Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

April 03, 2011

Reid & Graham Propose Rape Of First Amendment, Implementation Of Sharia Blasphemy Code


BURN, BABY, BURN!

Here in America, you can burn an American flag with the full protection of the US Constitution. You can burn a copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. You can legally burn a cross. You can display a crucifix in a jar of urine or a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in animal feces -- and get funding from the taxpayer to do so. But if Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham have their way, you won't be able to burn or deface one particular book -- Muhammad's Big Book of Lies, AKA the Quran.

Here's Reid's take.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Sunday that some members of Congress were considering some kind of action in response to the Florida Quran burning that sparked a murderous riot at a United Nations complex in Afghanistan and other mayhem.

And Graham's.

I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder.

But interestingly enough, there are no murders taking place because of blasphemy against Christian beliefs of the burning of Bibles. Heck, the US government actually burns inconvenient Bibles lest Muslims be offended. Somehow these enemies of freedom of speech didn't see a need to investigate or hold hearings on that action by the government using taxpayer dollars -- but they want to investigate a private individual who burned a single book that he purchased with private dollars? Really?

What this means, of course, is the replacement of the First Amendment with the Sharia Code -- hence my decision to put that video at the top of the page. What next? Punishment for me for daring to show these cartoons again?

danish1.jpg



danish002.jpg



danish003.jpg



danish004.jpg



danish005.jpg



danish006.jpg



danish007.jpg



danish008.jpg



danish009.jpg



danish010.jpg



danish011.jpg



danish012.jpg

After all, these cartoons were the excuse used by Muslims to riot and murder -- obviously Americans need to be prohibited from publishing or seeing these, since they offend Muslims during time of war.

Some argue that burning a Quran is "crying fire in a crowded theater". When they invoke that metaphor, they forget where it came from -- Schenck v. United States -- and the full quote.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

The operative word there is FALSELY -- because after all, there are circumstances when shouting fire in a theater would be fully justified -- such as when there actually is a fire, or when doing so is a part of the performance itself. And indeed, the central holding of Schenck -- that Congress could prohibit speech that had a "clear and present danger" of causing harm -- was explicitly overturned a half-century later in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The later case held that the speech had to be intended to provoke "imminent lawless action" and be likely to do so -- which would mean that Terry Jones' Quran burning session could NEVER be prohibited under the US Constitution because he lacked the intent to provoke violence and the violence that did eventually come about happened half a world away due to the incitement of others in that country.

Others, of course, try to argue that Quran burning can be banned on the basis that they constitute "fighting words, as defined in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which allows for the banning of that class of speech which are of slight social value and "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." That argument fails, though, in a case like this one -- after all, the Quran burning took place as a part of a larger effort to refute the ideas the book contains. While one might argue that burning a Quran could be banned if it were done outside the doors of a mosque while prayers were in progress due to the likelihood of its inciting a breach of peace, the same cannot be said when (as in this case) the deed is done in a Christian church with an audience that chose to come to witness the event. What's more, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to ban speech because it "invites dispute", "induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Moreover, the notion that a propensity for violence on the part of opponents of a message may be grounds for suppressing that message is itself antithetical to the First Amendment.

It is interesting that today, on Broadway, a play is running (to critical acclaim,, not White House condemnation) that mocks the beliefs of millions of Americans and profanes the name of their sacred text. Followers of that faith have not take to the streets in murderous rage, demanding an end to the performances and the punishment of those involved in the production. In Los Angeles, an art exhibit mocked Jesus Christ with no violence and no Congressional hearings. No, only the actions of one formerly obscure congregation have brought us to the point of making the United States follow Islamic religious teachings adopting a sharia-compliant blasphemy law -- because rather than insulting the beliefs of loyal Americans, someone trespassed against the religious code of America's enemies and those enemies killed innocents.





|| Greg, 07:23 PM || Permalink || Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Reid & Graham Propose Rape Of First Amendment, Implementation Of Sharia Blasphemy Code

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/277812
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Reid & Graham Propose Rape Of First Amendment, Implementation Of Sharia Blasphemy Code'.

Comments on Reid & Graham Propose Rape Of First Amendment, Implementation Of Sharia Blasphemy Code

We also don't prosecute those who commit PC permitted crimes of false accusation. (see: Crystal Mangum)

|| Posted by L. Steven Beene II, April 6, 2011 02:33 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs