Petraeus "Planned Burning of Qur'ans Could Endanger Troops"

How? The same way Christians have always done it.

Silly.

I guess so...

It is radicals of Islam (mostly) who threaten the safety of U.S. military members - NOT Americans back home exercising their freedom of speech - no matter how dubious - whom these soldiers have taken an oath to defend. You know that the reasons troops are overseas are far more complex than the simple need to control a smaller population of passionate terrorists. This means that the motivations behind causing harm to U.S. service members in these places are far more complex - and preexisting - than the silly book burning of a rather immature religious man in the United States.

Here, let me assuage your anger:

I as an American with full guaranteed rights as such under U.S. law, and being of sound mind and somewhat sound body, give you full permission to burn copies of any book or other object you rightly own and that you feel are a good representation of things Americans hold dear to their hearts. I promise you no retaliation on my part because I have a mature perspective on the actual value of said objects in relation to the things they merely represent which, as it happens, includes a belief in the liberty of anyone to do what they wish with property they themselves have purchased OR have rightfully been given permission to dispose of. If it is in my power to talk other Americans out of reprisals against you for burning these items, I will do so. It is my belief that such Americans who would harm you for destroying mere objects are misguided and lack a genuine understanding of the values they claim to hold.

Are you? Do you?

Yes, it is merely my own "gut feeling", but let me also say that I firmly believe there are many Americans who feel the same as I do. You need fear nothing from them because they actually live the values they profess - respect for individual rights and liberties ... no matter where or when one lives, no matter how one describes oneself.

I sympathize with you, but it is my sincere hope that you will respect our individual rights and liberties in the same manner when it comes to the burning of things we rightly possess - even and especially if such burning disturbs you deeply. If you do not, I fear the presence of American troops on Muslim soil may be much more than a temporary state of affairs.

I do not know what "guys" you are referring to, but I assure you I belong to no groups of any sort and, truth be told, have no intention of burning anything at all - unless I am told I haven't the right or the liberty.

I most assuredly do and will prove the point when pushed. Many have paid dearly to give me that right and I'll not dishonor their efforts by backing down to childish threats.

Some individuals will not be dictated to by the uncivilized. Those who commit physical violence are solely responsible for their violence. Ugly speech is appalling, yes, but physical violence crosses the line between civilized and savage.

Burning a book - whether it is intended as a political message or not - does not cross that line and therefore does not earn a violent response or reaction.

The savage will be restrained and the immature will be supervised.

I have no cause but one - guaranteed individual liberty to exercise one's right to live one's own life without interference from others and justice when that liberty is violated. I am quite peaceful the majority of the time and see no personal reason to burn any book at all or to cause insult to anyone's religion. As I've said, I disagree with the Pastor's motivations for the burning.

What I support is his guaranteed right to do it if he feels compelled to make such a statement of his point of view regarding Islam. The "terrifying" threat of physical retaliation on the part of Muslims against anyone they identify as "American" because of the actions of one man has succeeded in manipulating Americans into curtailing their own guaranteed liberties AND to compel the pastor to curtail his.

Terrorism has succeeded ... once again.

I, however, am not terrified, but rather incredibly disappointed in my countrymen in their failure to understand their own indispensable values.

I personally will not be bullied by children.

no doubt! obamas quagmire fairy tale war in afghanistan needs to come to an end now! maybe if you'd lay off the pills god would show you the way.

^+1

Naumadd, this reply will also cover some of your other comments. Believe it or not I still have a few more arguments for you. I hope you have already read my reply to your comment on "10 Reasons Not to Burn the Koran."

First off, people are not arguing whether someone in the US has a legal right to burn the Koran (they do). People are arguing that this probably isn't the smartest or wisest action to take. For example a person has the legal right to go up to a group of thuggishly dressed black dudes and say "I hate niggers" or hold up a black effigy being hung. This doesn't been that it is smart, or wise, or that they SHOULD do it. I am sure you are aware of this, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.

Second, I presume you grew up in America where pretty much nothing is sacred. This is not the truth for many countries in the world. For some people holy objects are just as sacred as human lives, or more so. This is not because they are loony extremists but because this is the way they were raised. These superstitions are incorrect, but people still hold them. Most of these people are good and honest.

Which brings me to my next point. You are more focused on the way things ought to be rather than how they are. People ought not be offended by the burning of Korans, but they are.

