Well Done, Dearborn
By engaging in a blatantly unconstitutional prosecution of Pastor Terry Jones, Dearborn has actually boosted his nonsensical cause.
Pastor Terry Jones is an asshat. Of that there can be no doubt.
But even asshats have Constitutional rights. In fact, as is often said, protecting the fundamental rights of the worst of us is a vital part of ensuring that the rest of us can enjoy our liberties in peace.
So the fact that Terry Jones was jailed for, essentially, not promising that he wouldn’t hold a protest at a mosque, is unconscionable. Adding insult to injury, Judge Mark Somers ordered him to stay away from said mosque for 3 years, giving the proprietors a veto on his freedoms.
The Supreme Court has called prior restraint “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) and is presumptively unconstitutional. Prior restraint usually involves publication, rather than actual speech, but the parallels are unmistakable. Judge Somers should have thrown this case out–sua sponte if need be–immediately upon the filing of the indictment. Barring that, he should have held an immediate hearing on the constitutionality of the charges and dismissed it then. Having failed to throw the case out then, he should have entered a directed verdict at the close of the prosecutors’ evidence. Or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the jury returned guilty verdicts. But he did none of these things.
Judge Somers did mitigate his errors somewhat by setting bond for Jones and his compatriot at $1, but that is woefully insufficient to make up for everything that went before. The charges against Jones are obviously, patently, incontrovertibly unconstitutional. The entire basis of the indictment is that their planned protest would “likely breach the peace.”
But that is not the standard by which prohibition or punishment of the exercise of free speech is governed. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) requires three elements to be met before the state can step in:
[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Jones’ planned actions don’t even meet the threshold requirement of advocacy of lawlessness. According to Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad, “there have been at least four serious threats made against Jones from metro Detroiters… his protest could lead to violence if allowed.” Brandenburg allows for prohibition or punishment of incitement to lawlessness where one advocates imminent unlawful action that is likely to produce it. But here it was the prospect that his protest might cause a violent reaction by the targets of his protest, not his supporters, that the state used to justify their prior restraint of Jones’ First Amendment rights. There is simply no possible way to justify this prosecution.
This case won’t have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Michigan’s appellate court should vacate the convictions immediately. And then Pastor Jones will get to file his 1983 action and be entitled to damages from the state. All of which will do nothing but increase his media exposure and generate sympathy for his asshattery.
Image: Rebecca Cook / Reuters
The mosque should get a restraining order, but I don’t see what’s wrong about barring him from visiting the Mosque if the leadership doesn’t want him there. “Breaching the peace” sans an actual breach(if you don’t consider him nearly shooting himself accidently in his car as one lol) is ridiculous. If you think he’s going to do something that would cause a riot, then have the cops there to arrest him as soon as he tries it.
Also: odd that you’re complaining about this and not the Mich Gov’s plan to overthrow local governments which would violate the Constitution.
I like the part where he accidentally discharged his firearm in his rental car in Southfield.
Ah, the Balloon Juice fallacy in the very first reply. Bravo!
And the assertion that it’s odd I’d be commenting on a brand-new First Amendment issue, not to mention taking the same position as the ACLU, instead of some other matter that isn’t a front page Constitutional issue today, is itself rather odd.
Seriously Dodd?
Balloon Juice has readers, if not idiotic caption contests.
You should probably stick to that.
So asking for you to be consistent with your believe in strict Constitutionalism is some internet meme? Wow, thats a new low even for you Dodd.
Keep up the hackery as always. Its always hilarious to hear to me how even the right wing blogsphere who knows you rips on you as an embarrassment.
We all know that’s not what you were doing. Hence the fallacy, the sole purpose of employing which is to try to deflect from the topic at hand by insinuating that the author is somehow hypocritical by not writing about Topic Y merely because he did write about tangentially-related (however strained the tangent, as, for instance, yours) Topic X.
But I am genuinely confused by your apparent dislike of this post. So, setting aside your ad hominems, please explain to me why my editorial position here that Dearborn’s unconstitutional actions have likely acted to make a bad situation worse and promoted the cause of an *ssh*le is objectionable to you. Because I don’t get it.
Is it because you don’t think that Terry Jones should be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as everyone else? Is it because, by slagging him and the people wrongfully prosecuting him, you assume I am somehow “defending” him? Or do you just need to vent your spleen so implying I’m a hypocrite outweighs any possibility you’d normally be inclined to agree in the main with my point?
Last I checked Dillon’s Rule was still good law and state governments can “overthrow” any local government within the state for any reason so long as the action is consistent with their own state constitution and laws (and not done to violate a federal constitutional right such as the right to vote).
Indeed.
But it makes a convenient bit of chaff to hurl in the air when, for some reason, someone needs a distraction. So it must violate the Constitution. Even when it’s well-settled law that it doesn’t.
As I understand it, restrictions on “hate speech” still stand as Constitutional under current law.
Is this another OTB cycle where we play dumb to that?
Dodd, unlike you, I was consistent with my views. I criticized what Jones was charged with. Now you’re(as you often do) trying to bog things down in semantics. I’m done trying to point out your horseshit, since I’ll never have a big enough shovel to get it all.
Toodaloo ass. I hope one day you get your head out of it, but I doubt that this blog will ever be that lucky lol.
Did you not read Snyder v Phelps just a few weeks ago? It was in the news and everything. It upheld the First Amendment right to be an asshat.
This is not a case like Wisconsin v. Mitchell, where a statute imposing stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults than for other types of assaults was upheld. The indictment does not allege that Jones violated a statute prohibiting unprotected speech. On its face, it purports to enjoin his speech because the people he’s protesting might react badly.
No, this is a case of imposing content-based restrictions on speech, which have long been held unconstitutional.
Except for the part where only one of the two issues actually involves violating the Constitution.
So it was the spleen thing then. Thanks for explaining.
There still is a thing called “hate speech,” right?
Does calling every hate speaker an “asshat” give them a pass?
Perhaps it time for a Venn diagram. Not all asshats engage in hate speech, though possibly all hate speakers are indeed asshats.
AFAIK, asshats as a category do not deserve special protections under the law.
(I get a kick out of the signaling that OTB columnists hope to achieve with the mild obscenity of “asshat.” Maybe if we recognize that they must be really, really, mad at Jones we’ll punt on the whole “hate speech” idea.)
((my search turns up “0 matches” on “hate speech” in Snyder v Phelps, so I assume it deals with other issues.))
I guess I’m missing your point. Who called for “special” protections?
Certainly not me, since all I’ve noted is that Jones is entitled to the same rights as everyone else, despite the fact that he’s an asshat (not because he is). There’s a reason the ACLU took up his side of the case. It’s much the same reason why we ensure murderers and paedophiles have lawyers. If we decide the worst among us don’t deserve the same basic protections as everyone else, then we don’t have rights at all.
Hardly a surprise, since neither that case nor this one involves “hate speech.” As has already been explained.
Neo-Nazis can march in Skokie. Illinois, a town that that had many Holocaust survivors . The KKK can march in Black neighborhoods. But Christians can’t march in Muslim neighborhoods. Sharia law American style.
JP, hate speech can’t be a stand alone offense in the U.S.; it can be an aggravating circumstance to some other offense. Advocating violence against racial or religious groups is protected speech.
That’s a stretch. But this prosecution certainly feeds into Jones’ martyr complex. Hence the title of my post.
I disagree with that characterization of Brandeberg as it does not hold any such thing. Let’s stick with the actual holding I quoted in my post, shall we?
Dodd, I had forgotten you had quoted Brandenberg in the post. I think if people realize what the KKK wizard was saying (generalized threats of harm to Jews and Blacks, but not specifically planning such harm), I think it’s a little clearer that anything Jones said is well within the protection of the First Amendment.
