Nope, he's a nut job...

Dude sealed his own fate...

Why is the question I have. I understand the double standard that anyone can use the bible as butt wipe and no one cares (some cheer) but blow dust on the Quran and you die. How about trying teaching respect for all. Dumbass will get what comes to him.

He is causing a whole lot of hell.... Man of God? I think not.

Terry Jones is likely loony, but pardon me while I stick up for his right to free speech. While people are condemning Jones left and right for offending Muslims, I'm wondering where have all the defenders of the right to free speech and expression gone. Of course, our Constitutional right has limits (i.e., you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, thereby creating a hazard). But Jones isn't hurting a flea; he burned a book made of paper; offending some religious whackos who are extraordinarily thin-skinned.

Note to all theists, atheists, and agnostics: We are a free speech, free expression society. By definition we tolerate the speech we hate. We don't have to like it or understand it, but we accept it. Period. That includes Muslims tolerating well-intentioned or even hateful Koran burners. If they can't tolerate that without resorting to violent and murderous protest, F 'em, and waste all the low-life b@sturds, and send them to their 72 virgins in the sky.

If Obama has a hair on his @ss, and some retard Muslim issues a Fatwa on Jones over the Koran burning, Obama would issue him a free speech lesson in the form of a USA Tomahawk drilled into his doorstep. IMHO, of course.

Salmo has a low opinion of censorship, Muslim or any other flavor.

Sg

Amen to that! Salmo is just mad that instead of pouring our hearts out to a whack-job, we express ourselves. This guy may have the freedoms that we all have, but tell that to the dead UN guys families... and tell that to our troops Salmo!

Gik,

Listen up Numbnutz. Here's what I'd say to our troops: "You guys are the Giant Green Killing Machine. The only reasonable purpose for being in Afghanistan is to lay waste and kill as many Taliban and Al Qaida as possible. While you're at it, if you can kill any and all who are associated with killing UN members or families because of their intolerance of American freedom of speech, double combat bonuses all around."

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I'm a pacifist, a peacenik. But when war is called for, I believe in laying such massive waste that the perps, or what's left of them, won't be capable of waging any offensive against the US for a century or so.

If the US doesn't stand for freedom, including our Constitutional freedom of speech, just what the h3ll do we stand for? Are you a radical Muslim sympathizer or something?

Sg

Nice try Lipshitz! I agree with you about one thing here, to lay waste to those responsible! that's all... God holds every man accountable for his own actions, this whacko will get his in the end, for the potential harm he is bringing to our families!!! and in Family I mean Troops you Hippie! No sympathizing for Radical Muslims here... just worry for my family abroad..... Get it yet!! this guy was asked not to do it, and he will have no punishment for what he has inadvertently caused until judgement day..... hows that for USA freedom!

Freedom of speech doesn't apply here.
It's the shouting fire in the theater rule.

This whack job is aiding and abetting the enemy.
Ask Petraeus .

DD,

How so? Burning a Koran is not analogous to shouting fire in the crowded theater (when there is no fire). Falsely raising alarm could hurt someone. Burning a GD Koran is burning paper! Burning a burn that one owns and that is not the property of another is not a crime. No one is physically harmed by the action. Being offended by the action is purely and totally an emotional reaction, and therefore doesn't pass the false shout of "fire" test. Emotional zealots who get wound up over book-burning by loony Jones and go out and murder innocents commit crimes and therefore are criminals.

Patraeus is wrong. He's sacrificing a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution for the convenience of avoiding the wrath of emotional reactionaries. If you're willing to cave in on this, what else of the Constitution are you willing to cave in on? Again, if the US doesn't stand for its Constitutional principles, exactly WTF do we stand for?

(BTW, wasn't this the famous Patrick Henry quote from the Constitutional Convention - "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?")

Sg

I'm with SG on this one. While the guy probably has mental issues, it is his right to burn a Quran. If they Muslims can't handle it, they can go to hell.

We can't pick and choose our rights depending on the current sentiment of the American people. All speech, whether it's vocal, body language, or an act of burning a book are protected by our Constitution.

Islamists learned several years ago that they can do and say whatever they about Europeans, Christianity, etc. and they can get away with it. If they have mass-gatherings in downtown London proclaiming they are going to start a Jihad against British, no one bats an eye. If someone publishes anything bad about Islam, they will kill them (Dutch cartoon of Allah).

Christianity, Islam and Judaism ruined the world. If people of European ancestry went back to worshiping Odin, Thor, Freya and the rest of the crew, we'd all be much better off.

One of many great post's from Salmo g.

I'm with Salmo on this. But I don’t see any issue with freedom of speech. No one told him he couldn’t say or do what he wanted. They asked him to use restraint and he did not. Wack jobs often hear the voice of God telling them what to do, and God always trumps common sense. But there is, to my knowledge, no attempt to punish him for exercising free speech. Freedom of speech includes many stupid things such as flag and bible burning. But to be really free we cannot limit speech.

I understand your position but argue that in this instance, this idiot needs to STFU.
We are up against a shrewd, unconventional enemy that knows how to use these events to gain strength.
The damage has been done, but hopefully peer pressure will come to bear and this guy will see the error of his ways.

The choice is to STFU or more deaths of innocents.
I choose STFU.

Heard a Muslim the other night say that burning the Bible is different than burning the Koran as the Bible was written by man and the Koran is the word of God.

Shouldn't be too hard to find Christians with the exact opposite view. They are lucky to have been born here, where we have the one true religion.

So his sky fairy book was better than the other sky fairy book?

Good to know.

They're both written by man.

He has every Constitutional right in the book to burn the Quran if he wants...but hopefully enough people will exercise their Constitutional right to free speech by telling him what a dumbass fraud he is, and anyone who supports him, too, for that matter.

Fish on...

Todd

They might hate us more?

DD,

I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

As for me, I'll never choose to STFU. I don't care how shrewd or unconventional they are. This peacenik only chooses war when some @sshole threatens to bring it on for my unwillingness to compromise on the Bill of Rights or otherwise threatens my security. In which case, unleash the Tomahawks! Put those planes that you've been displaying in your sig line to defending what the US stands for! Let Terry Jones burn whatever he wants as long as it doesn't belong to someone else!

Sg

Crap, now you're hitting below the belt, Sg
Seems like a Constitutional scholar should be able to use something under the guise of 'freedom of religion' that would enable the application of the STFU clause.

" he's not only willing to risk his own life, but also the lives of U.S. soldiers."

Sounds like a terrorist to me.

[/quote]

Yep, know a bunch of Fightin' Baptists that will swear the KJV 1611 is THE BIBLE and everything else is in error.

I for one won't be walking around on eggshells just to keep a bunch of turban wearing religious zealots happy. Hell, did you ever see people get so upset about burning an American flag? Nope..

I'm starting to feel like the entire world is so f'ked up there isn't much left worth saving. Maybe the Christians are right and this will all be over soon.

IFD



[/quote]

You beat me to it. I was going to bring up flag burning and book burning as having the same protections. Like it or not in this country we do have the right to do so no matter how much of an asshat the person doing so is.

Anything related to religion these days just further reinforces my thoughts that Sundays are a great day to go fishing.........

Can I get a hallelujah?

hallelujah

Couldn't agree more with SG's larger point. I do think there's a hard balance we fight between what we support, and what we allow. I absolutely believe we should allow this guy to do what he wants in this regard. I am not sure I support him, and clearly many others do not (well within their rights). Regardless, this is not yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.

IMO Obama's play here is "look he's a nimrod, but you're allowed to be a nimrod in a free country. It's how we guarantee that all views are heard, even unpopular ones".

I continue to be both astonished and saddened by the amount of war and violence that are caused by the combination of sky fairies, and people being pissed off because someone called them a name.

Not so fast on this one. We have had violent reactions to flag burning, and there have been multiple attempts to get it constitutionally prohibited.

Correct...the difference is that one, or both, or neither may have been inspired by a Supreme Being. If one was, well then I want to follow it. If they both were, well, I guess it may not matter. If neither were, well then...

Why not ?
They are both irresponsible acts that needlessly endanger citizens.

DD:

Well, you caused me to read up more on the case histories here and it's maybe a closer case than I'd thought.... The phrase originated in opinions from the supreme court (Schenck v. United States, circa 1919) was where Holmes used the example of someone falsely shoulding "Fire!" in a crowded theater... But this case interestingly is about a guy who was encouraging people to resist the draft, which Holmes concludes is was NOT protected speech. Why does Holmes conclude this? He writes:



In the late 1960's Brandenburg v. Ohio comes in front of the court (a case about the KKK). Brandenburg is on trial for hate-speech, on the grounds that it could incite violence, and as a result be restricted by the "clear and present danger" clause.

In this case, however, the court finds for Brandenburg, and establishes a new standard (unfortunately named for the case, and in this case, the KKK nutball himself). The standard is (and remains now) the "imminent lawless action" test, in three parts. Effectively the speaker must INTEND the violence as a result of his action (e.g. not be a comic telling a joke, which is protected), the violence must be IMMINENT (today, not next year), and the violence must be LIKELY.

It's hard to argue that our Koran Burner doesn't meet the test. He can claim he doesn't INTEND it, I guess. Also unclear if violence incited outside the USA should be considered in this case.

But, in summary -- burning the Koran appears much closer to UNPROTECTED speech/expression than I had thought. I still think it's ridiculous that the crazy guys in the room get to effectively set the standard for this--which I suspect would be the dicsussion point should this issue ever make its way to the courts.

More than just freedom of speech is involved in this, too, unfortunately...it's entangled with freedom of religion (which includes the freedom to decry it, or some faction of it), and probably some protected political speech, too, for that matter.

Hopefully he'll fall in the fire the next time it happens, and burn himself into ashes.

Fish on...

Todd

Good background research IR. My impression was that Jones action was protected. If not, it comes down to a reasonable interpretation of his intention. He probably didn't intend violence, but violence that was imminent and likely has by fact been verified.

I hate to conceed to DD on this issue. Ever since I heard the news of the murders in Afghanistan I've been in a "burn a Koran a day" mode. It's not that I give a damn about Korans or Afghans, but I think using the airplanes in DD's sig line to rid the world of intolerant @ssholes would simply contribute to making the world a better place.

If I must err, I'd prefer to err on the side of freedom than on the side of repression.

Sg

Long live the Fat Lip!

SG,

Totally agree that you break ties towards freedom.

An interesting line of thinking might also be -- is the Koran burner choosing this mode of expression because it communicates some meaningful opinion in a unique way? Or is he choosing this mode of expression to be intentionally inciting the other side? This is similar to burning the US Flag (an action I would have argued deserves protection) rather than using your own words to express your thoughts.

In BOTH of these cases, if you can find IMMINENT and LIKELY violence (even from wingnuts) then you could make the I-think dangerous argument that any intent to incite means the burning of either is NOT protected. That's unfortunate, as again the wingnuts are setting the line.

Dude, easy...

Incite means to PROVOKE. He knew this would provoke people (because many people made that abundantly clear to him before he ignored them). There is a world of difference between "walking on eggshells" and deciding after a great deal of warning, that you want to commit a symbolic act to provoke a reaction from those you disagree with.

My point -- which you allude to later -- is that this test (intent, imminent, liklihood) seems to fall apart at the extreme -- because the unspooled guys get to define the line.

I also believe, that if you think my reading of the test is correct, that the soldiers families ought to THREATEN A MASSIVE VIOLENT REACTION to the Baptist Church if they continue this. They should go ape-nuts and stir up a huge media storm. Then, very cleverly with the cameras pointed, argue that the test for UNPROTECTED speech is "Intent, Imminence, and likelihood" and that the hateful speech of the Baptist Church is intended to incite them, and should therefore be restricted.

I'd love to see it!

The answer is "no" to all the questions...

Fish on...

Todd

Proving intent could be difficult although protecting ignorance is a tough pill to swallow.
I don't see why resulting violence that occurs outside the US would not be admissible. It's global now and precedents need to be adjusted.


I still think that it boils down to protecting the citizenry from the crazy guys.
Now, if they can be found crazy they would need protection from themselves and then the citizenry would be protected by default.
< sound of gavel >

Sg, that's a transport.
I'll find something that can blow sh!t up

When they're talking about "hate speech" that incites imminent violence in the law...they are typically talking about a scenario where the speaker is purposely inciting his audience to go out and commit acts of violence...like a KKK rally where the speaker is telling people to go out and lynch blacks.

