i have the right to say to my kids, from the littlest of age, they are a piece of worthless shit

[seabeyond]

that will amount to nothing. every day of their lives until they walk out my door.

bully for me.

where do i get my praise....

on edit: people are talking about freedom of speech adn the right to do and say whatever....

we have the right to do whatever

but others say that jones is not responsible for repercussions of his actions.

[snappyturtle]

1. ??????????????

[Electric Monk]

4. This thread must be a spinoff of some other discussion.

That's the only way it makes any sense.

It'd be nice to know which one, though.


edit: One of the multitude of Pastor Jones threads, I'm guessing?

[hughee99]

5. God, I hope so. n/t

[seabeyond]

6. i thought it clear with all the jones gets to burn bible with no repercussion. yes. nt

[Egnever]

8. You dont really believe there are no repercutions for him for this do you?

there are repurcussions.

[seabeyond]

11. i absolutely believe there should be social repercussions. i am addressing those DEMANDING there

should be none.

[Egnever]

23. Thats what I thought

Just wanted to clarify.

Thanks!

[freshwest]

37. What, another new car? That was one of his gifts for promising not to burn the Koran.

[snappyturtle]

31. I guess. I'm on news overload and when I run across an OP

like this one, I need a clue!

[darkstar3]

2. Taking them to Holy Roller church, are you?

[Fuzz]

26. lol

[freshwest]

39. Is this the Reverend Phelps child rearing thread?

[Angry Dragon]

3. Strange words coming from you.............

[BeFree]

7. Yes, you do have that right

But if you treat them like they are worthless you will be violating many laws.

What Jones said was nothing.
How you treat your kids is something.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Just don't do it around me

Ok?

[seabeyond]

12. why? you would use your right to freedom of speech to tell me what you think? lol. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Because I would have to have words with you

That's why :)

[catenary]

17. I understand you were not addressing me, but could you explain what you meant there?

I don't get it...

[proud2BlibKansan]

I'd rather not be around kids when their parent is treating them badly

[wtmusic]

10. I think that would be considered abuse

:shrug:

[catenary]

14. No doubt. In this Brave New World, refusing to make enough peanut butter

and jelly sandwiches for the little rugrats is grounds for charges of abuse. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

19. Word! A parent can't even starve her "rugrat" any more without some PC jerk

labeling it abusive... :eyes:

[seabeyond]

21. lol. ya know. nt

[catenary]

22. "starve"??????????

yeah there sure as hell are way too many PC jerks around these days. Thanks for noticing.

[wtmusic]

27. Yes, starve!!!!!!!!!.

The law can't force a parent to give their "rugrat" any peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, can it?

[catenary]

28. No, but some venues will prosecute them for allowing any peanuts to get within

a city block of the little urchin...

[wtmusic]

36. Ha I know. My mom forcefed me peanuts and I LOVED it.

I changed my own diapers too. You? :shrug:

[blueamy66]

112. NO PEANUT BUTTER

Too many little angels are allergic to it!

[seabeyond]

15. it would be, but not against law. freedom of speech. and as a society, we would condemn

a parent that did that. we would not put all the blame on the child, if he became a worthless human being. we would be clever enough to recognize the instigation of the behavior.

[wtmusic]

24. Not that cut and dried.

"Child Abuse has been defined as an act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in the death, serious physical or emotional harm."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Child+Abuse

[Modern_Matthew]

13. Hey, it's your kid. I don't care what you say to them. nt

[seabeyond]

16. really? wow. i think that is the saddest answer a person can make. nt

[catenary]

18. You're denigrating a post that says you should have autonomy?

How very odd...

[seabeyond]

20. i am sad that a person has no compassion or feeling of responsibilty

for fellow man, especially one that is unable to defend self.

[catenary]

25. Well, I must confess, you do write some very interesting posts.

:shrug:

[provis99]

33. hypocrite.

You're the one who wants to curse at their kids.

[seabeyond]

42. you believe that? nt

[freshwest]

41. Kids are property to be treated anyway one wants?

[pnwmom]

30. People are free to condemn his actions with their own protected speech.

They are free to picket in front of his home and workplace, and they're free to shun him and ignore him completely (which would probably be the most painful thing to happen to him, since he's an attention seeker.)

What they can't do, under the U.S. constitution, is stop him from exercising his right to free speech.

