Quote:
Originally Posted by
smartorl http:///forum/thread/380081/so-who-s-burning-the-koran-on-the-11th/120#post_3307675
From my personal experience only, my neighbors, which does show me that not all can be glumped in the group.
Do I think it's legal for them to build the mosque, yes. Do I think it is at best in very, very poor taste to do so, yes.
Bringing it closer to home, using the abortion clinic bombers that would say happen to be Baptist as an example. If they bombed a clinic, it would also be protested against a Baptist church being built close to the proximity of where the clinic stood. Not because all Baptists were responsible but because the bombers were Baptists and it would be inappropriate and it should be expected to cause problems.
I guess my main gripe here is the absolutes, to that I do object. Maybe it's because I'm a girl and we are a little more nurturing by nature. To condemn an entire religion based on the zealots is not fair. Does this religion lend itself to wackos, yes. But for every wacko there is also a nice, quiet, productive family trying to do the same thing we all are which is to survive.
I think the Rent a Preacher is just as guilty of being a zealot and causing problems as the zealots countering with threats of death. Both sides have jackasses.
The media is also spinning and causing alot of misinformation and causing both sides in all issues to draw the proverbial line in the sand. An example, two people who are amicable in a divorce being pitted against each other and going all out because of the fanning of unscrupulous divorce attorneys. No they had differences and disagreements that made them not want to be a couple, but could have remained respectful except for the devious means to make them adversaries.
I agree with all of this.
but this has posed a question I feel needs debate.
Freedom of speech how far should it be protected. In a few instances we have cases where someone's "actions" shown as "speech" could bring great harm to a large majority of people....so in the interest of public safety they can be censored under law. Yet a print or news media outlet can report on the story regardless of public safety due to the results of the story....is this a double standard.