Burn a Quran day

R.A.F. said:
CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off". :)
Click to expand...

At which point Pastor Jones said "Hey, that's no fair, how come that Imam guy gets to build a Mosque, but I can't burn these Qurans?"
 
Checkmite said:
ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected.

Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.
Click to expand...

"In Gainesville, Fla., a minister said he had canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the imam leading the mosque agreed to move its location. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said that he was surprised by the announcement and that he would not barter."

It's good to see the Imam doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
 
tsig said:
You need to read noreligions' posts. He claims that burning the Koran is not free speech.

Once you start compromising rights where do you stop? Can't make a picture on Mohamed because that will offend Muslims, can't burn a Koran because that will offend Muslims, What will offend the Muslims next time?
Click to expand...

So you think the burning will cause no repercussions for us? If it was a matter of just offending them, then go ahead, burn baby burn. But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?
 
bobcarp said:
But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?
Click to expand...

The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking.

Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed?
 
Last edited:
Fortis said:
I will accept their right to do what they are doing (though it is stupid and in the grand scheme of things make things worse) as long as they accept my right to burn bibles. Do you think that they would?
Click to expand...

I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians")
 
R.A.F. said:
In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason.
Click to expand...
Overseas military personnel are endangered by a Florida book-burning only if they stand downwind of the fire, because <NEWS FLASH> those overseas military personnel are in a war zone. The rest of your argument is a false analogy.
 
Checkmite said:
The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking.

Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed?
Click to expand...

I agree. To sum up:

Burning a koran = One has a right to, but it's a dick move.

Threatening to burn a koran unless the mosque is moved = Terrorism

Making people believe that a violent reprisals will follow burning of koran = Terrorism

Not burning koran because of fear of reprisals / not building mosque because of threats to burn koran = Spinelessness and letting the terrorists win.

Burning terrorists = Awesome.
 
bobcarp said:
I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians")
Click to expand...

Of course he would; but it's not a cognitive dissonance thing. This individual and those of his ilk are convinced that even if they did not directly perpetrate attacks like 9/11, the vast majority of Muslims support and celebrate such attacks when they occur.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question.

How mature.

You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks.


Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.
Click to expand...

He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him.
 
noreligion said:
He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him.
Click to expand...

Threatening to put people on ignore if they don't obey your demands = Pathetic and really, really funny. :D
 
AvalonXQ said:
It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.
Click to expand...

I can make a claim too without evidence. How about providing a reason why burning a koran is "indisputably" protected speech and also explaining what protected speech encompasses (be specific).
 
Fnord said:
Overseas military personnel are endangered by a Florida book-burning only if they stand downwind of the fire, because <NEWS FLASH> those overseas military personnel are in a war zone. The rest of your argument is a false analogy.
Click to expand...

Appeaently you've been eating your own feces...and I forgive you for that. :)
 
Piscivore said:
Threatening to burn a koran unless the mosque is moved = Terrorism
Click to expand...

I really don't think this is true. The point of terrorism is to invoke terror. Muslims aren't supposed to be "terrorized" by the burning, they're just supposed to feel insulted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom