What is interesting is the mantra of the legal system in this country is that when determining whether a particular act incites to the point that free speech is overweighed by danger of incitement to violence is “the reasonable man standard”. The issue isn’t whether someone might be incited to violence, it is whether a “reasonable person” might be so incited.
I have watched as everyone reacted to Pastor Jones’ threat and especially the Supreme Court Justice who opined an exception in the usual free speech legal reasoning for burning the Koran. Whatever justification that Justice considers for such a restriction, it is wrong. If he is considering international reaction to the act, then he is subordinating our laws to international laws and sensibilities. If he is just considering public reaction here, then he is instituting Shari’ah law.
In times past, this country also had people who violently reacted to criticism or desecration of religious standards. But as our nation civilized itself, the “reasonable man” was slowly pressured not to react violently. This is why free speech encompasses burning the Bible or other sacred texts of Christianity or the flag: because the American “reasonable man (and woman)” will keep it in perspective (as you do) and not react violently.
If, however, we decide that today’s “reasonable man” includes hypersensitive Muslims, then we have changed the definition of an American, imported cultural changes to our law, and, indeed, adopted Shari’ah which imposes a higher standard on non-Muslims than Muslims.
We need to be able to officially tell Muslims in this country, they are here as guests and must adopt the American “reasonable man” code of behavior which includes tolerance of disrespect of our faith. Anything less, like this “reward”, is dhimmitude.
Meant, in that last paragraph, to say “tolerance of disrespect of THEIR own faith.” It’s early here on the West Coast and my fingers are more awake than my brain.
Might I add that the people through their contract, the US Constitution, with their government have given the government through both houses of congress the authority to establish courts, appoint judges and make laws that are to be enforced by those courts.
NOWHERE in the constitution does it give any PRIVATE organization or RELIGION the judicial authority to deprive any American of his life, liberty, property or due process of law unless granted by the laws of the United States and individual states and even then those laws still must pass constutional muster.
The individuals offering such rewards and are complicit in the intimidation or prosecution of any book burners need to cite where under the constitution they are granted the specific authority or be swiftly prosecuted, incarcerated and/or given substantial fines. And, that goes for the FBI or any governmental organization for their abuse of authority.
It's too early in the morning for me to get into all the issues this raises, and they are numerous, but I couldn't contain myself when I read this post! My hope is I got some of the points across to start people thinking about what's transpiring.
An interesting read concerning the Alinsky way: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm