Let's use False Christians instead, you may find there aren't any differences that stand out compared to the similarities you are sure to find.
U.N. Employees Beheaded Over Quran Burning
- Thread starter CUBert
- Start date
No way! What Terry Jones did may be distasteful but its perfectly legal!
Islamic extremists are so hell bent on Jihad that they're just waiting for incidents like this to give them an excuse to kill. They're the ones snuffing out lives and your suggesting that the pastor be charged! Unbelievable!
What if I were to paint a picture of Mohammed's face, put it on display and that incited a riot in barbarian land?
Should I be charged when all I did was exercise my right to express myself with art?
Last edited:
What kind of art is burning a Holy book? There are some things that might set you off in the flash of a moment, can you show the whole group had murder on their mid when the demonstration was planned?
Hey...even weird christians (small c) the greenborough church stops short at cutting heads off:lol:
I wonder if they will broadcast their first meeting after this event made world news? Probably small everything in your corner.
I belive in free speech that is for an open exchange of ideas and opinions, not for promoting hate or violence. And you mean 'gotcha';-)
I was not trying to be analogous, I was trying to determine your positon on the limits of free speech.
Quite releavent, you stated it as your opinion, not as a fact with a reference.
And you would hold the opinion of these in high regard?
FIFY
Morality is a relative thing, that's what makes it so wonderful. I can believe in the left-wing social safety net and at the same time believe in fiscal responsibility and the right to bear arms. The law is also directly based on morality, that is why there are different laws in societies with different morals.
A living document, has it grown up and had kids? You can choose to interpret it based on the modern mindset but the intent that was written into it remains the same as the day it was written. The word remain the same, only the interpretation of their meaning is changed.
Yep. And as distasteful as their shenanigans are, I still support their right to do it, 100%. Because they act within the law.
It was simple English, so I can understand why you had difficulty understanding it.
And since I'm the one that has caught you in lies, and proved it, not once, but twice in the last two days.
I wouldn't be calling anyone a liar if I were you.
Last edited:
Until that day it will have to stay as a 'ponder', maybe they will youtube how the court exonerates them according to International Law and the look at the apologizes they will have coming their way.
They being the Church the Pastor if from, telivise the whole event, with interviews before and after the sermon that adresses this 'situation' and then put it on youtube. In return the people that hear the trial in Afghanistan that are found innocent will post it on youtube to show that Israel is not the only Nation that polices it's own with a fist of some sort. Hope that is a bit clearer.
And that means you believe in free speech, so long as you agree with the message.
Up to, but not including, a call to commit a crime.
Stop using Cannucks play book. It will just make you look as stupid as it makes him look.
Not at all, but if I support free speech for things I believe in, I have to support it for things I find detestable.
Yes, I agree, your argument is weak. Pointing out spelling is the best course of action now.
And change it on a whim, even when it conflicts. I see that, it's called moral relativism.
Ahhh, appeal to ridicule. A new fallacy for you. I suggest you brush up on the constitution. That statement proves you have a limited understanding of it.
Right, like I said.
Right, like I said.
I see you and Cannuck are great at ignoring challenges. So much for your free and open discussion.
Insert what DaS said here.
Last edited:
If it could reasonably believed doing so would create a riot and harm to others then yes and that is the point. A reasonable person can believe there could be serious repercussions arising from his actions.
Since everyone seems to have the opinion that the Afghanis are murderous and animalistic it would be reasonable to expect this reaction.
Reasonable belief is another one of those principle used in the law to test liability all the time.
Why?
Are you saying Muslims are naturally violent and prone to murder?
How bigoted of you.
But you said that wasn't true, earlier in this thread.
This would be another one of those moments, where you contradict yourself.
More legal terms, and yet you avoided my challenge.
I told you she was daft dude. I'm surprised it took you this long to believe me.Good lord you are actualy serious about such a convoluted idea for a trial...Bear is right about you ...you don't just move goal post...you're completely out of the arena (Synonym for out to lunch) Absolutely no logic whatsoever...
Think the ones in Afghanistan getting off scott-free will result in more books being burned? JMHO but the ones I would put as being out of touch is the ones who sent a load of Bibles to Muslims in the first place, notice they made the Christians (big letter 'c' but that means the books are holy rather than the people who brought them over) The Muslims declined so they burned their own Holy book, right in front og them. How better can you say False Christian in da house?
Perhaps she is s-----l------o-------w, after all you are her coach