Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[KrazyGlue]

Ah, the McDs thing. I like the original thread until two guys basically started a "no you're wrong" contest.
I would like to see a debate on that, but it might get somewhat one-sided.

Yeah, I would fear it could get too one-sided. Maybe I should add an additional question... like how much would be too much?

Let's try it; if it turns out it's not working out we'll add more additional questions or just move on to a new topic.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Bad topic; it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that there's no argument against McDonalds here-it's up to the parents. I can hardly even imagine a devil's advocate here.

 

[blazedaces]

Bad topic; it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that there's no argument against McDonalds here-it's up to the parents. I can hardly even imagine a devil's advocate here.

I'll take a stab at it if you don't mind:

Imagine for a second we had the exact same situation with cigarettes (this is basically what they did with their advertising)...

Would it be considered alright if cigarettes were sold with a toy (let's assume it's considered legal to buy at a young age)?

After all, parents should be the ones parenting, not the tobacco companies... right?

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I'll take a stab at it if you don't mind:

Imagine for a second we had the exact same situation with cigarettes (this is basically what they did with their advertising)...

Would it be considered alright if cigarettes were sold with a toy (let's assume it's considered legal to buy at a young age)?

After all, parents should be the ones parenting, not the tobacco companies... right?

-blazed

The main problem with that analogy is that what McD offers is a primary life necessity, where cigarettes clearly aren't.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Bad topic; it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that there's no argument against McDonalds here-it's up to the parents. I can hardly even imagine a devil's advocate here.

New rule added!

"DO NOT post just to say "this is a bad topic". If you don't like it, don't post, but wait for the next topic."

Should have been obvious, but new it's explicitly stated. Not going to respond to any further comments like these.

The main problem with that analogy is that what McD offers is a primary life necessity, where cigarettes clearly aren't.

That's not an excuse. What if McDonalds put heroin and radioactive uranium in their hamburgers? Their product is still a "life necessity" but that doesn't give it any special privileges.

There's plenty of grease and other trash in hamburgers that aren't necessary to life at all. Now, I still don't see anything wrong with putting toys in their happy meals, but there are far worse things they could be doing.

EDIT: Maybe we should consider schools that include fast food in their cafeterias. Should they be sued, or at least have to take it off the menu?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-OEg082D8s&NR=1 (watch 1:20-7:50)

 

[Deleted member]

please stay on the actual topic before exploring sidetracks.

The nutrition group claims that using toys to entice children instills bad eating habits and puts kids at higher risk of risk of developing obesity, diabetes, or other diet-related diseases over the course of their lifetime.

Thing is, McD isn't primarily putting junk food in their happy meal.
from their website:

A happy meal is a special menu for kids. You can choose yourself what you want in you happy meal:
-Hamburger, Cheeseburger or 4 Chicken McNuggets.
-optional of French fries.
-A drink. eg: Vittel or Fristi (dunno if that drink is known in the US but it is basically milk with red fruits flavour)
-vegetables, fruit or a diary desert.

Everything is in a nice do- and playbox. En of course you get a nice surprise

So basically we have quite a healthy meal with a burger.
Clearly this isn't that much of a bad eating as the food group claims.
then there is the question if the kids actually primarily want a happy meal for the toy. maybe someone has some research on that last thing.

 

[KrazyGlue]

please stay on the actual topic before exploring sidetracks.

I'm the one who decides the topics. Plus, there's nothing wrong with adding a new element to the debate

Thing is, McD isn't primarily putting junk food in their happy meal.
from their website:


So basically we have quite a healthy meal with a burger.
Clearly this isn't that much of a bad eating as the food group claims.
then there is the question if the kids actually primarily want a happy meal for the toy. maybe someone has some research on that last thing.

You'd be surprised, "vegetables" doesn't necessarily make things healthy. In fact, McDonalds salads (often mistakenly thought of as the healthy option) with ranch or caesar dressing have more calories than a Big Mac. Also I'm betting a lot of kids choose to get french fries with their meals, which adds another 230-500 calories to the meal.

Source: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutritionfacts.pdf

 

[Sucumbio]

Anything aimed towards kids is like that. Toy commercials, video game commercials, food commercials, etc.

Is it disingenuous for these companies to advertise like that? Perhaps. It is not their job to raise the children, however. It is the parents' job to just say "no." "No, you cannot have that toy," "No, I'm not buying you that video game," "No, we're not going to McDonald's."

It's that simple. The blame rests almost entirely on the parents.

This.

