Silence at Remembrance Day ceremony disrupted by protestors

[Richard B the EMT]

1) While I am Jewish, I will continue to say "Merry Christmas" to anyone who has not specifically asked me not to say that to them, as it is against their religion.

1-A) No one has ever made that request of me.

2) It was told to me, a child from a Jewish household went to a Catholic friend's house, and, in deference to his yeshiva's teachings, when telling his parents about it, commented on the beautiful "Winter Vacation" tree his friend had.

3) I, and others of other religions, have joked about me putting up a "Hanuka Bush" for the season. So far, I have not done so.

4) As for the Sikhs in the RCMP, it is my understanding that both sides made concessions on that, the RCMP allowing the turbans in the first place, and the Sikhs using colors corresponding to the uniform colors, with the "Cap Device", normally worn on the front of the uniform hat, being on the front of the turban.

5) Rock Shoes quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Thanks, never knew the origin prior to seeing it here) as saying : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I had always thought it was "I will defend to YOUR death your right to say it".

6) Numerous times now, as a spectator, I have attended, in late May or early June, a cultural "Pow-Wow" and crafts show at the Gateway National Recreation Area-Floyd Bennett Field division, where a religious leader from one of the tribes (bands, for the Canadian's reference) offers up an event opening prayer. I have already stated I am Jewish, and now say I cannot understand anything but the (American style) English language (a personal failing, as I've tried learning Spanish and Hebrew, both unsuccessfully), but I stand quietly out of deference to the "Native Americans" and "First Nation" members whom I am standing next to. Call it simple respect for another culture and /or religion.

6-A) When they do their "Grand Entrance" Parade, they also welcome Veterans, LEOs, Fire Fighters, and EMS providers to join them, so I have also been, if only within that limitation, accepted by them.

6- A girlfriend of mine, from many years prior to Lady J, found out she was Deneh Navajo, and raised separately from her birth family (she had been adopted on the "black market", and had only found the birth family in 1996). I am somewhat friendly with a concessionary operator at this Pow-Wow (love the Buffalo meat stew on fry bread), who knows her birth family, as both are from the same "reservation" in Arizona.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Richard B the EMT

[JPINFV]

JP, you're being intentionally obtuse just for the sake of an argument. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out affair over this.

I'm actually not trying to be obtuse for the sake of argument.

Whether you recognize a 'heirarchy' or not, there IS a problem in this country of the rights of the 'natural born citizens' and 'legalized citizens' being trampled by the minorities (some of who refuse to enter this country legally). The point is, this country was founded on certain values, customs and traditions. Others have been formed later. To move to this country and demand that these customs, values and traditions be changed because you, the immigrant find them 'offensive' is absurd. That's the bottom line. America has no problem with the immigrant bringing their customs, traditions and values with them, but you MUST respect the ones of this country as well. If you don't like the celebration, holiday or other tradition or rite...then don't participate; but do NOT demand that we stop because you. the GUEST find it contrary or offensive to your way of life. No one asked you to come to this country, and we as the host country shouldn't be expected to change our ways of life to suit you!

How many generations after a citizen naturalizes does his family earn the right to petition for change then?

Also, a naturalized citizen is no longer a guest.

Just because I was lucky enough to be born in America does not preclude me from being a 'proud American'. If you're not a 'proud American' then feel free to exercise your right to the freedom of choice as you find another country that you CAN be proud of!

I didn't say that being born in America precludes someone from being a proud American. I said that ignorance of other first world countries precludes people. People should be proud of the choices they specifically made, not the luck of the draw. Additionally, it seems that you are lumping in lack of pride with shame. Why would someone seek to change from something they aren't ashamed to be? Similarly, if a citizen was ashamed over something, wouldn't it be just as valid to try to invoke change? To say that lack of pride, or people who are unhappy or ashamed, is the same as telling everyone involved with the revolutionary war that they should have just moved out of the colonies instead of attempting to invoke change.

As far as not earning your citizenship in this country, it is a federal crime to enter this country illegally and to stay in this country illegally. To change this 'illegal status' is to become a citizen. If you cannot be bothered to become a citizen, then you have no place in this country, and you have no voice in it's policies, its practices, or it's traditions.

Where did I discuss the issue of illegal aliens? I made a distinction between naturalization and natural born citizens, but I did not even touch on the issue of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not citizens, and therefore I do not give them any though in deciding and advocating for how my country should be ran.

Oh, and quick question. You're a natural born citizen, correct? What did you do to earn citizenship? Being born to parents of American citizenship or being born in America is not earning anything. Birth right? Sure, but something earned? Definitely not.

Are you willing to give up your traditions, customs and practices because someone finds them offensive? We already ARE doing just that. Haven't you noticed that we aren't supposed to use the word 'Christmas' in December any more? It's now referred to as a 'winter holiday' and our Christmas tree is now called a 'holiday tree' all because non-Christian minorities found the reference to Christ as offensive.

Nope, haven't noticed at all that I'm not supposed to invoke Christmas in December, and if anyone has a problem with that, I'd like to wish them both happy holidays AND a merry Christmas. Sure, for as long as I remember academic calendars have labeled Christmas as "Winter Recess," but no one called it that and I'm not going to get uppidity over what's written on a Calendar.

Why should I refrain from my Christian beliefs because someone finds them offensive, and yet I still have to honor their traditions (look at the woman in FL who raised such a stink about not being able to have her veil on for her driver's license photograph). The whole purpose of having your picture on the license is to be able to identify you as the legal holder of that license. If you're not showing your whole face, then how do you expect it to be VALID form of ID?

You mean Sultaana Freeman, a natural born American citizen who converted to Islam, wanted to take her drivers license ID with a veil was eventually denied (they accidentally allowed the first photo to be done with a veil), followed the appropriate legal venue for judicial relief, and was subsequently denied because court sided with the state's experts testified that even in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia required full face IDs and the Department of Motor Vehicles (or what ever Florida calls it) was willing to accommodate her by having only females present for her photograph? Yep, those darn immigrants or naturalized natural born citizens exercising their right to appeal to the legal system.

5th District Court of Appeals ruling on the Florida case denying Mrs. Freeman's claim:

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2006/021306/5D03-2296.op.corr.pdf

Show me where non Christian religions are being restricted in their practices. Show me one 'non Christian religion' that is having their holidays renamed because the mere mention of them is 'offensive'....you can't because it's not happening to them!

Show me a calendar with a different name for the holiday on December 25th.

Why aren't people complaining about calling Spring Break Spring Break? It occurs around Easter and Easter is THE pinnacle holiday in Christianity? Also, at least with Easter and unlike Christmas, at least Easter falls around the time of the year it might have actually occurred (in close proximity to Passover). It's established fact that Christmas did not occur in December when the Nativity stories in the bible are taken at face value.

It's not that I think those two countries are similar in governance. In Iraq, you can be put to death for not conforming to the Muslim religious ways. Which means that if you hold Christian values, you either turn your back on them, move out of the country or die....you can't even practice your Christian rituals in private. This is a strict DEMAND of the 'host nation' should you decide to move there. You either 'fit in' or you leave/die. No questions, no argument, no compromise.

I'm still failing to see the connection between the US. Are you suggesting that we banish or murder everyone who doesn't fit in with the majority? Does it matter whether that person is a naturally born citizen or a naturalized citizen?

Edited November 13, 2010 by JPINFV

[Lone Star]

Oh, and quick question. You're a natural born citizen, correct? What did you do to earn citizenship? Being born to parents of American citizenship or being born in America is not earning anything. Birth right? Sure, but something earned? Definitely not.

By honoring the traditions of the country I was born in, by enlisting in the military, willing to lay my life down to defend the country I was born in and by not taking the rights that others have fought and died to provide for granted.....yep, I believe I've more than EARNED my right to be a 'proud American' and earned my citizenship. And just for the 'cherry on top' I'm trying every day to make this country a little better.

[emtannie]

JP, you ask a lot of thought-provoking questions, which have promoted a lot of discussion...

But let's get back to the original article. A group of people in London disrupted a ceremony that is important and emotional to many, and completely disregarded the opinions and feelings of those who were attending that ceremony. Did they have the right to do that? If they did, does that give others the right to disrupt and destroy symbols of their beliefs? And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end? If those that disrupted the Remembrance Day service were citizens of England, does that make it any more right? Does that make it any more acceptable?

JP, I would like to hear your opinions on that, and await your reply.

[JPINFV]

Did they have the right to do that?

With out knowing the legal system and the rights granted to citizens in the United Kingdom, I can't answer this question exactly as posed.

However, if the exact same situation occurred in the US, AND assuming that the fire itself did not pose a risk to others (this is independent of what was actually being burned), AND considering that this occurred in a public venue, than yes, I believe it's their right. I don't have to agree with the message given and I can personally pass judgment on the group, but that does not conflict with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and assembly is not freedom from judgment of others, just undue government interference and regulation.

If they did, does that give others the right to disrupt and destroy symbols of their beliefs?

They can destroy what ever pieces of their own property they want regardless of what meanings other people want to proscribe to to those objects provided they are not presenting a danger to others. Can I go burn a cross in my front yard? No, but because the fire is a danger to others. However nothing is stopping me from renting a wood chipper and throwing in as many religious symbols that I want. If I want to run a Koran, Bible, and Torah (to hit the 3 main monotheistic religions) through a shredder while standing on a street corner, I can. That doesn't mean others can't judge me on it though.

As far as disruption, being in public it depends on how the disruption is occurring. Picketing, chanting, etc? Perfectly within their rights. Running on stage? Nope. However everyone in attendance is free to pass their own personal judgment on the jack wagons disrupting the event.

And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end?

What right do you have to proscribe what someone else does with their property because of the symbolism you proscribe to the object? If I believe that pencils are sacred, can I force you not to sharpen your pencil because I believe you are destroying it?

If those that disrupted the Remembrance Day service were citizens of England, does that make it any more right? Does that make it any more acceptable?

Again, I don't know what rights the Citizens of the UK have under their government, which plays a big part in what the appropriate government response is. However, in my opinion and assuming similar rights to US citizens, the citizens have rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. Non-citizens don't. This becomes a little hazy when it comes down to things like criminal trials and imprisonment, but that is drastically different than if a judge just unilaterally decided to deport a non-citizen.

Additionally, having the legal right to do something doesn't mean free from the judgment of others. As with the above use of a wood chipper, I completely believe that I should be allowed to do so unfettered by the police. That doesn't mean that you can't come out and yell at me and treat me forever after as a persona non-grata. After all, that's your right to do so to. All actions have consequences, however not all consequences need to come from the government or agents of the government.

[Happiness]

OK I have been watching this thread and I was going to leave it alone but I just cant. Annie thanks for putting it back into perspective.

JP through out this whole thing you have hidden behind the Freedom of Speech and the legal system. What ever happened to respect of others, and the morals of the societies in this day and age.

These people disrespected an honor that our society has bestowed our fallen military personel. When it comes down to it, it was wrong no matter how you look at and buy the way you defend this crap I have to say you have placed yourself at the level.

I truely believe that if I am a good person that is kind, and honest I will make a difference in this world. It may not be an earth shaking difference but a differnce I will make. I raise my boys to think the same way, I dont care if your a ditchdigger all your life as long as you are a GOOD person that is all that matter.

Really JP look back at what you are defending.........................

[emtannie]

They can destroy what ever pieces of their own property they want regardless of what meanings other people want to proscribe to to those objects provided they are not presenting a danger to others. Can I go burn a cross in my front yard? No, but because the fire is a danger to others. However nothing is stopping me from renting a wood chipper and throwing in as many religious symbols that I want. If I want to run a Koran, Bible, and Torah (to hit the 3 main monotheistic religions) through a shredder while standing on a street corner, I can. That doesn't mean others can't judge me on it though.

As far as disruption, being in public it depends on how the disruption is occurring. Picketing, chanting, etc? Perfectly within their rights. Running on stage? Nope. However everyone in attendance is free to pass their own personal judgment on the jack wagons disrupting the event.

So, given that they burned something while in a public place, within a close distance of thousands of people, you are saying that fire is a danger to others, and they shouldn’t have done that. Why couldn’t you just say that?

And, what is the difference between running on stage, and shouting and disrupting a moment of silence? I disagree with your splitting hairs here. The intent is the same, the effect is the same, and the result is the same.

What right do you have to proscribe what someone else does with their property because of the symbolism you proscribe to the object? If I believe that pencils are sacred, can I force you not to sharpen your pencil because I believe you are destroying it?

As someone else said, you are being deliberately obtuse. Knowing that you believe pencils are sacred, the question is should I be allowed to publicly, at your event, be allowed to destroy them, knowing that my actions will be offensive to you and others, and potentially endanger you and others? Again, intent is the issue.

Additionally, having the legal right to do something doesn't mean free from the judgment of others. As with the above use of a wood chipper, I completely believe that I should be allowed to do so unfettered by the police. That doesn't mean that you can't come out and yell at me and treat me forever after as a persona non-grata. After all, that's your right to do so to. All actions have consequences, however not all consequences need to come from the government or agents of the government.

Again, it goes back to intent – if your intent is to offend, and create chaos, then, no, you shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a street corner with your wood chipper. Feel free to do that in your own yard.

Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. By granting freedoms in absolution, we risk, and potentially create the completely lawless society we try hard not to have. I think you either missed my point earlier, or are deliberately trying to avoid it when I asked “And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end?” If you throw a stone, then I throw a stone, then you throw a bigger stone, then I throw a grenade, then you throw a bigger grenade, where does it end? I can argue it is my right, that I have the freedom to do it, and so do you, but what does that gain us? Someone has to have the good sense to say enough is enough, and that your rights end where someone else’s start.

[paramedicmike]

Yes, coming in late to the discussion. I've been reading intently, however. Just haven't been in a position to reply.

Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. By granting freedoms in absolution, we risk, and potentially create the completely lawless society we try hard not to have. I think you either missed my point earlier, or are deliberately trying to avoid it when I asked “And if it deteriorates to that, where you destroyed something important to me, so I will destroy something important to you, where does it end?” If you throw a stone, then I throw a stone, then you throw a bigger stone, then I throw a grenade, then you throw a bigger grenade, where does it end? I can argue it is my right, that I have the freedom to do it, and so do you, but what does that gain us? Someone has to have the good sense to say enough is enough, and that your rights end where someone else’s start.

This is an interesting thought. So if freedom of speech isn't an absolute, who limits speech? You? Someone who's offended by what you say? If you're willing to accept that someone may limit speech then why have it specifically protected as an inherent freedom? Why not remove it altogether? What happens then when someone decides to limit your speech because she doesn't like it?

What's more, if someone destroys something important to me and I, in turn, destroy something important to him then I am no better a person than he is. That's a rather childish approach, isn't it? From the US side of things I think an avoidance of that type of behaviour is something that's helped us reach the point we're at now. If everyone responded in a tit-for-tat manner we'd all be dead.

Freedom of speech isn't designed to protect speech with which we agree. It is specifically designed to protect speech with which we *disagree*. Remove that protection and we open up the proverbial slippery slope.

I understand the argument regarding respect. But respect and freedom of speech are two different concepts.

-be safe

[JPINFV]

OK I have been watching this thread and I was going to leave it alone but I just cant. Annie thanks for putting it back into perspective.

JP through out this whole thing you have hidden behind the Freedom of Speech and the legal system. What ever happened to respect of others, and the morals of the societies in this day and age.

I didn't realize that you could hide behind legal rights? At no time did I ever put forth that individuals weren't free to judge, just that they shouldn't be running to the government to do something about it. Why is it the government's job to hold everybody's hand?

These people disrespected an honor that our society has bestowed our fallen military personel. When it comes down to it, it was wrong no matter how you look at and buy the way you defend this crap I have to say you have placed yourself at the level.

I won't argue that disrespect isn't wrong. I will argue, though, that there's nothing illegal about it. I also didn't realize that supporting freedom of speech lowers my level. Remember this conversation next time you do something that offends someone else, but you feel it's your right to do so. I'd hate to have someone lower themselves to your level in support of freedom.

[emtannie]

Yes, coming in late to the discussion. I've been reading intently, however. Just haven't been in a position to reply.

This is an interesting thought. So if freedom of speech isn't an absolute, who limits speech? You? Someone who's offended by what you say? If you're willing to accept that someone may limit speech then why have it specifically protected as an inherent freedom? Why not remove it altogether? What happens then when someone decides to limit your speech because she doesn't like it?

What's more, if someone destroys something important to me and I, in turn, destroy something important to him then I am no better a person than he is. That's a rather childish approach, isn't it? From the US side of things I think an avoidance of that type of behaviour is something that's helped us reach the point we're at now. If everyone responded in a tit-for-tat manner we'd all be dead.

Freedom of speech isn't designed to protect speech with which we agree. It is specifically designed to protect speech with which we *disagree*. Remove that protection and we open up the proverbial slippery slope.

I understand the argument regarding respect. But respect and freedom of speech are two different concepts.

-be safe

I see where what I wrote and what I intended to write were not the same thing.

JP has spoke a lot about freedom of speech, and the problem with freedom of speech is the actions that come with it. Speech in and of itself isn't the problem. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, or my beliefs. I have a problem with them disrupting things that are important to me, starting fires, burning things that are important to me at an event that is important to me. None of those are speech - those are actions.

And you are right - if someone destroys something important to me and I, in turn, destroy something important to him then I am no better a person than he is. And, I agree, that is childish. However, this is what happens in some cultures - you injure me or my family, I kill someone in your family... the eye for an eye mentality is alive and well. I don't believe in that mentality, even though others may, but I also don't believe that those that publicly interfere with ceremonies and act deliberately to offend should be allowed to continue those actions under "freedom of speech."