Banned in Britain: Pastor Terry Jones

[chefdennis]

So then his speech caused it....not so free to speak then is he....and he said it here in the US and is still walking the streets a free man...

Based on the UK decision to ban him from entering the country, do you think he should be in jail here in the US for saying what he said??? I mean we can't ban him from the country or throw him out...

 

[Turtle]

You have a right to voice your opinion, but you don't have the right to travel internationally, as he is asserting. If a country doesn't want to let you in, there's nothing you can do about it. Well, you can whine about it, and threaten a lawsuit, but in the end you're not gettin' in. You have an absolute right to leave your own country, and to re-enter it. You do not have an absolute right to enter another country. Members of the EU can travel within the EU without restriction, but they can't come here unless we let 'em in.


"I mean we can't ban him from the country or throw him out..."

No, we can't. It's a cross we all have to bear.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Thanks Greg, but I am still interested in a reply to the question I posed earlier ....


"Out of interest on my part ... does the US freedom of speech allow inciting racial hatred, condoning atrocities in the name of their god, etc along these lines or are there restrictions? "

I mentioned Ahmedinejad and Chavez, so yes... we let loonies into our country to speak their nonsense. Inciting racial hatred? The Jews get it non-stop. La Raza is allowed to spew their venom against blacks and whites.

There are restrictions, depending on which side of the fence you are sitting.

 

[chefdennis]

Turtle wrote:

You have a right to voice your opinion, but you don't have the right to travel internationally, as he is asserting. If a country doesn't want to let you in, there's nothing you can do about it. Well, you can whine about it, and threaten a lawsuit, but in the end you're not gettin' in. You have an absolute right to leave your own country, and to re-enter it. You do not have an absolute right to enter another country. Members of the EU can travel within the EU without restriction, but they can't come here unless we let 'em in

.

Yeap that is absolutely true...under their laws, the UK has every right to deny him enter, he has no rights there....And I don't think anyone was infering that they were wrong "under their law" or that he had the "right" of entry to the UK...I know I am not inferring that at all...

 

[greg334]

"Out of interest on my part ... does the US freedom of speech allow inciting racial hatred, condoning atrocities in the name of their god, etc along these lines or are there restrictions? "

Sorry, I thought I did somewhere, maybe another forum...

Well first there are two different issues here, inciting violence is not the same as inciting hatred.

Inciting violence is off limits to a point, if you read some of the hateful things said about Muslims after 9/11 or read some of the more hateful things said about Bush, those do actually go against the standard and is ignored for political reasons.

However inciting hatred without violence is protected. Westboro Baptist Church is a good example, they have the right to say what they say but not the right to hurt anyone. Offending people isn't hurting them, so they can say pretty much what they want. If they were telling people to kill others, they stepped over the line. By the way the best way to counter them is to ignore them but the press and others haven't.

The same goes for condoning atrocities in the name of their god. We don't have any Holocaust denial laws in the country like they do in France, Germany, Austria and the UK so if one was to say it never happened, then to them it didn't happen. If one was to say that the Jews did it to themselves, the they can say that. No matter how horrible the speech is, it is not harming anyone so it is allowed. Wright, Obama's preacher is a good example of this, he thinks as many black separatist do that this country is no good and said some pretty nasty things based on his God but in truth I don't think that he would be allowed to say that if he was living in say Kenya, may have been shot and dragged into the streets for those comments.

There is a standard handed down by the great blacked robed people that is simple to understand and has to do with libel, lawlessness and harm to others. There is a mindset within the country that offensive speech is also included but because there is a problem with determining what is an offense, we here in the states have taken it upon ourselves to police that by shaming people or making words bad.

Unlike other countries and world organizations view the 'right', like England, there is a distinct and very clear difference in how we retain the right and how others obtain it. Many countries have added it to their constitution as a right, granting it to their citizens, while our form tells the government it is our God given right and they have no business messing with it. The funny thing about it is we practice it not as a concept, but as a right, exercising it as we feel fit within the reasonable limits that we allow to take place while others view it as a concept, not concrete within the context of their government.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Turtle]

Yeap that is absolutely true...under their laws, the UK has every right to deny him enter, he has no rights there....And I don't think anyone was infering that they were wrong "under their law" or that he had the "right" of entry to the UK...I know I am not inferring that at all...

How you say it is implied, how one receives and interprets it is inferred.

I don't think anyone here is saying that, either, but some seem to have a problem with the UK not letting him in because of what he has said. The UK can do that if they want.

But he said it himself in the telephone interview:

Jones vowed to take legal action to change the decision. "Just as a human being, I believe it is restrictive, against my right to travel, against my right to my opinion, to express my opinion, against basic principles of freedom of religion and freedom of speech," he said in a telephone interview.

He thinks he has a basic human right to travel to whatever country he wants to, and to express his opinions any way he sees fit in those countries, and that he has a basic freedom of religion wherever he goes. That's why I said he's a first class nutjob who is out of tough with reality, because he doesn't have any of those things the minute he leaves US soil.

If he wants to travel, though, I'll chip in real money to pay his way for a 10 day vacation in Yemen.

 

[aristotle]

Condoning atrocities in the name of God is the bread and butter of US foreign policy, the US government, the military, and largely that of the American people, whether any of them will admit it or not.

I am puzzled by the above statement. Care to give some recent or current examples of the United States actually condoning any atrocity in the name of God? Which atrocity? Which god?

 

[witness23]

Oh boy, here we go.

 

[Turtle]

We are a Christian nation. If you don't believe me, ask a Christian. We The People are chiefly Christians, which make up the bulk of the nation, the government, and the military. Everything Christians do is in the name of God, or is supposed to be, and since We The People are a Christian nation, everything we do as a nation, a government, a military, reflects that utterly. Our nation is currently in a Holy War with Islam. We have no problem killing Muslims, even the non-extremist ones on collateral or purposeful actions. Children are raped and families killed by Christian solders, and nothing is done about it. People are kidnapped and taken prisoner where they are tortured and killed, and it is tacitly condoned right up to the point where it becomes a public embarrassment. Then we say oooops, we won't do that anymore, and then keep on doing it, making sure to keep it quieter from now on. The Iraqi War Logs show conclusively that 66,082 civilian Muslim deaths occurred between Jan 2004, and Dec 2009 as a direct result of US military actions of chiefly Christians soldiers of a Christian nation in the name of God. The US funds Israel to the tune of billions for them to fight Muslims by proxy for us, all in the name of God. Some people refuse to see it, or can't, or can but refuse to admit it, but the reality of it is, we are a Christian nation engaged in a Holy War with Islam, and non-combatant Muslim civilians are being slaughtered every day. But that's OK because we're the good guys, we're in the right, we have God on our side. We fund revolutions in other countries were thousands are killed, but that's OK because we're the good guys, we're in the right, because we're a Christian nation with God on our side. If you don't think we're committing atrocities every day in the name of God, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[witness23]

Are we a Christian nation? Just kidding.

 

[chefdennis]

witness wrote:

Are we a Christian nation? Just kidding.

Why are you kidding?? According to obama we aren't a Christian nation:

YouTube - Obama to Turkey: We are not a Christian nation

 

[aristotle]

We are a Christian nation. If you don't believe me, ask a Christian. We The People are chiefly Christians, which make up the bulk of the nation, the government, and the military. Everything Christians do is in the name of God, or is supposed to be, and since We The People are a Christian nation, everything we do as a nation, a government, a military, reflects that utterly. Our nation is currently in a Holy War with Islam. We have no problem killing Muslims, even the non-extremist ones on collateral or purposeful actions. Children are raped and families killed by Christian solders, and nothing is done about it. People are kidnapped and taken prisoner where they are tortured and killed, and it is tacitly condoned right up to the point where it becomes a public embarrassment. Then we say oooops, we won't do that anymore, and then keep on doing it, making sure to keep it quieter from now on. The Iraqi War Logs show conclusively that 66,082 civilian Muslim deaths occurred between Jan 2004, and Dec 2009 as a direct result of US military actions of chiefly Christians soldiers of a Christian nation in the name of God. The US funds Israel to the tune of billions for them to fight Muslims by proxy for us, all in the name of God. Some people refuse to see it, or can't, or can but refuse to admit it, but the reality of it is, we are a Christian nation engaged in a Holy War with Islam, and non-combatant Muslim civilians are being slaughtered every day. But that's OK because we're the good guys, we're in the right, we have God on our side. We fund revolutions in other countries were thousands are killed, but that's OK because we're the good guys, we're in the right, because we're a Christian nation with God on our side. If you don't think we're committing atrocities every day in the name of God, then you haven't been paying attention.

I was hoping ya might be able to produce even one specific incident where the United States directly condoned any atrocity 'in the name of God" ... whereas we are not a theocracy and our system of law specifically prohibits the establishment of an official national religion, the US cannot and does not do anything "in the name of God." When an individual soldier commits a criminal act, that's on him. No reason to indict the entire Christian faith or the military as a whole. Impugning the US military seems to be great sport amongst liberal Americans who enjoy full protection from that very same military. We owe a great debt of gratitude to all whom have served honorably. If one cannot acknowledge that, one lacks understanding.

 

[skyraider]

They're not letting him in because he's a first class nutjob who is out of touch with reality.

Now I like that A first class nut job,,,,,ROFLMAO AND GASPING FOR AIR.........................

 

[greg334]

Impugning the US military seems to be great sport amongst liberal Americans who enjoy full protection from that very same military. We owe a great debt of gratitude to all whom have served honorably. If one cannot acknowledge that, one lacks understanding.

I acknowledge and support those who fight for our country and to protect our country from foreign invaders but that includes more than those in uniform.

Actually that is where I part with the idea that the military are the only group that protects our freedoms.

It seems that many non-military people do that instead, from individuals in the legal profession to those in law enforcement. Not because there would be a take over of our country but because our biggest threat to our freedoms is within our borders and always has been.

Most of us assume that the military protects our rights but they really don't. The last time we had military action to protect our rights was the war between the states with a president who trampled on the rights of the individual state and citizen to preserve a union that wasn't meant to be preserved by force. That was started 150 years ago this year.

The military protects the country, the protect the individual from most foreign invaders (not all) but they can not really protect our rights. They have a tough job to do, but not all of them are heroes and not all of them view it as a privilege to serve.

The freedoms we enjoy are not given to us by anyone in uniform, they are protected by a complex system that forms our government and we are each a part of that system and part of the keepers of those rights. These freedoms are given to us by God and only God, the same God that is worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Turtles point is could be based on the fact that we are fighting as a Christian nation not by our declaration but based on the fundamental beliefs of those who we are fighting against. It is their perspective that matters, not our claims.

 

[aristotle]

Greg... I agree with most of your points. I make a distinction between those who serve honorably (which is the vast majority) and those who do not serve honorably. The UCMJ deals directly with the latter group. As to civilians serving their country, there is no real comparison to be made between military service and civilian service. Both are necessary, but quite different.

Once more, the United States does not go to war "in the name of God."" We have no sanctioned religion. To assert we act "in the name of God" is preposterous. The Crusades ended centuries ago. Radical Islam is at war with modernity.

 

[greg334]

Greg... I agree with most of your points. I make a distinction between those who serve honorably (which is the vast majority) and those who do not serve honorably. The UCMJ deals directly with the latter group. As to civilians serving their country, there is no real comparison to be made between military service and civilian service. Both are necessary, but quite different.

I agree to a point. My distinction is not to lump people in uniform all together.

Once more, the United States does not go to war "in the name of God."" We have no sanctioned religion. To assert we act "in the name of God" is preposterous. The Crusades ended centuries ago. Radical Islam is at war with modernity.

True, we don't "sanction" a war in God's name but we do sanction a religion by the actions of those in government and by a populist demand.

BUT the real problem isn't us who matters, but those who we are fighting against or want to keep at least neutral. We can say what we want about it, it can be as factual as say Obama being president but those who believe they are fighting a holy war are the ones who matter.

In respect of the OP, the fact that Jones declared war on the Quran by threating to burn it, this set in motion a number of things, one is that we present a confusing and bewildering action for those who are followers of the Muslim faith and non-violent in their being which is why we would allow this to happen while we are claiming that we are a nation who follows Jesus. This is used against us as an indication of our inability to be strong - shutting up Jones would be the right thing to do for them and show not the need to be politically correct but rather to show we respect other religions while at the same time being strong enough to stop the incitement. <<-- if that makes sense.

 

[aristotle]

The Pastor Terry Jones presents a unique dilemma: we have to weigh his act of threatening to burn the Koran against the rights of free speech. In the US we see examples of flag burning and book burning as provocative and insensitive, but not illegal. I don't recall seeing any riots or mass violence here in the States when some misguided soul burns Old Glory or puts a crucifix in urine and calls it art. We can't make a special exception for the Koran just because a few irate Muslims imply heads will roll. Europe lives in absolute terror of offending the ever-increasing Muslim population within her borders. Europe's timidity will be her undoing. If there is ever an actual Muslim riot or uprising in the United States, it will be the first and last one.

 

[EnglishLady]

Europe lives in absolute terror of offending the ever-increasing Muslim population within her borders. Europe's timidity will be her undoing..

Really? And what expert opinion do you base that remark on?

Brussels sneezes and the rest of Europe gets a cold - is that it?

Which is why Britain stands aloof on many things that Brussels "wants".

 

[aristotle]

Really? And what expert opinion do you base that remark on?

Brussels sneezes and the rest of Europe gets a cold - is that it?

Which is why Britain stands aloof on many things that Brussels "wants".

I wasn't offering an expert opinion, just mine. Are you familiar with the book "Londonistan" by British journalist Melanie Phillips?

 

[EnglishLady]

I wasn't offering an expert opinion, just mine. Are you familiar with the book "Londonistan" by British journalist Melanie Phillips?

ok

No, I have not heard of that book or Melanie Phillips before.

I have been doing some quick reading up on Ms Phillips and, Oh my word she does have a lot of bee's in her bonnet.
She seems to have a gripe with every country, not just the UK, and that includes the USA.