Better run to mama SH, evilllllllllll Muslims are coming to get you…
It is in violation of Sharia law to be disrespectful of the Koran.There is nothing in the Constitution that Rev Jones violated. So Rev Jones is only guilty under Sharia law.
Not just me, but all unbelievers according to the Koran. And you are right Islam is evil.
Can someone familiar with Michigan law explain what legal authority the City of Dearborn even had to arrest Jones before he’d actually done anything?
This has got to be the clearest example of an unconstitutional prior restraint that I’ve seen since the Pentagon Papers case (which was, of course, a very different matter on the facts, but nonetheless an attempt to squelch speech before it was published), and I pretty much agree with everything Dodd says here.
One point:
In the minds of some people, perhaps. Under the cases that Dodd cites above, along with Snyder v. Phelps, however, a law that attempted to ban or punish speech purely based on it’s content would clearly be unconstitutional,
FYI we have only the freedoms granted to us by minorities ever since the jew 1965 Immigration Act was passed into law and White people now have to give our nation over to Others.
According to the ACLU, the case arose because the Wayne County prosecutor filed an action ‘To Institute Proceedings To Prevent Crime’ under MCL 772.1 et. seq., commonly known as the ‘peace bond’ statute…. The peace bond statute may only be invoked when ‘a person has threatened to commit an offense against the person or property of another.’ MCL 772.2.”
They then go on to explain how the statute unconstitutionally imposes prior restraint in violation of Forsyth County v Nationalist Party (1992)(speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob).
Christian,
This is your second anti-Semetic comment of the day. The first was on my post about the Tea Party. I’d suggest you review, the Comment Policy
Wikipedia tells me:
That “unless” seems important.
Actually, it’s like his fitth or six. He made a number over in Dodd’s Franklin Graham article too.
Wikipedia also tells me:
Are we playing dumb that “incitement to riot” never happens? Or if it isn’t here, it isn’t real?
Somewhere along the way Rev Jones was ask to post a $45,000 peace bond. Correct me if I am wrong, but if Rev Jones while peacefully marching was attack by Islamic counter protester, would Rev Jones loose his peace bond?
http://goo.gl/7cFNy
They should have sited Sharia law.
Someone is playing dumb, to be sure. The actual language of the Brandenburg holding has been quoted twice here, so there’s no need to resort to Wikipedia for it. And, as set forth in my post, Dearborn can’t even establish the threshold requirement that Jones did or intended to advocate a violation of the law, much less the three elements required to overcome the presumptive unconstitutionality of prior restraint [that his speech was directed to (1) inciting or producing (2) imminent lawless action and (3) is likely to incite or produce such action.]
You can move those goalposts anywhere you want, but the ACLU and I are right here, any (wholly understandable) antipathy you may feel for Jones notwithstanding. This isn’t a close case; Dearborn frakked up badly.
Incite != provoke
Incitement is intentionally trying to get people to riot, not saying something that upsets them to the point that you become the victim of a riot.
I agree with all you wrote except this:
“Adding insult to injury, Judge Mark Somers ordered him to stay away from said mosque for 3 years, giving the proprietors a veto on his freedoms.”
I’m not aware that the “proprietors” initiated any of the actions taken against the pastor. My understanding is that the Wayne Country prosecutor initiated the action, and the mosque was not involved at all. Do you have other information that implicates the mosque in the prosecution, other than its being where the pastor planned to demonstrate.. None of the news stories I’ve read mentions any.
Jones backed down on the first cycle after everyone and his uncle told him it was a bad idea, that bad things would happen.
Why did he come back to the brink?
Was it because he couldn’t communicate any other way, or because he couldn’t incite any other way.
Wikipedia tells me:
In a fair world this would be called “incitement” and Jones would get some small sentence. A few months in county.
It wouldn’t have to be much, just enough to draw a line in the sand, so that next time “asshats” listen when they hear an “international outrage and pleas from world leaders to cancel the event.”
Checked out http://www.stormfront.org/forum/. I use to post there till I got kicked off for not being white enough for them. I’m sure they would welcome you.
I have no idea. The whole notion of “peace bonds” is so patently unconstitutional I doubt that issue ever gets reached.
I was merely summarizing the judge’s ruling which prohibits Jones from going near the mosque for three years unless the mosque’s operators say otherwise. It’s in the news article I linked. My apologies if that was unclear.
The mental gyrations of an attention whore are entirely irrelevant to the Constitutional issues at hand.
I would note, however, since you brought it up, that an essential part of Brandenburg’s holding cannot ever be met here: Jones was prosecuted based on Dearborn’s worries as to how the people Jones was protesting might react. Even leaving aside the wholly speculative (and therefore invalid) nature of the supposed threat, Brandenburg only allows for state intervention where one is advocating imminent lawlessness that is likely to create it. Those words cannot encompass reactions from people not being advocated to. Even if one intends to offend with one’s speech, there is no sense in which “advocacy” can be construed as including giving offense to another group.
BTW – yes, I’m still down on Jones about the Koran burning.
It doesn’t sound like Dearborn has gotten to the same brink, but … guys like Jones tend to double-down. Beware.
So you think, for example, the imprisonment of civil rights protestors was fair? By your reasoning, MLK was ‘inciting’ riots by saying things racist southerners would react violently to.
Are you saying that we should restrict an American’s rights because world leaders are outraged? Why don’t we just come out and adopt Sharia law? It has all sorts of restrictions on human rights and other freedoms.
First of all, I never said that. I leave the ignorant ranting to you junior. Perhaps people have been laughing at you for so long you are simply not aware of it when it happens.
Second, radical Muslims feel the same way about us. You have a lot in common with each other.
I’m down on Rev Jones too! I sent him two Korans to burn last year and he didn’t burn them.
No worries SH, you have the right to remain stupid…
Do you remember those on the right side of the aisle who wanted a flag-burning amendment?
I think the right way to handle this is to generalize. If “destroying symbols of identity,” or some such, harm everyone’s cool, then a mild slap can restore balance.
(The problem with Sharia law is that it tends to chop of hands and stone people and such. Not at all the sort of mild penalties that restore calm.)
A joke, but nonetheless, not what Jesus would do.
Or maybe you are not aware of your ignorance about Islam. When Pres Bush said, “Islam is peace.” you must have swallowed that lie hook, line, and sinker.
(Maybe that’s the trick that many miss. You only need mild penalties on many of these things to restore balance.
You don’t need to stone Jones to death. You just need to sentence him to … heck, community service … just to set him beyond the pale.)
Flag burning prohibitions were also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). And rightfully so. Interestingly, for purposes of the present discussion (rather than 20-year-old debates), the statute struck down in Johnson was predicated on the basis that burning the flag tends to incite breaches of the peace. That was found to be well-short of the requirements of Brandenburg. Just like this case.
So, no, the “right” way to handle this is to not let the state stick its nose in at all. Social disapprobation is more than sufficient — and doesn’t feed the wingnuts’ martyr complexes.
“I was merely summarizing the judge’s ruling which prohibits Jones from going near the mosque for three years unless the mosque’s operators say otherwise. It’s in the news article I linked”
Ah, OK, I understand now.
JP, there are two issues here. The first is “prior restraint,” which is one of the least controversial issues in the First Amendment. When the Federalist enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to punish people for speech casting aspersions on the government, the Federalists argued that the only right the First Amendment protected was against “prior restraint.” The government couldn’t stop un-American speech from happening, but once it had happened, the First Amendment didn’t protect the speaker from being punished for what he said. The Federalist lost this argument and now a judge is restraining speech in advance, something the Federalists would not have even argued.
The second problem is the idea of preventing inflammatory speech, which is probably protected if he was given an opportunity to express it.
Sure do. And I remember the cross in urine and elephant dung on the Virgin Mary. Yeah I remember lots of things that I find offensive, all protected, but I don’t go out and riot and kill people.
Only “sufficient” if we accept the body count.
Obviously, if the world had your restraint we’d be home free.
The problem is what to do with this world we have right here around us.
If I do something expressive in nature — such as, say, draw a picture of Mohammed — and someone goes out and tries to kill someone because of it, I’m the one who should be punished?
The last time I checked, laws against blasphemy were unconstitutional
Doug your example wouldn’t fall in my “destroying symbols of identity” category.
We may have to draw a different line and defend creative arts. Yes.
And who is to decide? The UN or some other international body? Rev Jones violated Sharia law when he burnt the Koran, not the Constitution. Why should any punishment, no matter how slight be imposed on him?
We Americans get to decide our own laws.
We can decide if we are all “asshats” or not.
There is no body count. Blaming the speaker for the unreasonable reactions of people who commit violence merely because they were offended by something is no more legitimate when it’s Terry Jones giving the offense than when it’s MLK offending Bull Connor.
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, regardless of the message. if we all just ignored Jones, OTOH, he’d eventually go away.
BTW, the “South Parking” of a generation probably does mean that yes, we are becoming a nation of asshats.
Dodd, when you ignore facts in front of your face, you’ve lost.
Not just this argument, but integrity, and any self-checks your mind needs for proper function.
I’m out for the day. Enjoy.
(I propose the South Park theme as a replacement Anthem.)
Well, there’s the most irony-immune statement I’ve seen all month, to be sure.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll stick with the Constitution rather than worry over these unstated alleged facts that aren’t making their way into my mind so it can function properly. And, look, I have the ACLU and even Alan Colmes on my side whereas you have… well, nothing.
Simple, we live by our laws and require others living in our country to do the same. We let other countries live by their laws no matter how repugnant we find them. If some country wants to burn school girls for not wearing the proper headscarf, let them. http://goo.gl/xvbS2
If they want to execute 14 year old rape victims, so be it. http://goo.gl/goXym
Islam is peace.
Not quite out the door … I was referring to your assertion of no body count.
Re. constitutional law and etc., I can see that they recognize incitement and fighting words as bad. I can see that this is related. From there I am proposing small penalties for the same, as a way to maintain civil relations (nationally and internationally).
I don’t think I’m a horrible guy for choosing 60 days in county for guys like Jones, over innocent deaths of UN staffers, and the like.
I wonder if those advocating prior restraint in this case would be so willing to apply it consistently across the political spectrum. Well, actually, I don’t.
(On the other hand, some of you prefer innocent deaths (as long as “blame” can be assigned!) over 60 days in county, or even just picking up trash. Sleep on that.)
Didn’t I get there ahead of you, by putting flag burning in the same category?
No. I prefer we abide by the Constitution even for people we don’t like rather than letting the most unreasonable people anywhere in the world define the scope of our rights.
Radical notion, I know.
Immoderate, certainly.
In john personna’s world, thinking the Constitution should not be subject to a heckler’s veto by violent extremists is “immoderate.”
And, yes, anyone who kills people over the burning of a collection of paper is a violent extremist.
Nice double standard. They riot and Rev Jones gets punished. They burn my Bible and I don’t riot so no one gets punished. Sounds fair
If nothing else, the pastor from Florida is now reaping multiples of the pennies he was bringing in from his 40-member church before. He’s an asshat for sure, but not a stupid asshat.
So you propose the creation of a system where you’re free to offend reasonable people, but it’s against the law to offend unreasonable people because they may respond by rioting?
Don’t you see how that encourages people to be more unreasonable, not less?
Let’s just make it illegal to say anything to anyone which they might find offensive. Because in the end, that’s what it comes down to – people’s right to not be offended.
There are a lot people that aren’t members of his church that agree and support him. And just because people disagree with another person’s action is no reason to call them names
John (Personna),
If someone wants to stage a peaceful protest in front of a mosque, a Catholic Cathedral, a synagogue, or the United States Capitol I can see no basis in law from preventing them from doing so.
If they violate the private property rights of one of those institutions (the Capitol Building being the exception) or tell people to run across the street and burn the place down, that’s a different story. But there’s no evidence either one of those things was going to happen here.
Amen! Can we have that added to the Constitution?
I agree, but Islam and Sharia law are sacred cows. No one wants to offend the Islamic community in Michigan even if it means violating the Constitution.
“Michigan: Christians banned from delivering tracts on sidewalk” http://goo.gl/MWBuB “Universities Install Footbaths to Benefit Muslims, and Not Everyone Is Pleased” http://goo.gl/QanMb Michigan: Islam forbids dogs, so blind Muslim brings horse to class http://goo.gl/Y9CUZ “Univ of Michigan Health System’s call to accommodate sharia” http://goo.gl/1kwL0.
More where these come from. http://goo.gl/xQxHw
SH,
Except none of what you cite is an example of “Sharia” except to the most paranoid people.
Every now and again I run across something going on in Dearborn or elsewhere that actually sounds somewhat disturbing. The problem is that completely innocuous things are given the same all-cap formatting and the same number of explanation points. And so even in the event that they might be on to something, it becomes difficult to take them seriously or to even believe what they’re saying.
(Throwing Terry Jones in jail for saying unpopular things excepted.)
Guide Horses are becoming increasingly common, and have nothing specifically to do with Islam:
http://www.guidehorse.com/
Keep in mind we’re talking about an animal that’s about three feet tall.
There is more to Sharia law than stoning adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves.
Banning seeing eye dogs as unclean animals, isn’t that a violation of Federal law? Doesn’t Michigan State receive Federal funds? So how can they possible ban seeing eye dogs? Isn’t this Shara law trumping the Constitution and Federal law?
What about Muslim taxi cab refuse to pick up passenger carrying alcohol? Aren’t they licensed by the city? Shouldn’t they pick up all passengers? What if I drove a taxi cab and refused to Blacks? How long would I have my licenses?
If local authorities refuse to enforce the law in these cases, than Sharia becomes the law by default.
But banning a seeing eye dog, because Islam says it is unclean, is about Islam.
Actually, I never believed anything Bush said.
Have you ever read a history book? How many people has the peace loving USA killed? We are past masters at it.
You’re not paranoid when your fears are real.
OK I’ll play your silly games. Yes I have read a history book. In fact at the moment I am reading Stalingrad by Antony Beevor.
Have you ever read the Koran?
Killed in what way? War? Genocide? Street crime? Self defense? Lynchings? Does The U.S. Army School of the Americas graduates count?
If you believe that Islam is Peace then you and Pres Bush have something in common.
While there is a taboo of sorts concerning dogs within Islam, it’s clearly not a universal belief. Here, for example, is a British mosque that permits a seeing-eye dog, a decision supported by the British Muslim Council.
Similarly, though pigs are clearly haram, Muslims are not prohibited from using pig-derived insulin or heart valves.
There is no monolithic Shariah law. Instead, there are a multitude of interpretations. Some consider dogs unclean, no ifs, ands, or buts. Others consider only the dog’s saliva a problem. Yet others don’t see a problem at all. You might be (un)pleasantly surprised to learn that many Muslims pick and choose their own private interpretations of Islam–for better or worse–just as many Christians pick and choose what religious rules they’ll follow.
I think most people would agree that whatever Shariah law is, Saudi Arabia has it in spades. Yet the Saudis allow seeing eye dogs. See page three of this three-page PDF from the Saudi Embassy.
@Southern Hoosier, I doubt that Michigan State banned guide dogs. Do you have any evidence of that? If they did it would be in violation of the law.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusmiguidedoglaws.htm
See chapter 750 Sec 502c
Let me also add that not everything you read on the internets is true.
@ John Burgess Spare me the lecture on Islam and lets talk about
A Muslim at Michigan State says that seeing eye dogs are unclean and will not be allowed in class. That is an out and out violation of Federal law. Some Muslim is enforcing their version of Sharia law on a state institute that accepts federal money. By allowing this to happen Michigan State is allowing his version of Shara law to become law by default.
You agree?
I stand corrected. Story is true, but headline is misleading. Islam does forbid dogs. But it was voluntary on her part not to have a dog, That what bothered me, how the school could get away with it.
http://goo.gl/OxewG
A Muslim at Michigan State says that seeing eye dogs are unclean and will not be allowed in class.
That’s not what the article says. The article says that a young woman who cannot have a dog for religious reasons, instead brings a horse. It does not say that other students in the class must also have a horse instead of a dog.
@Southern Hoosier, I don’t even see that headline as being misleading. Meant to be alarmist surely but factual. I followed your link, then a link to FSM, then a link to this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8HfwcLdX-A6-5MMm1Yhb7Zg6-Cg?docId=CNG.907abc4d81c3c1c9a87d6f7bd7a18808.561
and look what appears a few paragraphs in:
“While there was some initial concern about whether Cali would make a mess or be a distraction, the tiny brown horse with a shiny black mane is surprisingly tidy and even gets along with the guide dog of one of Ramouni’s classmates.
“The thing that I love about having Cali and the dog Harper in the class is that it’s such a vivid example to people about how adaptive students can be in going about their lives and achieving what they want to achieve,” Smithson said.”
Dude, seriously, why the paranoia? Why would you even want to be reading “news” on a site named Creeping Sharia? Isn’t the name warning enough to take whatever you see there with a grain of salt?
@Southern Hoosier, If you find Stalingrad interesting you may enjoy Dan Carlin’s 4 podcasts on the German invasion of Russia. They can be found here, shows 27-30:
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive
Scott,
That’s a nice story. Amazing that SH could turn that into a hate & ignorance filled rant. Of course, he is what he is.
@Souther Hoosier: So, this particular Muslim doesn’t think dogs are clean and finds an alternative. Many Muslims might agree with her. Other Muslims–like the ones who have dogs, breed dogs, use dogs–don’t.
This particular Muslim seeks a religious accommodation, based on her belief–not any Shariah law followed by all Muslims, note–and the school says, ‘Sure!’
You might care to look into the history of religious accommodation in the US, starting, say, back in Founding Fathers days. You know that little thing about how you can ‘affirm’ rather than ‘swear’ an oath? Religious accommodation. Here–as, in fact, throughout US history–it’s Christians being accommodated primarily. The case of this Muslim woman, however, gets flagged by the paranoiacs as an example of how we’re all marching down the road to Islamic death camps.
You might care to visit Volokh Conspiracy and do a search on ‘religious accommodation’. Eugene Volokh–as libertarian, if it matters–is an expert on 1st and 2nd Amendment Constitutional Law. He gives a pretty good run down of the issue, as well as who benefits from it.
SH… sorry pal, but I am done with you. Only the worst kind of dirtball could take a story about a blind girl who is simply trying to go to school, improve her life, and exercise constitutional rights and add that up to “Islam is evil”. What a pathetic wretch you are. Well, at least you have wingnut cred.
Many Jews believe pigs are unclean and forbidden. Do you hate them too?
Now, if Jones is uncovering rampant hypocracies, unconstitutional speech suppression and rampant political-religious violence, exactly what makes him an “asshat”? It’s obvious that what he’s doing is important.
What was the position taken by the bloggers here regarding the “free speech zones” set up any time President George W. Bush made a public appearance? I don’t see a substantive difference, except for the perception that the “free speech zones” were set up so President Bush wouldn’t have his feelings hurt by having to see people protesting his policies and actions.
I opposed the “free speech zones”, but if they were OK, why is allowing Jones to protest in a location other than in front of the mosque any worse in terms of “prior restraint”?
As a life-long Dearborn resident, all I can say is this: Islam is anti-thetical to Western, American, Judeo-Christian values and traditions. The problem is immigration of muslims. Since the immigration explosion of the 1990’s began, Dearborn has gone from a town with some Mohammedans to one that is almost completely Mohammedan in culture.
Only way to prevent it from happening to your hometown is to stop Islamic immigration. With muslims comes Sharia Law. Good luck wtih that.
Kind of a coincidence, when we have a Mooooslim-boy in the White House, eh? Remember, our effeminate genius Barry Soetoro said in Egypt that he sees it as HIS REPSONIBILITY to defend Islam from anyone’s “negative” criticisms.
Sounds like Dearborn is putting into practice The One (Term) Wonder’s policy of letting islam grow and flourish in the USA. A year and a half to go until this educated idiot is just a footnote in history. .
I guess when the media is 99% behind you, you can get away with just about anything. Can you say biased news media? Ha, ha, ha, ha. ha………
Most effective asshat we’ve seen in a long time. He’s an asshat all right, but he’s doing a better job defending our liberal values than any of us posting have ever done, whether he knows it or not. A hero is recognized by the fact that when they traipse through a hail of gunfire or walk into a burning building they know exactly what they’re doing. If this dude ever shows that he knew all along what he was doing he deserves a statue.
“Pastor Terry Jones is an asshat. Of that there can be no doubt.”
Why do arguments from the right always have to start out with an appeal to the left?
I don’t recall reading defenders of Larry Flynt stating that “Larry Flynt is an asshat, but…”
or, arguments about Piss Christ stating that “Serrano is an asshat, but…”
The Left is comfortable defending the first amendment. The right, even when arguing for an ideological concept, has to signal to the Left (‘don’t worry leftist journalist, I’m smart like you-I dislike Terry Jones! See? I said he’s an asshat! Invite me to your cocktail parties, please….’), that its smart and sophisticated and has all the right opinions on all the right cultural memes.
Its like you are apologizing for your argument before you make it.
I think the only guy that has the courage to not care what the Left thinks of him is P.J. O’Rourke-and even he hides it behind a ‘too drunk to take anything seriously’ fratboy persona.
sk
You know, I only proposed a very specific and mild law, against “destroying symbols of identity, or some such.” Everyone who answered “so we can’t protest, bla bla bla” did the worst thing. When you can’t disagree with what someone said, make something else up, and disagree with that.
““Destroying symbols of identity,” is very much in line with flag burning laws that so many favored, and … a mild punishment actually makes it a BETTER protest. If you are ready to risk a couple months in county (or remember, community service), then you must think it’s really important, right?
It allows you to much effectively demonstrate your civil disobedience. That’s the way it worked back in the Apartheid days, when people went down to get arrested protesting at the South African embassy.
That’s not an appeal to the left, it’s tagging the base at “reason” before going around the bend to “ideological purity.”
Thanks.
I find the Russians both admiral and repugnant at the same time. Admiral for what how much suffering they were were willing to endure for Mother Russian and repugnant for how much suffering they inflicted on each other in the name of Mother Russia.
So do Muslims, Hindus and Buddhist. But only the Islamic religions believe in killing, converting or enslaving unbelievers. I know I am suppose to love and forgive my enemies, but it is hard to love people that think half world’s population, women, are inferior. It’s hard to love people that that burn little school girls alive for not wearing the proper headscarf. Or kill a 14 year old rape victim for committing adultery. Or what about throwing acid in the face of disobedient wives or cutting off their ears and nose. Then there is the marriage of children to old men. Anybody that defends or practices Islam is sick.
Jones is a hero in my book. He has done nothing wrong and has brought much attention to the true nature of the barbaric death cult. Something is wrong with you if it’s his simple gestures which have drawn your ire. Having laws protecting the concept of ‘symbols of identity’ makes about as much sense as hate crime laws.
This is the stuff that brings 100 year wars.
And the people who want that are just stupid enough to drag the rest of us along with them.
We don’t want to the left to think that we actually agree with Rev Jones for practicing his freedom of expression.
Simple, lesson learned in war. Dehumanize your enemy. Those are gooks not Vietnamese, makes them easier to kill. Much easier to lynch n***ers than is it Afro-Americans. Rev Jones is not an American citizen with rights he is a asshat. That makes it easier to attack and vilify him.
