legal system, then that Pastor should be able to picket also in any city and burn any book he owns as long as he doesn't set anyone or anyone's property on fire.
      Two wrongs do not make a right, morally.  But apparently our lawmakers are no longer going by a moral code, only a politically-correct one.

      1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well if you burn a koran that is just simply being racist, just like burning a cross in front of someones house! If you allow people to do that all hell will break loose. But again if you want to talk about moral code why don't you read about my friend that probably was killed by a serial killer because he was gay, and the articles of his case and tell me if that was someone you knew, is that morally correct !
        http://hubpages.com/hub/How-do-you-view … individual

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you think Islam is a race.  How odd.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well done Brenda, first to bring race into the debate!!

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey John, in Brenda's defense. Hattie brought race up.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Cagsil.

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're welcome Brenda. smile

                  1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
                    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    well homosexuality is racist! lol I believe she wrote that first! smile

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OK.
                Sorry Brenda, I miss read the post sad

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay. smile

          2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
            HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Racist or Religous it is peoples choice to believe what they do. It is just what is morally & ethically right. If you have no morals or ethics, you might as well throw in the towel, because from writing what you have on here as everyone else for their beliefs and opinions they are coming to get you too for you own!  Would you want them to prosecute someone that was in your front lawn burning your house down for what you believe!

          3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Racism and discrimination are basically the same thing - you just apply the "random hatred of an entire group of people for only one word that describes them" to a different class of words.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Just look at their attitude toward the TEA Party.    There's your group hatred right there.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Hattie,

          Sometimes I just don't understand a post. Yours, for example. How, exactly, is burning a book, any book, racist?

          Would you be more comfortable if the Bible was burned? Or is that racist too?  And how would I ever be able to figure out whether burning book A or Book B was racist or not racist?

        3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You do understand that churches are bombed, bibles burned and Christians beaten, killed, denied equality or the right to practice their faith all over the Muslim world.  If I burn the Koran I own it is burning a book.  The Saudis have fed bibles taken from travelers into shredders right in front of the owner.  Catholic soldiers wounded in defense of Saudi land during the Persian Gulf War were denied last rites and had to be taken out of Saudi Arabia to receive a sacrament of their faith.

          It doesn't matter if ones actions are racist or not if those actions are protected by the First Amendment. Nazis paraded through the streets of Skokie Illinois, a primarily Jewish suburb of Chicago, in the 1970s with the protection of the First Amendment.  Free speech is not acceptable speech, polite speech or tolerant speech - it is free speech accompanied by all the messiness that implies.

      2. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Suddenly the gay thing is brought up when we're talking about book burning.

        Irregardless, book burning has always been a sign of fear and ignorance. If your life is based on that, it's pretty sad that your god and your life have no more power or influence for good than perpetuating such activities.

        There's not a lot of difference between book burning and the Salem Witch Hunts and trials, centuries ago. I believe Senator McCarthy took a similar mentality in the 50's. Superstition and ignorance still prevail, unfortunately.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Senator McCarthy was not burning books.   He was pursuing agents for the Soviet Union who had infiltrated our government.    Whatever you think of his tactics, please get the facts straight.

          1. Maembe profile image61
            Maembeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Soviet agents present in the United States in prominent positions should surprise no one.  The liberal bent is to side with any power that promises utopia - especially an anti-American utopia.  Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Robert Mugabe, Che Guevara, Yassir Arrafat, Hugo Chavez, etc... have all been supported by liberals in government, the press and the arts despite ample evidence of egregious crimes.

        2. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Daniel,

          Islam is a political system. How is burning a Koran different from burning the US flag? Aren't both protected, political speech?

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Islam in the United States is a religion. Christianity (the evangelical branch) IS a political system.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              How you came to either of those conclusions is beyond me.   But that's the usual fare from you, labeling something however you want to label it.

            2. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Doug,

              There is only one Islam. It is a political system with a goal of worldwide conquest. The Sunni and Shia may have their different perspectives on how to accomplish their political goal but the goal itself is not in question.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I know Moslems in the USA. I work with some. My 7-year old daughter is best friends with a Moslem girl. We know their family. Great people. No, they are not trying to take over the world. That's paranoid ignorance.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ask them if they are practicing Muslims. The faithful will murder them if thay are apostate or if they convert.

                  The ignorance is on your part. You are a willing accomplice to your own destruction.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You know you don't have to be so paranoid, you could get help.

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That prosecutor should be immediately summarily fired, and his license to practice law permanently revoked.   If he has so little regard for freedom of speech, he has no business abusing public office, nor the people whose rights he is charged with PRESERVING, not destroying.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What happened to peaceably?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How is firing someone who abuses their position not peaceable?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How is firing somebody who is tying to keep the peace not abuse of position?

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              He's not keeping the peace.   He's violating the right of free speech, by trying to use force to shut someone up.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That puts him in a position I would not like to be in.
                He does nothing to prevent this preacher spreading hatred, perhaps even death.
                Knowing that was a likely outcome surely then he becomes just as guilty as the mad pastor!

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Guilty of what?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Guilty of whatever this bit of silly protesting produces.

                    Whatever happened to "with rights come responsibility"?

            2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              peace is not the absence of noise, or disagreement.   peace is the presence of justice... when the rights of the one outweigh all the demands of the myriad.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good call.

                And you're right about how the Tea Party is the object of a HUGE amount of hatred.   But the libs don't call it hatred when it comes from themselves.  They're very intolerant.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well I'm just off to the theatre. I think I'll shout fire.
                It's my right to do so, doesn't matter how many get trampled to death in the resulting chaos.

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You do that.   Make sure you're standing in the doorway.    It would be the Darwin award at work.

    3. secularist10 profile image89
      secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "is this freedom of speech going to far?...who is right?"

      This story really has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with public safety. The authorities in Michigan are doing the right thing by trying to prevent the gathering right outside a mosque. There is too much potential for violence and instability. They can have their little party in another part of town.

      It's just a little surprising that the article doesn't mention anything about requiring a government-issued permit to hold such a gathering. Instead "a prosecutor" must file in a court to "try" to stop it?

      There are reasonable limits on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly when public safety is at stake.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well said.

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It has everything to do with freedom of speech!   There's just as much potential for violence when Muslims advocate building a mosque near Ground Zero.   ...Or is there?....hmmm....people aren't usually fearful of Christians becoming violent....wonder why?    Maybe because we're usually more TOLERANT than we really should be.
        To use the argument that this is an issue of public safety is just another liberal twist on trying to stop the freedom of speech of Christians.   I for one hope that Pastor gets lots of support so that his rights are kept intact.  It's really bad when our rights as citizens are being taken away from us and given to those whose agendas aren't even American.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Another fine example of Christian understanding!

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yours is another example of how libs like to roll right past the actual topic of general discussion and make personal attacks.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, not rue. I've made my feelings quite clear and see no need to constantly repeat myself.
              It wasn't a personal attack, any more than your post was a personal attack on me, it was a comment on what I see as Christian hypocrisy.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                roll

        2. secularist10 profile image89
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Brenda, I'm against the "Ground Zero Mosque" for the same reasons of public safety. You might want to think before making assumptions and painting someone with your "liberal caricature" brush.

          In the case of Detroit, the potential violence would be caused by Muslims. In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque, the potential violence would be caused by people hateful of Muslims.

          Of course Christians are generally more peaceful (in the first world--in the poor world they're just violent as anybody else). This is because first world Christians are thoroughly secularized.

          Didn't you read what I wrote? I said he should be able to have his demonstration in another location, not right in front of the Mosque.

          I suppose you would support the Ku Klux Klan holding a rally in Harlem?

          (And BTW, there are many Americans who are Muslims.)

          1. hottopics profile image60
            hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Having been someone who spent 3 weeks at ground zero, I am against the mosque for a differentreason, 343 of my brothere and sisters reason, not to mention all of the innocent civilians from all walks of life, not just Americans. But I disagree, if the Supreme court rule that protesters could picket furnerals of our brave men and women of the armed forces, then a protest can occur in front of Mosques. I do not agree with burning the Koran, but it is the Pastors right to do so, just like the idiots that burn our great flag.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I love flag burning. It is political speech at its finest. We need more of it.

      3. sn53Anon profile image59
        sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Great idea. How is that working in France? There are whole areas where non-muslims are not allowed to go because it is too dangerous for them.