[jberryhill]

34. 'Cept for those dead folk

We won't be hearing their opinions

[pnwmom]

35. Because of the people in Afghanistan who murdered them.

[jberryhill]

46. Congrats on that one, Sherlock Holmes

We won't be hearing from the dead folks

[seabeyond]

44. right. this is what bothers me. it is both. equally. both played games in name of religion

and innocents died

and it really is no more than a game for either

[seabeyond]

43. i agree. nt

[Dappleganger]

32. Oh my.

:popcorn:

[seabeyond]

45. wink...

i know. lol

[Toucano]

38. R&K because I hear you. n/t

[ohheckyeah]

40. If you really think you have the right

you've obviously never tried that in real life in public. I bet there are child abuse laws that say you don't have that right. The two situations are not analogous.

[seabeyond]

47. i can say to my child..... you are a bad bad child, right in front of you

and not be breaking a law.

[wickerwoman]

50. You're moving the goalposts.

Tell your kid he's a worthless piece of shit in front of a teacher, nurse, or anyone else with a duty to report and see how fast you have CPS on your ass.

Emotionally abusing your child is illegal.

And it has nothing to do with insulting an adult's religion.

[seabeyond]

52. this man did something that he know would cause a high price to innocents

and he chose to do it anyway.

what i suggest is knowingly doing something the is hurtful to an innocent, but i chose to do it anyway

you chose to ignore the correlation, that is your choice.

[wickerwoman]

56. We are not legally (or ethically) responsible for the things crazy people do

when they hear what we say.

If I write "the sky is falling" without a :sarcasm: and a schizophrenic person reads it, becomes disturbed and kills himself, is that my fault? Why not? I knew crazy people read DU. I knew what I said could be disorientating.

And that's still not remotely similar to emotionally abusing your child. Sorry.

The standard for speech and behavior cannot be "what if a mentally disturbed person took this the wrong way and did something terrible in response?"

[seabeyond]

58. firstly, yes, i believe we are ethically responsible for what we say. i have always held to that

absolutely. and secondly, poor parenting all the time has parents communicating poorly with their children and that is part of parenting, though poorly. kids wont be taken away unless something is there.

BUT

arguing about this is a waste of time cause it is not what my post is about.

[waddirum]

124. This makes more sense

Your original post was largely incomprehensible.

My initial reaction to this thread was WTF?????

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. I'd be willing to bet money that I could get you arrested for verbal abuse...

simply by calling the authorities and making the claim. I might even be afforded the opportunity to make a "citizen's arrest".

[seabeyond]

55. nah. but then that is really not the point i am making. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Then I have to ask, are you making the point that what I say on a corner in Norwalk, California

should be held against me IN ANY WAY if it causes a fanatic to commit a bad act on the other side of the world?

I've seen it argued here at DU that non-citizens should be afforded every right under the US Constitution that native and naturalized citizens are afforded.

Atheists, Buddhists, Jews, and adherents to any other religion you can think of can burn the bible on that same street corner in Norwalk, CA less than a football field from where I was born and raised. DU'ers wold applaud it. Hell they might even want to help finance it. I would gladly defend their right to do it.

Why shouldn't a person who burned a Koran be given the same consideration?

[seabeyond]

64. no, i am not saying that. i believe that a person knowingly does something hurtful

gets to own it.

no more. no less.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. I guess I don't see how burning a piece of paper hurts anyone. n/t

[seabeyond]

70. yet.. it did. right? i would think it is a pretty simple concept that anyone can understand

seeing how the purpose of burning a koran (piece of paper), bible (piece of paper), flag (piece of clothe) is done for the sole purpose of offending and hurting. that is the whole reason it is done. the obvious, in your face, absolute. yet... you say you dont understand.

i am not buying it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. What I am saying is that YOUR sensibilities do not preclude me from burning the US flag, a bible

OR a koran. My Constitution guarantees me the right to do all three things without regard to whether or not you'll be offended. It makes no allowances for how fanatics in other countries might react to those actions, nor should it.

What I don't understand is that given the protections I'm afforded under the First Amendment, you should think I might be held liable for someone else's bad acts resulting from their offense at my Constitutionally protected act.

[seabeyond]

80. you are absolutely right. my sensibilities does not preclude your right

to burn the loran, bible or flag.

you get to own hurting people by your actions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. You know I love you and on some level I have to agree with you...

but on this thing we have different perspectives. I don't think either is right, nor is either wrong.