Who’s symbols of identity? I don’t see how such a list can’t be political. For instance, if the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster decides that a plate of pasta is a symbol of identity for them, does eating pasta become an illegal act?
And how about art pieces like the piss-Christ? The cross certainly is a recognized symbol of Christianity. Does art like that become illegal? If I’m a member of a group, how do I get my symbols put on the list? Say the Hell’s Patch – they obviously feel strongly about it. Where do they apply? The decision is always going to be political.
I really don’t see any reason to protect people from being offended. There are real reasons for affirmative action policies. There are real reasons for the state spending money to educate people on issues that lead to prejudice and hate. But if you’re in fact creating a right not to be offended then you completely shut down any sort of progress, because almost any sort of criticism offends someone.
And about the seeing-eye-horse … it seems like a good idea; its adding an option (now you can choose between seeing-eye dogs and horses). If they banned dogs it would be a very bad idea, but that’s not what happened. Adding options is good, and is actually why free speech, even offensive speech, has to be allowed … it allows people to consider new things.
I agree. He is no different than the Danish Cartoonist or Theo” van Gogh.
I made a mistake on the seeing eye dog story. Either I am the only person to make a mistake or the only one to admit it, which is it?
The SCOTUS won’t allow a mild punishment of speech, any more than it will allow civil lawsuits like defamation to abridge public speech. The choices are these: ignore the speech or for private citizens to speak back against it.
The only other “out,” which I suggested months ago is that if Jones is such a substantial threat to the ongoing wars, the military can send him to Gitmo for temporary detention.
PD, you keep forgetting that freedom of speech is not absolute.
Wikipedia:
(And sure, protect the Flying Spaghetti Monster)
How about we send him to Afghanistan to be tried by the Taliban? It was their law he violated, not ours.
John Persona said:
“It wouldn’t have to be much, just enough to draw a line in the sand, so that next time “asshats” listen when they hear an “international outrage and pleas from world leaders to cancel the event.”
John, I am a woman and a couple of my favorite people are islamic (Iranian) apostates. Saying that people should be forbidden from protesting or criticising the Quran – which forms the basis of both law and government in several countries (including Iran) – is like saying they should not be permitted to protest their unjust governments and their unjust laws. By accepting this shariah informed view you, are unwitting siding against women, apostates, (often) blaspemous critics, homosexuals and REAL muslim reformers – all of whom are at grave risk under islamic law. This is an abominable postiion t to take. If there is ANYWHERE one should be permitted to criticise the islam and the Quran, it’s in the United States in front of an Iranian linked grand mosque.
Ah well, whatever. Between absolutists and non-metaphoric RWar fans, we’ll get what we’ll get.
@Epiphyte, I wasn’t saying cancel all protests, by “event” I meant the Koran burning.
@ Epiphyte
Thank you. Well said.
john personna says:
PD, you keep forgetting that freedom of speech is not absolute.
JP,
You keep forgetting that we are in the United States and while there are some limitations on speech; the ones you propose are patently unconstitutional.
You are not proposing some “minor law.” You are proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Any criticism or discussion by unbelievers of the Koran, Islam or Mohammad is just as offensive as burning the Koran. You don’t understand Islam do you?
Really, who was killed for the comments above? Anybody?
I am not a supreme court justice, let alone a supreme court majority, so I wouldn’t really know.
But then neither is anyone else here.
http://goo.gl/aj0L5
See if you even touch the Koran, you may offend Muslims. Ever try to read a book without touching it?
“This is the stuff that brings 100 year wars.”
Okay, so eating pasta is now illegal, as it destroys the symbol of that church. Do we also forbid screening of films that show someone eating pasta, or do we allow historical displays of such sacrilege?
I’m going to start a church who’s holy symbol is long grass – and declare that lawn mowers are offensive to our beliefs. If nothing else, it’ll get me out of cutting my lawn, and remove pesky bylaws requiring that.
John you just don’t get it, do you?
http://goo.gl/O8Yly
And if we have to spend a 100 years fighting for our liberty, so be it.
Terry Jones applied for a permit for a public assembly in a public place, and was denied it. He has never committed a violent act against any human being, nor was his demonstration to be anything but a public expression of opposition to a vile, anti-human creed that preaches the overthrow of all secular governments and the imposition of its barbaric sharia law upon all persons. For this, he has been vilified as if he were a mass murderer, or at least an advocate of such. He and his followers have been threatened with every imaginable doom, including death…for condemning the eminently condemnable contents of a book.
But his behavior is what you style “asshattery?”
Check your premises, Mr. Harris. Indeed, check your Americanism. There’s something lacking from both.
I believe you are suggesting that we fight 100 years for asshattery.
John Persona said,
“I wasn’t saying cancel all protests, by “event” I meant the Koran burning.”
But ultimately, all the abominable aspects of islam and shariah law are rooted in either the Quran or the hadith. For example, Iran permits pedoephelic marraige for girls (age 9). The law derives from the example of Mohammad and Ayeshia, but is also supported by a provision in the Quran, verse 65:4, which establishes the waiting period for the divorce of “prepubescent girls.” The Quran also endorses polygamy, wife beating, jihad to establish the supremacy of islamic law and the use of catured kuffar women as sexual slaves – and these aren’t just descriptive passages about times long past, they are current and operative exhortations that are being implemented TODAY, RIGHT NOW, by islamic states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan (forced conversions and halal sexual enslavement), etc. . . . so I ask, why not burn the Quran? Does the fact that some good muslims find the act offensive trump my right to express my disgust and outrage by burning it? Sorry Johnny, I won’t submit.
JP says:
I am not a supreme court justice, let alone a supreme court majority, so I wouldn’t really know.
But then neither is anyone else here.
JP,
You never know, Scalia may be lurking.
It is possible to read the opinions of the Supreme Court.
I can assure you that you would have no support for your proposal from the current court.
I can also assure you that no one sharing your opinions has any chance of getting within a mile of the Supreme Court
If that’s what you want to call freedom of speech, then yes.
attributed to Voltaire
“This is the stuff that brings 100 year wars.”
I very much appreciate the “asshattery” of Terry Jones. It draws out the persons actually breaching the peace in such a case–and as long as he’s burning his own Koran, it’s not him–and exposes those actual wrongdoers to civil, criminal, and yes military prosecution. BTW, it isn’t a 100 year war it’s a 1300 year war.
If it’s one you want to lose.
BTW one of the later tacks you’ve taken is to claim Terry Jones action amount to being fighting words. The concept of fighting words is that they’re suddeness and un-anticipatedness leaves persons of usual self control unable to get control of the usual and expected range of emotions, leading to fighting as a matter as a usual matter of course.
It is to be expected that knowing of Jones beforehand, that Moslems who might be provoked by him can get their emotions under control beforehand. Those who can’t get control of themselves by then are ones who should be enrolled in the criminal justice system for our own protection, or deported. If such happens we should thank Jones for bringing those unstable persons to light.
Just to re-iterate.
Burning Korans ok. Rioting about burning Korans not.
Michigan doesn’t count. For anything.
(By the way, this website has the most scripts I’ve ever seen. What the heck are you doing to your readers?)
“I believe you are suggesting that we fight 100 years for asshattery.”
I propose we spend the next 20 to 50 years fighting for our own freedoms, and bringing to an end the 1300 years of war that have already gone on.
What you guys are proposing is that Americans should always be inhumane, that we should always oppose the values of others even when they do not infringe our rights in any important way.
I know it’s hard for you, but remember that I haven’t spoken against free assembly. I haven’t spoken against protest. I haven’t spoken against free speech.
I even drew a line between Koran burning and cartoon drawing. Why?
One is unnecessary incitement, and one is necessary to preserve our real rights.
Or shorter, we wan’t free speech. We don’t really need to be dicks about it.
“MLK was ‘inciting’ riots by saying things racist southerners would react violently to.”
Not to mention racist northerners, you bigoted creep. Remember Howard Beach, Boston busing, Detroit and national guard, Watts?
Shorter you: “no, it’s important that we be asshats!”
BTW, what did the Apostles do when they disagreed with folks in other cities across the world?
Did they burn their books? Or did they write them letters?
john personna, other countries outlaw hate speech, which is all that Wikipedia entry is saying. We need to operate within the parameters of our legal system. One of the reasons I linked to the Brandenberg Wikipedia entry was to give easy access to what was unanimously protected: the burning of crosses, hateful and profane speech against Blacks and Jews, speaking about “revengeance” against them. The defendant was found guilty of advocating violence. Jones is far within the realm of protected speech.
They were writing to their fellow Christians and discussing in a civil manner a difference of opinion.
“What you guys are proposing is that Americans should always be inhumane,”
Nothing inhumane about burning a book.
“that we should always oppose the values of others even when they do not infringe our rights in any important way.”
We should oppose values which are abjectly and diametrically opposed to ours, and Islamic values are.
“I know it’s hard for you, but remember that I haven’t spoken against free assembly.”
Yes you did.
“I haven’t spoken against protest.”
Yes you did.
“I haven’t spoken against free speech.”
Yes you have.
“I even drew a line between Koran burning and cartoon drawing. Why?”
There’s no rational reason for it, you just want to be able to say you bent over for the Moon-god’s rioting followers, which somehow means you weren’t an asshat. I think it means you are one, frankly, just not one Terry Jones would agree with.
“One is unnecessary incitement, and one is necessary to preserve our real rights.”
Terry Jones is not telling them to riot, he’s saying, “I don’t like your book and what I think it leads you to do.” He has that right.
“Or shorter, we want free speech. We don’t really need to be dicks about it.”
What free speech means is, we are not respectful in law of the sensibilities of either apathetic majorities, apoplectic minorities, or hopefully even apoplectic majorities about when being a “dick” about it is something which can be criminalized.
What does it take for that to get between your ears?
@ John
What part of Islam bad, freedom of speech good, don’t you understand?
Doubt.
Islam is a cult. And cults should be confronted with their asshattery. And those who confront cults are not asshats. They are to be commended.
Burn more Korans. Now.
The only appropriate response whenever a Muslim claims to be offend by a non-Muslim is to tell them to “shut up and go away.” No one in America should ever have to worry about offending Muslim. Since they do not consider non-Muslims as their equal, there is no reason to treat them as equals. The law should treat them the same as everyone else but society should treat them as idiot and fools until they drag themselves into modern times.
@John
I guess I had better not burn my copy of Mein Kampf for fear of offending you and other Neo-Nazis and get 60 days in jail
I think it’s obvious Southern Hoosier that this thread is collecting people who want to say “Islam bad” at least as much as they want to say “freedom of speech good.”
I think that’s sad.
You live in America. You have freedom of speech. You have freedom of religion(!).
Mr. Harris,
the more I hear the ritual condemnation of Terry Jones, the less tolerance I have for it. Because the ritual condemnation demands that agree with a number of assumptions.
Is Islam really a “religion of peace”? Don’t make me laugh.
Is Islam really a “tolerant” religion? Ask people in Darfur, the Congo, Kenya, people at those churches in Saudi Arabia. Again, don’t make me laugh.
Are Muslims really peaceful and full of love for their fellow man?
Look at any Muslim charity you like. No Muslim charity gives and supports non-Muslims.
All of the above isn’t the way I like it, but it is the way it is.
@superdestroyer
Why is it only the followers of the religion of peace get offend? Christians, Jews, Buddhist and Hindus never seem to get offended, go out, riot, burn and kill.
Mooooslims are, almost completely, non-Americans, in that, Islam is not native to this country. Most mooooslims today are either recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants.
They are not like Black Americans who were discriminated against in SOME (not all) areas of the United States, decades ago. Mooooslims are foreigners (like illegal alien Latinos) – they are not Americans. Islam and it’s primitive Sharia Law do not belong here.
Hundred Years War? I say “bring it on”. Islam and the West can not co-exist.
Yes, quite true. We don’t live an Islamic country and a lot of us on here want to keep it that way.
If TJ is an asshat, then sign me up.
Each and every one of us needs to defend our freedoms. Burning a single book? Free to do so.
Or maybe, just maybe, the asshats are on the other side, unable to control themselves, threatening each and every one of us with death if we don'[t let their infantile selves rule the world.
And bag their women.
I quite prefer incenting them to riot and kill themselves. Less for us to do. And of course, they managed to burn more of those sacred books than TJ did.
As ex-military, you should applaud this use of asymmetrical warfare.
You do understand that freedom of religion means that we have Islamic Americans, right?
(And that a “don’t burn sh*t” law would mean they couldn’t burn Bibles as well. Fair’s fair.)
Mr. Personna,
Remember the Danish Cartoons? (Notice the caps.)
No MSM organization published them when the Muslims started to riot.
No, offense, but the KKK was really bad in the 1920’s. Look it up in the Library of Congress. The KKK had rallies of over 100,000 people in Washington, D.C. Oh, and the KKK, the armed wing of the Democratic Party, South, also killed about 4,000 African Americans.
But it took until the 1960’s for the Federal Govt. to actually take action.
Oh, yeah, Islam is such a good religion. Just as violent as Christians, and Mormons, and Hindus and Buddhists.
To agree with you, Mr. Personna, I have to close my eyes and stop up my ears.
Yes, but it does not mean that Muslims have the right to impose their religion on the rest of us. Notice we never have this discussion about Jews, Buddhist or Hindus .
John Personna: cows are sacred to many Hindu’s. Every time someone eats a hamburger or steak, they are committing an act as offensive to some Hindu’s as burning the Koran is to some Muslims. By your argument, burning cows (on a grill or otherwise) should be banned … there doesn’t seem to be any way around it. Moreover, someone who eats a steak is as disrespectful of another’s beliefs as someone who burns a Koran or makes a piss-Christ.
The only difference seems to be Hindu’s haven’t become violent over the issue. So because they’re not violent, we’re not going to respect their beliefs? We’re actually going to reward violent reaction to offensive action by banning it, while allowing the same sort of action against non-violent groups? Isn’t that backwards? Shouldn’t we be encouraging non-violent response?
I’m serious, this is the precedent you want us to set.
@John
I’ll say it again. You don’t understand Islam and your too stubborn to accept what the rest of us are saying. When I made a mistake on here, I admitted it.
Asshat or not, he’s the only person to date in the country with the cojones to stand up to these flaming a-holes.
That’s why I proposed a “fair’s fair” law that would protect Bibles and flags as well.
—-
I’m kind of bored, but I don’t really feel bad about this thread because it’s one of those times when I’ve been “trapped” into a moderate and compassionate position. I defend free speech, free religion, and just propose a mild injunction against needless incitement. A mild injunction that improves civil relations, peace.
You could still talk, criticize, protest, even proselytize.
And on this Easter … I don’t think my attitude is really un-Christian.
Not un-Christian, but un-American,
So proposing a law, and having an opinion is un-American? Brings to mind the 50’s and the committee for un-American activities. I dislike what he’s proposing, but there’s nothing un-American about proposing it … and I have to wonder who gets to decide what is American and what is un-American. Poll? Referendum? Congress? Pick random numbers out of a hat?
“You do understand that freedom of religion means that we have Islamic Americans, right?”
We do not, however, have non-criminal Americans who are Moslem who practice all the tenets of Islam as Mohammed practiced it.
“That’s why I proposed a “fair’s fair” law that would protect Bibles and flags as well.”
I propose instead what we have, which is freedom of speech. Which as it happens is antithetical to Islam.