It's not the same as when we are talking about someone exercising their right of free speech, and someone out there doesn't like it and does something stupid.

Fish on...

Todd

What are you saying then? Go after the alleged bad guys before they commit a thought crime? This is called a totalitarian government. This goes beyond what our founding fathers probably would have ever envisioned.

Reading Orwell might clear your head of these thoughts.

I'm sorry ,were you all saying something? I was busy looking at Direct Drive's avatar photo....

If there is a heaven she will be there

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

What I did say was I thought -- so long as the Baptist Church people continue to be both complete jackasses AND use the freedom of speech defense, then I think some soldiers families ought to themselves become complete jackasses back *AND* use a legit interpretation of the Brandenburg ruling to try to get them to STFU.

To all your questions -- please see my sentence about the danger of letting the crazies threats set the standards for protected speech: "I suspect would be the discussion point should this issue ever make its way to the courts."

As I wrote above, if you guys would take one minute to read it, the crazies do NOT set the standard as to whether speech is protected, or if it us unprotected hate speech...the violence that is incited intentionally by the speaker happens right there, right now (imminently), when he rallies his troops that are there listening to him.

This doesn't include counter-protestors in another country, whose counter protest includes violence, unless he was speaking to them directly and told them to go out and burn Bibles and kill people in the government that are sympathetic to the USA, and they did.

Fish on...

Todd

I think the media is getting off too quick on this one. They can provoke some realy bad shitt. Our society thrives off of drama and controversy. We look for it in the news, the internet, everywhere. They don't realise that they are just enabling these loonies by bringing attention to them.

The bible burners wouldn't potentialy be causing deaths if nobody knew they were burning korans. The media just always stirs shitt up. If we are going to burn korans, lets do it after a soldiers are done being on the front line with the guys that read it, and don't try and make it fuel more hatred.

It sounds like it would be good taliban recruitment propaganda.

"I think we should all burn Republicans instead."

I heard they burn good having fattened up on oil. Maybe it's a new source of energy? Sadly it seems to be a renewable one. No shortage of wing nuts.

Heaven can wait.

Your comment is incendiary, and an insult to air quality.

Anybody can claim to be a Pastor just loke anybody can claim to be a Muslim.

Read an article this AM about Terry Jones and his flock.
All 30 of them. Sounds like a cult to me.
So are we supposed to protect an oppressive cult ?

There are clearly Medieval lunatics on both sides that need to be controlled by their respective societies.

OK, how about refrain from protecting ?
Oh, and don't forget, we are at war.

Weirdos in tough times are exactly what is protected by the Constitution...doing otherwise is what oppressive regimes do.

"Time of War" is the lamest excuse to be asswipes...ever.

When Ari Fleischer several years ago said we were in a time of war and people better "watch what they say", I wanted to reach through the TV screen and grab that fuckin little twirp by the neck and shake him like a dirty martini.

Fish on...

Todd

This country couldn't run on a 90% unemployment rate.

The war thing....
When we send young men and women into harm's way, we have a moral obligation to protect them whether or not we believe in the cause.
We are free to protect them in any lawful way that we choose or we can choose to do nothing.
Convincing Terry Jones to STFU would be one way and I think that that is actually happening now.

On the cult thing...
I don't know if Jones is breaking any laws but it does sound oppressive. Here is a quote from the Post article :

"Long before Rev. Terry Jones threatened to burn a Quran, former parishioners say he presided over a church that he treated as a personal fiefdom, imposing a strict orthodoxy that tore apart one Gainesville family after another.
Congregants are required to vow allegiance to Jones....
Two of his daughters have left the church in disgust."

Jones has a history of three decades in Germany "creating his own empire" there as well.

So we have medieval societies and modern societies functioning in parallel.
Looks like war is the chosen means of communication.

No appeasing here.
If I was fighting in the sand box I wouldn't want useless fools on the homefront doing things that incite/strengthen the enemy. The radical Imams are just as guilty as Jones, if not more so.
We can't kill them all. We have been trying since the Middle Ages and now there are more to kill.
So we will continue killing them until we tire of it or maybe someday their numbers will be reduced to a point where that they can be managed. I doubt it, though. Well, it depends on your definition of manageable, I suppose.

they = radical, militant Islamists

There were good people who went to AF to try to help these people and they were slaughtered. What a mess.
I can't imagine the sorrow that the families of the slain are going through.

DD, there are a lot of useless fools here in the US doing a lot of useless things, some of it very dangerous, or at the very least, stupid as a box of rocks...but that's what we get for living in a country where it's not a crime to be a waste of time or space, or not as smart as the skid mark left in your boxers.

Fish on...

Todd

"Even at the expense of an American soldier ... in the long run we have saved hundreds or thousands of lives,” said Jones.

If someone wanted to make a difference and eliminate this religion, our country will gladly strap a gun to you so you can go kill some of those fuckrs. Men are puting their lives on the line to represent this statement, and we shouldn't make it harder for them to complete this task.

Even if we think this won't impact the soldiers, if we are wrong, people will die because of it. It would be a travesty to have a dead soldier come home and have the same type of people who influenced his death, tell his family that he's dead and going to hell because we love gays and don't read the bible.

Our soldiers ARE killing people to save lives. The men who preach the koran can't speak if they're dead. Without man, it's just a book. A stack of papers with ink on it.

I don't care if it's their right, some people just need to STFU.

No, I'm not in that club.
I do try to do what I can even though I never supported many of the high level war decisions that have been made in the past decade.

So, put your money where your mouth is, I have.
Maybe you have too, I don't know.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

I want 'em home as much as anybody.

I'm always amazed to see that many Americans support censorship of first Amendment rights.

Wasn't it old Ben Franklin who said, "he who gives up a little liberty to obtain a little security will end up with neither," or words to that effect?

Sg

A lot of folks tend to support censorship...of other folks, and other folks' ideas...try to censor them and you'll get the old Second Amendment treatment, to back up their First Amendment rights.

Fish on...

Todd

And I suspect that the sentiment here is for protecting the Second Amendment to the fullest. Kind of odd how we will all pick and choose which rights to support and which not to.

Having the privilege of living in an open society has responsibilities.
I think it's irresponsible for the Florida whack job to behave as he has when we have folks at risk.
Maybe it's time to bring 'em home and let the whack jobs carry on.

I think you're right that the nutcase in Florida is irresponsible, and probably a jackass and fruitcake, too boot...but rights are rights, and he has them.

We have the right, and I would even call it a duty, to point out that he is a fruitcake and a nutjob...maybe a few hundred Americans standing outside his fence exercising their 1st Amendment right to tell him he's full of schit and doesn't represent the ideals of America would be a good start.

Fish on...

Todd

How about a big ol shut your drunk piehole....

May condolences to the Families of the slain.

Mf

Wow Soul you got a big mouth for a new member. Welcome?

I don't think he likes the B52

Welcome aboard.

AM, you're way, way out there.
Yes, it's a slippery slope.
No, I'm not out there and neither are you.
This is just cheap internet talk.

So what are are you doing ?
Have you sent any care packages to the sandbox?
Have you donated ?
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

I'm not advocating censorship. All I'm saying is why can't people on the homefront rein themselves in and refrain from doing things that can make it even more difficult for our troops abroad.

BTW, I just saw a request for Frog Lube weapons lubricant.
It was filled.

Worshiping Odin's starting to look pretty good now, isn't it?

I'm glad to know that, AM.

Y'all are thinking about this wrong. What the good Reverend Jones and all his flock need are government support. To that end, and to further his ministry, I propose that we support the government putting him on a government jet, with a government parachute, and even a government rifle, since I'm pretty sure he supports the right to keep and bear arms. Then the government jet can fly him and his flock of 30 to Afghanistan and shove them out. They can even shove out a case of bibles with them. Then the good Reverend Jones can set about converting or killing the heathen....I'm sure 30 good 'missionaries' will carry the day....

I'd be down with that...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Send the protestors who protest at soldier funerals with them as cheerleaders.

Lets just call you the town drunk grass mower! Better yet just town drunk you havent stepped away from your computer long enough to cut a blade of grass.

From his vast collection of posts (three, so far), there is a striking resemblance in the writing style to another member here, one that likes to get on at night after a few wine coolers and make an ass of himself...

Looks to me like he's doing it under another name now.

Do I win a prize, Soulduc?

Fish on...

Todd

KK? He wouldn't make fun of himself.