@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:
Hi khethil nice to hear from you. Thanks for veering the discussion back on course. As you say it is 'typical'.
Khethil wrote:
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:First there is a sustained opposition to a Mosque - to be build near WTC land - a distance of couple of hundred meters away, now we get a church leader who wants to burn a holy book.
Should the first amendment need a serious relook?
I've given this some serious thought and short answer: I don't think so.
Despite what our how our form of capitalism has lead to an oligarchicad), blinding type of culture I actually believe that most of the basic constitutional elements were well founded and thought out.
But I am equally serious when I harbour a thought on whether the First Amendment is being challenged by notions and acts of your citizens who take the right and freedom so enshrined in the constitution for granted.
In this case, a-pastor-planning-to-burn-the-Quran-on-9/11 case, we saw the American president, a power ful head of state, the commander in chief, the supreme head of the executive, almost pleading helplessly to a church leader of dubious distinction to not to go ahead a planned act which had world-wide repercussions. Why do you think this arose. My submission is that this menial pastor with his diabolic ideas was protected by First Amendment laws.
Yes, I believe you're correct. Its my understanding that such actions (as long as they don't violate other laws) constitute "expression" which our supreme court uses synonymously with "speech", as phrased in the constitution. I can burn a flag as long as I don't do it in a way that burning anything else could be illegal. Our President couldn't order or prohibit him to do this; its simply not within his power.
If I take your meaning properly, I'd have to say this: This is an idealistic notion, that expression (even if destructive on other fronts) is protected. Yes it leads to many problems. But it seems to be held in extremely high esteem; almost deified to the extent that we'll put up with a whole lot of repercussions just to see it held true.
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:Look, the First Amendment laws and judgments interpreting its power and extent is a laudable principle's of which every American can be and should be proud off. But Modern America is a small child in the history of nationhood, culture and civilisations. No other nation has given such sweeping rights to an individual who by an act as simple as burning a Holy book can bring nations on a war -path. Imagine the consequences of a simple mischief.
I agree completely. We're still struggling to gain a sense of "self" that's aside from what we do and are. Many of us are well aware that our heritage is - almost completely - inherited from other countries. For those that have thought this through, it - itself - is a source of pride. For those who feel a burning need to distinguish themselves on par with other, long established nations, they'll seek to imbue something to replace that lack.
And I'd agree that this is perhaps a learning curve - that maybe we'll find a way to protect the individual's right to expression without causing so damned much rippling effects. That such actions DO cause widespread effects may very well have more to do with the ubiquitous nature of our media than anything else. Even so, your point is well taken. Is there a balance? I honestly don't know. I do know that wherever humans are given a trump-card (your right to do <this> is protected!), they'll abuse it.
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:
Khethil wrote:
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:How will America cope with such situations primarily motivated by religious sentimentsand conservative values. I think, two freedoms are being challenged 1) the freedom for practising own religion, and 2) the freedom of speech and expression.
They really have to be left alone (within limits, of course) to play out to fruition. We seem to do this a lot: Both freedoms get pushed to lengths that border on destructive; at which point we have to stop and decide just how far we're willing to go to protect these - at what point of expression do these 'guarantees' hurt more than help, so to speak. Despite the goodness I believe such conflicts can net, its dismaying to behold just how much of the national consciousness is lead around by "news" agencies whose only motivation is to get us riled up, pissed off or indignant. Because... well... that's what sells advertising slots.
Dont you think this episode has 'played out (the rights) to fruition'. Yet in the sentence you have bracketed 'within limits'. Sir, how do you think those 'limits' can be set. Those limits has to be enacted. And the freedom as seen in the Constitution was put to the rigours of judicial opinion, no American government thought it fit to set any kind of limits.
I'm no expert (and I trust that someone will set me straight if I stray), but every right has an innate limit. For example, I have the right to keep and bear arms... but that doesn't include a tactical nuclear warhead. The reasoning: Its volatility to cause more pain then harm outweighs my 2nd Amendment Rights. I also have the right to free speech, but I can't mischievouisly yell "Fire! Fire!" in a perfectly safe crowded space without repercussions for the same reason. This is what I mean by within limits.
These limits are, as I mentioned, where we constantly come to a questioning-point. The more spurious or vague the situations is, the more controversy there is. There are the purists, the pragmatists, anarchists and more - each with their own take on where such limits should be. Toss into the mix the ignorant, the educated, the liberal and the conservatists and it becomes more complicated. I'd expect that any nation whose bestowed any 'basic rights' would have to go through this "where are my limits?"-process.
Khethil wrote:
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:Also, a political issue that springs is whether inter religious competition, and intra faith community centres and churchs competiting to get attention? Is it direct marketing?
Khethil wrote:
Neither the Mosque nor the Koran-Burning threat warranted national attention of any sort. We empower/embolden the fanatics when we lend it our ear. Neither deserved nothing more than a sigh.
Sorry, thats your opinion which is typical of people who does not want to concern themselves with religious or political issues.
No, that an opinion of a mind that acknowledges there are, at any time, millions of people doing horrible things that - if known - might enrage us all. Should we give all them our immediate attentions? Absolutely not.
"This is typical" is quite unfair and unseemly. I have the utmost concern for religious and political issues. Nothing within my post indicated otherwise. What's more, below, you seem to assert my point that such things shouldn't have been made such a big to-do. So your remark of derision leave me somewhat perplexed.
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:Just like some Americans that day woke up to know they lived in world where other view-points exist.
Foul. I've spent more time overseas than probably 95% of my countrymen and - as a result - consider myself a human first, and a citizen of the United States 2nd (if even that). Take care of your stereotyping - as we converse like this lets not assume we know the backgrounds of those to whom we speak. And while I'd readily admit that many (perhaps even most) citizens of the U.S. fail to embrace a world view, please keep in mind that this is not the whole story.
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:People were at a loss to understand why the attack took place. And yet people are not coming to terms with it. If you believe that by ignoring the pastor nothing would have happenend is still trying to live in denial.
This is bad form to link "the attack" to actions of this nutcase's supposed fame. "The attack" has many motiviations; some of which this nation brought upon itself, some it didn't. But that's a separate conversation.
To ignore nutcases radicals like this is not a good course of action?
All places, all nations, have their radicals and fools who do such things - no one is exempt. I believe to give a large voice to such destructive elements (as was done by the media) is to not only spread that hatred abroad, but also rewards the doer. So no, I can't agree with you here. If we don't ignore these idiots, what would you suggest be done with them?
Thanks for your reply.
