More Lindsey Graham on Koran-burning: “I wish we could hold people accountable for their actions, but under free speech, you can’t”
posted at 6:04 pm on April 4, 2011 by Allahpundit
My first draft of the headline was “Good news: Lindsey Graham doesn’t want to ban Koran-burning after all,” but that’s not quite true. He recognizes that you can’t ban it constitutionally and that a constitutional amendment to ban it wouldn’t pass, but wanting to ban it?
That’s a bit more nuanced.
NRO: Some of my National Review colleagues are being pretty rough on you today. What is your response to some of the outrage on the right about your comments regarding free speech?
GRAHAM: General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to ban Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that. I don’t like burning the flag under the idea of free speech. That bothers me; I have been one of the chief sponsors of legislation against burning the flag. I don’t like the idea that these people picket funerals of slain servicemen. If I had my way, that wouldn’t be free speech. So there are a lot of things under the guise of free speech that I think are harmful and hateful…
NRO: But don’t you fear that if we let Islamic extremists determine the speech debate in the United States, then we’ve lost something?
GRAHAM: No. Here’s what I fear: I fear that politicians don’t have any problem pushing against laws in the Middle East that are outrageous. It’s perfectly acceptable for me to push back against prosecutions by Islamic countries against people of my faith. And it is perfectly appropriate for me to condemn Koran burning when the general who is in charge of our troops believes that such action would help. I’m not letting Islamists determine what free speech in America is, but I am, as a political leader, trying to respond to the needs of our commander. You’ve got to remember, General Petraeus decided that this was important enough to get on the record as being inappropriate. And I want to be on the record with General Petraeus.
NRO: Instead of being an advocate for Petraeus, should you not first and foremost be an advocate for the First Amendment?
GRAHAM: You know what? Let me tell you, the First Amendment means nothing without people like General Petraeus…
NRO: What I don’t understand is, if would you support an amendment to ban flag burning, why do you not support one to ban Koran burning?
GRAHAM: In my view, the flag represents who we are as a nation. It is a symbol of who we are. If you start talking about individual acts of religious intolerance, the amendment doesn’t make any sense. It does make sense, to me, to focus on the symbol of the country, the flag. I’m not proposing that we propose a ban on religious disagreement. I am saying that you can disagree with America; you can disagree with me, but don’t burn the one symbol that holds us together. That’s not an act of speech. They say that is symbolic speech, but I think that is a destructive act. It’s the one thing that unites us.
Yet when it comes to regulating what individual churches may do, or what individual citizens may do under the guise under religion, you are not going to be able to write a constitutional amendment to ban those practices. There is no way to do that. I wish we could hold people accountable for their actions, but under free speech, you can’t.
Read the whole interview. The excerpts don’t capture the full flavor, especially the effusiveness with which he defers to Petraeus when pressed to defend a constitutional right here at home. (Incidentally, did Petraeus call for a “ban” on Koran-burning? His statement yesterday condemned the practice but I haven’t seen anything about calling for a ban.) What’s interesting, and telling, is how he oscillates between wishing we could sanction Koran-burning on its own terms (“harmful and hateful”) and wishing we could sanction it for expedient reasons, because it increases the risk to troops in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan (the “we’re at war” justification). I can sympathize with the latter even if I think it’s horribly misguided because, in his own short-sighted way, he means well. He’s trying to produce a good-ish outcome in Afghanistan, and the fewer pretexts there are for the local mullahs — and Hamid Karzai! — to drive true believers into a frenzy over blasphemy, the better. That’s why Petraeus gets a pass on this from a lot of people even though Graham doesn’t: He’s narrowly focused on a military mission whereas Graham should be weighing a variety of considerations, starting with the virtues of free speech. But I don’t know where the limiting principle is in the “hateful and harmful” calculus, and I’d bet that, if pressed, he doesn’t either. Again: This guy would have been a top contender for Attorney General if McCain had been elected. Amazing.
Update: NRO has amended the part where Graham says Petraeus was calling for a ban; it now reads “urging our government to [condemn] Koran burning.” It’s not clear if that was Graham’s mistake or theirs, but either way, the record is corrected.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Muslumism is ok, though.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 1:13 PM
Brennan and Hagel are Muslims now.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Obama/Holder/Hagel/Brennan, the Muzzie cabal, enabling the muzzie brotherhood, apace.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM
A lot of cafeteria Constitutionalists here today.
This seems like perfectly sound policy.
And since Sarah Palin’s all upset about it – it must be.
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM
It’s not “new” – Benghazi haooened a long time ago… love the newspeek…
the policy was changed 6 months ago after not even being needed for almost 75 years.
Ed, I think your apologetics are way off here…
Gay? Out and proud and the military must not only accept it BUT encourage it as fully supported as any other relationship because the US supports civil liberties…
Religious? Don’t ask, don’t tell because the first amendment means religious people are 2nd class citizens and you need to keep that ship in the closet.
Skywise on May 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Brilliant use of logic.
tetriskid on May 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM
You’re including yourself in that description, right?
If this is how the constitution was really meant to be interpreted there would be NO military chaplains…
Skywise on May 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM
To a facist…
tommyboy on May 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM
You know who this hurts? Wiccans.
Capitalist Hog on May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Not really. When the determining factor is someone’s “discomfort” the stage is set to harass and intimidate.
darwin on May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Also, evangelical-Sharia.
Capitalist Hog on May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM
I wasn’t aware Wiccans were required to proselytize as part of their faith…
Golly it’s almost like you were making a snarky comment from an uninformed position…
Skywise on May 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Of those I see proselytizing, Christians trail atheists by a mile.
I wonder if our moral guardians at the DoD are forbidding atheist proselytization as well? Or is it just those radical evangelicals?
applebutter on May 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM
LOL. And, I bet that you believe that the ‘wall of separation of church and state’ has been something that the Court has recognised since the beginning of the country.
To better learn about the free exercise and establishment clauses, go read Vidal v Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 127 (1844), Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) for four case examples, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (still applicable to the Feds), which was passed by – wait for it – a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
Under the law, the definition of proselytising can no more be based on the subjective nature of another claiming to be made to feel ‘uncomfortable’ than free speech can be limited because someone says something that ‘hurts’ another person’s feelings. There is an OBJECTIVE, DEFINITIVE definition and that is what must be used.
BTW, yesterday, you said that I never post anything supportive about President Obama.
NOW, HEAR THIS!
I support his administration’s decision to appeal the district judge’s decision in Plan B.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM
well, religion is just a lifestyle choice, after all…
sesquipedalian on May 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM
All but one
tommyboy on May 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM
That’s funny right there.
Paul-Cincy on May 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Muslim Groups demanded that the US Military erase all training material that taught Islamic Extremist Ideology…and the U.S. government did so, not only in the military but in the FBI and CIA as well….all because CAIR & other Muslim groups – some connected to terrorist groups – demanded it be done.
NOW, the military is being stripped of its christian faith, which this nation was founded upon, all because (I am betting) those same groups who want us to convert to Islam or be killed, want it to be so?!
Of course, as Obama knows well through his being tutored by frank marshall Davis & studying Saul Alinsky, Socialism requires all ‘things’ people are dependent upon – family, religious faith, etc – EXCEPT for the GOVERNMENT to be eliminated. Obama said he was going to ‘fundamentally change’ the U.S. D@mn if he ain’t doing it!
easyt65 on May 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Christians of all persuasions should shout from the rooftops. Let the bastards at DoD arrest and prosecute everybody!
Mr. Grump on May 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM
And if he were in uniform today…there’s a question.
Met and knew a few who knew Father Kapaun…he proselytized in some of their darkest most horrible days…fearlessly…and probably died solely for that reason.
Raised up a lot of good men from despair…with Holy Word and his own saintly actions. They came back.
He did not.
Would his actions run counter to this Pentagon policy?
coldwarrior on May 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Indeed.
“I am Spartacus!!!”
“No, I am Spartacus!”
“I am Spartacus!”
coldwarrior on May 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM
They must end all Christian proselytizing and all fidelity to the First Amendment as it gets in the way of all their bowing and scraping to Islam and Muslims.
VorDaj on May 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Unless of course you’re muslim.
Ward Cleaver on May 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM
You’re all over the place.
