Don't burn the Quran, but beheadings are OK...

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you dont think that the Mosque in ground zero is offensive, so that is where we differ.

I dont think they are equally offensive. One is insensitive and the other is insensitive and idiotic. But they do share some common traits, that you dont see.

I was pointing out the that WH has two different opinions on fairly similar free speech issues. You came back with the.. "you have no point".

We differ on the common theme of the two issues.

I'm all for both not happening... the pastor angers me more because he is putting lives in danger.

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

I dont think the Mosque should HAVE to move. Its a protected right. I think they SHOULD move out of respect. If the Imam had a little heart, he should be able to understand that.

The pastor has a protected right to burn the books. He should not do that, and I dont have to get into the reasons why he shouldnt because they are obvious. The book burning pisses me off a lot more that the Mosque because of the ramifications overseas. If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont think the Mosque should HAVE to move. Its a protected right. I think they SHOULD move out of respect. If the Imam had a little heart, he should be able to understand that.

The pastor has a protected right to burn the books. He should not do that, and I dont have to get into the reasons why he shouldnt because they are obvious. The book burning pisses me off a lot more that the Mosque because of the ramifications overseas. If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.

And that's, as you said, the core of where we disagree, because I feel like if they move it because people don't like it, then that's essentially the same thing as having subverted freedom of religion, just not through officially mandated channels.

To me, that's a distinction without a difference -- saying that they shouldn't HAVE to move from where they want to freely practice their religion, but they should move it anyway. The pressure leads to the same endgame, that freedom of religion really doesn't come out as free as we've pretended it has been all this time just because it's some group we don't like.

And yes, I understand the semantic issue between "having" to move and thinking they "should" move, but if public outrage and offense causes the same thing in the end, I feel like it's essentially the same thing, and that's not how we should be doing things, with majorities dictating which rights minorities should have full and unfettered access to -- sound familiar?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

at least they dont pick you up by your hair!!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And yes, I understand the semantic issue between "having" to move and thinking they "should" move, but if public outrage and offense causes the same thing in the end, I feel like it's essentially the same thing, and that's not how we should be doing things, with majorities dictating which rights minorities should have full and unfettered access to -- sound familiar?

are you talking about black people??

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

are you talking about black people??

When am I not?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.

If this causes one additional death or beheading, it will be the fault of the perpetrator of that action, as it always is.