I do understand your argument, Bob however your focus on the "evils" of Big Advertising vs Kids is kind of cop-out in terms of what responsibility parents have in raising their children. This is what irks me so much about this law suit. It's very similar to the people who sued McD's over the coffee in the lap thing. As if somehow it wasn't common knowledge that putting a cup of hot coffee in your lap and while driving was a bad idea. ? Idiotic! But of course, they relented, and now coffee cups have inscribed upon them "CAUTION: CONTENTS HOT" no **** Sherlock, lol.

Now this recent debate has developed a bit, it's important to note the "necessity" of McDs and other fast food chains in the lives of Americans. Basically, many parents have little choice but to take their kids out for a cheap meal to McDs. While its true that McDs execs know this and capitalize on it, it's unfair to blame them for this predicament. McDs got to be as big as it is BECAUSE of their convenience and low prices and "good taste." They were able to permeate the market. In America, you literally can't not find a McDs eventually, and normally within 50 miles of your current location (if you can't you really are in the middle of no where, and you're probably lost or insane). From my house there are probably 12 or so locations within this radius. Parents work long days, kids get home from school and after-school activities, get picked up from practice, whatever, and its off to McDs, a "reward" for a good day in the kid's eyes, and a serious convenience for the parents.

It's not EVERY day, just that one or two days a week when it really is best to do it.

Now on the flip side, we have a parent who has 1 day a week with no work, no school, has time to do something special. They prepare a week's worth of good home cooked and healthy food. They then store it in resealable containers and freeze it. Then throughout the following week, the food is there for them and their family to thaw in the microwave; home-made TV dinners. Far more nutritious, cost effective and even conducive to the "family hour" lifestyle that is so lost in America.

This should clearly demonstrate that it's up to Parents to set the standard, not McDs. And likewise it's unfair to blame McDs for their ad campaigns, it's simply good business, and if you and your family are dumb enough to fall for it, that's on you, not them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Right, I think most people agree on that aspect of it (including myself), which is why I brought in the issue of schools carrying such unhealthy lunches, which I think is where we could generate some good discussion. Although I would contend that you can't leave older kids (i.e. high school age) out of the blame, as they should be able to take some responsibility to maintain their health.


EDIT: I'll start. Schools with unhealthy food should change their menus. If you watched the video I linked, kids who had healthier meals had better attitudes, and lunches weren't any more expensive. Many kids at schools with unhealthy lunches would just eat a soda, chips, and a cookie. Blame can be put on everyone here. I think blame goes mainly to the schools for providing such unhealthy food. If the parents are aware of how unhealthy to food is, then obviously they should just pack lunches for their kids. And kids at least 10 years old should be able to understand that chips and a soda are an unhealthy lunch, so they aren't helping the situation either.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'll take a stab at it if you don't mind:

Imagine for a second we had the exact same situation with cigarettes (this is basically what they did with their advertising)...

Would it be considered alright if cigarettes were sold with a toy (let's assume it's considered legal to buy at a young age)?

After all, parents should be the ones parenting, not the tobacco companies... right?

-blazed

Big difference. While McD's sells food that is grossly fattening, it's still food. You can put a particular type of food down, but you need to fulfill your diet. Should they start adding things to food that make it "not food" then you start going after them.

Cigarettes, on the other hand, are both not a life necessity, and incredibly addictive and harmfule.

New rule added!

"DO NOT post just to say "this is a bad topic". If you don't like it, don't post, but wait for the next topic."


That's not an excuse. What if McDonalds put heroin and radioactive uranium in their hamburgers? Their product is still a "life necessity" but that doesn't give it any special privileges.

Except that heroin and radioactive uranium are harmful products that aren't food, or food by-products like grease or the like.

EDIT: Maybe we should consider schools that include fast food in their cafeterias. Should they be sued, or at least have to take it off the menu?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-OEg082D8s&NR=1 (watch 1:20-7:50)

Yes. Yes they should. The state should be forced to supply our children in schools with food that is moderately healthy, or not supply them at all. However, this is because they are a state institution, not a commercial one.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bad topic; it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that there's no argument against McDonalds here-it's up to the parents. I can hardly even imagine a devil's advocate here.

Uh. I disagree. I believe I have a brain and that McDonald's have to accept some degree responsibility for what they're doing. However, the parents need to accept lots of responsibility as well, and really need to change on this. It's much easier to get them to change though.

I think they both need to share the blame.

Parents yes, as they're the ones letting they're children go there or taking them.

I can't really blame the advertisements, it's just maintaining the business. However, the problem I have, is that the food is just so unhealthy. It doesn't need to be this way, they can make healthy food and still sell it cheaply, even with a profit. Sure it won't taste as great, but I'm sure it's possible. It's frankly just negligent, or evil depending on how you look at it.

I haven't watched the video, but I agree with BPC and Krazy, State School Lunches should be raised to a certain standard of nutrition. This standard should be pretty high. The government can enforce this easily and maybe pass a bill to ensure that private schools do the same.

 

[Deleted member]

I can't really blame the advertisements, it's just maintaining the business. However, the problem I have, is that the food is just so unhealthy. It doesn't need to be this way, they can make healthy food and still sell it cheaply, even with a profit. Sure it won't taste as great, but I'm sure it's possible. It's frankly just negligent, or evil depending on how you look at it.

It's called Subway.

Question about the school food thing, do school provide the food and personnel themselves, or do they outsource it to catering companies? In my country it is getting very common that it is outsourced.

Besides the school food probably being generally of not that good quality, is there also food of good quality offered or do schools generally only have McBurgers?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Except that heroin and radioactive uranium are harmful products that aren't food, or food by-products like grease or the like.

McDonalds includes plenty of things in their burgers that aren't food by-products and certainly aren't necessary for it to be edible.

i.e. MSG (Source)

Yes. Yes they should. The state should be forced to supply our children in schools with food that is moderately healthy, or not supply them at all. However, this is because they are a state institution, not a commercial one.

Agreed.

Question about the school food thing, do school provide the food and personnel themselves, or do they outsource it to catering companies? In my country it is getting very common that it is outsourced.

They outsource the food; I'm not sure about the personnel.

Besides the school food probably being generally of not that good quality, is there also food of good quality offered or do schools generally only have McBurgers?

They probably have a few healthy items, but kids usually just go for the chips and soda as shown in the video. They also mentioned that one school was offering a "suggested meal" that contained over 1000 calories. (Of course you wouldn't be required to take that meal, but the point is that even their "suggestions" are unhealthy.)

 

[Sucumbio]

However, the problem I have, is that the food is just so unhealthy. It doesn't need to be this way, they can make healthy food and still sell it cheaply, even with a profit. Sure it won't taste as great, but I'm sure it's possible. It's frankly just negligent, or evil depending on how you look at it.

Believe it or not McDs has come a LONG way since their menu and preparation methods from the 80's and before that. For instance the deep fryer is no longer stocked with lard, but rather vegetable shortening, which is far more healthy in comparison. Also the selection of foods is better. McDs now offeres apple spears and an optional dipping sauce, instead of french fries. Several McDs offer atkins-friendly alternatives (no carbs). These are just a few examples of how McDs has kept up with the demands of the public, and in response to public outcry in terms of nutrition. If you recall it started with restaurants posting their nutrition information on the walls so people could see how many calories they were ingesting. It's progressed quite well since those days, and it'll only get better, as more people realize that "old-school" fast food is in fact very bad for you, and especially in excess.

It's called Subway.

Question about the school food thing, do school provide the food and personnel themselves, or do they outsource it to catering companies? In my country it is getting very common that it is outsourced.

Besides the school food probably being generally of not that good quality, is there also food of good quality offered or do schools generally only have McBurgers?

Depends on your school district. Where I went to school as a child we had some lion-dude, "cool daddy" or some junk, it's really been so long I can't recall, nor can I find a single google hit, lol. But he was dressed in a red sweatshirt and looked kind of like the lion from wizard of oz, and he danced around in TV commercials advertising how "cool" school lunch was. The food service was catered by a giant catering service that did all the schools in the GBA (greater Boston area). Depending on the capacity of the school, you either had pre-made lunch trays with a "hot" and "cold" pack which were prepped by volunteers and distributed to classrooms at lunch time. Or you had a cafeteria in which the same food was similarly prepped and you helped yourself. Lunch was .50 and a milk was a dime, if you just wanted the milk. I remember when lunch went up to .75 and everyone was like "woah it's getting expensive!" lol now it's like 2 dollars.

That was k-6 (5 in some districts)

"jr high" or 7-8 (6-8 in some districts) we had a larger selection, consisting of the normal fair, but slightly larger portions, and then a daily submarine sandwich bar, pizza, and then an assortment of baked goods (brownies, cinnobuns, cookies, etc) and then an ice cream vendor. This would also be the first time soda was available, cans of coke, etc.

