aclu sues for religious freedom for terrorists

from coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool…he_veil_f.html

it’s kosher to float a cross in a bottle of piss and call it art, put if you even think of flushing a koran in a toilet, we have to chop off your head for blasphemy…

who is worse? the terrorists or the left wing socialist totalitarians who support them?

-Imp

If a person can’t have a religious faith without an Icon how faithful are they anyway?

So they are going to try and stop millions of people from picking on each other by a Law? ROFL yea that is really going to happen. Sort of like Uniforms in schools to declass everyone. Like kids are not going to form cliques anyway. Please. All that does is create a hardship for the poor. Now not only do they have to buy uniforms but they have to buy regular clothes too. A blasphemy law will do nothing but create a different sort of problem and generate further resentment .

IMO If you can’t deal with someone picking on your sacred Icons then you have very little faith anyway. It should be what is in you, not an object that is held sacred.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think it would be hard to gauge the effects of such acts if you weren’t raised in a country where virtually everything is carried out in the name of said religious icon/idol.
Should they be sued? no. Should they engage in similar acts in the future? definitley not, they shouldn’t have in the first place.

If I’m not mistaken, The Piss Christ was done to portray what we, mankind, have done to Christ, visually.

Flushing a Qur’an down the toilet, or burning it, has no other purpose than to hit men of the Muslim Faith “where it hurts”.

I think it’s funny that you’d try to even compare the two… There weren’t 750 Christians in an Irani detainment facility being forced to look at the strongest symbol of their religion in a bottle of piss, at prayer time.

If it bothered them that much then they lack faith. A bible or Qur’an,a cross or star are mere accents. Faith is inside you, not objects. When you put faith in an object for religion you put your faith on your sleeve, You are using your religion not believing it. Is that not unethical to do? a religion is not a flag, it is not a tool, it is or should be a part of you.

Burning a religious icon or destroying it is physchological warfare against those who use it as a flag or tool. The truly faithful would not be disturbed.

So how is it wrong to do this? You can’t offend believers by doing this. you can offend those that use it and know how to retaliate.

let’s wrap korans in canadian bacon and call it art.

-Imp

-The excerpt says nothing about the ACLU suing for this.
-The link doesn’t work.
-The excerpt is clearly from an editorial, not a news story.
-The excerpt doesn’t even claim that the person making the appeal for blasephemy laws was speaking as a representative of blashphemy laws. It only says that he was given a Civil Liberties award. But awarding someone for something they do is not to endorse everything they do.

Sometimes I worry that the amount of spin you use in posts will upset the anglular momentum of the earth and send us crashing into the sun or hurtling off into the void.

I think that wrapping it in bacon and calling it art is acceptable in a way that flushing it down the toilet as a means to get a confession isn’t.

Now, I think that flushing a holy book down the toilet to get a confession is acceptable in a way that water-boarding isn’t.

Personally, I think that sueing is fine. The ACLU isn’t there to discriminate which kind of case is worthy of their time, but to give a venue for those who feel disenfranchised to gain a voice. They’ve protected Christians from secular persecution, secularists from Christian persecution, Muslims from persecution by either group and either group from persecution by Muslims . . . the list goes on.

Ideally, the no-Koran-down-the-toilet case will lose, but hopefully their continued efforts to prevent torture will continue to gain momentum.

and I am amazed that the amount of spin used in the main stream media hasn’t done the same thing.

-Imp

flushing a koran down the toilet is as artistic as piss christ.

yes, there are far better ways to get a confession.

-Imp

Ahhh, but it wasn’t flushed down the toilet for artistic purposes, was it?

Well, at least it proves that the right and the left can work together for a common goal. :evilfun:

Too irrisistable;

Define art and how do you know it was not done with an artistic flourish? Are you saying a soldier cannot be capable of questioning a prisoner by doing artistic actions? That is profiling, shame shame shame.

If you are not there or did not hear the person who did the flushing side of the story, you cannot judge. Shame shame shame, that is so un PC. His or her upbringing may have led him to do such a thing it probably is not his fault. or hers, tsk tsk tsk…

Ok one last one;

We should get him/her for flushing nonregulation paper down a military toilet. Can you imagine what a plumber costs for a gov’t toilet? Bust em for wasting tax payers money in a nonregulation way. File 5 reports, one report gets read by 15 people who can’t do a darn thing about it. The one person that can is on a two year sabbatical at camp David. The other reports get stored incase of further need. Don’t forget to file it 10 times in a databank. Um what case was that again?

I am done for now. :smiley:

The definition of art that has become the most widely accepted in modern times is: Something that has been on display in an art gallery. While we could quibble over whether or not that is a fair definition, it is one that works.

So, I think it is fair to say that the flushing to book down the toilet doesn’t meet that definition.

unusualmuseums.org/toilet/

beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html

allposters.com/-sp/Summer-To … 64110_.htm

nobodys-perfect.com/vtpm/pages/exhibithall.html

-Imp

I don’t see a Koran getting flushed down in any of those pictures.

sorry to hear that your imagination is so stunted…

:wink:

-Imp

If a student, I would detest uniforms, however, the policy was implemented to prevent “ganstas” from identifying other “gangstas,” the idea of “egalitarianism” came along to justify the uniforms.

Depends on the state, some provide the uniforms for those who are living in poverty.

Feed the tithe, and make a religious leader powerful and wealthy.

A game. :sunglasses:

LMFAO, please – many countries shred Bibles, and disallow Jews from entering.

Both are acceptable to this old lady if it prevents a terrorist from murdering a secular person. I include violent Christians and Jews in this statement.

Do you have a valid link discussing how they have fought for Christian religious freedom? Our laws designate “Freedom of Religion” not “From Religion.”

I am so bad — I would not only burn the Qur’ran, I would shred it and wrap it in pork and bury it. Carefully read it to understand my stance. The Bible (Torah) is very violent, but it is not nearly as violent as the Qur’ran and hadiths.

:sunglasses:

This would be an example where the ACLU intervened to help a Christian and, indeed, seem to share your idea that freedom of religion does not entail freedom from religion.

As for the rest – you make yourself as bad as them. Not a policy I would advocate.