I opposed them when the 1988 Democratic National Convention set them up to shove Operation Rescue off in a corner and when the Clinton administration used them and remain opposed to them to this day.
Little good it does, though, since it’s the Secret Service, not the politicians, who are doing it.
That’s not what that was. If you’ve read my posts, you’d see that I feel no need to genuflect to lefties when making an argument. The point of the lede is to emphasize the point which follows: Even asshats have Constitutional rights.
I don’t drink; I don’t care if I get invited to cocktail parties or not.
As I already said, your proposal is unconstitutional. Nor is it a “mild” punishment to be sent to jail for 2 months for exercising your rights. Even 1 minute is too much.
I do. But one doesn’t need a to get a J.D. like I did to grasp this simple concept. You’d know, too, if you’d actually paid attention to the multiple SupCt cases cited in the post and this thread instead of getting your G.E.D. in Constitutional Law from the cherry picked portions of Wikipedia that you think support your untenable position.
It’s the way he goes about it, not the message per se, that I object to. I think Jones is an attention-whoring egomaniac. That starts with the fact that he thrust himself into prominence by proposing to burn books. I do not hold to that, whatever the book.
One can make one’s point without such excesses. Theo Van Gogh did. Jyllands-Posten did. MLK did. And Jones himself proposed to do so in this instance. So he does know the difference.
Cue Voltaire.
And the whole point of this post is that the First Amendment protects even dicks. As it must, or it protects no-one, since there’s always some ninnyhammer who will get offended by just about anything. One person’s hypersensitivity is not the boundary marker of our Constitutional rights.
See above. Burning books is a noxious way of expressing oneself and inimical to the values of a free society. It’s Constitutionally protected, but that doesn’t make it okay.
See above.
On the contrary. You would jail people for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. There’s nothing moderate about that. In fact, your position has become so ridiculous through the course of the thread, only two (not mutually exclusive) conclusions can be drawn from your responses: Either you realize you’re wrong but can’t admit it, so you keep backing and filling hoping to avoid having to do so or you’re trolling.
@george
Saying that people need to be punished for offending someone is un-American
“it’s one of those times when I’ve been “trapped” into a moderate and compassionate position”
The Constitution is an absolute and not a moderate document, and experience hath shewn adherence to it’s tenets produces a more free, happy, satisfied, more prosperous, and to repeat the important part, free society than does “compassionate” accommodations to religious totalitarianism. Which is what you want.
john personna, all you reveal by your comments is that you have never read the Koran and do not understand the philosophy behind it.
Oh, and as for the Apostles, I look at what their Master did when He saw an institution being corrupted away from its’ original purpose: He picked up a whip and ran the criminals out.
It was His house and His right to do so, but don’t tell the Muslims that. John 1:1
Shrug.
No, I found a common ground between Koran burning and flag burning.
Actually, had we not had this history of flag burning controversy it probably wouldn’t have occurred to me. There wouldn’t have been an obvious generalization.
“No, I found a common ground between Koran burning and flag burning.”
Both are unconstitutional, and the “conservatives” who want it to be illegal at least want an amendment first to make it otherwise. You want to throw Jones and the Constitution under the bus without benefit of an amendment.
Did this thread get linked by some anti-muslim blog? There seems to be a sudden drop in the signal-to-noise ratio on the comments.
Another Koran burner defending freedom of speech and taking on the government. Check out her videos. Bacon makes great book markers for the Koran and lard a good fire accelerate.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/06/ann-barnhardt-culture-hero/
@ Stormy Dragon
Nope, just a sanity swarm from Instapundit.
What “his asshattery” proved is that our “religion of peace” is malarkey. What “his asshattery” proved is that if you killed enough people, the “Land of the Brave” will keel over. What “his asshattery” proved is our “Land of the Free” is as strong as the next killing, ours or somebody else’s. What “his asshattery” proved is that our politicians are stupider than we’ve ever imagined.
I’ve been seriously contemplating making a huge statement for free speech in the United States by first dousing one of those verminous child-molester death-cult manuals called “Korans” in piss, then smearing dog manure on it, then burning it in gasoline-assisted melted lard, all in front of a high-definition video camera. The Koran would still stink worse than the piss and the manure.
Copies of the extremely firm statement would go on DVD directly to the Iranian and Saudi Arabian embassies, with additional copies mailed to Al-Jazeera and other Islamovermin media outlets. That death-cult worship building in Dearbornistan would get a copy. YouTube would get a token copy, although those craven cowards would instantly boot it. BitTorrent would get its copy, and that traitorous Mohammedanist piece of shit Osama Obama would get a copy as well. Oh, yeah. That would make the Islamovermin jump and yell for certain. Who the hell cares what a bunch of rapist murderers think?
Christians, Buddhists, Jews and others in this once-free country can either stand up on their own two hind legs and savagely fight back, or they can get used to crawling around, grovelling in front of the smirking, sneering Islamovermin.
Pot, (Dodd) meets Kettle (Jones.)
I may think that Dodd AND Jones are asshats. That doesn’t mean I sic the government on them and have them charged with crimes against decent behavior and speaking about things I may personally dislike or even despise.
Free speech…it’s for everyone…especially asshats.
IANAL, Thanks for making this point about prior restraint. As you must know, in employer/employee and employee/employee relations it can be present. Probably that is different legally from the public/public context of this Dearborn situation, I do not know. I have experienced prior restraint in the employer/employee context, specifically at the point of mentioning to the employer suspicious activities incoming to their own public operating context that may threaten its reliability and safety. Regulators and regulations seem often to specialize in prior restraint, though probably in their context the courts would uphold it. I do not know.
“Asshat” is, I submit, not a helpful term. For rhetorical purposes its use is understandable, however, IMO a technical term would best serve the long-term goal of peace and quiet (not suppressed, rather, dynamic and free). A cleric who is not really one — lots and lots of those today — or who deforms the profession — most modern clerics — is a charlatan. The first are uncalled — as many lawyers, teachers and doctors are as well — and the second are perfidious — as, again, many lawyers, teachers and doctors are.
From a distance I estimate this man has no clerical calling. Let that be considered, and if experience bears out its veracity, let it be said the man is a charlatan, no cleric at all. I think you know that ordination, paper work and vestments do not a cleric make, not any more than comparable certifications a warrior make. The professions are distinguished by their resting in a call. No other occupation grounds so. The chances of this man being a deformed/deforming cleric are, IMO, low. He strikes me as not a cleric to begin with. One can assert “Asshat” but “charlatan” is technical, stronger and sharper. It is a clerical term of art.
Thank you for your service to our country!
“I think you know that ordination, paper work and vestments do not a cleric make, not any more than comparable certifications a warrior make.”
You’re free to have an opinion, but it might be good of you to state the government has no place making the call you are making.
I think it was Winston Churchill who pointed up that…
Of course, given the gun laws in and around Dearborn…. Who are such laws protecting, I wonder?
Chuchill went on to say that:
I happen to agree with Mr Churchill, here as does the pastor, I expect… and the latter being far more directly exposed to what Churchill describes so well.
But isn’t it interesting how the government both in locality in question, historically a Liberal Bastian and the current administration always seem to fall on the side of overtly protecting the Muslim ?
It’s much more interesting how some are using this incident to push their own knee-jerk fears towards particular religions, poilitical ideologies, etc…
Say, rather, culture. Or are you afraid of the word?
“It’s much more interesting …particular religions, poilitical ideologies, etc…”
More interesting by far there are people who don’t think there should be a decisive response to the murder of thousands of Americans, a part of a war against all the rest of mankind by the Islamists going on now for over a thousand years. Past time to be done with them.
We should have enough faith in our own societal concepts as they differ from theirs, to say these murders and what gave rise to them is intolerable to us, change or be ended.
You mean Judeo-Christianity and Western Civilization?