High school was an even larger selection, with the same daily food that all the schools got, the sub bar and pizza, and now a salad bar also. There was actually fewer baked goods and no ice cream, but now in addition to coke machines, there was a vending machine for doritos, snickers etc.

This has all changed recently though. Now there are no soda machines, they're all juice and water. The vending machines are gone also, and a "breakfast" is served for 1 hour before 1st bell. The same foods are prepared, however, but with health in mind, so preparation at the center location is better, such as tater tots being baked instead of fried, etc.

This is NOTHING compared to the school district where I now live. Here in Mississippi food is prepared fresh daily, using fresh ingredients from local farms and stores. Recipes are good old fashioned home cooking. Nothing is catered, and nothing is loaded with preservatives. It's been like that here since as long as anyone can remember, and it'll remain that way, I'm sure. Up north there's a certain... necessity for things to be mass-produced. It's almost certainly a resonance of industrial age mentality. Down here, it's laid-back mentality. "Y'all come back now, hear?" And as such, food ... well it's a matter of taste, and consumption as much as it is leisure and necessity. So food in general is treated with more... respect, I guess.

Now you can still hit up the vending machines, soda machines, there's a candy store IN the high school, actually. But you don't have to eat out of them, and most kids don't. They'd rather have some chicken-n-dumplings or good old fashioned gumbo.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Believe it or not McDs has come a LONG way since their menu and preparation methods from the 80's and before that. For instance the deep fryer is no longer stocked with lard, but rather vegetable shortening, which is far more healthy in comparison. Also the selection of foods is better. McDs now offeres apple spears and an optional dipping sauce, instead of french fries. Several McDs offer atkins-friendly alternatives (no carbs). These are just a few examples of how McDs has kept up with the demands of the public, and in response to public outcry in terms of nutrition. If you recall it started with restaurants posting their nutrition information on the walls so people could see how many calories they were ingesting. It's progressed quite well since those days, and it'll only get better, as more people realize that "old-school" fast food is in fact very bad for you, and especially in excess.

Yes, they may offer healthier alternatives, and they may have made improvements upon their recipes, but the fact remains that McDonald's is still unhealthy. It's mainly window dressing, to make themselves look like the "good" guys. The thing is, they're still offering fries, which are still loaded in fat.

More on topic, in Australia, where I live, we generally bring packed lunches, and the school canteen is run by a group of volunteers offering a large variety of meals ranging from sushi to burgers, they're quite expensive, but I'm sure that they're not terribly unhealthy. (I'm sure some of the burgers are fairly calorific, but the large portion of the menu probably isn't.) The volunteers are often parents at the school, so they have an interest in keeping the food healthy.

Vending machines, I'm not too sure about, in Primary we didn't have any, and in high school we used to have them, now they're gone. It probably varies from school to school.

 

[Aesir]

It's called Subway.

Maybe if you don't order Cheese or Sauce lol. Despite subway having a kids mean toy scheme, they don't really advertise it much. At least I've never seen it, where as McDonalds I'm bombarded by it all the time. I think it just comes down to marketing, McDonalds will market to anything it feels it can squeeze a profit out of where as Subway tries to market toward the health freaks.

But at the end of the day it's on the parents, just say no then again I've seen the way some kids react to not having McDonalds and it's pretty scary.

 

[Sucumbio]

The thing is, they're still offering fries, which are still loaded in fat.

Well ok, but that's like chastising a bar for still serving alcohol, lol. It's McDonald's of course they'll "still" have fries, if you take THAT away, you may as well call them something else. I mean there's no illusion here, it's still fast food, and its still generally unhealthy, but rather than go somewhere else, you can go to McDs and feel a least a little better about the fatty intake.

This .. newer? topic, eludes me, school lunches should be as healthy and fulfilling as possible, so yeah, school districts that encourage this win and those that don't lose.

Though there may be more to this, I'd like to submit an idea for the next topic: FCC's Indecency Policy Struck Down.

This topic interests me greatly, mainly because I am a full supporter of 1st amendment rights, but also I see a conflict of interest in terms of morals and the government. Conservatives (once again) wish to paint this court decision as "wrong" and a blow to morals. heh. But I don't see it that way. I see it as upholding the very thing that our fore fathers intended with the bill of rights and the 1st amendment. "Its amazing how conservatives are for small government and little regulation of everything with the exception of morality." That was just one comment made after the news story...

so the question remains, should the government actively try to uphold morality through regulation? Or was the court's decision a good one, perhaps even in line with reducing "big government." Besides, ever since the inception of the Rating system, ironically introduced in part by the FCC, the FCC's role in fining networks for not censoring content seems utterly pointless, a waste of tax dollars, and almost certainly a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well ok, but that's like chastising a bar for still serving alcohol, lol. It's McDonald's of course they'll "still" have fries, if you take THAT away, you may as well call them something else. I mean there's no illusion here, it's still fast food, and its still generally unhealthy, but rather than go somewhere else, you can go to McDs and feel a least a little better about the fatty intake.

