Quote:
Originally Posted by rhetorical
l think everyone has their own lines in the sand. What I do is so far removed from Max, it is not even an issue for me. However, I draw my personal line at Max, the Sweets and any number or Russians doing abusive shit. I don't want to be tarred by that brush.
As far as alowing the Klan a right of association, I am not quite sure. Would you allow a bunch of Muslim terrorists the right of association in a Mosque when clearly their intentions are bad? Personally I would allow neither.
|
For me, the problem becomes who gets to draw that line in the sand and decide what is a "bad intention"? Who's to say that my church isn't "bad" because I (hypothetically) I believe Jesus was the son of G_d - or that he was a heretic? Or because I don't believe in G_d at all?
So, yeh, Muslims following their faith as they interpret it should be allowed to assemble in like groups. If Americans are honest about it, our nation was begun by "terrorists." Not all attacks are Islamic in origin, either - despite popular perception.
Frankly, white male Protestants frighten me much more. So, again, the question becomes - who draws the line in the sand about what's acceptable? I don't like the questions the Max case raises because it becomes an incredibly slippery slope. I know people who genuinely enjoy being choked with cock or pissed on. I am not going to say they are wrong for that, because to do so means someone, somewhere, will say that if it's wrong to do a throat-choke, someone else will think that a cream pie or facial is just as wrong.
It's a dangerous fucking line to walk. I like freedom, and I am not a fan of the idea of a nanny state.