With so much at stake & everything going on in the world...
It's true! And don't forget, they just love to restrict the freedom of others in the process and try to force their own religious laws on people. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh, there is enough of that among the other religions. Some atheists, for example, are being told by God-fearing Christians to "get off our country!" Though, at least they aren't beheading the offenders like one certain group of people.
Okay, quiz time everyone! Which religion will you find people calling for the death penalty because:
1) someone said something bad about their religion?
2) someone burned their holy book?
While we wait for the next guy or gal to step up and point out the history of Christianity and all the atrocities committed in its name hundreds of years ago, I'll get back to enjoying my breakfast.
Depending on your perspective, there are still atrocities committed in the name of Christianity today. (I'm atheist, if you must know, not that this should change things, I'm merely making a point).
In your style:
While I wait for someone to flame me for being a "gay, commie, hippy dissident", I'll return to my...uh, glass of water.
This article has to do with the constitutional right to free speech. Judgments about the merits of religion or particular religions are not the issue. Free speech is a constitutional right on any issue, except the example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
I agree. Both sides are being stupid here. I've been reading about Terry Jones for years (?) now, and he's an idiot. But that doesn't stop the fact that he shouldn't be forcibly silenced. When you do that you merely drive unpopular opinions and prejudices underground where they can fester and mutate into something truly horrible.
That's true. A peaceful demonstration or protest is considered free speech, and there was no evidence that the pastor would do anything violent, as far as I know. His views were unpopular, others would protest against his views, but that is not a reason to deny him free speech. None of the sources revealed any evidence that he has engaged in physically violent actions. His point of view is unpopular. Mattisse (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
An action doesn't need to be physically violent to be illegal. In the UK at least you can be arrested for standing still if you've been asked to move on if you're inciting violence just by your mere presence. I would argue that burning the holy book of any religion is intended to provoke a reaction. I'm not arguing against the fact an offence like this to Islam is not more likely to provoke a violent overreaction than other major religions, but also maintain the perspective that this violent overreaction also took place in one of the poorest messed up countrys in the world.
Conflicts of freedom happen all the time. Sometimes it is difficult to balance the rights of one group over another; I do not think it is difficult in this case - the right of an individual to display the upmost disrespect and ignorance by burning a holy book (not even for any justifyable reason such as keeping warm in some kind of 'day after tommorrow' type situation ;-)) against the right of a major world religion consisting of billions.
He was not going to burn anything in this particular case. He requested a permit for a demonstration and was told he had to post a bond for "police protection". The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to require a bond for police protection. That is what this article was about.