Well, I don't think fat ladden fries that are almost 20% fat should be sold, if it is possible to reduce the amount of fat. I believe they can.

Though there may be more to this, I'd like to submit an idea for the next topic: FCC's Indecency Policy Struck Down.

This topic interests me greatly, mainly because I am a full supporter of 1st amendment rights, but also I see a conflict of interest in terms of morals and the government. Conservatives (once again) wish to paint this court decision as "wrong" and a blow to morals. heh. But I don't see it that way. I see it as upholding the very thing that our fore fathers intended with the bill of rights and the 1st amendment. "Its amazing how conservatives are for small government and little regulation of everything with the exception of morality." That was just one comment made after the news story...

so the question remains, should the government actively try to uphold morality through regulation? Or was the court's decision a good one, perhaps even in line with reducing "big government." Besides, ever since the inception of the Rating system, ironically introduced in part by the FCC, the FCC's role in fining networks for not censoring content seems utterly pointless, a waste of tax dollars, and almost certainly a violation of the 1st amendment.

It seems the TV Parental Guidelines can already deal with indecent material. All they need to do is crank the ratings sky high (MA), and only broadcast the material when children are unlikely to be watching, and it seems they're already doing that.

I don't really believe that indecency is too much of an issue, I mean people have the right to say such things. The guidelines are very vague and it the issue is defining "patently offensive", that could range from a rather innocent stuff (dropping the F-word), to all sorts of vivid descriptions of indecent material.

I believe that free speech should be protected, but the display of the indecent material to children is probably a bad idea. However, all they need to do, is ensure the rating is high enough and that the shows are on late, instead of when everyone watches it. It really just makes more sense, it preserves free speech and ensures the children aren't watching material that really isn't appropriate to them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Alright, I think this topic is essentially done. Sorry this one wasn't as successful, folks.

Anyways, I'm accepting suggestions for the third topic.

EDIT: This could lead to some interesting discussion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'd support that.

 

[manhunter098]

Well if you haven't heard, this just leaked. There is a good room for discussion about leaking classified information, and for the discussion of the reports themselves.

 

[Lore]

EDIT: This could lead to some interesting discussion.

That might be a good topic, but who would argue that the sentence is fair?

Well if you haven't heard, this just leaked. There is a good room for discussion about leaking classified information, and for the discussion of the reports themselves.

That's a great topic. Should leaks be suppressed in the name of national security, or should they be allowed because of our first amendment rights?

 

[Sucumbio]

I think it really depends on the situation. National Security is oftentimes a very broad area. For instance, the political smear campaign that resulted in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity (Valerie Plame incident) is an example of dangerous leakage, that should not have been permitted, for obvious reasons. The photos of prisoner mistreatment at abu grave prison, however, is an example of when leakage would be not only appropriate but preferable. It's not only a terrible injustice but it serves only to the detriment of US foreign policy, playing into the anti-US propaganda of our enemies, and reducing global support. In short if its responsible reporting, then it should be perfectly legal, even earning one of whistle-blower status, or other necessary protections depending on the content. If its irresponsible, then it should result in criminal prosecution up to and including outright charges of treason.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Sucumbio stands pretty much where I stand. It depends on the area, whistle blowers are sometimes necessary, it ensures that these organisations are accountable, but what if say the code to fire the nukes were leaked? (hypothetical, yes, but something of this sort could be foreseeable). Then appropriate action must be taken, the codes have to be changed, and the person behind this should be hunted down and put on trial. However, I doubt that the majority of the leaks on wikileaks are of this sort, and thus wikileaks should remain unmolested.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That might be a good topic, but who would argue that the sentence is fair?

The question would probably be more like how far do our rights in said case extend.

 

[KrazyGlue]

They both seem like great issues honestly. Well, one of them could be made into a thread, and the other one could be the next topic. Honestly, I'm kind of busy right now; my grandfather just suffered a power outage and is staying with me so I need to take care of him. I'll try and figure out what to do later today or tomorrow.

 

[Lore]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration

Actually, this would be a better "current event" for a debate. The other topic can be made into a seperate thread.

 

[TheMike]

I don't if it's because I like soccer, but this "socialist-behavior" issue is interesting.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'll be out all next week with no internet access as far as I know. So I won't be able to update this. But it looks like there are some great ideas; maybe they should be made into topics.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't if it's because I like soccer, but this "socialist-behavior" issue is interesting.

I find it horrendously funny. You have to feel sorry for the coach, his team lost 7-0 to Portugal and he's lost everything. It's totally unjustified; the players didn't succeed so their coach is punished for betraying their idealogical struggle. North Korea must be a crazy place...

 

[Dre89]

I feel even more sorry for the players who didn't even play, but still got publicly shamed.

 

[Aesir]

I find it horrendously funny. You have to feel sorry for the coach, his team lost 7-0 to Portugal and he's lost everything. It's totally unjustified; the players didn't succeed so their coach is punished for betraying their idealogical struggle. North Korea must be a crazy place...

That's what happens when you have a communist nation run by a psycho-path. His father was at least sane.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Wasn't his father called the eternal president or something?

Apparently:

According to North Korean lore, Kim Jong-il's birth was foretold by a swallow and heralded by a glorious double rainbow and the appearance of a new star. His official biography says he was born on White-Headed Mountain, the highest peak on the Korean peninsula. On top of the mountain sits the volcanic Heaven Lake

 

[TheMike]

Wasn't his father called the eternal president or something?

Yes. Kim Jong-il's father(Kim Il-sung) is the eternal president and his birthday is a public holiday in Korea DPR.

 

[Aesir]

http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-ap-ct-muslims-worshippraug09,0,5483683.story

This might prove to be an interesting topic. It's been 9 years since 9/11 and this sort of thing still happens.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What would the debate be? Does anyone not agree that they should be allowed to worship?

 

[Aesir]

What would the debate be? Does anyone not agree that they should be allowed to worship?

You never know.

could debate does the Texas group have the right to hatefully protest? Which I imagine would be a bit more diverse.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's an interesting find, Aesir and it's timed well considering the recent events surrounding the "ground zero mosque."

Opponents of the Cordoba Center have often cited the negative public sentiments as a reason why American Muslims should voluntarily give up their right to freedom of religion.

-source

And indeed American's sentiment towards Islam has changed dramatically since 9/11.

While the group from Texas is acting within their scope of Freedom of Speech and Assembly, when it conflicts with -another- groups scope of Freedom of Religion, there is definitely a need for authorities to step in. This is not unlike when Fred Phelps "protests" at a soldier's funeral. We're looking at some serious problems if groups start harassing others because of their religion. But in their defense (or more from a DA POV) these groups honestly believe that there are NO Islamic communities that aren't terrorist funding organizations in secret. They believe that the very purpose of Islam is to hate Christians, and so they liken the Islamic faith to a sort of cult of Hate against America, and as such need to purge America of them. Although this is obviously not the case, there's no convincing them of that, and the constitution does in fact protect their rights to believe that (and meet about it, and publish articles and pamphlets, and websites, and demonstrate in public,) so long as they aren't violent about it.

 

[rvkevin]

This is not unlike when Fred Phelps "protests" at a soldier's funeral. We're looking at some serious problems if groups start harassing others because of their religion.

Freedom of religion does not entail freedom from criticism of your religion. It was not clear from the original article, but it appeared to me that the group wanted the police to step in order to stop the criticism and not as a security measure since no instance of violence or violent threats were mentioned. The protests fall under freedom of speech and therefore should be allowed.

 

[Sucumbio]

I agree, the article is a bit vague on the details of the protest itself.

Muslim leaders in Connecticut are asking police and other public officials for assurances they can worship without being harassed after an angry protest outside a Bridgeport mosque last week.

About a dozen members of Texas-based Operation Save America confronted worshippers at the Masjid An-Noor mosque Friday, yelling what mosque members described as hate-filled slogans.

So basically as people were going to mosque they had to endure hate-speech being hurled at them. They also seemed to have felt as if it was an "angry mob" type thing, maybe making them feel unsafe, as if they may start to get violent. Without sufficient and accurate details its impossible to be sure, but I can imagine if some of the worshipers felt the threat of assault, which is legally defined as "any reasonable threat to a person. The person who is committing the assault does not have to actually touch a person. But a reasonable and immediate threat to the person being assaulted must exist for a claim of assault."

What is reasonable in this case? The article doesn't go into what was said, but if it's anything like what Phelps' bunch have said, it could definitely be construed as threatening, especially considering the group aspect, versus it being one or two people.