I do things every single day that offend someone's sensibilities, whether it be eating meat, burning fossil fuels, watching Fox, or shopping at Walmart and stopping at Olive Garden for lunch on my way home.

None of those things hurt anyone directly, yet I own them.

Burning a Koran, bible, or flag on privately owned soil within this sovereign country whose main tenet is freedom cannot be seen as anything other than what it is: constitutionally protected free speech.

[seabeyond]

101. well, i can certainly end a discussion in this manner. it is the best.

and i agree it it constitutionally protected free speech.

maybe our difference is, i put some of the responsibility for reactions on the man

[AsahinaKimi]

87. well other than the fact that

a Buddhist would never burn a bible. Its not the Buddhist way...


I think the one thing missing here, is that most Americans assume that rest of the world believe that the world is viewed in basically the same way.

It doesn't. Thats why there are different cultures and beliefs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. I get that. How would you react to a culturally acceptable practice of eating dogs and cats

being practiced in this country?

I've had tacos de perro in downtown Los Angeles. Different culture, different beliefs. Acceptable?

[AsahinaKimi]

97. In this country

we set our own standards for what is acceptable. What is acceptable in other countries we have no control over, unless we drop a few bombs, and to me, thats unacceptable.

[ohheckyeah]

95. Yes, you can. You might

get embarrassed when someone tells you that you are a bad, bad mother.

[seabeyond]

102. of course. and really my point

we can do things cause they are our constitutional right.... but it does not mean it is good choices or i am not going ot suffer for those choices.

[Taitertots]

48. Child abuse laws are a reasonable restriction to free speech

Catering to the demands of the religiously insane is not.

[seabeyond]

49. i could say to my child, you are a bad bad kid, in front of a cop and not get arrested

for abuse.

this is not breaking a law. it is doing something hurtful, knowingly, knowing that my actions will ruin a life, yet knowing i have the right to do it.

[Taitertots]

51. It is up to the courts and legislature to decide at what point it becomes child abuse

Saying it once is unlikely to meet the burden required for arrest/conviction. Saying "you are a bad bad kid" certainly wouldn't be considered child abuse.

Either way. Child abuse is not protected speech. Burning religious symbols is without question protected speech.

[seabeyond]

53. i am not arguing his protected free speech, but his responsibility and liability in that speech

just as a parent using speech to dehumanize a child is the parents right.... but still it is wrong.

[Taitertots]

57. There is a huge difference in causality

Abusing a child directly causes them harm.
Nothing Jones did directly caused anyone harm. The only people causing harm to others are the religiously insane who want to force everyone to capitulate to their insane and unreasonable demands. They hold all the responsibility and liability for anything that they do.

Burning a Koren doesn't harm anyone. Abusing a child harms that child. Can you see the difference?

[seabeyond]

59. i disagree. he played a game. the ones that killed raised the stakes of the game

it was all a fuckin game for a bunch of sick people to ego filled to participate at the expense of innocent lives.

when he KNOWS his action will put people in harms way, he goes into it with eyes wide open. and people like you that support this man is exactly validating his choice to say, fuck the repercussions at the expense of others lives....

it is an ugly person.

[Taitertots]

60. It is still nothing remotely similar to directly abusing a child

Burning a Koren doesn't harm anyone. Abusing a child directly harms that child. They are not comparable.


If people have a negative reaction to reasonable acts than we should be coming after them and not the people whose reasonable acts never harmed anyone. We should attack violent extremists to protect innocent protesters, not attack innocent protesters because they upset violent extremists.

[seabeyond]

62. YOU chose to make them so seperate. burning a koran does hurt people. look, people died

koran burned, people died.

[Taitertots]

67. Burning the Koran didn't kill them, religious fundamentalists did

Burning a Koran doesn't hurt anyone.

The same thing could be said anytime religious extremists start murdering people to force capitulation to their religious demands. Gays, abortion, blasphemy... Our rights don't depend on the whims of the insane, but rather the reasoning of the rational. When people use violence to get their way they are the problem and not the people who refuse to capitulate to their unreasonable demands.

[seabeyond]

73. my words did not make that grown kid worthless, he allowed himself to be worthless. nt

[Taitertots]

77. No, Psychologists have clearly demonstrated that significant verbal abuse from a parental figure....

Causes emotional problems when the child grows older. Verbally abusing a child directly causes them significant harm.

If you have some evidence that years of verbal abuse doesn't harm children than I'd like to hear it. Or conversely if you have evidence that burning religious symbols actually harms anyone than I like to hear that as well.

[Runework]

63. what's the alternative?

acquisce to anyone's religious dogma out of fear of violence?

should publishers have refused to print Rushdie's Satanic Verses?


people can always find an excuse to do whatever. people have been murdered for blasphemy before, and Im not talking about burning bibles or korans---simply different interpretations

[seabeyond]

66. burning the bible, or koran is offensive. why people chose to do it. or burn the flag

people chose these things because they know it is hurtful to a person.

what is the alternative? dont burn something that means something to people to purposely be offensive.

i am not saying you cannot speak out... i do regularly and have for over a decade against christians in my area. i also know i can do it respectfully. i dont have to be hurtful in argument. yet argue i can.

people say that all the hate talk on radio caused the assassinations in AZ. that we had a responsibility in our behavior. but we only seem to believe these things when we want them to apply

[wickerwoman]

69. Having children is offensive to me.

Look at how overcrowded our planet is and how much overpopulation hurts Mother Gaia!

And since you're responsible for my feelings, no matter how irrational they are, you'd better get rid of yours!

[seabeyond]

74. the intent for people world wide in having kids is not to be hurtful to you

the intent on burning the koran is to be hurtful

[wickerwoman]

83. His intent in burning the Koran is to say "We're right and you're wrong".

It's an assholish thing to do, but it doesn't make him responsible for the irrational response that people have to it. And it doesn't mean that in his twisted little mind he is doing it to be hurtful. He probably thinks he's doing them a huge favor by showing them that Allah is BS and the Koran is just a book.

[seabeyond]

86. HE played a game with innocents lives. those that killed played the game

further, with innocents lives.

that is his part in it.

[wickerwoman]

93. It's probably not a game to him.

What if he reads DU, sees that you've accused him of being an accessory to murder, becomes depressed and kills himself? Is that blood on your hands for "playing a game" with his beliefs?

He is doing what his religion tells him to do, which is "go forth and multiply", evangelize, call attention to yourself, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", etc. From his perspective, it's not "playing a game", it's "ministering to the poor starving African (strike that) Middle Eastern babies who haven't had the benefit of Jesus's word yet".

It reminds me of the scene in the Poisonwood Bible where a minister goes to the Congo and tries to baptize the babies but the parents won't let him. Eventually he finds out that the river is full of crocodiles and the parents all think he's trying to kill their kids. He wasn't "playing a game"- he was allowing his arrogance and ignorance to put people in danger. And I suspect something very similar is rattling around in the head of Pastor Jones.

I'm pretty sure the thought process went something like "The Christian God is the only God. Those poor people don't know his grace. They're enslaved to this book. I'll burn it- they'll see that it's just a book and then they'll be saved and go to heaven."

That's not game-playing or trying to be hurtful. It's just stupid and chauvinistic. And stupid and chauvinistic people cause all kinds of unintentional harm in the world. But it is unintentional and not legally actionable or even morally wrong.

[seabeyond]

103. motive, intent. matters. i strongly disagree on it what was.

but that is something neither of us know

[Runework]

71. so, Rushdie's book?

should he not have written it....it was hurtful to many

[seabeyond]

75. that is not the same thing as buning the koran. and it did not result in deaths of innocent

people

[Runework]

82. they found it offensive, and put a bounty on his head

and what about the cartoons?

frankly, *I* find the bible and the koran offensive and totalitarian in many respects. I also find suggestions that free speech needs to be curtailed very offensive.

And I find it strange that this riot happened a month after the koran burning. I bet the violence had more to do with the fact that US soldiers were mugging next to corpses in photos.

[seabeyond]

85. he wrote the book, knowing there may be repercussions, but, those repercussions

would be directed at him, not innocent lives. he took the risk, because writing the book was worth it to him. HE accepted the responsibility to his actions.

i find it offensive, that you find the koran offensive. and i find it offensive, that you find it offensive, that i chose to use my free speech to call out jones on his part of the killing of innocents.

