The views expressed in any article published in this blog are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Joseph Foster or Bob Lupoli.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Bob says: Burn the Bible, Torah, Koran, & Buddhist texts!

Bob:  Reverend Jones will be stopped by a court injunction based on the following legal argument. The first amendment gives the right to free speech; it does not give the right to a person to shout false fire in a crowded theater. The burning of the Koran will cause some Moslem zealots to attack Americans that travel to all corners of the Globe. It will place Americans in danger, there are thousands of Americans that travel on business in Moslem countries to promote American business also their effort creates prosperity for Americana’s and employment. This reverend is a un-American and does not consider the harm it will do to Americans. I believe in the end he will come to his senses, or some legal action will be taken to stop him since it will endanger American lives. Moreover I belief the US should pass a Law prohibiting any one from burning the Bible, the Koran and the Torah, as a good citizen we shall respect the religion of any individual. - Joe

Joe:  The thing is... We already had a 9-11, hundreds of innocent people died. We could have another one any day whether or not some idiot burns the Koran. I call the Rev. an idiot because in the history of the World I think Christianity has enslaved and killed far more than Islam. He has no standing to cast stones. Any Muslims who kill innocents because some idiot burned a Koran is also an idiot. The reality is, this act while worthy of condemnation, will not kill a significant number of people, we will lose far more lives in the expanding war in Afghanistan. The Gen. & Hillary are grandstanding, this man would have no press if they didn't say anything. 

He cannot be stopped on legal grounds. American museums have had displays where people are invited to step on the American flag; the KKK can burn crosses (on their property and subject to fire safety rules). I'd like you to know I'm okay with them burning the Koran. But I feel it is incomplete. I'd like to see someone burn the Koran, Torah, New Testament, & Buddhist texts, etc., all at once and of course this particular man has no standing to do such a thing. Think of the atrocities carried out in the name of god under these religions. The horror, death, rape, torture, and murder! It is not the religions that are evil - no, it is the men that use religion as an excuse for their bad behavior. Go ahead and burn the Koran only but it has no meaning without the burning of the other writings.

This man should be cleverer. To hold a very good protest with far more involvement he should hold a "draw Mohammed, Yahweh, God, Jesus, & Buddha day". The entries could be drawn, then sent by email and posted on the internet. Islam is far too intolerant! The other religions have lessened in power over the years because of intolerance as well, the Catholic Church in particular. The Koran could be burned in protest but it has no real meaning unless it is an atheist doing it along with the other religious materials. – Bob



Joe: burning the Koran is perfectly legal and can't be stopped. Can I burn the bible, the US Flag (or any flag) a cross? Yes - all these things are legal and incite anger and violence. A black person may want to kill a white KKK member for burning a cross, for example. Those that carry out they violence are like Muslims, KKK, & Unpatriotic people are protected, this is the great thing about US democracy. Drawing Mohammed and burning the Koran, I'm all for it, as long as other religions are included. See the legal analysis from CBS below. - Bob

CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford reports the city's ordinance that requires a permit to burn trash outdoors could conceivably limit burning books outdoors. But that law has to be evenly applied. Otherwise as long as those are his Qurans on his property, the government can't stop him.

Under the First Amendment, Jones has a constitutional right to protest and express his ideas; even ones that the government thinks are dangerous or unpatriotic.

That's why the Supreme Court struck down a law banning flag burning. In that case, the court said prohibiting people from mutilating the American flag was an illegal attempt to restrain speech. If this act incites violence against Muslims, that could make it a different case. The Constitution only allows a few restrictions on speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech that directly incites violence or some kind of physical retaliation is not protected under the First Amendment. But while this is true in theory, the court has rarely banned that kind of speech or conduct.

Even cross burning - considered by many to be the most virulent and hateful type of speech - doesn't necessarily rise to that level. The court in 2003 struck down part of a Virginia law that banned cross burning, saying it's illegal only if it's done to specifically intimidate someone or signal they're about to be a target of violence.
Bob:  I still remained convinced that the first amendment although it protects free speech, it does not protect an individual to make a speech that will incite a riot, I know there are some smart Lawyers out there but there is a legal argument that can prevent this pastor from his act, In the sense that his act will cause death perhaps to some Americans. Therefore, should an American be killed in one of the demonstration?  In a country outside the US, his death may be attributable to have been caused directly by the Pastor. Assuming he cannot be prevented, this person after the act will cause Lawyers to file a Lawsuit where the evidence will be presented that his act contributed to the death of one or more Americans. I am using some legal argument based on my study of Law where I was a straight A student. Free speech does not give the right of an individual to tell a crowd to go and attack by physical means a person. I fully support free speech and know its prime reason is to have free men and the free press to attack the Government thereby preventing a Government from tyrannical rule.

