Thank you for writing in. I am not suggesting that Jones be charged with any crime for book-burning; I agree that people can lawfully burn books they own. But, I disagree that the antidote to such small-minded bigotry is just silence. I think that it's appropriate to exercise free speech rights to condemn such bigotry. And, I never said burning a book is the same as killing a person; they are plainly different acts, morally and legally. I also disagree with the assertion that this is about giving into threatened violence or blackmail. If other small-minded jerks decided to burn Bibles or other holy books, I'm sure there would be violent reactions in some quarters of those faiths because to people of faith their books are thought to be the word of God and sacred. I think that it is not just right but essential for people of conscience to speak out against such intolerance and bigotry, even when the proponent attempts to wrap his warped mind and actions in the Bible or other religious claims. Lisa
I believe your analysis is far-fetched. I am old enough to have lived during the Civil Rights movement and fortunate enough to have become personally acquainted with the individuals responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Businesses have found that discrimination is costly, especially law firms who have hired and promoted outstanding law review graduates among people of color who have become partners in these firms. Had it not been for the climate of affirmative action promoted by the Civil Rights Act, Clarence Thomas himself, Elena Kagan and other women and minority group Supreme Court Justices would not have been appointed.
Whatever their personal philosophy, these justices understand, unless they are arrogant beyond redemption, that but for the climate of love for all other humans engendered by Christian leaders such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., they would truly never have been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If one believes that Americans are basically intolerant and without love in their hearts for all other human beings, and stripped of all pragmatic common sense, then one could believe in this blogsite's analysis of the destruction of the Civil Rights Act through Citizens United.
Right now, unlike Germany, it is not illegal to be a Nazi. David Duke was a Nazi serving in a state legislature. The ACLU itself supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, in a neighborhood of predominantly Jewish residents. Unless a David Duke becomes president of the United States, do we have much to worry about? I think not.
Corporations by their overwhelming economic power can broadcast messages of hate but it is only governments that can uphold and compel its employees to carry out the message of hatred, as we have seen in the recent Appeals Court decision upholding the practice of torture and extraordinary rendition.
I don't know what the Libertarians want, but we do need a third party that does not pay lip service to the Constitution's right of free speech, then do whatever it wants to do, including condoning and spearheading the practice of torturing prisoners.
We need a government that carries out the spirit of the Constitution. We need a party that is responsive to the majority of voters and sensitive and protective of the rights of minority groups as well as minority opinions.
I no more want to silence Ron Paul than I want to silence Alan Grayson. In fact, I recently learned that the two of them were sponsoring a bill together.
I want to see a nation brought together in this way. As far as I am concerned, there is great value in what Ron Paul says and there is great value in what Alan Grayson says.
I want an America that brings all of us together, not for the sake of political power, but, as our first national president for civil rights has pointed out about the nature of political truth, for the good of the people, all of the people, all of the time. I don't want a government good for some of the people some of the time or good for all of the people some of the time. I think that's what we all want. If you recall, the same president said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
You are correct of course. And here's a link to an excellent BBC doc that looks into the life and influence of Bernays on marketing products we neither need or are good for us. His relationship with Freud and his early use of psychological techniques to compel non-smokers to pick up the habit (among other things of course) are all explored. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml
Burning books no matter how "sacred" is in no way comparable to killing people or committing terrorism.
Terry Jones is a bigot and an idiot but I wholeheartedly support him ripping, burning, folding or even reading whatever books he legally purchased. It's no more our business what he does with his property than it's our business what two gay men do in the privacy of their homes.
It's just a book and it's hardly unique. It will offend people but so what, one of the great parts of free speech and freedom of religion is that people (especially religious people) get offended.
Best response: stop treating this like it's equivalent to burning people and stop giving in to the Muslim's threats of violence - it's political blackmail and we're better than that.
You are correct of course. And here's a link to an excellent BBC doc that looks into the life and influence of Bernays on marketing products we neither need or are good for us. His relationship with Freud and his early use of psychological techniques to compel non-smokers to pick up the habit (among other things of course) are all explored. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml
Pages