[Runework]

88. lol walk on eggshells for fanatics.....ok

it's also amusing how you compare the rioters to little children

[Runework]

89. and here's the logical extension of that position

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution

An imam of an east London mosque has been subject to death threats and intimidation for expressing his views on evolution and women's right to refuse the veil.

Dr Usama Hasan, vice-chairman at Leyton mosque and a senior lecturer in engineering at Middlesex University, ceased delivering Friday prayers after 25 years of service when 50 Muslim protesters disrupted his lecture by handing out leaflets against him and shouting in the mosque for his execution.

[Taitertots]

84. Yes it did

There were numerous deaths including Hitoshi Igarashi a translator for the book.

[marlakay]

68. You may have the right

but not the stupidity.....

[blogslut]

72. How 'bout that Mayor's race?

Pretty cool, huh? Sure wish I could vote. Sandra Dunn might actually have a shot. Wouldn't that be something if she won?

[seabeyond]

79. that is the oddest damn thing. hubby was reading the 9? people running

lol

and it was really odd.

transgender, koran burner, pantex sec dude.... lol

will be interesting

[blogslut]

94. Sandra Dunn entered the race in direct response to Grisham's candidacy

I dig her. She may not win but she's got nerve.

[seabeyond]

104. yes she does. agree. nt

[LAGC]

76. Religious people teach their kids they are worthless pieces of shit all the time.

It's called "original sin" and the idea that we are all "worthless sinners" who need to accept Jesus in order to be "saved."

Child abuse? You tell me.

[seabeyond]

81. i agree. nt

[inna]

91. hide thread, hide. unsavory, to the say the least.

[cali]

96. child abuse has little to do with Terry Jones and freedom of speech.

[Dorian Gray]

98. You'll raise little monsters

but should we jail you? Parents are verbally abusive to their children all the time. We all heard Alec Baldwin's rant to his own teen age child. Horrible? Yes. I have a right to judge him for that. But do we have the right to make laws against it and/or jail him?

Same goes with the burning of the Koran. I disagree vehemently with Jones' actions. I think he's a total dick and will say so publicly. Do I want to jail him or make laws preventing his actions?

[seabeyond]

105. i agree withyour post. nt

[Edweird]

99. So you feel entitled to kill (in this case unrelated 3rd parties) when someone says or does

something you don't approve of?
Think about where you are headed with this.

[seabeyond]

106. no. nor do i think that is what my post is saying. nt

[Edweird]

113. That is exactly the case here. They killed 10 people because they felt disrespected.

The spin and apologia arond this is mind boggling.
Terry Jones didn't kill anyone. He burned a book.
The Afghan's didn't even kill Terry Jones -
they killed 10 completely unrelated people.

I, for one, refuse to bow to abusive bullies.
Fuck them.

[seabeyond]

115. you are bowing to abusive bully spinning that jones burned "merely" a book

it means nothing to you. i understand that. and rah.

but the intellectual mind can think beyond ones own belief and understand the complexity of how something effects others.

[Edweird]

125. Ah, so I'm not 'intellectual' enough to grasp how justified they were in killing 10 people.

Over a book.
Ho-leee shit.

I don't know if it's because it's 'pc' to pity the
'poor misunderstood muslims' or if people here
are overloaded with trauma but it seems as though
quite a few here have lost their damn minds.

[seabeyond]

127. ONE post. show me ONE post i said the murderers are justified. ONE

i have no pity, nor do i suggest they are misunderstood, no relieve them of blame.

very simple. the preacher and the muslim played a fuckin game with innocents lives

[Edweird]

129. No, he mocked zealots who then killed people unrelated to this whole thing.

Terry Jones did not kill anyone. Nor is he
'responsible'. The members of 'the religion of peace'
that killed 10 people are responsible for the deaths
of those 10 people. No one else is.

[seabeyond]

131. so, there is not ONE post i justified the murderers behavior, nor had pity for them

good to know

[Edweird]

139. So, what exactly did you mean by 'the repercussions of Jones' actions',

if not to absolve the Afghans of murder and place
it on Jones?

[seabeyond]

140. damn.... why is this concept so hard. that because someone does a wrong

does not, in any way, mean the other person cannot do a wrong, also?

it happens more that way than not.

jones is not responsible for murder.

the afghans are responsible for murder.

jones is responsible for inciting...

all those sentences are easy enough. why someone wants to read something so simple and then say

i am sayin

jones responsible for murder and afghans absolved of murder...

is beyond me.