There is one major difference between Islam and Christianity. The atrocities committed by Christians are contrary to the teaching of Christ. The atrocities committed by Muslims is in keeping with the teachings of Mohammad.
Islam is an intolerant, hateful political, cultual, legal and religious system that separates human beings into two distinct groups – Muslims and kafirs (non-Muslims).
There is no Golden Rule in Islam and when Muslims are in a majority in any Nation, nation state or subdivision of a state, they treat non-Muslims as nonhumans. It is quite simple, all ignorant kafirs (that is YOU non Muslims) is read the Koran, Sira and Hadith and you will understand why Muslims have to lie about their ‘Religion of Peace”.
Isalm is not and has never been a Religion of Peace UNLESS you submit to Islam.
Let me try to bring things back to the original post.
“This case won’t have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Michigan’s appellate court should vacate the convictions immediately. And then Pastor Jones will get to file his 1983 action and be entitled to damages from the state.”
First, there aren’t “convictions.” There are peace bonds, and an order restraining Jones from going to the mosque. I agree that the order will be vacated in short order.
Second, nothing stops Jones from filing a 1983 action while his appeal from the peace bond order is pending.
Third, you can’t get damages from the State under 1983. Will v. Michigan State Police says that a state agency isn’t a person for purposes of 1983 damages.
Fourth, it is hard to figure out whether there are officials who might be personally liable for damages under 1983. Aren’t the prosecutors going to get prosecutorial immunity?
Mark Regan
Anchorage, Alaska
Even that does not bring peace. Muslim are always killing other Muslims.
One of many bad habits that all religions share…Human nature is so screwed up that there are even Buddhist terrorists which makes utterly no sense according to their own religion..
The name of the religion changes but the people stay the same..
This thread cracks me up. There are a bunch of Christians ignoring the terrible things in their own book while criticizing their cousins for all the terrible things in their book. It’s like none of you realize you have a beam in your own religion’s eye that needs removing..
Oh, you mean like how some people in the majority population of this country seem to be scared to death that “foreign” cultures might be overtaking their own? Watch out for that Sharia Law, I tell ya! It’s coming for you!
Ah, so we were linked by an anti-muslim blog.
Apparently, you’ve not been to Dearborn, of late.
Look, let’s break this out.
Our culture is being overrun, and the attacks against that are being facilitated by the one entity that was supposed to be protecting it; government. Of course, that facilitation is being done in the name of “equal rights” ignoring, of course, the questions of which culture is responsible for better facilitation of those rights, And what happens to those rights when western culture falls.
The problem on this kind of thing as with everything else, is that those outside of the mainstream are far more vocal, and usually far more violent than are the rest of us inside the mainstream of western culture . Which is why I have been urging those of us on the inside of the mainstream of western culture to start speaking up and be heard.
And now of course, demonstrably, thiose attacking the culture are being protected by government.
And what’s the tool used to eliminate responses to attacks on our culture? “Hate crimes.”
As we have discussed here previously, hate crimes laws are seletively enforced at best.
I’m sure the reeducation campes are soon to follow…
Erik : I’m reasonably sure the native americans thought the same thing when your ancestors came over here. Unless your family was one of the later immigrants then it would be the group before your family arrived that thought the same thing..
Exactly what culture is being attacked? Ignorant crackers?
Hmm. Don’t see a single shred of supporting evidence here.
Which is why I have been urging those of us on the inside of the mainstream
Lots of ignorance and fear on this thread bit. Your kind of crowd.
Why not equal treatment like a “Peace Bond” for the Yahoos at Westbrook Church? Says something when a preacher can’t protest the muslims who are killing our sons, but their families must endure the hate-filled insults from this church crowd.
I guess they haven’t been to Miami or many of the Southwestern cities. Try finding someone that will speak to you in English,
There here already. Their called public schools for the children and sensitivity training for the adults.
It is no coincidence that Marc Somers “took” this case. The real story is in his relationship to the Arab community
The muslims in Dearborn, MI are not killing US soldiers.
“I guess they haven’t been to Miami or many of the Southwestern cities. Try finding someone that will speak to you in English,”
SH — I realize this might be a difficult distinction for an upstanding white person like yourself, but those swarthy characters in the Southwest actually aren’t Muslims. Or Arabs. Or even Persians. And they’re not speaking Arabic. And, although this is probably just as bad to you, they’re not Musims but mostly Catholic.
Oh, and if you want one of them to admit they speak English when they see you coming, you might want to take off the Confederate flag T-shirt…
Appeal to popularity for the win!
And an utterly inapposite one, at that. As 30 seconds reading the link would have shown.
I guess I should take my American flag shirt off. There is something about the American flag that a lot of Hispanic find offensive.
Sure about that?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1089986
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/otm.htm
That’s right, SH. All those gardeners and bus boys are really Islamic terrorists here to kill you and rape your daughters. You’d better buy lots of guns right away.
Just some, not all. Just the ones from Islamic countries entering the country illegally from Mexico. Maybe there is a reason they can’t get in the county legally. Don’t have any daughters. Have plenty of guns, but I could always use more ammo.
I know the drill when dealing with people that won’t respond to facts. Islam is peace. All those illegals are good hard working honest people that want a better life for themselves. Criminals never cross the border. http://www.ice.gov/
Not terrorist, just common criminals. More facts for you to ignore
http://goo.gl/FOSwz
There really is no need for you to resort to projection against groups of people you don’t like…
Not as well as you know the drill when it comes to paranoia…
It’s not paranoia if your fears are real. Here some facts to ignore.
Then there are the Muslims coming across the border illegally, but that nothing to worry about. They just want a better life for themselves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
People in Phoenix are just out and out paranoid and have nothing to fear.
Like I said in the other thread where you were spewing your crap I have family in Pheonix. My fiancee is leaving friday morning to go visit her mom in Pheonix and I’m not the least bit worried. I’ve seen worse crap in Chicago…
Take it up with the liberal press, ABC. I don’t make this stuff up.
Considering the size of Chicago compared to Phoenix
I just did a Google news search on phoenix police. Tell me again how safe Phoenix is. Your family does live in Phoenix and not some gated community in suburbia, right? I guess Google is as much a lair as ABC
So, are you arguing that this is a natural progression and to be embraced? Or are you suggesting an inevitability here?
That’s because you’ve chosen to ignore the evidence compiled over centuries from around the world, and are particularly blind to the last 70 years or so. No shock, that.
So are you saying that like all great empires and civilizations we too will fall? And like most will fall from within?
“The muslims in Dearborn, MI are not killing US soldiers.”
The ones who would riot in response to Terry Jones are in league with those who are killing US soldiers. It would be good to know who they are so that can be handled.
“that can” /= “that they can”
Yeesh. Typos. More coffee required.
I already knew you have nothing. You did not need to confirm it…
haha One day I’m a poor welfare liberal living off your hard earned money and the next day I’m a wealthy limousine liberal living in a gated community. You guys crack me up 😛
I wasn’t kidding when I said I lived in a camper for a while..
I’m suggesting it’s nothing new and is indeed inevitable but also that it would require extreme measures to attempt to control this natural progression. IN the end your efforts would be futile as even without an influx of newcomers we as a society would continue to change based off purely internal growth. To embrace or fight is up to you..
Wasn’t asking about you. I was asking about you family that you made reference to living in Phoenix. I work inside gated communities all the time and I don’t recall a lot of wealthy limousine people living there. Most seem to be either retires or just ordinary people willing to pay for a little extra safety in their lives.
And the Google news is wrong? And ABC was wrong? You for for to answer those questions.
WOW you discovered that crime happens in a city. Good for you.
I did long ago, but you told me when I was talking about crime in Phoenix. “…..you were spewing your crap” And went on to tell me how safe Phoenix was. To hear you talk, there was no crime in what is called the Kidnapping Capital of the United States.