On topic – you agree with the anti-proselytizing policy and enforcement today? And find Palin’s blathering ridiculous?
Your avowed atheism aside…pretty clear Establishment Clause backs this…yes?
And Gitmo…you’ve sullied your ‘civil libertarian’ credentials with your position on that one.
Seems there were bits in the NDAA you could embrace.
Plan B –
Why would you ‘support’ Obama on this one?
Seems as you’ve said accept the reality that abortions will happen no matter what, you’d welcome safe available contraceptive measures.
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Any action, or even word, that runs counter to serving Islam and Muslims runs counter to pentagon policy. Just kiss another Koran and throw another Bible in the fire and be a good little dhimmi soldier.
VorDaj on May 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM
let me guess.
never served did you?
dmacleo on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM
F the whole pentagon. They have become a way overpriced mega mosque.
VorDaj on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Ed, you need to get your head out of the sand and start putting 2+2 together. If you stand by your assertion that…
…then please explain how you can overlook this…
…when that man wrote this…
Ed, I will await your response…
dominigan on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM
When will the White House be renamed Dar es-Salaam?
Already got a once-mohammedan genuine Peace Prize winner livin’ there.
coldwarrior on May 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Yep.
coldwarrior on May 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM
You can bet this comes directly from Obama, the Muslim in Chief.
Axion on May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Our Founding Fathers are rollig in their graves… Marx is doing a jig in his, & Osama is partying with his 72 virgins over this.
Dude, what happened to my military…and my country?!
Will the last American out please bring the flag?!
easyt65 on May 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Oh what a disgrace if such a despised and base cult, which worships a misogynist pedophile demon, should be allowed to take control at the pentagon! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if we do not promptly and fully stand with those who are being attacked and silenced for their Christian faith! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against other of the faithful now all unite and go against the Mohammedans in a Holy Crusade and end with total victory this war against monstrous evil which should have been begun and completed long ago.
Let those who for too long a time have been dhimmis, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting in service of Mohammedans against their own Christian brothers and sisters and their own Jewish cousins now fight in a proper way against all the followers and enablers of the misogynist pedophile demon. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul in vain attempt to win the small minds and dark hearts of the Mohammedans now redeem themselves and labor for glorious honor against them.
Behold! On the one side will be the completely destroyed Mohammedans and their allies and servants, on the other the fierce and righteous protectors of humanity. On the one side will be the destroyed enemies of the Lord, on the other, his friends who will shout at all the Mohammedans and their enablers as they destroy them, “Deus vult! Deus vult! Deus vult!”
RasThavas on May 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM
The whole goal of this and other policies is to turn those people away from the military that are it’s backbone: Religious, southern men. Once that’s accomplished the Army and Marine Corps will look like the Airforce and we will try to fight every war with technology from a far with a bunch of metro sexual kids from the city.
dpierson on May 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM
So let me get this straight….
1) Homosexuals are allowed in the military…
2) Officers can become members of Jihadist webs sites & threaten to behead their fellow officers if they refuse to convert to Islam without fear of repercussions (Hassan/Ft Hood prior to his attack), but…
3) The military is right now attempting to kick one of its members out for Christian ‘proselytizing’…
(Playing ‘taps’ for the US Military / United States…)
easyt65 on May 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM
do minivan, that is absolutely shocking. That man is raging mad at Christians.
tom daschle concerned on May 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Spot on — Desert Storm, the obliteration of the Iraqi military when we freed Kuwain from Hussein’s invasion was one of the worst things that ever happened to us. it was over in just a few days, the media showed how our air power destroyed the miles long convoy heading back north in retreat! Everyone believed that air power was the new way to go, that we didn’t need the ground units anymore, & that the Air Force could win the war by themselves in just days!
We got a dose of reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, bloodily brought back to earth.
easyt65 on May 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM
You’re out of tune.
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Polygamy “…is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.” 136 U.S. 1, LATE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. UNITED STATES, May 19, 1890.
Head Quarters, New York, May 15, 1776.
Parole Barre. Countersign Dublin.
