And that is why I mentioned the “to see if it is possible”, I agree that it is unlikely that he will be punished at all.
BTW there was a petition movement in California to remove the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church for lobbying for the imposition of proposition 8, I also expect that that did not go far at all, but the existence of that petition was part of the humiliation of the church.
That is why I thought that this move would be just a symbolic one.
In the meantime, do we assume that the (AFAIK) lack of capturing of the totally guilty in Afghanistan shows that in reality there was little to no control of the ongoing situation over there?
I am aghast that anyone who has grown up enjoying the liberties that we enjoy in this country would want to see anyone punished for merely expressing an opinion. Even if it’s a really, really provocative stance. Seriously.
Did it surprise anyone when the white fanatics who lynched innocent black men during the civil rights struggle escaped capture and conviction? It’s no different in Afghanistan. You have a bit of societal approval mixed with a real fear of the perpetrators, and a ton of misdirected anger and frustration, all combined into one perfect storm.
Assuming you’re speaking of Bush, I voted against him twice and was opposed to the Iraq invasion. How it happened is that he was democratically elected (more or less) and managed to convince enough people who ought to have known better that there was good reason to go over there and kill people. I disagreed then and I disagree now, and I think he and a lot of others have blood on their hands for their foolish actions.
Failing to contribute tax dollars is not a viable form of protest here. As to inaction, I suppose I could have sabotaged a few C-130s or stood bravely in front of our tanks as they rolled toward Baghdad. I didn’t, so I suppose I am roughly as guilty of murder as is Pastor Dipshit and his holy BBQ—which is to say, not much.
Well, as explained, I do think that free speech is a right, but is also not completely free. In any case, it is a bit that I have no intention on pressing much in the real world, just as a point of humiliation.
If Mullah Q. Public decides to hold a Bible roast on his Kandahar patio, leading to a protest in Kansas which gets out of hand, resulting in the beating deaths of several brown-skinned onlookers, how responsible should we hold the intercontinental religious idiot with the silly facial hair for what our countrymen did?
If each time someone burns an American flag on Al Jazeera we kill innocent Muslims here to retaliate, do we get to spread the fault around? Or would we blame (and prosecute) the violent fanatics who refuse to control their primitive, jingoistic behavior?
What in theory should be applied equitably becomes, in practice, a different set of rules for “us” and “them.”
Not really clear what sort of “cite” you need… reread my post, and imagine the two hypothetical situations taking place here in the United States.
Having trouble? Probably, because it’s highly unlikely to ever shake out that way. If it did, nobody would be proposing (or would take seriously) the idea that anonymous morons burning a flag or Bible on the other side of the world were directly to blame for mob violence here.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
The US Constitution does not apply in Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. If Reverend Chopperstache ever travels there, he’d do well to obey the local laws and customs.
BTW there was a petition movement in California to remove the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church for lobbying for the imposition of proposition 8, I also expect that that did not go far at all, but the existence of that petition was part of the humiliation of the church.QUOTE]
Nitpick… it probably didn’t go far because the **Mormon church **didn’t lobby for anything. A group of members joined together and funded the lobbying but no church funds were involved at all. The humiliation rests on the heads of those who tried this grandstand stunt, since they hadn’t enough beans to pass the measure in the first place. end nitpick
I really liked your previous response and had nothing to say. Maybe just to say that I find it really discomforting to know that a small number of verifiably dumb idiots (and I mean on BOTH sides of this little media spectacle) are capable of getting such an attention from decent folks. And expose some among decent who felt encouraged by this wedge to show where they stand exactly.
For the above post, I have two comments…
First, it may not work on you but the image of crazies burning American Flag DOES work at a certain level with a certain folks in US. The crazies who burn the flag know it too – that’s why they do it. As demonstrated in your previous post, no matter what you do, things can and do happen contrary to what you as an individual think or want.
Second, I think it would be advisable at some point to use some other word than “Muslim” in respect to bizarre and extreme cases like this. Just like we like to be specific when we say Pastor Jones and his crazy church instead of Americans - burn Quran. I think it’s only fair especially when it can be demonstrated that out of 1 billion people you keep referring to - and even out of a number of peaceful demonstrators that day - it took less people than you can find in Pastor Jones church membership to do that horrific criminal act (which I believe was premeditated).
Finally, I wonder, what will happen to Karzai (if it is proven that he is in fact the one who ignited the whole thing) – is he getting a boot or… khm!.. a promotion?
Once again Der proves he’s spent too much time in his comic books by thinking that he can read the mind of Jones (who might not have a mind at all) by his super power of telepathy. BTW Der, what am I thinking RIGHT NOW? :dubious:
There are a few inaccuracies in what you said here, but I don’t want to hijack this thread. Here is the LDS press release, and here is a thread where the involvement of the top LDS leadership is discussed. Perhaps a new GD thread is needed?
[hijack] Why would it be humiliating? On the contrary, (in their minds) they stood for what was good and won, and the losers want to punish them. It’s a double visctory.
[/hijack]
These threads always give the impression that violent Muslims are told over and over again that their methods are the right ones, they always win. We should just bend over.
I think you first have to tell him if you’re white, American, Christian, on the right, and/or in the military. That seems to be the wavelength he’s tuned into. And if you are, don’t even try to deny that at this very moment you’re salivating thinking up ways to maim, kill, brutalize, and humiliate people who aren’t just like you. Because you’d just by lying, which is kind of redundant…you being you’re white, American, Christian, on the right, and/or in the military.
It’s not about “winning and losing.” Under US law, churches are only allowed tax exempt status as long as they do not engage in political speech or activism. The “humiliation” for the LDS church was that they were caught engaging in political activism, and were therefore arguably shown to be dishonest, and to have been in violation of the US tax code.
Churches can engage in all the political activism they want, as long as they’re willing to pay taxes. The public is not going to subsidize them for it.
“Winning or losing” has nothing to do with it. They’re not allowed to be political at all if they want to be tax exempt.
Don’t be silly. Exactly how hard is it to figure out the motives of a Christian fanatic who thinks Islam is Satanic? Who then goes out of his way to provoke fanatic Muslims?
You are just another poster bending over backwards to ignore the obvious about the man. It’s OK to demonize all Muslims as barbarians, but we’re supposed to ignore the obvious malice of a Christian preacher.