Fourth, you can burn the Koran all you want and honestly I wouldn't care. But, when you make a big publicly spectacle out of it, you obviously have something else in mind than exercising your freedom of speech. That is when I care. To give you an example, people in the west, especially women dress in such ways that is forbidden by Islam and a lot of westerners eat pork. These westerners are exercising their "freedom" and for the most part Muslims accept and ignore it. But if someone was to make a video or hold a demonstration where scantily clad women were eating pork with the sole purpose of attacking Islam, some Muslims would get upset with this.

Fifth, you keep saying that burning the Koran does not harm anyone. Do you believe that physical harm is the only sort of harm you can impose on people? What about psychological harm? Or Emotional harm? Or even non-direct harm?

Sixth, part of the war in Afghanistan is about winning the hearts and minds of the citizens. Do you really not see how this Koran-burning event could make this a lot harder to do? It is hard for a US soldier to say we come with good will to a person who just watched a video of Americans burning Korans. Such anti-Islamic actions by Americans will also help the Taliban recruit members. To stress, this is not how it ought to be, but this is how it is. Just like when many Americans see videos of Muslim bombings or just Muslims preforming general anti-American acts, they become upset at Muslims as a whole. This Koran-burning in many Muslim's eyes reflects all Americans. Furthermore, to Muslims, it is not about what legal rights Americans have, it is about people willing insulting their belief system.

The way we get to where we ought to be and want to be is to keep our minds focused on what we ought to do and want to do.

I don't deny that burning Qur'ans is emotionally upsetting, but there are no laws against upsetting someone emotionally ... thank goodness. On that subject, however, although, yes, each of us ought to be mindful of the effect of our words and actions on the feelings of others, but also ought to remember that one's emotions are one's own doing - NOT of those who apparently offend us.

Yes, it's easy to be provocative, but others do themselves a disservice by being so easily provoked. In many cases, one is a victim because one chooses to be. I do see how the Qur'an burning could make the job of the soldier harder, but only in that those who will take offense so easily take offense and are one of the primary reasons why our troops are there in the first place.

As for insulting belief systems, I do it willingly and readily when those belief systems are factually incorrect and illogical. Having said that, I have very little nice to say about most religions and most politics - American or otherwise. I, of course, allow others their personal liberties in exchange for my own.

Freedom of religion does not constitute freedom from skepticism, critique or competition.

Such a demand is unwarranted and, at least from reasonable persons, not forthcoming.

"The way we get to where we ought to be and want to be is to keep our minds focused on what we ought to do and want to do."
That sounds like a good practice, but unfortunately it doesn't affect how people are. I have to ask, is burning the Koran something you ought and want to do?
" I don't deny that burning Qur'ans is emotionally upsetting, but there are no laws against upsetting someone emotionally ... thank goodness."
This is not about legality.
"On that subject, however, although, yes, each of us ought to be mindful of the effect of our words and actions on the feelings of others, but also ought to remember that one's emotions are one's own doing - NOT of those who apparently offend us."
That statement is contradictory. First you state we should "be mindful of the effect of our words and actions on the feelings of others" then you state "one's emotions are ones own doing." Regardless, though there are ways we can temper our minds to better control our emotional responses, we are not all Buddha's who can totally control and separate ourselves from our feelings. Even the Gautama Buddha cried when his family and friends where slaughtered by a neighboring warlord.

" Yes, it's easy to be provocative, but others do themselves a disservice by being so easily provoked."

I agree, they do themselves a disservice, but that doesn't change the fact that they are easily provoked. As Schopenhauer put it " To make enemies by unnecessary and willful incivility, is just as insane a proceeding as to set your house on fire."

"In many cases, one is a victim because one chooses to be."

Agreed. But not relevant.

"I do see how the Qur'an burning could make the job of the soldier harder, but only in that those who will take offense so easily take offense and are one of the primary reasons why our troops are there in the first place."

The reason the troops are there is irrelevant. The fact that this makes the job harder is relevant.

" As for insulting belief systems, I do it willingly and readily when those belief systems are factually incorrect and illogical. Having said that, I have very little nice to say about most religions and most politics - American or otherwise. I, of course, allow others their personal liberties in exchange for my own."

What I should have said was "needlessly and willfully" insulting. I would like to think that you don't go around with the intent (will) to insult people. Rather, that you explain to them why their belief is illogical or incorrect with the intention of enlightening them. In others words, sometimes people may get offended when you point out errors in their thinking, but that is not your intention. It is just an unfortunate side effect. I have no problem with that line of thinking. It is when your goal is to insult them, that I have problems with.
" Freedom of religion does not constitute freedom from skepticism, critique or competition."

I actually don't have time to reply to this (running late to class). It is irrelevant, regardless.

No, burning the Qur'an isn't something I want to do or ought to do - unless someone insists it isn't my right to do so. In that event, I will burn every copy I can get my hands on - not to make a statement about Islam or Muslims, but rather as the beginnings of a more protracted statement on the indispensible need for freedom of speech in anything pretending to be civlization.

- Yes, this IS about legality. The legal right to unpopular speech. It is precisely why we have that amendment. Popular speech needs no protection. It is the right to unpopular speech that allows a human being to speak out when popular speech happens to be wrong.

- There is no contradiction in being mindful of how others feel but that one's emotions are one's own doing. Yes, one's emotions are one's own responsibility, always, but others needn't act as though we do not have them. That's an act of compassion, not an admission of responsibility for how you feel.

- I agree that one ought not deliberately provoke others which is why I do not agree with the burning of the Qur'an, but those who are easily provoked are principally to blame for both their emotions and the behavior that may result from them. That you find the fact many choose to be a victim irrelevant is disturbing. It is an unnecessary aggression in human relationships. Playing the victim is predatory.

- The reasons for why the troops are there are NOT irrelevant. That's precisely why the American taxpayer pays for them to be there.

- No, I don't ever have the intention of critique of religion for the purposes of insult. As I've said, however, that others find critique of their religion insulting isn't my doing. Their emotions are their responsibility.

- freedom to be skeptical, freedom of critique, freedom of competition with regard to religion is hardly irrelevant to this issue - it is central to it.

"No, burning the Qur'an isn't something I want to do or ought to do - unless someone insists it isn't my right to do so."

I insist that you don't have the right chop off your legs. I insist that you don't have the right to to go up to every black person you see and call them niggers. I insist you don't have the right to go up to public officials and soldiers and say "I am going to kill the president." Well, it was nice knowing you.

Surely you can see the error of doing something just because someone tells you, you can't. Why should you care what others think about you or tell you? Shouldn't you just do what you want, regardless of whether somebody tells you not to do it? Why should another persons morals have any bearings on your actions?

Just to clarify, I am not arguing about Mr. Jones legal right to burn the Koran. That is why I said that legal issues are irrelevant. When I decide my actions and morals, I do not look to the law for guidance, I look into myself.

I agree that a person is responsible for how they respond to their emotions. If that is what you mean, by "are one's own doing," then we agree. If you are saying that outside stimuli is never the cause of internal emotional responses, I disagree.

The fact that people sometimes choose to play victim is irrelevant to my argument. Even if you are implying that many Muslims will falsely claim to be victims if the Koran burning happens, it is irrelevant. Though, that would be another reason not to do it.

Again, why the troops are there is irrelevant to my argument. If you are lost in the woods, WHY you went camping is not relevant to finding your way.

First of, the concept of "Freedom of Religion" in no way implies freedom from criticism or competition or critique. So your statement was pointless, therefore irrelevant, as I said. Second, freedoms, like rights are invented concepts and are meaningless outside of a legal context. As I am not arguing the legality of Mr. Jones actions, rights and freedoms are irrelevant.

So it's your contention that every American should be compelled to curtail their rights and liberties to avoid hurting the feelings of others?

Do we curtail our liberties or the liberties of others for so small a reason?

no im talking about common fucking sense. would jesus want to burn qurans and provoke a fight instead of trying to be peaceful? all im trying to say is that if this reverand really believes in what he preaches hes making his word into bullshit. no fuck their feelings. this is about not creating more enemies that want to blow up american troops. this douchebag preacher is most likely enjoying the press attention and it just may come at the cost of american lives. inciting violence is not a right guaranteed by the constitution.

It depends on your point of view. Although I disagree with the burning of books - religious or otherwise - I don't really see this as inciting violence. In any event, those who believe it proper to resort to violence hardly need external incentive and it takes very little even of that. The point of "freedom of speech" is that speech, no matter how offensive, within the essential value set of "civilization", always has the high ground over physical violence. The easiest and only warranted response to speech one objects to is with speech one doesn't object to.

Unless one lives by savage rules, one should respond to poor speech with better speech - not a fist.

Within civilized values, physical violence or physical coercion isn't protected speech and is never reasonably warranted no matter how offensive the speech one is reacting or responding to.

If "common sense" includes stifling one's speech because it may be within earshot of a human being who cannot behave themselves, count me out. The focus of this debate ought not be on the burning of books or the burning of Qurans, but rather on the fact that one cannot do such a thing without fearing for one's life or the lives of others. The genuine savages in this debate are those who threaten physical violence for the burning of a book not even belonging to them.

THEY are the genuine enemies of civilization, not this preacher who wishes to burn books - no matter how intellectually dubious his point of view, his words, his actions.

The Nazi example isn't equivalent to this one. There is very big difference between the state censoring, banning and burning books and an individual exercising their right to censor, ban or burn a book they rightfully own.

One is dictatorship, the other is the free exercise of protected individual rights.

My point was simply to say how it reminds me of the nazi book burnings. Sure, people have a right to burn a book; but the picture it paints for me is fascism.

It shouldn't. Burning one's own property is hardly fascism. Perhaps you'd be surprised how many books are destroyed every year by those who produce them simply to cut their losses. We might both be surprised by how many books wind up in landfills.

Most of it is probably not attributable to fascism and more likely attributable to capitalism.

Whether it "should" or "shouldn't" is completely irrelevant. We are all individuals with our own set of experiences. I would not expect to have a stranger understand why one thing reminds me of another thing.

If the so-called christian pastor chose to burn all of his belongings I really would not care. But we all know the point he was intending to make, and it really had nothing to do with his right to burn his own property.

Yes, we all know the message he was attempting to send and his right to send that message is central to the whole issue.

Is it a good message? No. Is it unfeeling to do it in this way? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Is it right to forcibly compel him to back down? No. Is it right for others to threaten him or those who support his views with physical harm or harm to their property?

No.

Do I support his message? No. Do I support the method of his message? Sure, if he in fact is the rightful owner of these books and causes no physical harm to another person or to their property.

Do I think he's acting without a good deal of thought? Sure.

Thank you. I do believe we are actually of the same mind on this.....just in different directions.

I'm going to point out some very simple concepts that hopefully should address your questions.

The government is defending the religious rights of people, which is granted in the first amendment, by allowing them to build a Islamic Community Center. It is not a damn Mosque nor is it on ground zero. Even if it really was a Mosque, it would still be within the rights of the religious individuals to make it as such so long as they procured the land legally, which they have done.

The local government stopped the Christian organization to burn the Koran in mass not as an infringement of their rights, but because the organizer planned to do it within city limits and the city's laws prevent open fires, particularly bon fires, from being lit up within the city limits. Had the Koran burning taken place outside of the city limits in a place where it was safe to burn, no one would have done a thing to stop them. Now, you can assume one of two things given this knowledge. One, the organizer of the Koran burning knew that city laws would prevent the burning from taking place, therefor he planned to be stopped so a big scene could be made from the whole ordeal. Two, the organizer had no clue that the city laws would prevent the mass burning of any books within the city limits, and is an idiot for thinking that it would be ok to just light up a fire in town.

Basically, it boils down to the Christians being stopped because the actions of their freedom of speech would have caused a direct risk within and to the town where they chose to organize their book burning; however, since the Islamic Community Center really doesn't pose the threat of physical harm of spontaneously bursting nearby buildings into flame because of it's very nature of not being a flaming pile of burning materials, it is not being restricted and/or stopped.

But why didn't the administration just stick with the case that its against the cities fire code to burn anything within city limits? Why did they have to go to the point of saying that a mass Koran burning is going to endanger our troops? It seems to me wherever this happened the administration would've condemned it.

All i can say is I sense religious favoritism

I was under the impression that this guy had already been stopped from burning the Koran at a Koran burning event once before, and that event was within city limits. I was also under the impression that he was now correcting his mistake and planning to burn the Koran where it is legal to do so.