The Continental Congress having ordered, Friday the 17th. Instant to be observed as a day of “fasting, humiliation and prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God, that it would please him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions, and to prosper the Arms of the United Colonies, and finally, establish the peace and freedom of America, upon a solid and lasting foundation”–The General commands all officers, and soldiers, to pay strict obedience to the Orders of the Continental Congress, and by their unfeigned, and pious observance of their religious duties, incline the Lord, and Giver of Victory, to prosper our arms.
-Gen. Washington, General Orders, May 15, 1776
Emphasis mine.
Akzed on May 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Charles “LGF” Johnson has met his best companion and it is the deranged Mikey Weinstein.
I wonder if the Pentagon will or might explain to the American taxpayers WHY they “hired Mikey Weinstein” for ANYthing, much moreso as an advisor on “religious” anything since he’s what I’d call the epitome of proselytizing Atheists.
The hiring of such an irrational person as that by that taxpayer-funded organization REQUIRES an explanation. To the taxpayers.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM
The Obama Admin. just can’t be bothered with the counsel of Olde White Guys who fought for and founded this nation…
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Where in this story is congress reportedly making a law respecting an establishment of religion?
Akzed on May 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM
To the contrary, the free exercise clause clearly prohibits it.
tommyboy on May 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM
At verbaluce: easyt65 is “out of tune,” why, because he/she forgot to include:
5) You can wear a hijab on military bases but you can’t wear a cross, carry a rosary or a Bible.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM
It’s amusing how the Left hides everything it can in the Establishment Clause.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Muslims get special rooms built for them at taxpayer expense so they can pray five times a day — exercise their religious practice — and if that ISN’T “proselytizing,” I don’t know what is.
By comparison, though there used to be chapels for Christian and Jewish use, those rooms/locations have been stripped of all Christian and/or Jewish symbolism and definition, if even provided.
By the way, are ISLAM prayer beads banned from the military now?
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Funny how in Liberalese “congress” has so many synonyms, like school board, public school teacher, county council meeting, city council meeting, football coach, courthouse lawn… while “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is downright untranslatable.
Akzed on May 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Yet, Charles Johnson bans any dissenting views from his blog in a heartbeat. I use to respect CJ but he turned out to be a little tyrant.
what a bitter old man he’s become…
b1jetmech on May 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Yes, you are so right.
Left also cannot translate “shall not be infringed”.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM
I agree with the policy that has been in effect since George Washington.
I don’t pay much attention to Palin.
As I said above, you really should read some caselaw on the Establishment Clause.
Nope. Enemy combatants are governed under the rules of war. They do not have full constitutional right and protections, privileges and immunities. As I also told you, they should be thankful that they were captured when Bush was POTUS and not FDR. Had FDR been President, they would have been tried before a military tribunal, had an appeal to the Supreme Court and executed in about 13 months.
Not as it applies to American citizens or foreign nationals on American soil not captured on a foreign battlefield. And, as for what is the battlefield, I do not agree with how Bush and Obama have defined it. Under the original AUMF, only those responsible for 9/11 and those who harboured them were fair game. Qaddafi and terrorists in Somalia or Yemen were NOT fair game.
Because I believe that the state should not interfere with the parent-child relationship except in the most extreme situations. If a 15 year-old girl can draw a 1-day suspension for bringing Advil to school, then, obviously, it strains logic to see why she should be able to purchase Plan-B without parental authorisation.
I have no problem with adults using Plan-B.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM
I can’t fathom how anyone would have a problem with the military forbidding the religious coercion of subordinates by their superior officers… unless they find such activity to be a perfectly acceptable exercise of piousness. Which, it’s quite obvious, many people here do. And they try to tell me that there’s no such thing as Christian Sharia law.
Oppression, as defined by socially “conservative” Christians: not letting us force our beliefs on others.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Its about the definition of coercion, especially since it relies on the feeling of another party. Show me another rule in the military that relies on feelings and not facts
dpierson on May 2, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Become? IMHO he was always bitter but hid it better then.
chemman on May 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Sexual Harassment.
chemman on May 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Yeah, I’m pretty sure no one here is supporting superior officers forcing their views on subordinates. Maybe you didn’t read the whole thread. Maybe you just like to make crap up. Maybe both.
darwin on May 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM
It’s even funnier that they don’t understand that, until 1833, Massachusetts had its own STATE CHURCH, which you were penalised for failing to attend with limited exceptions, and the adoption of the ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine by the Supreme Court did not occur until 1947 in Everson.
They will scream ‘Danbury Baptists! Danbury Baptists!’ Of course, when you ask them:
‘When is the last time a letter from anyone to another was held to be controlling law in the United States?’
It’s ‘crickets.’
Then, it’s ‘Yeah, but he was there. He wrote the Constitution. He would know!’
‘No, he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Madison was the primary author of the Constitution. Do you even realise that Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written?’
More ‘crickets.’
The fact of the matter, is if they would bother to read cases like those I cited above, their hair would curl…even if they were bald, especially with regard to Vidal v Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 127 (1844), which Justice Kennedy cited a few years ago, (‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania’) and Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), which not only ignored the dicta in Reynolds about Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, but recounted in great detail how all 44 state constitutions referenced God and Christianity.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Still has defined boundaries that are objectively evaluated once accused
dpierson on May 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Well, apparently coercion is defined as feeling “uncomfortable”.
darwin on May 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM
sharia, sheria [ʃəˈriːə]
n
(Non-Christian Religions / Islam) the body of doctrines that regulate the lives of those who profess Islam
[Arabic]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Source
When progressives cannot win, they twist words to mean what they want them to mean.
nobar on May 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM
The only thing that strains logic here is that you think these two scenarios are even remotely comparable. You’re either the worst or the most dishonest “lawyer” in existence to try and draw a parallel between the arbitrary rules that public schools enforce on their students and the laws (or in this case, HHS regulations) that apply to those students outside of school.
Allow me to offer a slight reworking of your idiotic blather to demonstrate how absurd it is: “If a 15-year-old girl can draw a 1-day suspension for wearing an offensive shirt to school, then, obviously, it strains logic to see why she should be able to purchase offensive shirts without parental authorization.” Ergo, Hot Topic must now card every teenager before selling them clothes.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Yep, so I can say the same thing to two people and if one feels uncomfortable then I am guilty. As I mentioned before, even sexual harassment has a reasonable standard of proof. Here nothing is required other than a “feeling”
dpierson on May 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Tell that to the AF Master Sergeant that my Squadron Commander tried to punish (Art 15) and then court martial for flipping the bird to another driver for stupidity while driving on the flight line. He had two new female A1C’s he was teaching how to drive the flight line at the time. They felt they were sexually harassed. I did the initial investigation as the MSgt worked for me. The gals admitted that all he did was flip the other driver the bird but that it made them feel uncomfortable. The court martial destroyed his career over a feeling. Maybe the AF has gotten better since then (1984) but I have my doubts.
chemman on May 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM
I think you just demonstrated how absurd you are.
darwin on May 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Yes I have seen unfounded accusations of sexual harassment destroy careers also, but this is going to be much worse. It will be used as a get out jail free card by every private\airman\seaman to make life miserable for their leaders.
dpierson on May 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Apples and oranges. That offensive shirt might draw a suspension but can’t generally result in physical harm. Hormone based drugs that can stop a pregnancy can result in severe medical emergencies for the taker of which then the parents of the 15 year old is responsible for the costs and heartaches that ensue.
BTW that offensive shirt will usually result in the school having the student turn it inside out or giving them a suitable replacement for the day.
chemman on May 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Agree.
chemman on May 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM
PC will kill all.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM
OK, genius, try this one:
The same 15 year-old girl needs a prescription to purchase birth control pills, but not Plan-B.
My point is two-fold:
1. The state should not interfere in the parent-child relationship except in extreme situations. This has been the law forever.
2. If we, as adults, society, government, schools, do not think students are capable enough of making decisions about Advil (and I am not talking about giving it to another student) in school, then why should we believe that the same students are sufficiently informed to decide whether Plan-B is appropriate for them?
Wouldn’t it be better for a teenager to have adult supervision when taking such a medication in case there are complications? We know that kids hide things. I would want to know if my daughter had taken Plan-B so that I could watch for any sign of problems before she had a severe reaction or complications that could affect her for life or cause her death. Paediatricians tell parents to watch their children when they give them acaetaminophen, antibiotics, and other medications. They tell them not to give them aspirin because of certain fatal complications.
Why do you find it unreasonable for a parent to want to have some say in what her 15 year-old daughter is doing or taking?
Would you say that the parent should have no say if the government said that kids at 15 should be able to smoke pot, drink alcohol, and do whatever they wanted even if there are rules in the house?
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM
The possibility of resulting in “physical harm” is totally superfluous to her example. Of course, if you’d like, I could change “offensive shirt” to “plastic butter knife” or some other thing, the possession of which can get a student suspended from school, and which could arguably be used in a dangerous way (and before you tell me “NUH UH”, they don’t allow plastic butter knives in prison either; I’ll let you contemplate why that is). That’s about as “dangerous” as Plan B is when used properly.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM
verb is on the loose, again.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Who changed the topic to Plan B?
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM
Head Quarters, New York, May 15, 1776.
Parole Barre. Countersign Dublin.
The Continental Congress having ordered, Friday the 17th. Instant to be observed as a day of “fasting, humiliation and prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God, that it would please him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions, and to prosper the Arms of the United Colonies, and finally, establish the peace and freedom of America, upon a solid and lasting foundation”–The General commands all officers, and soldiers, to pay strict obedience to the Orders of the Continental Congress, and by their unfeigned, and pious observance of their religious duties, incline the Lord, and Giver of Victory, to prosper our arms.
-Gen. Washington, General Orders, May 15, 1776
~
But of course, you know best.
Akzed on May 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Nah, Verb runned off.
Akzed on May 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Am I reading you right here? The state is proactively interfering in the parent-child relationship by not forbidding the purchase of Plan B by minors?
Again: schools set all sorts of arbitrary rules that would not and could not hold up as laws. I’m not aware of any laws that forbid the purchase of Advil by minors.
Doctors (justifiably) tell parents that they shouldn’t let their kids eat junk food and drink soda either. Do you think federal agencies should be passing regulations banning minors from buying junk food and soda? After all, it is unhealthy; it can even be lethal for diabetics.
I don’t. Responsible parents should know what their minor children are doing. But that’s their job, not the government’s.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my position here? I’ve never once said that parents should be restricted from anything here. This is about government regulations.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM
RWM
(And you say I’M on the loose?)
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM
I’m sorry to read you’re such a scaredy cat about us mean ole “monster” Christians.
I’ve heard and read more harassment from atheists in my lifetime than ever have I heard Christians writing about their faith.
And why should anyone believing as they will be a problem for you? I doubt you’re being kept awake at night by “nightmares” of Jesus.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM
You are, but that’s nothing new :)
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM
I guess you’ve never read the insert. As someone, who has experienced more than my fair share of adverse ‘side affects’ from medications and surgery, I am not so flippant about it. Hell, I am allergic to Benadryl, the allergy medication.
If the government sets curfew at 1:00 AM, but the parents have an 11:00 PM curfew in their house, which should apply to the child?
And, I am not talking about how curfew laws are currently written where the government sets a ceiling and parents can make their children come home when they want. I am asking you, if the state said, all children can stay out until 1:00 AM, but some parents want their children to come home at 11:00 PM, which should control?
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Okay, you’ve convinced me. Let’s turn back the clock 300 years. In fact, why stop there? Let’s go back to Renaissance Italy when the Vatican was the most powerful political entity in the world. That’s what a little religious tyrant like you would really like, isn’t it?
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Let’s get off of it. I didn’t mean to change the topic to Plan B. All that I said was that I supported Obama’s decision to appeal the district judge’s ruling…because Verb said that I never support anything he does.
So, let’s not tarry on either subject any longer. My original point was made.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM
Agreed. It’s an ongoing process to deconstruct the effectiveness (and purpose) of the US military. Just as has already been done by the Left as to public education, to name but one other national organization that at one time functioned well and as originally purposed.
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM
Math is hard.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM
Indeed…historically Armin derails threads by focusing on some abstract, related or not.
RWM, your analogy of “undocumented immigrants” with “undocumented guns” is absolutely brilliant. Meant to tell you last night.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM
You certainly are persistent in trying to change the subject and continue to fight with fantasies, aren’t you?
Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Math aside, Armin, here’s another one for you
15 June 1215, Magna Carta
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Well, we should probably forbid the sale of Benadryl to minors too, then.
This isn’t an even remotely applicable analogy and you know it. A parent could throw away their minor child’s Plan B. No government entity would attempt to stop them. Your hypothetical about what curfew time should “control” here is a stupid attempting at obfuscating the real issue with legalese.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Why go backword at all? Just go forward until this happens:
One day, you will learn. Sadly, it will be the hard way.
nobar on May 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM
I still stand by what I said.
I’ve actually had good arguments with progressives who are capable of putting together a cogent argument and defending it. That’s never the case with Jesus-addled socons. Their arguments start with “cuz God said so!1!!11″ and go downhill from there to personal insults, attempts at changing the subject, etc.
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Well you’re up to 2 ‘supportive’ comments on Obama.
(Don’t worry – I won’t tell anyone.)
I’m much more troubled by your Gitmo rationalizations.
But as that’s also OT…let’s not tarry on about that either.
verbaluce on May 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM
That sure was a confession.
tom daschle concerned on May 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Irony is a lost art on the part of progressives.
nobar on May 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM
No, it is about more than that. The judge said that the age limit was ‘arbitrary;’ yet, the law already sets age limits for many things. If a child is injured and wanted the tortfeasor to pay, I would have to file the complaint in the name of one of his parents, legal guardian or court-appointed custodian. If a document needs to be notarised, I have to confirm that the Affiant is a person of the age of majority or a legal representative, who is of the age of majority. Children under the age of majority, in almost all cases, can disavow contracts. We have age limits for drinking, driving, voting, health insurance, health procedures, financing, cigarettes, smoking pot, military service, etc.
We do these things because we recognise that a child is not mature enough to make certain decisions. When the government decides that children can purchase a medication without a prescription or adult supervision, it has cut parents out of the equation. That endangers the child and the parent-child relationship. It is also arbitrary. I mean, if we are going to talk about arbitrariness and government, we could look at all of the laws and regulations as the pertain to children. Aren’t they arbitrary, too?
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM
My Glock will become an ‘undocumented American.’
lol
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM
AP has a new thread up, on guns. Pls. post this, in full analogy context. It fits perfectly.
Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 4:12 PM
And so your solution is… more arbitrary laws? And you call yourself a libertarian? The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of medication a minor can purchase over-the-counter without a prescription or adult supervision. And not just medication, but numerous other things that could be dangerous if used improperly (or properly, even). The fact that you think Plan B should be singled out among all these other things that minors can purchase without any government interference whatsoever is a genuine head-scratcher to me. It really makes no sense. You yourself mentioned that Benadryl can be harmful. Do you think the sacrosanctity of the parent-child relationship compels the government to ban the sale of Benadryl to minors?
Armin Tamzarian on May 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM
I spent almost 17 years as a Christian and both my ex and my husband are Christians. I’ve always considered Christianity to be a strong-in the best sense-faith…yet lately, many Christians have started whining. Yes-WHINING. ‘Waaah, they’re so mean to us! Waaah!
Whiny Christianity is not was I was a part of for so long, and it’s not what my husband’s part of now.
YES-Christianity IS under attack-but so is-oh…non-liberal Judaism. Non Judeo-Christians who hold traditional values are also under attack. Traditional morality is under attack-but it’s not all about Christianity. Rather than whine-we need to join together to ‘fight the battle’!
*Jews don’t proselytize-so the Pentagon can’t ban Jews from doing what they don’t do anyway. *
annoyinglittletwerp on May 2, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Are you kidding me?
Cleombrotus on May 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Then, remove ALL age limits. Don’t have them for some things and not for others. Don’t require a 15 year-old girl to get a prescription for birth control pills and not require her to get one for Plan-B. You and the judge are arguing about the so-called ‘arbitrariness’ of the age limit for Plan-B, but fail to recognise the absurdity of your argument in the bigger picture.
Let 15 year-olds buy cigarettes, alcohol, all types of medications, porn magazines, etc.
Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Just make sure you don’t make the anti-Semites uncomfortable though.
Cleombrotus on May 2, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »