Ethical values in Religious & Modern America?

Need to get rid of the first amendment rights... People should have the right, but we see here a demonstration of institutional rights... Churches are corporations, and if corporation stand against the government in some of what the government does then great, if they are doing a public service, and can show it... If this church that wants to burn the Holy Qu'ran would do so in spite of deadly danger to our young soldiers, and in spite of the fact that many Christians still live in Muslim countries and are vulnerable then they are not just abusing their rights, but are being criminal...There is nothing conservative about their behavior...They have so long enjoyed rights that they have denied to the people that they want to step full time into the roll of tyrants...They are not conservative, but reactionary...

I don't see how. "Political" means "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government" (Mirriam-Webster). The US- and Florida governments are neither supporting nor impeding the Quran-burnings. The pastor isn't attempting to change the conduct of any American governments, federal, state, or local. So in what sense would the Quran-burnings relate to any governments, or to their conduct?

If you insist that thats the only meaning of the word 'political', i cannot pursue my point further.

But to answer your last question-sentence, i would say it is very much related to sensitive governments which want to maintain oredr and peace in society.

What use is governments for.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

But are you serious, in the last part of your comments when you ask whether it is political or not. It is deeply political, thomas. Burning of a 'Holy' Book is deeply deeply political. Thanks.

I don't see how. "Political" means "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government" (Mirriam-Webster). The US- and Florida governments are neither supporting nor impeding the Quran-burnings. The pastor isn't attempting to change the conduct of any American governments, federal, state, or local. So in what sense would the Quran-burnings relate to any governments, or to their conduct?

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

Fido wrote:

Need to get rid of the first amendment rights... People should have the right, but we see here a demonstration of institutional rights... Churches are corporations, and if corporation stand against the government in some of what the government does then great, if they are doing a public service, and can show it... If this church that wants to burn the Holy Qu'ran would do so in spite of deadly danger to our young soldiers, and in spite of the fact that many Christians still live in Muslim countries and are vulnerable then they are not just abusing their rights, but are being criminal...There is nothing conservative about their behavior...They have so long enjoyed rights that they have denied to the people that they want to step full time into the roll of tyrants...They are not conservative, but reactionary...

The churches have had the right forever without needing it... The people took for granted the right of the preachers and priests to be involved in politics and in the most intimate details of people's lives for the good of the community, and many have been abused as a result... Many of those who will not go to church absolutely hate the churches and think quite rightly that they are filled with hypocrits...And Criminals... They now need to invoke their rights as never before because in this nation of many nations and many religions their actions designed to spread hate and disunion are correctly seen as unacceptible... Those actions injure people... There are victims, and there will be blood, and the pain they cause will demand revenge...They do not have the right, and no free preactice of religion is intended by them... Their actions are an attack of the Muslim practice of their religion...Their actions are an attack on the rights the assert...Which I guess means I agree with much of what follows

Quote:

I am not for getting rid of the First Amendment. I am just seeing it being exploited to its last bit of elasticity. Now since religious groups are exploiting it, it is surely running the last stretch, i feel. No not premonitions, but a genuine feeling of disgust which leads to fear of disruptions of a peaceful society. The rights of freedom and the freedom of rights has been played out fully within the ambit of the First Amendment. Of course at first it looked like America has shown the world a principle which helps democracy and a free society to live to its full potential and enjoyment. The world looked upto to it, no nation followed it like tail.

Today, when it is played out in the guise of religious freedom and expression, and when that freedom comes face to face with another group who equally asserts for the same rights than surely those freedoms cannot infringe on others flesh or property.

Purely from the rights angle no one argues against or discourages the right to demonstrate or protest, but if those protests are basically to deny someone else their own rights of freedom including to the right to live in dignity and honour, than surely there is a breach of peace in the society. This issue thus becomes serious enough to consider all its effects of actions and reactions.

Purely from the ethical perspective, we tend to forget the cardinal principle of allowing your neighbour the same rights that you claim for yourself. In a democracy, one cannot discriminate legally, can you.

My case would be to impose restrictions on the protestors and the church pastors who are nothing but inciting one group against another to discriminate and violation of peace. The state can do that if so it wishes.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

If you insist that thats the only meaning of the word 'political', i cannot pursue my point further.