[Edweird]

142. Ok.

I don't disagree with anything in your last post.
It sounds like we are in agreement.
I don't have any love for Terry Jones, but the
massively out of proportion Afghan response
(that I feel is clearly intended to intimidate
and bully) overshadows Jones' assholery.

Killing people over the koran isn't exactly
helping the muslim image.

[Bluerthanblue]

137. actually, he has done much more than mock people- he has

declared their religion to be false, and is actively involved in trying to destroy it- and to stir up controversy and encourage conflict.

This does NOT in any way justify the response from those who were the target of Jones' hate- but it doesn't exactly leave Jones as a completely innocent onlooker either.

I find it ironic, that the religion which claims that "god is love" sees fit to judge the 'religion of peace'.

The extremists on both sides of this issue are dead wrong, and do more to harm their 'god' than any one else ever could imo.

[Bluerthanblue]

100. good point Seabeyond- having the "right" doesn't make using it "right"

it also doesn't make what you do not "wrong", at least morally.

Terry Jones' words and actions, like Fred Phelps, are little different than Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck. They do it for the money and attention. And it seems, they could give a shit what kind of effect their words have.

rec'd, though it's a whisper in a windstorm.

[seabeyond]

107. phelps is exactly who i was thinking of. we should be able to universally condemn the man

while standing up for his right to do it.

or KKK

or limbaugh

[Rebubula]

108. Awesome...

...just awesome job putting together a completely non-analogous argument.

No one is praising this asshole. No one. Not. One. Person.



You are exhibiting the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' - you believe that these poor, uneducated people are unable to be human enough to resist the primal urge to riot and kill when offended.

Jones is an idiot and an asshole. But he is exercising his Constitutional rights.

If you burned a US Flag and some right wing assholes killed a bunch of ACLU employees - would you share any responsibility?

[seabeyond]

109. if i burned the flag... yes, i would know my part in it. low expectations? can also be said

your perception in jones's part.

[Rebubula]

121. OK then...

...I guess personal responsibility is out the window with you.

So you would place blame on a flag burner or a cartoonist for someone getting butthurt about something they did and killing people? OK. Strange view of the human experience and our own roles in the world.



My statement about the soft bigotry of low expectations has sweet FA to do with what Jones did.

[seabeyond]

128. what a hoot... you remove personal responsibility. that is exactly what i am talking about

and then you tell me, bah hahaha, i ignore personal responsibility.

that is so very funny

hey.... i know i am going ot hurt people and their beliefs burning the flag. i know there are ways for me to protest which is not going after a symbol. as much as i dont are about the symbolism, regardless of the fact it means nothing to me, i am smart enough to realize that it profoundly has meaning to others. and regardless of meh... in my feeling of the flag, i know it is not that way with others. so, i chose to find other ways to protest, argue, that can be heard.

and

got that AND. and matters

AND

the person who murders are solely responsible for murder

[alphafemale]

110. Oh, he'll have repercussions. Just not any administered by a court of law.

I'd not be all that surprised if he pays for this foolish act with his live.

And if you actually did that to your kids, you would likely have repercussion of your kid despising you, and you'd probably end in some crappy state-run nursing home lying in a filthy bed and die from an infection because your shit impacted into your bed sores.

Free speech does not mean speech without consequences.

There's always consequences.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. he may actually have to answer in a court of Law-

it was suggested in a thread here recently that the families of the victims of the UN killings could very well have grounds for a civil suit against him and his church.

Interesting thought- given that Terry Jones acted as "Judge" when he put the Koran on trial.

:shrug:

[alphafemale]

114. Civil court has a much lower standard of evidence.

They certainly have a right to do that.

But, I doubt they will prevail.

If anyone provoked a riot it was the Imam. Without him those people would not have any idea the event occurred. The Imam could have just as easily provoked a crowd to rage with any number of things that occurred in the past few weeks in America. A Glenn Beck rant. Charlie Sheen and his goddesses. Anything.

We can't limit our freedoms because of some stupid middle-age minded fucks.

[Bluerthanblue]

134. I believe Karzai mentioned the burning as well.

I'm not saying that we should legally limit "freedom"- But I'm not against Jones having to face the consequences of his actions.