        I need to refresh my research but it seems to me that Europe a few centuries back had a similar Muslim problem. I think the way they solved it was to give Muslims the choice of converting to Christianity at the edge of a sword, or departure. Spain and Portugal come to mind. I will have to check.

        1. secularist10 profile image89
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is nowhere where non-Muslims are "not allowed to go." Maybe de facto, but not de jure. There are segments in any major city that are considered to be dangerous for outsiders to go. This is no different.

          1. sn53Anon profile image59
            sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi sec,

            Does it really matter why people who do not follow the religion of peace cannot go into what would otherwise be public areas?

            1. secularist10 profile image89
              secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In the grand scheme of things, no it doesn't matter.

              But there's a difference between authorities limiting freedom for a legitimate purpose, and people choosing not to go to an area out of private concerns or preferences.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I seem to remember that when I visited America I was constantly being told by my host to lock my car door and no, we can't go there.
                None of the areas were Muslim.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I am certain they must exist. They should be cleaned out too. How did ours get that way? Politicians promised the poor and the lazy free government housing. Thugs moved in. Projects failed. Dumb idea. Probably Democrats showing their compassion.

                  1. secularist10 profile image89
                    secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha... if only it were that simple. There were slums and gangsters long before government housing programs, and long before the Democratic party came into existence.

                2. DannyMaio profile image59
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  where did you go? sounds like you had a very bad tour guide!

                  1. secularist10 profile image89
                    secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha, right! smile

    4. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting. A preacher in Florida caused riots in Afghanistan? Where were the Afhanis in all of this? Do they bear no guild for their murders?

    5. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If the threat of violence is so great perhaps the prosecutor out to get a restraining order against the ones inclined to violence?

    6. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      By the way, these Muslims, are they adherents of Islam, the religion of peace? Have we had enough yet?

    7. 71
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How far is too far and who decides?
      There is a downside to free speech and if we are to enjoy the upside, we have to be willing to tolerate the bad that may occur.
      Too bad a little compassion, tolerance, and commonsense has gone by the wayside throughout most societies.  If the moron burning the Koran did it in private, where we would be the outrage.  If the prosecutor just ignored the morons and let it go by the wayside, the publicity would  be much more minimal.  Both are just out for the noteriety.  So sad what so many will do in the name of religion.  In direct contradiction to the premise of the religion.

    8. james_foreclosure profile image60
      james_foreclosureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hmm... an interesting issue indeed - at least on paper. our first amendment rights to freedom of speech, to gather, worship who we may vs public safety. you could argue that due to the past actions and "burning" that yes, it was too much of a threat to hold the gathering, but what is that to stop another group from doing it in response to the "forbidden" meeting? i could just see a group of people still carrying this out, even though they are not technically permitted to.

  2. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    If neo-Nazis decided that they wanted to stand outside of Jewish temples and burn Torahs I don't think Cag's viewpoint would go very far....

    In my mind, the "reverand" here is little better than them....  His followers use the word "Christian" simply to sugar coat their own bigotry and extremism....

    Cags may think that the Detroit prosector needs to stay out of this...but I believe that the "reverand" actually is the one who needs to stay out of Michigan...

    His church is from Florida......IF that state is fine with him, let it be....but if he moves into other people's states, then they are trying to protect themselves from his stupidity...and the people of Michigan deserve that....

    After Terry Jones leads his rabble away from Michigan (given they hold their "protest") they get to go "home" a thousand miles away to the south......  But the people of Michigan are stuck with whatever mess these "Christians" create.....

    Bull....  I hope the Michigan prosecutor wins....and I hope to see Mr. Jones behind bars, or stripped of his "reverandness" at some point....  Charlatan....

    If people argue that his actions fall under First Ammendment protections.....then would my earlier example of the neo-Nazis fall outside of said rights?

    I surely don't think so....

    Yet I will say this.....  If they do get to go to Dearborn....and if they are able to do their "thing", then whatever happens to them in response, short of death or severre bodily injury..should be allowed....

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bring up my name is completely irrelevant Mike, considering my post was deleted for other reasons than what you might think.

      Therefore, mentioning my name was completely useless. So, do try to keep me out of the conversation.

      1. mikelong profile image82
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know what you are trying to say Cags....

        What does your name have anything to do with anything.... I was only referring to your statement.  Anything else you read into my response is on you....not I.. 

        I had no idea your post was deleted...nor did I have any understanding of why.....none of it had anything to do with my statement... Your post was visible when I left my mark....

        If you disagree with my analogy of the Neo-Nazis protesting outside of Jewish temples...that is another issue altogether....

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mike, when you came into this thread. My post wasn't here. Mentioning me was irrelevant, because I deleted what I had posted.

          The reason I deleted my post had nothing to do with this thread, but did have to do with the person who posted the OP to begin with.

          You mentioning me and what I did post, makes your post confusing to everyone else. Understand?

    2. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fascinating. So burning a Koran is out of bounds for you but the responding physical violence is okay.

  3. superwags profile image81
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    I just can't understand anybody defending this pastor. The guy's clearly a jerk who you is out for publicity. He managed to succeed in whipping up enough of a frenzy to get innocent people killed last time.

    What point is he trying to prove? He should go to Kabul and do it - if I was one of those UN staff or aid agency people there I'd join in the beating.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't need to defend anything.  And I am not.   But free speech MUST ALWAYS BE DEFENDED.   The purpose of defending free speech is to ensure that  those who are unpopular cannot be squelched.     It is not free speech to allow only that which is comfortable, pretty, or popular.   Free speech is when someone whose ideas turn our stomachs...  Retains his rights.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So you also defend the right of Muslims to advocate Sharia law, the wearing of burqas, to worship in their way and to do 101 one other things that people on these forums complain about?

        And further more the next time anybody starts sounding off against Islam you'll be right in there defending their right to free speech?

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Have you seen me advocating for laws to shut people up?   Never.   Muslims are free to advocate and speak for whatever they want.    In fact, I encourage them to do so, that way we can see what they want and not fall for the political ploys.    Yes, I would dearly love for Muslims to promote what Sharia law is and what it does.    That way you libs would  turn on it, instead of embracing it.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I rather think that if you understood Sharia law as applied outside Muslim countries then you would cease to be scared of it.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This is why you get no respect from me.   You havent' the faintest clue what you're talking about.    We know exactly what Sharia law is, and how it is practiced in muslim countries is evidence of just how evil it is.   It denies every notion of what the free world knows as rights, and instead, places unelected clergy in the position of determining right, wrong, good, evil, and unchecked power over ANYONE's life.   

              I don't "fear" anything.   I know what's good and what's bad.   You, on the other hand, are so politically controlled, you haven't had a free thought in decades.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                With respect (though not a lot) we have Sharia law in the UK.
                It is only applied in the civil courts and between two parties that are in agreement with the case being tried under Sharia law.
                It's main intent is to avoid putting the law into conflict with religion.

                There is no way that it would be introduced into criminal law, there just aren't enough Muslims to influence the law making of our country.

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You just advocated Sharia law in OUR country, by saying we should silence a preacher ( Sharia law obviously forbids the burning of the Koran), to achieve the ends of the goal of Sharia law.    Muslims don't have to have a majority and try to vote in laws to enforce their wishes.   You are doing it for them.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you crazy?
                    I'm not advocating Sharia law, just some common sense.

                    Why do we not hear a sound about the person who brought the action to stop this bit of stirring, the judge didn't decide off his own bat to ban this bit of stupidity.

            2. superwags profile image81
              superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I'm surprised by the Americans' point of view on Sharia law, they don't seem very clued up on it; or are willfully ignorant of what it entails to make a political point.

              We've had it for a few years now, it basically just governs divorces. Same as Jewish law that we had for years (and presumably the US has too?).

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                LOL, yeah, you really don't understand it, do you?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry bud, it's you that doesn't understand.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand it very well.    It's you who has shut his eyes and pretended that the sharia law that has spawned beatings, repression, oppression, and continues to violate every notion of humanity as it has throughout the centuries is somehow some kind of innocuous bit of idiosyncratic culture.

                2. superwags profile image81
                  superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't understand your point...

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's very easy to understand. It's hatred of anything different.

              2. sn53Anon profile image59
                sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Have you never heard of honor killings?

                Sharia law is antithetical to democratic institutions.

                1. superwags profile image81
                  superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wahey, I rest my case!

                  1. sn53Anon profile image59
                    sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi super,

                    Are you for, or against, honor killings?

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Interfaith groups unite against Rev. Terry Jones.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110420/N … ing-pastor

    Michigan right-wing nutjob behind Rev. Jones visit to Dearborn

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110420/NEWS06/104200413

    1. DannyMaio profile image59
      DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      again show me where it states fully that they are right wing nuts? I heard he was a left wing nut! why because they claim to be Christians? again you make statements without any real facts! You did the same with the Arizona gunman and than later found out how wrong you were because he was a democrat and had met Gabby. You never manned up and apologized but instead went on a left wing rant. Remember facts first before inserting foot in mouth again.

  5. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago
  6. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Okay Cags....I somehow read your post, even though it wasn't there...

    That makes a lot of sense...right?  I must have transported myself back into time?

    I'm befuddled...

    You are arguing about frivolous nonsense....if you disagree with your post now, that is one thing, but anything else is useless...

    If you disagree with my analogy that was motivated by your now deleted post, that is fine....

  7. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    I think that some of the same people who are against Terry Jones' freedom of expression issues were in favor of the same rights given to the West Boro Baptists. Both Jones and Phelps continue to threaten the basic libertys of American citizens because they push the law to it's limits. All hatred, all in the name of religion, and neither are a viable example of the true tennants of Christianity.

  8. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    Let's look at this through an example outside Islam.

    Suppose I detested The Church of Latter Day Saints. Mormon. (I don't.) It's a minority church most people are indifferent to. They have their holy book, the book of Mormon. Suppose I had a copy and decided to burn it - on my propery.

    I think that would be in poor taste, but legal. Suppose I videotaped it and put it on the web to antagonize Mormons. That's a truly foul thing to do, but still legal, in my opinion.

    Suppose I want to REALLY miss off Mormon. I apply for a permit, with the announced intent of burning a book of Mormon on a public street in front of the grand temple in Salt Lake City. For this example, suppose I am from Florida. Salt Lake City is going to have to pay for enormous security to prevent the locals from tearing me limb from limb. And I pay no taxes in Utah. Are they gonna issue me a permit? I doubt it. Should they?

    No. My right of free speech was never denied. I am allowed to burn a book of Mormon anytime. On my property. But the state is not obliged to underwrite the cost of security for an act designed and intended to provoke a potentially violent response.

    1. secularist10 profile image89
      secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. The issue is not freedom of speech--they still have freedom to hate all they want.

      The issue is public safety, so some 5-year-old kid doesn't get killed when the two groups get into a rumble.

      This isn't India, people.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab3SiqCqI0

      Here are some protesters. You will notice that not only are they are still alive, but they come to the Salt Lake Temple every year for our semiannual conference.

      1. secularist10 profile image89
        secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        BEST part:

        "I see the truth in everyone..."
        "Oh, come on, man! You guys have turned into a bunch of wusses"

        Haha, I can't stop laughing at that exchange. That's the odd couple, right there.

        But on a serious note, ok so the authorities in Salt Lake City I guess decide that the Mormons aren't going to be moved to violence. Good for them. That doesn't change the essential argument that they would be totally within their rights to limit the demonstration if they thought it was a danger.

        (On a separate but related note, I wrote a hub ranking Christian communities by their humanism score and Mormonism scored pretty high on my humanism ranking.)

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, that was a pretty dumb conversation.

          Sometimes those type of people can actually inadvertantly cause good things to happen. The city didn't want the church to be able to purchase an area near the temple that would allow people to congregate close by for wedings and other things, then they heard that one of those crazies was spitting in the face of a bride and calling her a whore. They ended up getting the land because of that.

          1. secularist10 profile image89
            secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's amazing the depths some people will stoop to, in the absence of a sense of common humanity.

            Uh oh, there goes that humanism talk of mine again... lol

    3. Maembe profile image61
      Maembeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you legally burn stuff on public property in the first place?

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Dearborn mayor cites strip bars, pork sausage factory adjacent to Mosque in denying that Sharia has come to Dearborn.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110421/N … |FRONTPAGE

 
working