The Dove World Outreach Center (DWOC), headed by Rev. Terry Jones has already triggered violence internationally with its promise this weekend to burn copies of the Koran (Qu’ran) and prompted our military commander in Iraq to speak out that such a hateful act would put the lives of U.S. soldiers in jeopardy. Jones, however, is unmoved and is willing to sacrifice someone’s son or daughter for his publicity stunt. Now, we are learning how really creepy this group is.
The 50-family Gainesville church is headed by Jones and his wife Sylvia. Its “Academy Rulebook” was written in November 2007 by Sylvia Jones. The rulebook restricts every part of the lives of students including cutting off contact with family members. They warn “[f]amily occasions like wedding, funerals or Birthdays are no exception to this rule . . . No phone calls. Exceptions can be made under certain circumstances but only after receiving permission.” Romantic relationships are barred: “there is no need to talk at all, or even flirt!” Students must be weighed repeatedly and are barred from “eating out in restaurants.” Students are told to “wash or shower at least once a day but not more then 2 a day,” and to be sure to cleanse “Mouth, sweat areas, hair, feet hands.”
For members have accused the Jones’ of abuse and using church funds for personal purposes. They appear to be in the furniture selling business, though allegations have been raised about the use of the church for this purpose (here).
Jones, 58, is the author of “Islam Is of the Devil” and models much of his lectures on the movie “Braveheart.”
Source: here.
Mike A.,
Well played, old bean. 100% agreement.
Mike A, Exactly. Well said.
Eniobob, thanks for the call to strength and persistance.
Byron,
While I agree with just about everything Mike A. had to say, I believe the best mode of jurisprudence applicable to this situation is pragmatism.
This is a media created monster that can be smothered in procedural delay until the pastor fades back into the background.
Bob Esq:
I think the threat of violence limits the social compact. If I threaten violence because I don’t like what so and so said and so and so is denied his rights how is the social compact upheld? Everyone and everything is now at odds with the compact, at that point there is no community.
Those who threaten violence in order to suppress speech should be denied the protection of the social compact.
Byron,
The social compact is concerned with protecting the rights of individuals in manner more beneficial than being simply in a state of nature.
We do not leave nature and enter society so others may engage in speech that puts us in greater jeopardy than in the place we left; i.e nature.
‘Likely to incite imminent lawless action’ is the trespass that society is duty bound to prevent.
As Bob, Esq. has pointed out, the key word in the incitement cases is “imminent.” My view is that this situation has become murky for cultural reasons. First Amendment jurisprudence has been fashioned within the context of a society possessing a common constitutional heritage. At the base of our understanding of free speech is the notion that both verbal and symbolic speech are entitled to protection regardless of the degree to which they may be considered offensive, whether the target of the speech is one’s religion, gender, sexual preferences, political beliefs or cultural attitudes. Thus, the public burning of the bible would not be deemed an act likely to produce “imminent lawless action” because within our constitutional tradition, it is understood that reasonable persons, although they might be deeply offended by such an act, accept the broad parameters of free speech rights. This is a sort of “sticks and stones” notion that finds general acceptance within the population. Although I would prefer not to be subjected to cruel or insulting speech, I recognize that tolerating behavior which is admittedly coarse, boorish, rude or even hateful is an acceptable price to pay for the benefit of knowing that I may freely express my own views on any topic without concern for running afoul of the law.
In the case of the proposed Koran burning, American views of free speech rights have collided head-on with a set of values that are wholly alien to our system of law. I have no idea what the penalty may be in Muslim countries for desecration of the Koran, but I assume that it is severe, perhaps even capital. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the idea that burning a Koran is a protected right is as absurd to Muslims as the idea that executing a rape victim to preserve her family’s honor is to Americans.
My opinion is that the preservation of constitutional freedoms in this country is so fundamental to our national identity that it cannot be compromised to satisfy the cultural or religious demands of other nations. We have seen the results of that sort of compromise in the spate of laws spreading across Europe and the U.K. which seek to criminalize virtually anything conceivably offensive to religious sensibilities. We cannot follow that path and retain our freedoms. While we have an obligation under the Constitution to accommodate all religious expression, that obligation does not extend to forfeiting basic freedoms. In the case of the present controversy, that means we must uphold the right of the moron in Gainesville to burn whatever he chooses to burn, and explain as best we can to Muslims that in this country, religion does not supersede the Bill of Rights.
