I know I can't be the only one, why is this group allowed to still exist in this day and age in America? I don't understand this, can anyone explain this to me?
I Hate The KKK
- Thread starter Ja'far at-Tahir
- Start date
By what law would you prevent it?
Pretty much, if you don't advocate armed over throw of the US govt, and don't do anything illegal, you have the right to assemble and say any damn thing you want about anybody or anything to your members.
Freedom is a tad messy at times.
Arthur
Pretty much, if you don't advocate armed over throw of the US govt, and don't do anything illegal, you have the right to assemble and say any damn thing you want about anybody or anything to your members.
Freedom is a tad messy at times.
Arthur
Why are the Islamic terrorists allowed to exist or the Nazi party ? These groups are the fringe of society and use others to their own advantage. The only way to get rid of them is through educating the public as to what these groups are doing and shedding light upon them so others do not become involved.
It's clear what this group is about, believes and does, they are purely reactionary and a hinderance to the progress of American society, why should they exist?
In other words, according to American law, the klan would be more protected and excepted than Leftist groups such as Communists and Anarchists?
To quote Lenin, freedom for who? To do what? Blind freedom just seems silly.
For the same reason that the communist party and the Nazi party are allowed to exist. In America, we believe in freedom of speech. Driving hate speech underground does more to protect the purveyors of hate than it does to protect the public.
Don't let them hide in corners and grumble about an oppressive government that won't let them speak the truth.
Let them speak. Let them reveal themselves to the world for all to see, and right thinking people will reject them as the close minded bigots they are.
Because you really can't make an acceptable law that would deny them the right to exist. Any law you make would ultimately result in the Govt deciding what groups can and can't exist, but what would be the criteria you would use and who would decide if the group met the criteria.
I wouldn't say they are more protected, they are allowed to exist without interference.
I think madanthony covered this one pretty well.
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BysLCCLdWKA
Arthur
superstring01
Moderator
The fact that you ask this question is proof positive that you don't understand the USA. There are unbending supreme laws here; laws and freedoms which the government cannot alter except upon very great effort (see: the constitutional amendment process).
A "free" society doesn't sit around dictating what its citizens engage in, as long as they don't harm other citizens. "Harm" does not consist of offense or insult. A society in which people are free from insult and offense is not a free society. Better to shine the light of knowledge on these groups and let society see them for what they are.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
Prove it.
The communist party exists here and nominates candidates for officers. . . unless you're bringing up bullshit that happened 60 years ago.
Well, the fact that your using quotes from a tyrant would be the first mistake. The second is in assuming that just because someone famous said it, that it somehow is relevant.
While "blind freedom" may be silly, it is significantly less silly than assuming that you have the wisdom to decide who can believe what, and just as silly to regulate the lives of citizens. A government that has that power is but a few steps from telling Christians and Muslims who to pray to and regulating daily life beyond that which is absolutely necessary.
~String
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
And the answer to Lenin is "for all" and "for whatever they want." I trust that freedom in the hands of the masses will lead to good results, with the masses themselves policing the nuttier outcomes that could occur. In that way, extremists can never win as a result of the exercise if liberty alone...because by definition an extremist is never going to be in the majority.
Again, it is possible that the masses will surprise me and support some position I completely abhor, but that is a theoretical problem only. In practice, the mass of Americans are good people and keep the country good in the long run. We stand guard against the excesses of each other.
Lenin's answer was "Freedom "for Lenin and his supporters" to do "whatever Lenin and his elites wanted to do." That didn't work out so well, since by the early 1920's they'd allowed Stalin to take over the reins of power. I'd take blind freedom and its inherent checks and balances over a system like Stalin's.
Does that mean that dumbos get to speak and believe what they want to believe? Yes. And that fact alone let's us know who, what and where they are, and to guard against their gaining too much power.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I personally think an action like burning of the Quran is more that just an insult due to obvious religious reasons even when faced with US supreme laws. Hint: freedom of religion.
I've given my serious answer to this thread, but I must admit that the first thing that came to my mind when reading the thread title was this immortal scene from the Blues Brothers:
First of all, you're way off topic..
Secondly, you are fully entitled to your freedom of religion here in America.
As many of us have told you in another thread though, that has nothing to do with burning books..
If I buy a book, I have the right to burn it.
You have personally told me before, that you would have NO problem whatsoever with me, if I burned a Bible or a Torah.
But, if I burn a Qu'ran, I'm somehow infringing on your right to freedom of religion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I also posted in that thread I'm not aware whether or not it's prohibited to burn Torah or bible if it is then it should also be more than just an insult to burn those books.
As far as the law goes here, you can burn any book you want, providing the book belongs to you.
I can't grab a book out of your hand, and burn it obviously.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I'm not concerned with the law in this case.
Then you are just debating personal opinion. Which goes no where.
And we're not concerned that you're not concerned with the law. It is the law, and that's that.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
You've (repeatedly) stated your opinion about burning the Koran; and neither I, nor the overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned that you think it should be against the law.
superstring01
Moderator
Hint: Nobody's "freedom of religion" was violated by the government or any individual. Burning a privately owned and purchased book is any citizen's right, regardless of how sensitive some members of society are.
~String