From what I can gather of this present situation, no one in the government is telling the guy that he can't do it. Instead they are strongly, not forcefully, urging this guy not to burn the Koran in mass because it can likely cause a very volatile reaction from extremists worldwide.

To think about it another way, if there were Christian extremists who hated the Western World that we were fighting militarily, the government would likely not support a massive burning of the Bible because it could insight very violent reactions from those extremists around the world.

Actually, the city of the New York decides if "the Muslims" have the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero according to zoning and other laws. I would imagine that the same sort of zoning laws would determine where one could hold a book burning ceremony.

I was opposed to the president weighing in on the contrived mosque controversy and I would be pretty disappointed if he gave his two cents on this insignificant issue as well.

Realistically, I don't think that the organizer of the Koran burnings really wants to help relations with the Muslim world. If it is possible, I think he might have fallen into the mentality that this is a new kind of pissing contest to see who, as extremists, are more faithful to their God, which has great potential for irony since they technically worship the same God.

Yes, the event most likely aggravates an intense conflict and is certainly ill-advised, but the soldiers are tasked with defending or preserving his right to burn the Quran, and much else besides. Their personal agreement with the act is neither asked nor required. They swear to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the commands of their superiors.

The Constitution and American law establishes individual property rights. Soldiers are paid to defend those rights. If the task is too much for them, they are advised to leave military service where there is no such requirement to serve in that capacity.

But it will not be the minister who harms a troop but rather generally American-hating radicals within Islam. Yes, the event is ill-advised, but can one really be held responsible for the violence of another? Are radical Muslims automatons responding mindlessly to the actions of a Quran-burning minister, OR are they thinking individuals responsible for their own actions?

Is burning a Quran to be treated as equal to a physical assault against Muslims? Against an American soldier? Really? Is it to be treated as justification for physical violence by Muslims against U.S. servicemembers? Is one overextending actual responsibility just to make a statement about how distasteful you find the burning of a book? Of a Quran?

Are you arguing in good faith that radical extremists ARE capable of individual thought and reason?

Capable? Yes. That they indulge in it consistently?

No. No more than any of the rest of us and, as you likely know, often a lot less. Less isn't saying that are entirely incapable of it.

I sincerely disagree with that notion! But we shall agree to disagree, I think.

Is burning one's own property unpeaceful and intolerant? The man is likely aware there are literally millions of muslims right here in the United States.

Is he invading their homes, stealing or destroying their property? Is he attacking their persons? No, not likely.

"Tolerance" does not mean acceptance or admiration. It does not mean one refrains from skepticism, critique or competition with other ways of life. It simply means that one may not interfere in an individual's liberty to exercise their rights.

It in no way implies you have to keep your opinions to yourself. In fact, quite the opposite. Those you offend must tolerate your liberty to be offensive -- until such time your behavior interferes in their own liberties.

Yes, it's true, book burning cannot destroy ideas, especially if those ideas are inevitable. Haven't we also determined that banning book burnings doesn't really address the underlying conflicts that lead to them, i.e., "don't stop anything"?

The burning of a book is only ONE way of expressing one's point of view. Banning the burning of that book doesn't put an end to the thing needing expressed. The individual will simply find another way to express it. Does one then ban the new expression too? Where does the banning end? Short of putting the individual to death, can you ever really physically end the view they wish to express?

"Life always finds a way", does it not?

so your rationale supporting this is "they do it, so we should too!!"

?

way to show your maturity level.

I finally get why liberals love islam so much. They both love burning american flags during their spare time.!

I'm neither right-wing nor left-wing and, truth be told, have burned a few flags - American and otherwise - in my day. No one was harmed in these burnings nor was the property of anyone else harmed in these burnings.

The burning of a flag not belonging to you is not injury to you and certainly not warrant for physical retaliation. If the American flag doesn't in the least represent the freedom of an individual human being to burn a copy of that same flag, it stands for nothing of any import.

That was the message intended in my own burnings and a lesson most Americans still haven't learned. The burning of cloth - or of a book - is NOT equal to the burning of a human being OR to the destruction of the values they live by.

If an American cannot stand by the right of an American to burn their rightfully owned property - no matter what significance others assign to that property - they can hardly be called "American".

There is a lovely old sycamore tree in the central part of the city I happen to live in currently. It is the largest of this kind I have ever seen and is wonderfully shaped, healthy and clearly habitat for many kinds of animals in the area. There is a city plan to cut down this amazing tree to construct a bus lane. I cannot easily describe the significance of such trees to me personally or the deep injury I will feel when it is cut down. Yes, it is, for all intents and purposes, a thing of deeply religious importance to me and I feel very real anger toward those who plan to destroy it.

Still, the tree is not my property. I'm free to persuade them with argument to perhaps save the life of this tree, but I may not interfere in its removal and, in fact, have a civil duty to defend the right of those who lawfully own that tree to do with it as they please. I intend to do so if the need arises. My agreement with or admiration for their intentions isn't required and, in any event, isn't forthcoming, but my respect for their right to do what they will with the tree is required.

IMHO if you burn an american flag you should be flogged, but to each his own you know.

But i get what you mean if you can burn a flag why cant they burn a useless book.

Are we to assume you are against your own liberty to park your car wherever you deem is fit to park it? Your property, your right, yes?

Outside of the symbolic meaning others apply to this book, how is the burning of a book you rightfully own any different or any less protected liberty than your liberty to park your car where you wish? If a neighbor assigns some intense meaning to a particular parking spot in which you have parked, should you be forcibly compelled to move your vehicle simply because of the meaning the neighbor assigns to it?

Christians assign great meaning to images of who they call "The Virgin Mary". If I use such an image as a convenient coaster for my drink, should I be harmed or compelled to stop doing so solely because Christians assign such meaning to that image? I personally assign a great deal of spiritual meaning to living trees of all sorts and sizes.

Should those who harm any tree anywhere at anytime be harmed or compelled because of how I and others feel about them? Are property rights to be thrown out the window simply because my feelings might be hurt in the cutting of a tree?

To flog someone for burning a flag belonging to them is an insult to the rights and liberties the flag allegedly represents.

A piece of cloth isn't a human being. It has no rights and has no need of them. To treat a piece of cloth as equal to a man and thus equally deserving of respect is to excessively raise the value of a bit of cloth and savagely reduce the value of a human being.

Sure, you're free to believe that if you wish, but the American flag isn't intended for you.

As I said, if the flag isn't intended at least for those who feel they are free to burn it, it doesn't stand for freedom at all. It is then rather a symbol of privilege, not of freedom.

This is why I do not own one, stand for one, salute one, pledge allegiance to one. I do, however, own a copy of the U.S. Constitution and have even framed it on several occasions. I have officially sworn several times to uphold and defend it, have stood for it, have saluted it, and pledged my allegiance to its letter and spirit simply expressed - maximum individual liberty and justice for the greatest number. Still, if needed to make a point about individual rights and liberties, I would burn it too.

Burning a copy of the U.S. Constitution causes no damage to the actual Constitution or to copies of the same, it causes no damage to any other American person or to their private property, causes no damage to U.S. law, U.S. government or U.S. way of life. It is no threat to U.S. national security.

If that were not true, I wouldn't burn it.

kind of been waiting for the muslims to speak out against radical islam. Kind of goes both ways.

that's a good point. I haven't heard much on that. Can someone in the know post some links that show reasonable muslims denouncing radical islamists?

do want them to condemn a whole religion?

I condemn all of the immature notions contained in the Christian Holy Bible and in Christian practice.

Should I be free to do so? If I burn a Christian Holy Bible, have I physically harmed a Christian? Have I harmed the religion in general? Will there be no more Christianity because of my actions? Will there be no more Christians because of my actions? Will there be no more Christian Bibles because of my actions?

How is the burning of even many copies of a book genuinely harmful to the narrative of that book in other copies or the religion it professes or those who follow that religion?

How is the burning of a copy of the Quran genuinely harmful to Islam? When the book is ash, where is the corresponding destruction of Islam and of Muslims? Where is the corresponding destruction of any other religion or politics or those who hold those values?

There is none, obviously. All that one has is strong emotions as a result. YOU are responsible for the emotions you feel, not another.

So... Christians should only do good if Muslims do good? Didn't see that one in the bible...

The burning of the koran is not the burning of a book. It is the burning of a symbol. They're not using it to build a fire because they're cold. They're doing it to send a malevolent message to ALL Muslims. And when these Muslims get the message, how do you think they'll feel?

They'll no doubt feel lousy, but that's not really the issue here. The issue: is their lousy feeling warrant enough to compel the pastor not to burn the books? Is a person to be stripped of their right to speak or own property simply because someone might be or is likely to be emotionally offended?

Many vegetarians are clearly emotionally injured anytime they see someone eating meat. Some I've met actually behave like little Hitlers in their offense. Is their offense sufficient to compel me not to eat meat?

As I mentioned, my relationship with trees is as religious as anyone else's relationship with whatever is the object of their devotion. Despite the good reasons for using trees as a resource, I am nevertheless intensely disturbed by injury to any tree. Is my emotional reaction sufficient warrant to compel any and all to refrain from harming a single tree?

I am a great fan of the person and works of Mark Twain. Many have rather harsh things to say about the man and often I find it offensive. Are my offended feelings sufficient warrant to compel any and all to refrain from criticism of Mark Twain? How about some of the other authors of which I'm very fond? Should any and all refrain from criticism of these persons on the off chance it might offend me?

How about if I threaten to put bombs in their mailboxes? Are my possible offended feelings THEN sufficient to compel persons to refrain from criticism of the things in which I place a good deal of meaning?

I often find the attitudes and comments of females critical of males to be incredibly offensive. Are my sensitivities sufficient to outlaw such commentary? How about the sensitivities of all males? How about the sensitivities not simply of males but of other females who also find such male-critical commentary offensive? Is it sufficient then to oppress freedom of speech?

These examples you mention, these criticisms you discuss... are they equal to the loss of life? More soldiers, many more soldiers could DIE. (not trying to sound overly dramatic, though it might come out that way).

Criticism is good. Criticism is warranted, always. But when a criticism has such a profound effect on the existence of people, I wonder if that type of criticism is necessary.

Individuals have always faced the threat and been victims to physical violence for speaking critically of things others hold dear. At one time in the Americas, the criticism was against European royalty and their alleged long-held and deeply cherished "divine right". As I recall, thousands died in that act of criticism and on both sides.

Should the revolutionaries, knowing full well that human beings were going to lose their lives in their intended criticisms, have backed down in favor of not offending the King? You do understand the Declaration of Independence to be one long criticism of the King at the time, yes?

July 4th is a celebration of inciting a war, is it not?

In our criticism of Germany fascism and Italian fascism, she Europe and the United States have backed down knowing full well others would lose their lives if we stood fast to our criticisms?

Should the United States have backed down from its opposition to Russian communism because an armed confrontation would cost millions of lives?

Should a woman back down from fighting off her rapist because she is critical of rape? Is she guilty for angering the rapist because she will not comply with his - or her - demands? Is she guilty for the rape because she did not entirely consider the rapists feelings?

since the beginning of man...and the one who wins is the one with the biggest stick..

name one incident in human history where "doing nothing" wins over evil...

Ghandi's fight for civil rights, Martin Luther King's movement, Women's suffrage, i could go on but it's wasted on you.

Applause, applause......I think you are my hero for the day!! :)

I disagree on both counts. One who has suffered violence does not necessarily have to respond with further violence. Such non-violent response to violence is seen in human beings daily. Also, further hate does not have to be the reaction or response to hate. So too, various non-hateful reactions or responses to hate are seen in human beings daily.

On a number of occasions, for expressing certain beliefs and points of view, I have had property vandalized, stolen or destroyed. I did not respond with either further violence or hatred. I responded with the law on my side and expressions such as this one against physical violence and violent hatred.

The aphorisms you share are untrue except in some cases where human beings did, in fact, respond with violence and hatred.

It depends, of course, on how one defines "evil", but there always the response of doing nothing when an "evil" individual needs rescue from certain death.

I wonder how many times in human history that one has happened.

Then there's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit. If one's enemy is under attack, you could very well just sit idle and allow the attack to succeed at no cost to oneself. That one, I know, occurs everyday.

Have you made any lost city-folk "squeal like a pig" lately?

Yeah because theres nothing funnier than book burning? Do you laugh when they burn the bible or the flag?

Just do a search for "muslim comedian". I think you'll find that plenty of muslims have a sense of humor. Just like people of other cultures, other politics, other religions, there are definite issues they do NOT find funny.

Obviously Americans don't see the humor in the destruction of buildings or the taking of thousands of lives.

See what I mean?

Burning books is funny now, is it?