Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:59:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1858 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Well, let’s see. If I go on-air to millions and declare that a certain US
President should be assassinated, will Conservatives rally around me to
protect my right to free speech?
|
There happens to be a law against that, and the Secret Service takes that
stuff seriously. It’s best not to get cute in that arena.
|
Though I hesitate to use the words “cute” and “Ann Coulter” in the same post, I
simply don’t see the distinction between her call for poisoning to be different
from the hypothetical that I mentioned. Sure, she can claim that she’s
joking, but if her only defense is that Supreme Court Justices--unlike the
President--aren’t protected against seemingly idle verbal threats, then that’s a
pretty lame defense.
| |
| |
Of course, if I were a dessicated, talentless hack who called for the
poisoning of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, I suppose I could laugh off my
terroristic threat as a “joke,” right?
|
Yeah, because it was meant as a joke (she’s a satirist, after all), so
trying to misconstrue her meaning is disingenuous at best, Dave! I know that
I have admonished against forming opinions based on “intent” in the past, but
isn’t it obvious that that statement wasn’t a real threat?
|
Here’s a different hypothetical: If Bill Maher had said on-air that Scalia
should be poisoned, would the Conservative masses accept that he was joking?
Would they laugh? Would they defend Maher?
| |
There are plenty of fringe loonies who are peaceful
fringe loonies. There are even fringe loonies who spit hate, but are
otherwise (relatively) harmless. It’s the ones who are burning and killing
we need to worry about.
|
All right: I’m worried about the dangerous fringe loonies, then!
| |
My concern is that as the left and right get more and more over the top with
their partisan rhetoric, they paint each other to be the very fringe loonies
about which you speak-- essentially rendering the entire country a bin of
fringe loonies!
| |
If the United States feels justified in issuing direct proclamations against
outspoken, radical mullahs (and it does), then it should feel obligated to
issue similar proclamations aginst outspoken, radical evangelists (as
opposed to meeting with them and using them to drum up votes).
|
Politics. Did you ever believe it wasn’t nasty business?
|
Of course not, but Dubya can’t claim to be a “moral man” while conspiring with
dangerous fringe loonies for the sake of political expediency. A nebulous
morality of convenience ill-becomes a man who claims a black/white, Manichean
worldview.
In the past few messages we’ve seen mention of “real Christian values,” and
Phelps et al have been accused of failing to adhere to these. I accept that
argument, but let me ask you this:
Do you believe that President Bush adheres to these “real Christian values?”
Please don’t give him a pass by using the “he has to obey the law of the land”
argument, because Kerry tried that and was repudiated and nearly denied
Communion for it, so it’s clearly an untenable argument. Bush has declared his
belief that our US laws come to us, indirectly perhaps, from God’s Decalogue.
If US law conflicted with God’s law, which would Bush obey? And would he admit
to it?
Those are honest and sincere questions, with no intended sarcasm.
Dave!
(do you know why you got booted, by the way? I haven’t checked my personal
email since last night, so maybe you’ve already answered me there...)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
