Burning the Koran: Freedom of Speech?

Terry Jones, a preacher in a small Florida church, is making a name for himself as he plans to burn the Koran on September 11^th. General David Petraeus warned, in an e-mail to the Associated Press, last week that "Burning copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide." Americans already, especially our troops in the Middle East, have targets on their backs. Terry Jones is simply exercising his American born right to freedom of speech to send a message to the Muslims that America will not cower to Islam. I do not see why people are raising a fuss over this. If the media had not given this event the coverage it has then only the people in the 50 member congregation would have known about it. Instead the media blows this up and demonizes an American by using the military as its foil; how ironic is that?

When the dust up erupted over the Mosque being built so close to Ground Zero the same media zealots and White House stated emphatically that it was the Imam's Constitutional right to build. Why then are the same people going after Terry Jones for exercising his Constitutional right? Are Constitutional rights's only applicable to non-white, non-christen, non-male members of society? General Petraeus and President Obama, are you serious when you feel that after the book burning that our troops will have bigger targets on their backs? Really? Will the burning of the Koran enrage the radical elements of Islam? Of course it will but not any more or less than the existence of the Imperial West does already. Will other Muslims be irked by the burning? Probably but they too should understand the context of the burning as well. Just as many that I speak of are looking for the Tea Party to call out the fringe elements of the movement so should non-radical Muslims denounce the radical elements within their midst.

Much like the Mosque fiasco, no one can argue that Constitutionality of the event planned by Terry Jones instead the focus is on whether it is right or wrong. And if we don't want to send the wrong message to the world then either doesn't report it at all or report the event as one American exercising a freedom granted every citizen of the United States.

Free Speech?

The above billboard appeared in Mason City, Iowa and compares Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Now flash back to when Bush was in office and the following sign was held at a protest rally of Iraq war.

Both signs draw comparisons between sitting presidents and Hitler; yet one is blasted as racism while the other is lauded as free speech. Are both displays of free speech? What makes the comparison of Obama to Hitler racist? Plus, what is the fascination of comparing our President with Hitler? Is the current comparison to invoke Hitler's spirit for economic development? Hitler too did inherit a severe, actually more severe than Obama's claim, and brought Germany sustained economic growth until the Nazi Party crafted the "Final Solution" and sought out more land from neighboring countries. While the White House has held off comment to the recent billboard its owner, Kent Beatty, sees the billboard as "freedom of speech" but back peddled a bit by saying, "It doesn't reflect our views, necessarily" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_us/us_iowa_obama_billboard_3).

Which brings back up the question: Does the comparison of Obama to Hitler represent free speech or racism in action? How does it differ between comparing Bush and Hitler?

Pride Festival allows Brian Johnson to partake

Over the weekend the Twin Cities saw the GLBT community celebrate with a "Pride Festival". Last week the group was looking to bar Brian Johnson from being involved because of his views on homosexuality. After hearing of "Pride Festival" stance, I wrote the following to the Star Tribune (which was published in Saturday's paper): http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/97195119.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

The feud over Johnson smacks of hypocrisy. The Pride festival touts, on its website, that "nearly 400 vendors and exhibitors set up at the Pride Festival each year. From food and beverage to arts and crafts, employee groups and local nonprofit organizations, you can find just about anything you're looking for at the Pride Festival." But if the judge had not ruled, you would not have been able to find Brian Johnson.

Where did the tolerance, diversity and compassion go with Pride organizers? Jim Kelley, Pride festival manager, stated in the Star Tribune that "free speech and liberty belong to everyone. We are leasing this space, and if someone came into your home and started telling you what an awful family you have, [they] can have that opinion; [they] just can't have it in your house."

Again, where is the tolerance? What better place to discuss, openly, the topics concerning the community than at Pride? Or is tolerance of others only saved for the oppressed, downtrodden and castoffs of society?

When I opened the Sunday paper I was happy to hear that Johnson and his group were allowed to walk among the Pride Festival. From all accounts that I have read both yesterday and today, of the Pride Festival is that Johnson's group did not create the type of disruption that officials thought might take place.