(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?
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.
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
Well done Brenda, first to bring race into the debate!!
Hey John, in Brenda's defense. Hattie brought race up.
well homosexuality is racist! lol I believe she wrote that first!
Homosexuality is not nor does it have anything to do with racism.
Are you sure about that? In the UK it's reckoned that around 4% of people classify themselves as gay. I heard that in Uganda and Saudi Arabia it's virtually none.
I therefore conclude that caucasian's are more likely to be gay than Central Africans and Arabs.
The race of a homosexual person doesn't change from being human does it now?
You may have been or were being, but many people actually think that because their sexual orientation is different than that of others, then they are in fact a different race. It's absurd.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Islam is a political system. How is burning a Koran different from burning the US flag? Aren't both protected, political speech?
Islam in the United States is a religion. Christianity (the evangelical branch) IS a political system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know you don't have to be so paranoid, you could get help.
I am fine, thanks. You do realize that it is not paranoia if they really are out to conquer you. Ask them if they support jihad. Ask them if they are practicing Muslims. Ask them if they believe that the islamofascists are generally on the right track using homicide bombers to change the face of France, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia...
And the general answer is "not a chance".
Just as any community has it's share of nutters, so does Islam and as with the general community they are looked at rather askance.
I can't tell you what my Muslim landlord has to say about the nutters, needless to say it is not complimentary.
Oh and before you ask, yes he is a practising Muslim.
I don't expect you to believe me, the paranoia is too ingrained.
At the time of the 7/7 bombings in London I was working in a workshop surrounded by many Muslims, some friendly, some aloof. Virtually every one of them, both friendly and aloof, came to offer me their hand on that day. Every one of them said words to the affect of "not in my name".
But they never respond in public. And when privately polled the overwhelmingly agree with jihad.
Be fooled if you wish.
On September 11th 2001 I went to the two Muslim men I worked with, one a good friend and the other an acquaintance, and told them if anyone gets after them run to me. I would have done everything, including a little of my own violence, to protect those men from harm.
This is the most hilarious response ever. If we had signatures I would change mine to "You do realize that it is not paranoia if they really are out to conquer you." I would have posted something like what you said in order to mock you, but you saved me the trouble.
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.
How is firing someone who abuses their position not peaceable?
How is firing somebody who is tying to keep the peace not abuse of position?
He's not keeping the peace. He's violating the right of free speech, by trying to use force to shut someone up.
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!
Guilty of whatever this bit of silly protesting produces.
Whatever happened to "with rights come responsibility"?
Why would he be guilty of anything? His granted powers of government do not extend to silencing free speech. Thus, he has NO POWER to interfere, and if he tries, he is abusing his power, a far bigger crime than any stupid folly of burning some book.
The people who commit violence in response to this (if any) are the guilty ones, who must be condemned for their actions. The pastor is NOT guilty for their actions. They chose them, and they bear the guilt, not him.
So if I turned up on your doorstep and started insulting and threatening your family, you would just mutter "freedom of speech" and let me get on with it?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Another fine example of Christian understanding!
Yours is another example of how libs like to roll right past the actual topic of general discussion and make personal attacks.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Does it really matter why people who do not follow the religion of peace cannot go into what would otherwise be public areas?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Point taken. It is never that simple.
And yet, sometimes it is. It is likely that the very worst help you can get is from someone who believes they are being compassionate when they enslave you. That often happens when we discover we need one more government program to help the poor or disadvantaged.
maybe we should have less government and more businesses. Then there would be more jobs. Every time we get the government out of some aspect of our lives the cost of everything else in our lives will drop.
where did you go? sounds like you had a very bad tour guide!
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?
If the threat of violence is so great perhaps the prosecutor out to get a restraining order against the ones inclined to violence?
By the way, these Muslims, are they adherents of Islam, the religion of peace? Have we had enough yet?
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.
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.
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....
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.
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....
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?
Fascinating. So burning a Koran is out of bounds for you but the responding physical violence is okay.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I rather think that if you understood Sharia law as applied outside Muslim countries then you would cease to be scared of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, you're advocating stopping people from burning the Koran... Enforcement of the Sharia law, plain and simple. You wouldn't stop a party to burn "Atlas Shrugged" would you? Of course not. There's no death penalty behind burning that. So, you enforce the law and advocate we do the same.
I said you were clueless long ago... you continue to amaze me with how incredibly clueless you are. Each time I think "I've seen it all", you step up and raise the ante on "clueless" to heights I've never before observed.
No, I'm not advocating stopping somebody from burning the Koran, I've burnt more than one on my bonfire.
I'm advocating stopping people from inciting violence.
If he just wants to dispose of it, why the need to travel 1000 miles and burn it in front of a mosque?
LOL, exactly. Enforce sharia law. it's the cowards way out.
Burning the Koran is a political statement. It is protected speech.
Islam is a political system. It has, as its intent, the subjugation of the world. I belivee that is why socialists, democrats, and anarchists all get along with islamofascists.
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?).
LOL, yeah, you really don't understand it, do you?
Sorry bud, it's you that doesn't understand.
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.
Then you must ask yourself how, in a country that is so anti Islam, would they actually introduce Sharia law?
Even if 100% of Muslims wanted it they could not muster up enough votes to introduce it.
You, YOURSELF ARE ADVOCATING THE ENFORCEMENT OF SHARIAH LAW. YOu just did above, by demanding the pastor be silenced. That's what Sharia law wants, that's what you demanded. They don't give a flying flip of you believe in it or not, but whether or not you can be intimidated into enforcing it for them.
Riot downtown London and you'll let them "divorce" their way, which violates every known idea of fairness and justice...after all, the only victims of sharia law divorce are muslim women hiding behind scarves who are only racial minorities anyway... Why bother to stand up for their rights? After all, if you do, a riot might break out. Then, it's shut up some preacher in America, after all, he's just a 'right wing nut' and you don't c are about his rights, either.
All they have to do is threaten or actually riot a little and kill some of your countrymen in some far off land, and you immediately surrender and start enforcing THEIR wishes. What will be your answer when they say "there's too much female skin shown on the Beeb and if you dont' change, we'll bomb 10 stations of the Underground?
There'll be John Holden, demanding they change the clothing on the Beeb, just to make the Sharia law types happy.
Eventually, without ever having a vote, without ever holding a referrendum, without a debate in parliament, you will live under Sharia law.
And it will have been AT YOUR INSISTENCE.
Have you never heard of honor killings?
Sharia law is antithetical to democratic institutions.
Are you for, or against, honor killings?
I'm dead against them. Using Sharia to deal with marital disputes has nothing to do with honour killings. Nor are honour killings reserved for muslims, either.
A quick Google search brought up a variety of stories about honor killings. About 5,00 women are murdered each year, most by proponents of the religion of peace, Islam.
The world has a Muslim problem.
Muslim stories are more popular, you wont be surprised to hear. I agree though, it is mainly muslims - with a smattering of Sikhs, Hindus and Sub-Saharn Africans.
Muslims have this problem, not the rest of the world. I have a fair few muslim friends; they're not a threat to anyone.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=99616128
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02 … -kpho-news
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/mo-ha … e34273.ece
http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pa … lings.html
The treatment of women as property in Muslim tradition may not give de jure sanction to honor killing but does give rise to de facto sanctions in cultural practices that lead to honor killings.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ … 301485726/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … riage.html
We can pretend all we want that Sharia Law has not fundamentally or will not fundamentally alter Western legal practice but what facts show is an increasing attempt to do just that. If I were a woman I would be very concerned, especially if I had daughters.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/web … in_sweden/
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_we … e-pas.html
It seems the religion of peace is really the political system of destruction. Islam belongs on the ash heap of history along with all other tyrannies.
There is hope for Islam but not as it is currently constituted. There are descent men and women who are Muslims. Amir Taheri, Walid Phares, Zuhdi Jasser are all good men who seek a "reformation" in Islam.
A modernization of Islam is the only way Islam can survive.
Does Jewish domestic law? Why don't you write a hub about it?
I had to laugh at this (in a wry cynical way, not an amused way)
Only very recently have we in the UK decided that rape within marriage should be a crime. There are still very many that not agree.
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
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.
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.)
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.
Can you legally burn stuff on public property in the first place?
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
by Dave5 years ago
Is burning the Koran any more insulting or offensive as certain other countries burning the Stars and Stripes or the Union jack and effigies of our democratically elected leaders?
by Jeff Berndt5 years ago
No, really.The US Flag Code, section 176, subsection K says:The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning....
by superwags6 years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12949975"The freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre."
by Flightkeeper7 years ago
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN during an interview that he's not changing locations and that if it was moved that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence from the 2005 cartoons. Does this...
by Garrett Mickley7 years ago
My favorite people on this forum are the people who disagree with me.The people who agree with me don't pose a challenge for me to think.In the last few days I have had food poisoning and so that has given me a lot of...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_quran_bur … ltcGxvcmU-If his recent rhetoric is any indication/of any significance, the chances of this are NIL. As ABC's Terry Moran reports, "...with that...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.