The reason people are disturbed is due to the fact some Moslems are fanatic, the religion has been labeled as a cult of death, they glorify death for certain cause, you could burn bibles or Torah moreover, it will not cause a Christian or a Jew to commit suicide by killing someone. Remember Israel with all of the force they have used the killing has not been stopped for 60 years; thereafter they formed a party called Hezbollah which means a party of God. A Moslem fanatic when he is given an assignment to perform a suicide mission is convinced that after he dies he will be going straight to heaven. This view is shared by many highly educated Moslem, those that preformed the 9/11 mission are educated and intelligent, but are driven by blind faith in their religion. In my Afghan chapter here is what I said US troops fight by the flag; the other side are motivated to die by heaven. The question then may be asked, how the flag competes with heaven. The Russian used the most brutal force far more than US in Afghan and they got fed up and left, I spoke to some of the veterans of that war in Moscow.

Now the President of Indonesia has already sent a message to Obama other world leaders are disturbed because they know how violent Moslems reaction could be. - Joe

Joe - with the law there are always loopholes, there are many ways for them to avoid the fire hazard issue.
1) take Koran pages and roll cigarettes and burn them.
2) burn page by page or the whole book in a BBQ or other enclosed device
3) burn it page by page in a small camp type fire
4) etc., etc.
None of the actions are worthy of being killed by a fanatic.

The so called "dire warning" is meaningless, since the fanatics already hate the US & the West. We have wars underway for control of Iraq & Afghanistan. Many, many, American soldiers have been killed and will be killed. The Koran may lead to a few deaths but the war has already killed far more. Maybe the Koran burning will lead to another 9-11? It seems no one is saying that. But if that happened again burning the Koran is no justification for it, our wars would likely bring it on first and as the primary motivator since the wars are much more of a real threat to the fanatics.

The Pastor has really gained tremendous publicity. I don't think I could pretend to be angry enough to burn your book unless I took acting lessons and read from a script. A clever marketing idea however! - Bob

Bob:  The Koran burning has aroused my thoughts in the legal argument, legal decision rendered by judges of the Supreme Court has never for the most part been unanimous, however the majority decision always prevail moreover, one of the justices writes the argument of the majority.

Here is my take I am certain Lawyers at the Justice department have gone through the process of finding a loop hole,  in the Law as it relates to the Pastor intended act and none could be found that will prevail in getting a court injunction to stop the pastor. The dire warning given by the President and others are based on a predictable event that may or may not occur, and the court cannot render a decision based on predication.

Here is where the Pastor may be in legal trouble after he burns the Koran. Upon the death of an American that has been killed by some Moslem zealous somewhere in the World. The family of the dead American may file a Lawsuit against the Pastor on the following legal grounds. First, we must establish the cause of Mr. American that was killed; the proximate cause of his death was the result of a Moslem Zealot that killed him, the second issues what caused this Moslem Zealot to kill Mr. American, The Moslem zealot was driven to commit such act,  by an act that was committed by the Pastor, although such act by the pastor is not illegal under the US constitution, the Pastor was warned by eminent Americans that his act in burning the Koran may cause harm to Americans and he failed to heed such warning.

Bob I have a hunch that the Pastor may at the last minute stop doing what he intended to do, however he has now become a world public figure. The other factor he has been refused a permit to burn and if he does go ahead and burn he would be in violation of an ordinance, the other factor perhaps since he has been refused permission to burn,  upon ignition the fire department will immediately put out the fire because he was not given permission to create a fire. Moreover, arrest him for violating the ordinance.

The mob against the burning will by legal technicality believe that he was stopped from burning the Koran, however he was not stopped from burning the Koran but was stopped from burning by the lack of permission to burn, it could apply to anything including the burning of garbage. The issue has now become a source of entertainment, and the news media is having fun in covering the  story that has attracted world attention. Law to me is the most fascinating subject, there is the written Law made by legislation, then there is the Law of equity which is not the written Law, as to the US constitution since it was written to this day, it continues to be interpreted moreover, not all judges agree with some of the interpretation. I tend to side with the minority point of view rendered by some of the Supreme Court judges that the burning of the American flag cannot be considered free speech. The US flag is the National Identity that symbolized the United States and the notion that such act constitutes free speech under the first Amendment is absurd.

The burning of the American flag committed by foreigners is used as symbolic act in insulting the United States of America and degrading its existence as a country, but when done by a citizen of the United States in my opinion that person is insulting his country and to some extend treason. The flag does not symbolize a politician it is the flag of the country and should not be degraded when one disagree with some political point of view, politicians come and go and are voted out of office, but the flag remains now and forever as a symbol of the entire country namely the USA.

The British have functioned for centuries without a written constitution, moreover, its democracy remains one that has functioned and copied by many countries around the world.

From Wikipedia, “The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed. Unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an unwritten, uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives. The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today. One reason for the uncertainty derives from the UK's membership of the European Union.”

Finally the latest news, the pastor is trying to back off by pretending he made a deal on the Mosque site, no such deal was made. Assuming he goes ahead with his plan burning, politicians are smart e enough that as soon as he is about to light the fire to burn the Koran he will be arrested for violating the fire ordinance. Some thoughts to think about, if mankind was as ignorant as they were 2000 years ago you would have four or more new religions created in America, making a total of seven. As to me I believe in one religion that mankind has not made and that there is God, No one can proof that there is no God,  nor can anyone prove that there is no God.

Bob if you can get me the publicity that this clown has thus far received you have my permission to burn some of my books ‘’Titled the Destruction of America’’

Joe: interesting…. - Bob
What’s missing is someone willing to say: “Though the burning of a Quran is evil and repulsive, so are violent acts in response to it. It is irrational and wrong to target Americans with violence because somebody burns a book. That preacher in Florida should not burn holy books. But terrorists should not hide behind religion as an excuse to commit terror.” When American flags are burned in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it does not set off a wave of bloody reprisals in America. And it shouldn’t.

Joe: As repugnant as it may be at times, we need to treat free speech with great deference. I am no liberal in the modern sense of the word. In fact I am a conservative or libertarian in my political views. However, I support free speech even though it is repugnant at time. I support it because what is repugnant today it may have value in another context.

American Slavery - would a black man have been justified in burning the bible during that period, your answer must be yes because the bible was used as justification to continue slavery.
Armenian Genocide - would the Armenians be justified in burning the Koran for the killing of 1M people, I think yes and I think they would be justified in burning the Christian bible as well since the Christian world did little to nothing to help etc., etc., etc.

If you stop one idiot from doing something in free speech then you quash opportunities for people to engage in free speech for legitimate reasons. - Bob

Bob:  your comment is very appropriate and valid. One exception is that when we attack an extreme group for their evil act or evil speech to incite hate those that we attack should not be identified by their religion on the other hand, their race. The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah represent the religion of the followers; assuming the persons that committed the criminal act of the 9/11 were all Christians shall we then in our protest includes all Christians by attacking the Bible. If we burn the Bible because Hitler was Christian we are labeling all Christens share in Hitler point of view that is not true. My take that is the subject of conflict and debate, is to stop Hitler by legal means to make speeches inciting hate towards the Jewish race, some historians will agree that had we done so this evil man would have been prevented in gaining power and would have further prevented the cold-blooded murder of millions of Jews.  I recall one time in America when a black man commits a serious crime that Outrages all of us, some immediately will begin to attack the black race.

As to Hitler his hate towards the Jews began with the Rothschild’s family prominent Bankers that happen to be from the Jewish race, he blamed them for World War 1 which Germany lost, also during his quest for power many prominent German Jews opposed him, moreover Hitler also to some extent blamed the Jews for Germany economic disaster. American Bankers and Wall Street boys many of these individuals are Jews. Shall we then blame the Jews that for the most part are prominent in the US financial sector? The name Goldman Sachs rings a Jewish tone in my mind since both Goldman Moreover, Sachs are German Jews. Berneke, Soros, Rubin are all Jews. I am certain that some people in Europe and America have already pointed a finger at Jews they are in the minority.

Today we have a black man elected as President of the US my take he was elected by event and many white folks that carry prejudice that remains in their mind although reluctantly they voted for him, to this day cannot accept him as President Moreover, he is being labeled a Moslem, or he was not born in the USA.  If he was white with the same qualities as Obama, he will carry more weight amongst the American white population. The aspect of free speech has been debated since the 15th century, the Pastor from Florida has now revived the debate amongst all of us, and he shall in time Because of his intended act, which he ultimately canceled, will now revive the thinking of legal scholars to once again examine the meaning and the limitation of free speech, at some time in the distant future Judges at the Supreme Court shall Be confronted to make a decision on a given case involving free speech, thereupon these judges shall again as in the past, begin to go back to study the aspect of free speech from a historical prospective,  that some of their study may also  take them once again  back to what scholars, historian,  and legal experts have said in the past about free speech,  such study will take these learned judges back to the 15th Century.

The issue of the Pastor from Florida shall enter into their mind about the implication posed in the burning of the Koran that the pastor has a legal right to do so based on the interpretation of the First Amendment. The notion of free speech is linked to political debate and the concept of democracy, The founding fathers that wrote the constitution had this thought in mind and before they wrote the first amendment , they referred to History where many countries in Europe were ruled by tyranny and their desire  is to prevent such from happening to the people of the newly formed Republic, they never envision that free speech shall give the Citizen of the US the right  to burn his own flag, nor were they  confronted with the issue of the burning of religious books, Which is now legal, nor were they confronted in the name of free speech that  Hitler was given the right to gain support from the German people in developing hate of one religious group namely the Jews.  When these judges render another decision and interpretation not all will agree and the majority opinion will prevail. Before you read the Article below Quoted , BNP is The British National Party a far right political party it is a racist party it restrict in its membership to people referred to as Caucasians, effectively excluding non-whites.

If this party were to govern the UK, it will deport all non-white from the UK Assuming if a similar party was to govern the USA it will deport over 100 Million Americans. If however none white population of the USA is 40%, the number that will be deported will be 120 million. If their hate extends to Jews then all Jews will be deported to Israel. By this time you will say but Joe we have a supreme court, these leaders of tyranny before they issue their edict of deportation, will make sure that all of the nine judges are in prison or killed, Leaders of tyranny have found that killing is more cost effective than imprisonment since with prison you need to house and feed the prisoner. Now you may say further Joe wait a minute it could not happen in the USA at this point I shall refer you to read about the Fuehrer, Stalin, Lenin and Chairman Mao, again you may still remain skeptical I shall then refer you to three powerful men that created three religions, Moses, Christ and Mohammed.

Scholars wrote the following in the debate of free speech.
The debate at the Oxford Union featuring BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving highlights fundamental questions about the limits to free speech.  Some protestors called for the debate to be cancelled, both because it might offend people and because it could stir up racial hatred.

Nevertheless, others think people should be allowed to say whatever they think - regardless of the offence it might cause, and even if there is a potential threat to public order. For some anti-fascist campaigners like Donna Guthrie, the fact that David Irving's views are offensive to large numbers of people is enough to prevent him from speaking. Elliot asks the rhetorical question “Would the so-called libertarians who defend Nick Griffin’s right to call Islam a “wicked, vicious faith” also have defended Hitler’s right to say of the Jews: “the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

My guess is that most libertarians would. Of course, the insinuation that goes with this appeal to Hitler is that those who would have defended Hitler’s right to make this statement would also approve of the Holocaust or would at least accept it as the price for free speech. This would probably be the conclusion many would reach once they accept that Hitler’s rise to power and the subsequent persecution of the Jews, dissidents and others are a direct consequence of skillful Nazi propaganda. It is this assumption that needs to be challenged. Elliot is not alone in invoking Hitler to attack free speech, she is merely using one of the standard arguments of the pro-censorship lobby. This line of argument conjures up the impression that Hitler was left to undermine a functioning liberal democracy through a sustained propaganda campaign and that all this could have been averted if only there had been a law to stop him. ‘’END OF QUOTE’’

The majority of the people of the United Sates believe that Laws are enacted by the Congress the senate and finally signed by the President; they do not realize that Judges make Laws and legislate from the bench. The last appointed judge by Bush during his introduction of Roberts by Bush, he said I am appointing Roberts that will interpret the Law and not legislate from the Bench. Judges pay no attention to Bush or other President as to such comments. Laws made by lower courts carry no weight those that are made by the US Circuit of appeal judges are used by Lawyers in arguing their case,  foremost of all the ultimate Laws that carry the most weight are made by Judges of the US Supreme Court when a majority decision is reached. The dream and wishes of any Lawyer in America is to be fortunate to be appointed As a Supreme Court judge. As to me it will be my closest seat in heaven. - Joe
Joe: one last comment on in regard to your statement below, I'll challenge you only slightly and with respect. 

Hitler and his henchmen are all of the Christian faith and we shall not in condemning them begin to burn bibles in protest of their criminal act.

Christianity should have been condemned at the time. I wish someone had burned the Bible during that time and condemned Hitler/Nazi power as a protest against the Christian faith. I think you are also forgetting Vichy France and the Catholic Church that looked the other way while Jews were being killed. I'm sure you know this. America may not be the only place in the world that can tolerate protests against the status quo and against oppression even against those in power within its own country. Hitler was tolerated and appeased in this country for too long because he was a Christian and Germany a Christian nation.

Again - I say any American has the right of freedom of expression and speech. If this had happened when Hitler was in power maybe the controversy could have prodded good Christians to recognize the evil in their midst, similar to the Quakers and their views on slavery, which helped to end this inhumane practice among the Quakers, who held slaves.
Lastly, if a man were molested as a boy by a Catholic priest would you stop him from burning the bible in protest? Would you stop him from speaking about the injustice and hate he would have toward the religion? Would you really advocate putting him in jail for "attacking" Cathollocisim??? As for attacking those who burn the American flag. What if you were a disabled black veteran man who fought in Iraq, and helped elect Obama President and yet after the big stimulus you and many in your community have had no jobs and many are unemployed for long, long periods, of time and the situation doesn't look any better going forward. You feel like America has let you down. I support a person who burns a flag in protest against America for exporting jobs his community used to have. I support his protest. I disagree that burning the is the right thing to do however I support his legal right of speech to do so. Would you also put this veteran in jail, give him a big fine? - Bob

No comments:

Post a Comment