Bob Esq:
good point, but then we can say that anything violates the social compact and thus are transported to tyranny. The social compact reaches only so far. Thus how do your protect the compact from itself?
lottakatz,
Belleville IL just recently banned burning yard waste and it is being considered where I live. W/o getting into some boring details, I am happy with the waste laws/regulations where I live.
James, One thing I will definitely agree with you on, the guy is batshit crazy. LOL Yeah, I think it is a close call but I think the obviousness of the risk posed raises the issue of the pastor’s intent.
James M.
As you know the right of free speech is context sensitive. The pastor has cited his intent to engage in reckless & malicious speech; speech that the entire world has warned will result in outcomes that are blatantly obvious. The world has warned the pastor that he is directing his speech in such a way as to
likely incite imminent lawless action; be it riots or terrorist like reprisals.
Byron,
Regale me with the part of the social compact or constitution that gives the Pastor the right to ‘speech’ that puts other members of society in danger?
lottakatz:
“‘God will never give you more than you can handle’
Paul tells us: “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength but with your testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). Over time that promise has become abbreviated to “God will never give you more than you can handle.” Like many others, I’ve derived comfort from these words, though I know God does not “give” me loss, pain and grief. “
Bob, Esq.,
No amount of knowledge or recklessness is going to turn the pastor’s act into advocacy for imminent violence. If jde is right and the pastor does intend his publicity stunt to kill U.S. soldiers or civilians, that would obviously be different.
jde,
I suppose I misunderstood your argument then.
It is different because it is likely to be a direct cause of the loss of life. To my knowledge, no one has ever been incited to kill or seriously injure someone else because a flag has been burned.
If by that, you meant that it was your belief that the pastor really wanted his burning the Koran to get U.S. citizens killed, then I suppose I’d just have to disagree with you (while agreeing that the guy is batshit crazy), but we may not actually be disagreeing about what the relevant legal standard is.
Bob Esq:
how do you resolve the evil of burning books with the good of free speech? Which is worse? Personally I think a curtailment of free speech would be worse. The government, in my opinion, does not have a right to prevent the pastor from burning books. But a civilized community should shun anyone who is so inclined.
jde, yes I’m near St. Louis. That description of county government corruption sounded familiar huh? 🙂 I would have though it SOP for all local government. Maybe you read about the trash case or have your own despotic trash hauling laws? I’m getting worse service for more money now. That was not a surprise to me 🙂
here is the ultimate book burning and the statement at the end sums it up:
Kevin,
You’re so full of shit you’re gonna float away.
jde, Bob,Esq,James M, If a prosecution based on the cases and law you cite comes about it’s gong to be a doozy. What James M said deserves reiteration:
“Burning the Koran is no different from burning the Bible or whatever Oprah’s book of the month is. It can’t be treated differently because of what asshole terrorists will do in response, or we start a downward spiral in which any group willing to commit unprovoked acts of terrorism gets to set the limits of free speech.”
A case that would result in a finding that prior restraint or punishment should ensue because a deluded, militant group of evildoer’s, no matter how marginal to the dictates to acceptable behavior in a ‘civilized’ world might be offended and take some violent action is the end of the First Amendment. Just for starters there would be no speech allowed regarding any treaty we have with any other government or any internal business practices of any trading partner. Yes, it’s a shame about all those Chinese workers making $0.31 cents an hour, working 14-16 hour shifts, living 8-10 to a room in gated worker barracks that are killing themselves so we can have our iPhones but, better not say anything or that crazy bunch of Chinese free-trader militants will start killing American visitors to China.
Hmmm, I was aiming for hyperbole there but considering the makeup of the SCOTUS and the vested special interests involved it doesn’t seem so far-fetched as it did as I was writing it.
Pie is good.