Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[jgens]

Read the whole thread before posting.

I have read the entire thread, thank you very much. Can you highlight the general rule that Dave states?

It's in the original post. Read both articles.

Obama has explicitly requested that copies of the Koran not be burned. When in fact, his duty as the President is to publicly announce "I support the right of these Americans to demonstrate peacefully in the manner they see fit to express their views."

But Obama did nothing to actually restrict this man's right to burn the Quran; he just politely asked that he not do it because it could have disastrous effects for the war effort. Unless you provide a citation which illustrates how we no longer have these rights, you are violating the PF guidelines.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't see how I'm taking it out of context - perhaps I've missed your point. I'm my defense though, it appears that Dave interpreted your post the same way that I did (see post#8).

Well, you make it sound like I have something against Muslims which I resent (personally, not for a valid debate reason).

I've tried carefully to complain about (1) Obama's request that we censor ourselves, and (2) the use of extortion by Feisal Abdul Rauf.

But now we're off in the weeds implying that I'm racist for claiming 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. It was! Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

 

[Perspicacity]

Do you fully suport this method for getting a message across? Through provocation and hateful stunts?

Do you think that's the example we want to set for the coming remainder of the 21st century?

Yes. I don't have any particular problem with hatred. I hate a lot of things. I hate cabbage. I hate spiders. I hate people who think that women should be subservient to men. I hate people who think that they know God's will.

I find Christian belief as outlined in the New Testament abhorrent. I hate those who truly subscribe to those beliefs. Nearly every Christian I know has nothing more than a vague belief in a creator and a hope for an afterlife. They may read the bible, but they see only the nice parts and ignore everything else. I can live in peace with people like that.

Some Muslims are the same way. The grew up Muslim, and while they personally have no problem with women or gays or infidels, they can't quite make the leap and say they don't believe because they're afraid of hell or whatever. I can live in peace with them too.

Those christians and muslims who go further than that...well I hate them. I wish there were less of them.

 

[talk2glenn]

Neither of those freedoms have been taken away. To argue otherwise, as I said before, is pure fantasy on your part.

Clearly, there is a practical risk to the fundamental protections of speech and expression in the United States, even if there is no overt threat of state action.

The Federal Government has assumed the responsibility of protecting the civil rights of its citizens from non-national actors since the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment, through to the later Civil Rights acts of the 60s and 70s. However, the reaction of the government to this pastors threat has been entirely one-sided - the President himself, and his administration at every level, has simply tried to dissuade the church from carrying out its plan. Whenever the question of 1st Amendment rights is raised, it is always an apology - we have our own government apologizing to the world for our own constitution, which it is supposedly obliged to protect and uphold!

A more nuanced reaction would be far more appropriate. The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad. However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans. This is a chance to celebrate American libertarianism, not distance ourselves from it. We should be proud of the fact that this is the only country on Earth where one can burn a Koran on Monday, a Bible on Tuesday, and the flag on Wednesday with no repercussions from the state.

It seems to me that if we allow ourselves to be bullied into disavowing, verbally, our constitutional guarantees (we had the embarrassing case of Obama calling the planned burning "contrary to American values", a blatant appeal for mercy from Muslim extremists when the reverse is clearly the truth) it becomes foreseeable that we allow ourselves to be bullied into disavowing them practically and legally.

After all, the constitution is just a piece of paper, and is only as strong as our willingness to uphold it, through force of government and law.

 

[Perspicacity]

Unacceptable based on what? If the fire department is creating code violations out of thin air to suppress religious or political speech, I agree with you. If the fire department denied the permit because of actual dangers in the pastor's plan, I disagree with you.

Based on the information we have, I cannot make that determination.
It must be nice to live in such a binary world, with no shades of grey. In my world, I think the pastor is an idiot AND I support his right to be an idiot. I think he's being needlessly provocative for his own personal gain, but I have no particular love for any religious text. I think it's a bad PR move to provoke Muslim extremists, but I also think the Muslim extremists are foolish for taking their fairy tales so seriously.

It's possible to have a nuanced view on things. It's not necessary to be either "for" or "against" something.

I'm sure society would not collapse if people could burn books without the supervision of the Fire Department.

The Pastor may be an idiot, but he makes a valid point. Muslims are going to have to live with the fact that we get to burn the Koran. It's our right. And when hundreds of millions of people have that right, at least a few are going to do it. If they can't live with that fact, then there is no place for them in this world.

 

[Gokul43201]

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

1. You admit that it would be a violation of his Constitutionally protected freedoms to force him to move the mosque.
2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

If I showed you an example of a right wing commentator warning that the government's deafness to the common man, it's desire to take away his guns, curb his freedoms, or shove political correctness down his throat will inevitably lead to a violent response, would you exercise consistency and admit this person is engaging in terrorism?

 

[FlexGunship]

I have read the entire thread, thank you very much. Can you highlight the general rule that Dave states?

Dave's example (sorry Dave, I'm not trying to speak for you):

"Some Muslims destroyed the twin towers. Now some other unrelated Muslims are trying to build a mosque (or multi-cultural center) near the twin tower memorial. Some Americans are angry but they shouldn't be. A specific Muslim has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Muslims might be angry."

My counter-example:

"Some American's destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now some other unrelated Americans are trying to build a bank (or investment center) near the dome memorial. Some Muslims are angry bu they shouldn't be. A specific American has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Americans might be angry."

Please do not flame me for equivocating Americans (a nationality) with Muslims (a religion). Just like many Americans oppose the war, many Muslims oppose the war. Just like one American declared war for all of us (even though we didn't like it), one Muslim declares war for all of them (even though they didn't like it). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

 

[FlexGunship]

1. You admit that it would be a violation of his Constitutionally protected freedoms to force him to move the mosque.
2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

If I showed you an example of a right wing commentator warning that the government's deafness to the common man, it's desire to take away his guns, curb his freedoms, or shove political correctness down his throat will inevitably lead to a violent response, would you exercise consistency and admit this person is engaging in terrorism?

Hmm, that's a good point actually. I don't know how I would feel. I'm not a big an of right-wingers for the most part. I guess it's different because he's threatening his own government and not innocent people.

Can I have time to more fully consider your point?

EDIT: After thinking about it, I might have to reconsider my position on Rauf's statement. I suppose I just resent it because he refers to Muslim extremists in his quote as though we must appease them by building this mosque in that exact location.

 

[FlexGunship]

The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad. However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans.

I like your wording here. However, I disagree about the government taking a stand at all. I don't think it's the government's place to "have a conviction." Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

 

[jgens]

I'd prefer you highlight Dave's exact statement. Now, the only thing close to a general rule in your paraphrase od Dave's comment is:

Some Americans are angry, but they shouldn't be.

Now, the only way you can construct a valid counterexample is if you can show that Americans should be angry. Since your 'counterexample' only hypothesizes that Muslims would be angry, it doesn't meet the necessary criterion.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd prefer you highlight Dave's exact statement. Now, the only thing close to a general rule in your paraphrase od Dave's comment is:



Now, the only way you can construct a valid counterexample is if you can show that Americans should be angry. Since your 'counterexample' only hypothesizes that Muslims would be angry, it doesn't meet the necessary criterion.

Fine, it's not a "counter-example." It's a "reciprocal situation."

 

[Jack21222]

I'm sure society would not collapse if people could burn books without the supervision of the Fire Department.

How many books are we talking? How far from the nearest building? Can you think of no circumstance under which a large open fire should be banned?

Clearly, there is a practical risk to the fundamental protections of speech and expression in the United States, even if there is no overt threat of state action.

No, that isn't clear.

I like your wording here. However, I disagree about the government taking a stand at all. I don't think it's the government's place to "have a conviction." Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

Foreign relations is one of the most important functions of government. It absolutely is his place to share it in such a way for foreign governments to hear.

the use of extortion by Feisal Abdul Rauf.

I've already pointed out he isn't using extortion. He was just repeating what counterintelligence officials are saying, that it will lead to an increase in violence, and that he is not to blame.

 

[FlexGunship]

Foreign relations is one of the most important functions of government. It absolutely is his place to share it in such a way for foreign governments to hear.

What if Obama had made a similar statement about something else? Would you feel comfortable if Obama stopped a book burning of Mein Kampf, or The Art of Cinema (Kim Jong Il's book)?

EDIT: Furthermore, we don't have a Muslim embassy. Is it relations with the Afghan government we are trying to save?

I've already pointed out he isn't using extortion. He was just repeating what counterintelligence officials are saying, that it will lead to an increase in violence, and that he is not to blame.

Yes, yes... I'm slowly revising my position on that one. Extortion is the wrong word, so I retract that statement. But it is still "terrorism" (not on the part of Rauf) for Muslim extremists to threaten Americans if that mosque isn't built in that location (which you will recall was my original position on the matter... I wrongly ascribed the position to Rauf).

 

[jgens]

Fine, it's not a "counter-example." It's a "reciprocal situation."

Do you believe that we can justify our actions on the basis of how others behave? I'm only asking because I don't see another point of your "reciprocal situation". If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

 

[FlexGunship]

Do you believe that we can justify our actions on the basis of how others behave? I'm only asking because I don't see another point of your "reciprocal situation". If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

Dave said that Americans shouldn't be angry with Muslims because of 9/11 (again, paraphrasing someone else... I'm sorry Dave. It's not my place.).

Some Muslims destroyed the twin towers.
Some American's destroy the Dome of the Rock.

Now some other unrelated Muslims are trying to build a mosque (or multi-cultural center) near the twin tower memorial.
Now some other unrelated Americans are trying to build a bank (or investment center) near the dome memorial.

Some Americans are angry but they shouldn't be.
Some Muslims are angry but they shouldn't be.

A specific Muslim has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Muslims might be angry.
A specific American has said that if it isn't built there, then some other Americans might be angry.

My point is that the behavior wouldn't be singular. Not that it's "okay" to be upset at Muslims in general, but rather that it is an understandable emotional response. I would be comfortable dropping the point since it is no longer contributing to the discussion. Given the nit-picking that is happening with details, I'm just waiting for someone to yell at me for comparing a bank to a mosque/church (which is what Bin Laden did).

 

[Jack21222]

What if Obama had made a similar statement about something else? Would you feel comfortable if Obama stopped a book burning of Mein Kampf, or The Art of Cinema (Kim Jong Il's book)?

Obama hasn't stopped ANY book burning, that I'm aware of. Can you point to a book burning that Obama has stopped?

I'd be fine if Obama spoke out against burning Mein Kampf or The Art of Cinema. Mein Kampf might be a little different, because the Nazi party hasn't been in charge of Germany for decades.

EDIT: Furthermore, we don't have a Muslim embassy. Is it relations with the Afghan government we are trying to save?

Yes, among others. Namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Libya... and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Gokul43201]

But now we're off in the weeds implying that I'm racist for claiming 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. It was! Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

Where did I make any implication that you were racist? All I pointed out was that your argument (or maybe Sam Harris' argument) of association was clearly negligent.

I guess I should expand, or rather probe further, based on what you just added...

Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

So what are you saying is the implication of this? Does this provide an argument for preventing churches from being built near abortion clinics?

If some friendly neighborhood pastor wanted to build a church a few blocks away from an abortion clinic and was being pressured to relocate his church elsewhere, what would you say? And if he warned that being forced to move the church to a "politically correct" location would inflame anger and tension among the Christian community, would you call that terrorism as well?

 

[FlexGunship]

If some friendly neighborhood pastor wanted to build a church a few blocks away from an abortion clinic and was being pressured to relocate his church elsewhere, what would you say? And if he warned that being forced to move the church to a "politically correct" location would inflame anger and tension among the Christian community, would you call that terrorism as well?

If members of the Christian community threatened violence to maintain the location of the church, then yes. In that specific case, they are using the threat of violence to get what they want.

Obama hasn't stopped ANY book burning, that I'm aware of. Can you point to a book burning that Obama has stopped?

You're right. I should've said "declared a political position in opposition to the burning of books."

 

[russ_watters]

Moving the mosque is wrong, pure and simple.

It is not an Islam thing; it is a human rights thing. People who are mourning for lost loved ones in 9/11 are transferring their anger away from an act of terrorism and towards a belief system that is not responsible for their grief. They have no right to associate 9/11 with Islam, nor do they have any right to associate a mosque with direspect of 9/11. To allow them to express themselves by the moving of the mosque is to allow religious persecution back into the nation.

In a nutshell: Islam did not bring down the towers, terrorists did.

*BLINK* Dave, since the terrorist who brought down the towers used Islam as a motivation, how can a connection between Islam and 9/11 possibly be avoided?

[separate post] They can say that all they want. They do not represent Islam or Muslims.

No one ever claimed they were internationally recognized representatives of Islam, Dave - nor, obviously does any such thing exist. Maybe you should reread what you wrote in the previous quote. You said "associate" with Islam. Clearly, someone who is a self-labeled Muslim is associated with Islam. More specifically, there is a broad, umbrella "belief system" of Islam. Under that umbrella are many variants of it Islam. Islamic extremism is one of those variants. So the 9/11 bombers are associated directly with the belief system of Islamic extremism and more broadly with the overall family of belief systems of Islam.

And even if it could find a non-absurd reason to divorce 9/11 from Islam..."right"? People don't have a right to be offended? Dave, this is a free country - people have the right to think whatever they want to think. People have the right to hate Christians or Jews or Muslims or redheads for any reason they choose. People have the right to be offended for any reason. Whether it is reasonable to be offended by such things and whether someone should bow to the offended person's feelings is debateable, but we live in a PC society where people tend to allow people being offended to define what is offensive and action to be taken based on that. If we don't at least consider the feelings of people who are offended by this, we're being insensitive and we're treating people who have had a serious emotional blow with less sensitivity than we are treating blacks who want to be called "african american" and midgets who want to be called "little people" -- and Islamic extremists who are offended by burning the Koran.

This is the double-standard I've been referring to: Similar acts by the other side are not met with similar responses. We're elevating Islamic extremists to the level of an unofficial protected class, curtailing the rights of some in order to elevate extremists.

 

[russ_watters]

You do realize that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group, right? What you're doing is like blaming the Catholic church for IRA bombings. "They're both Christian!"

Why do people always make this assumption (that someone who mentions the Islamic extremism motivation believes all Muslims are extremists) in these discussions? I've never heard anyone claim anything like that, yet it always comes up. Why would you assume that when someone says "Islamic extremist", they are assuming all muslims are extremists? It is a silly thing to believe and unless you're assuming you are arguing with complete idiots, there is no reason for you to believe that.

It's implicit in your arguments. You don't need to make the claim when you say things like:

No, it isn't. The 9/11 terrorists did act in the name of Islam and even they might have believed they were acting for all Muslims, but that does not in any way imply that all Muslims agreed with the act, nor does pointing out that they acted in the name of Islam imply that all Muslims approve.

 

[russ_watters]

It was also an act done in the name of honor by human beings. Should we prevent honorable human beings from moving into lower Manhattan? Use a sufficiently generic label, and you will catch all the fish you want (and more, but who cares about that?).

Want to list out all the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of patriotism?

Wow, Gokul, huge swing and a miss. You are making the same false assumption as Jack. Clearly not all patriots are the same and not all Muslims are the same and nothing anyone said has implied otherwise. And it isn't the OP (or I) who is applying the label, it is the terrorists themselves. And the fish? Well, you are the one throwing them into the boat!

As always, the only ones trying to paint that picture are those mischaracterizing the arguments of others.

 

[russ_watters]

2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

You misunderstand: That "violent backlash" is terrorism and warning of it and attempting to persuade people to change their behaviors for fear of it is the entire purpose of terrorism. Obama is bowing to the goals/threats of terrorists and trying to convince the pastor to do the same.

Now that doesn't even necessarily make Obama's position unreasonble. Obama has more people to protect than just the pastor. He has the pastor's rights and life to protect, but he also has the lives of soldiers and other civilians to protect. So his position is the safe/prudent position. But that doesn't change the fact that his position is one of the things the terrorists are trying to achieve with their threats. It would have been nice if he hadn't so openly kowtowed to the threats. Perhaps a private letter or phone call.

 

[FlexGunship]

Now that doesn't even necessarily make Obama's position unreasonble. Obama has more people to protect than just the pastor. He has the pastor's rights and life to protect, but he also has the lives of soldiers and other civilians to protect. So his position is the safe/prudent position. But that doesn't change the fact that his position is one of the things the terrorists are trying to achieve with their threats.

Rationally stated. However, the government is designed to protect our rights, the military is designed to protect our bodies. Obama should be banging the drum for individual rights and liberties; that's the defining characteristic of the United States of America.

This, of course, includes banging the drum for the rights of Muslim Americans as well.

 

[talk2glenn]

No, that isn't clear.

You have the entire federal government waging a philosophical war of rhetoric to dissuade one citizen from expressing himself politically.

How is this not tantamount to a practical violation of the spirit of the 1st amendment.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow, Gokul, huge swing and a miss.

Wow, Russ. Nice dramatic opening!

You are making the same false assumption as Jack.

No, I am not making any assumption that there is an accusation that all muslims are terrorists (not implying here that Jack makes this assumption either). Nowhere in my argument is such an assumption required.

Clearly not all patriots are the same and not all Muslims are the same and nothing anyone said has implied otherwise.

If anything, this statement supports my argument: that any rationale used to forbid Muslims from building a mosque could as well be used in other places to forbid "patriots" from building anything symbolizing America.

 

[Gokul43201]

You misunderstand:

This is hilarious! I misunderstand? The poster I wrote that to has since acknowledged my point and has made a reasoned revision and clarification of his initial positions (perhaps independently of any posts I made). Thanks for the feedback, but I'd rather let the people I address decide whether or not I misunderstand THEIR posts.

 

[Gokul43201]

Missed some posts along the way. This was one.

A more nuanced reaction would be far more appropriate. The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad.

Would that really be the only good reason to not condone an act which (IMO) is little more than an expression of hatred and disrespect for an entire community of people? I think you are underestimating the benefits of not having people going about antagonizing each other for no good reason.

However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans.

Agree strongly. However, I suspect if it is not stated explicitly, that might in part be because this is a no-brainer. I may easily be mistaken, but I don't think anyone of import has seriously proposed that the pastor be stopped through the force of law. Yet, I agree, that at least for the reason that the audience is international, a strong statement in support of protecting Constitutional rights be included.

 

[BoomBoom]

Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

Haha...imagine if our presidents never gave their opinions. That's just hillarious!

He urged the Rev Terry Jones to "listen to those better angels" and call off his plan.

...this is a far cry from the tyranny and opression you were suggesting in your OP.

 

[DaveC426913]

*BLINK* Dave, since the terrorist who brought down the towers used Islam as a motivation, how can a connection between Islam and 9/11 possibly be avoided?

If I sprayed slurs on a wall saying "women go home" and claimed I did it in the name of men, does that mean that the media and public have a rational claim to blame all males? No. My claim as to why I do something doesn't say anything about anyone else I wish to include.

In the same way, terrorists can claim all they want about why they did it. So what? That does not mean Islam or Muslim are responsible. Because terrorists wish to have themselves associated with Islam does not mean the reciprocal - that Islam is associated with terrorism.

And even if it could find a non-absurd reason to divorce 9/11 from Islam

I do not grant that it was married in the first place, so no divorce needed. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the Islam beliefs (notably, the ones practiced at the mosque in question) supports these terrorists. The terrorists claiming they live under the Islam umbrella does not oblige Islam to anything.

(Good thing the terrorists didnt say they did it in the name of men everywhere. All us men would be lynched, wouldn't we?)

People don't have a right to be offended?

They are not simply offended. They are trying to get them to not put the mosque there, because they see Muslims as the root of their pain. That's not offense; that's action - persecutive action (the people wanting to build the mosque are being deprived based specifically on their belief system).

and Islamic extremists who are offended by burning the Koran

Are you suggesting extremists are the only ones hurt by this act?

 

[nismaratwork]

What does it mean to be hard, compared to soft in the first place? Now that the pastor himself has canceled this event, I'm more interested in this concept that it's good to be "hard", and bad to be "soft", and what each means. I prefer to be flexible, and able to adapt to any given situation; a hawk here, a dove there, and something in the middle for the gray areas that dominate. I distrust the notion that once we were "hard and strong" as some kind of inherently good thing. The dinosaurs were hard and strong, which allowed them unprecedented dominance... until the situation changed. Suddenly rodents and proto-meercats were ruling the earth. Obviously being of one "texture" is a terrible disadvantage in a changing world.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I sprayed slurs on a wall saying "women go home" and claimed I did it in the name of men, does that mean that the media and public have a rational claim to blame all males? No. My claim as to why I do something doesn't say anything about anyone else I wish to include.

In the same way, terrorists can claim all they want about why they did it. So what? That does not mean Islam or Muslim are responsible. Because terrorists wish to have themselves associated with Islam does not mean the reciprocal - that Islam is associated with terrorism.


I do not grant that it was married in the first place, so no divorce needed. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the Islam beliefs (notably, the ones practiced at the mosque in question) supports these terrorists. The terrorists claiming they live under the Islam umbrella does not oblige Islam to anything.

(Good thing the terrorists didnt say they did it in the name of men everywhere. All us men would be lynched, wouldn't we?)


They are not simply offended. They are trying to get them to not put the mosque there, because they see Muslims as the root of their pain. That's not offense; that's action - persecutive action (the people wanting to build the mosque are being deprived based specifically on their belief system).


Are you suggesting extremists are the only ones hurt by this act?

You make good points... you'd think a site with an excellent selection of threads, blogs and FAQs about RELATIVITY, would be more capable of understanding nuance and your points.

 

[JaredJames]

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard? Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims? No, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, as everyone keeps pointing out, but then you can't judge all Christians by the actions of this pastor, so why is Obama differentiating between the two?

This is the double standard I keep seeing, particularly in the UK.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm on my phone, so I'll keep rhetoric to a minimum, but I just wanted to express my relief that Jones has canceled his book burning.

I absolutely support his right to do it, but I'm glad it's not happening.

 

[Jack21222]

Why do people always make this assumption (that someone who mentions the Islamic extremism motivation believes all Muslims are extremists) in these discussions? I've never heard anyone claim anything like that, yet it always comes up.

Because your "side" brings up 9/11 when talking about a Sufi interfaith community center! The Sufis didn't attack us on 9/11, so why even say the words "ground zero" when discussing the construction of this community center? I can't think of any connection between this community center and Al Qaeda, other than they're both Islamic.

I can only think of two possibilities where this connection makes sense, perhaps you can provide others:

1) People believe Muslims are a homogeneous group, so if one Muslim attacks us, all Muslims should be punished (by preventing construction of their community center).

2) People are xenophobic.

I charitably ascribe the motives of the opponents of this community center to possibility 1, that they're just misguided and not xenophobic. The fact that the ONLY CONNECTION between Al Qaeda and this community center is they're both Islamic suggests to me that that's the connection that opponents are using. That connection only makes sense under those two possibilities I listed.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and you can think of another option. At the moment, I can't think of any.

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard? Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims? No, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, as everyone keeps pointing out, but then you can't judge all Christians by the actions of this pastor, so why is Obama differentiating between the two?

This is the double standard I keep seeing, particularly in the UK.

I can understand why some would find a book burning offensive. I can't understand why anybody would find a community center offensive. There is no double standard, you're looking at two very different events. One is an act of destruction, the other is an act of construction.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no double standard; they are not equivalent. Nice try.

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.

Because it is an act of hate.

But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Because they have a constitutional right to freedom of religious persecution.

This is not rocket surgery, people. It is really as simple as that.