I'm not insisting on anything but the general principle that words have meanings. If you wish to endow the word "political" with a meaning that is not found in the leading dictionary of American English, that's fine with me. But you will at least have to define it. For bonus points, you could refer to an authority on English usage that actually uses the word "political" the way you do. Either way, you can't just use words to mean whatever you want them to. Not if you wish to communicate, anyway.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

But to answer your last question-sentence, i would say it is very much related to sensitive governments which want to maintain oredr and peace in society.

There is nothing disorderly or warlike in purchasing a book and burning it. It's pastor Terry Jones's copy to burn.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

What use is governments for.

Governments are instituted among people to secure their human rights, one of which is liberty---including the liberty to say the Quran is crap, and to burn a copy of it to make the point.

You do not purchace and burn the common property of a billion and a half people...

Fido wrote:

You do not purchace and burn the common property of a billion and a half people...

Pastor Jones cannot burn that common property. He cannot burn the Quran's text, nor a billion believer's faith in it. All Pastor Jones can burn is a physical book in his personal possession. That's not an act of war, just expressive conduct stating his opinion. It's no different, in principle, from burning a draft card (which is illegal, but not because of the message it expresses), or from burning an American flag---which is legal, and justly so.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

If you insist that thats the only meaning of the word 'political', i cannot pursue my point further.

I'm not insisting on anything but the general principle that words have meanings. If you wish to endow the word "political" with a meaning that is not found in the leading dictionary of American English, that's fine with me. But you will at least have to define it. For bonus points, you could refer to an authority on English usage that actually uses the word "political" the way you do. Either way, you can't just use words to mean whatever you want them to. Not if you wish to communicate, anyway.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

But to answer your last question-sentence, i would say it is very much related to sensitive governments which want to maintain oredr and peace in society.

There is nothing disorderly or warlike in purchasing a book and burning it. It's pastor Terry Jones's copy to burn.

Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

What use is governments for.

Governments are instituted among people to secure their human rights, one of which is liberty---including the liberty to say the Quran is crap, and to burn a copy of it to make the point.

you seem to be an intelligent man, but to cut short a lot of words let me guess what you are doing. You are deliberately playing blind.

But on the meaning of 'political', here is two other definitions of the word.

political
A adjective
1 political

involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians; "calling a meeting is a political act in itself"- Daniel Goleman; "political pressure"; "a political machine"; "political office"; "political policy"

2 political

of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power; "political opinions"

3 political

of or relating to the profession of governing; "political career"

KABUL, Afghanistan – The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday an American church's threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.

Meanwhile, NATO reported the death of an American service member in an insurgent attack in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday.

The comments from Gen. David Petraeus followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center — a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy — to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States that provoked the Afghan war.

"Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying any burning "would be in a strong contradiction with the all the values we stand for and fight for."

Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive.

In 2005, 15 people died and scores were wounded in riots in Afghanistan sparked by a story in Newsweek magazine alleging interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay placed copies of the Quran in washrooms and flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk. Newsweek later retracted the story.

So tell me: under the definitions you offer, how is the act any more political than a New York Yankees fan saying hateful things about the Boston Red Sox?

Pastor Jones' planned book burning isn't political in the governmental sense in and of itself. It is political in the sense of societal relationships involving authority or power. Jones is aiming to gain attention and members to his church through this act. As such, this is a power play.

The military branch of the government has criticized it because of its potential to harm US military objectives in Muslim countries,

German Chancellor Angela Merkel risked angering Muslims by speaking at an awards ceremony on Wednesday for a Dane whose cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed provoked sometimes violent protests by Muslims five years ago.

[...]

Pastor Jones' planned book burning isn't political in the governmental sense in and of itself. It is political in the sense of societal relationships involving authority or power. Jones is aiming to gain attention and members to his church through this act. As such, this is a power play.

Politics in the governmental sense are involved in this case, however, because there have been responses of that political kind to Pastor Jones' planned book burning. The military branch of the government has criticized it because of its potential to harm US military objectives in Muslim countries, and the executive branch has issued statements of governmental opinion in regard to the planned book burning.

So, the planned book burning isn't political in the governmental sense, per se, but it has had implications thereof in that it has consequentially involved that kind of politics.

Compared to this 100,000-lives problem, any moral problems raised by Pastor Jones's Quran burning are trivial.