He was made VERY aware that what he talked about doing last Sept. would almost definitely end up causing real harm to others. But he really didn't give a fuck.

Personally, I'm offended by his words and actions. I'd never respond to it with violence, but I'm aware that there ARE people in this world, and in this country who do.

I wouldn't use violence to protect my stuff. There is nothing 'material' I possess, which is worth killing another person to keep. But there are many who don't share this perspective either.

The same things you say about the Imam can be said about Jones. Would the people involved with "Dove" church have put the Koran on trial and burned the book if he hadn't provoked them to? He isn't content to let it stop there. He knows what he's doing, and it has very little to do with 'loving God'- and a hell of a lot to do with a self-righteous, hate-filled desire to control and manipulate others.

imo fwiw

Even if they don't prevail, and as much as I dislike using the courts as a way of getting revenge, I'm ashamed to admit I hope they try.

[seabeyond]

116. i agree.... nt

[Marr]

117. Do you want flag burning to carry the same repercussions?

Let's say a protester burns a US flag, and some Fox News Captain America slugs her in the face for it. Do they share the responsibility for her broken nose?

[seabeyond]

118. yes. does he get in trouble for slugging in nose? absolutely. totally responsible for that action

does she get to own her behavior that purposely drew that someone out? i believe

[Marr]

119. So she gets... what? A little stretch in jail for being slugged in the nose?

You can't jail her for burning the flag, since that's legal.

[seabeyond]

120. did i say anywhere... anywhere on any post, that someone should serve time doing something legal?

or that law should change to make it illegal?

[Marr]

122. You spoke of repercussions. I think a reasonable person could assume

that meant legal repercussions, since every single act, from brushing your teeth to driving your car, has repercussions of some sort.

[seabeyond]

130. i was not talking legal repercussion. and no, i dont think that is a given what i posted

but that is cool, that we understand each other

[Rebubula]

123. This is not about legal to the OP...

...it is about evil Christians oppressing those poor, poor Muslims; forcing them to do the only thing they know how to - Kill innocent people for the deeds of a man 13,000 miles away.

That is all this is about. You can bet that if a Mosque burned the bible in the ME and Terry Jones murdered a bunch of people in Miami - the OP would place blame SQUARELY on the shoulders of Terry Jones.

[seabeyond]

132. wow. do you write fox news stories for them? nt

[Bluerthanblue]

135. I'll take that bet- I DON'T

believe that Seabeyond, from everything I've everything read of hers, would have denied that

your hypothetical equivalent of Terry Jones in Islam who was:
a "leader of a Mosque" who had made international headlines in his quest to demonize christianity-
who traveled to various states and attempted to enter other countries in order to spread his hatred of christianity-
who staged a mock trial, found the bible guilty of 'crimes against humanity' torched it, made a video of it, and put that on the internet-

bears the very same responsibility for the repercussions of this action, as Terry Jones is being expected to.

:shrug:

does it justify the killing? hell no- but to deny that it had any influence is dishonest, and myopic.

please correct me if I'm wrong Seabeyond.

(edited, because what I wrote was even more muddled than usual. :silly: )

[seabeyond]

138. that poster lacks integrity in his interpretation of my post to the extent of being

dishonest.

beyond absurd.

but yes... it is pretty simple, as you say.

[backwoodsbob]

126. recced for

worst thread ever

[Electric Monk]

133. The first rule of holes

seems to have been totally ignored.

[CreekDog]

136. Jeez, is there a full moon or something today?

:wtf:

[JVS]

141. Supermoon.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

143. Christians HAVE to tell their kids they are worthless pieces of shit.

The message of Christianity IS child abuse and it is evil. It destroys people. Some kids commit suicide because they can't live up to the unrealistic demands of the religion.


That is the starting premise of their religion -- original sin. You're a worthless piece of shit because a couple of fruit munching idiots were thrown out of the garden of eden. This is a fairy tale. An untrue premise with an unnecessary solution -- substitutionary atonement by a guy who never really existed.


I used to know a woman who did nothing but scream at her children. She is a jesus freak and extremely unpleasant to be around.
The fruits of her screaming? The daughter is 23 years old, unmarried, and has a very sickly premature baby. No father around. She also has a couple of felony convictions for credit card theft.


Read HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU by John Bradshaw, Ph.D.

He was a Jesuit priest for nearly ten years.