Burn a Quran day

ddt said:
Your question why burning a book qualifies as free speech has already been answered multiple times. It has been backed up by a number of sources. Without any explanation whatsoever, you keep repeating the same question. I notice you recently did exactly the same thing in an evolution thread w.r.t. the term "zygote". Do you lack in reading comprehension or are you trolling or what?
Click to expand...
Your calling me a troll will be reported. Is it necessary for you to argue by bringing up another thread?
As to what is and what is not covered by the free speech clause in the First Amendment - I'm not a constitutional legal scholar and I'm not even American. But it's easy to dig up (supreme) court verdicts about it. Some samples:
- flag burning is covered (see Texas vs Johnson)
- porn is covered (see Flynt vs. Falwell)
- bringing a same-sex-date to the prom is covered (see McMillen vs Itawamba school district)

As you see, "speech" is a lot more wider than just uttering words with your mouth.
Click to expand...

The question has not been answered and your bringing up porn, flags and same sex dating has nothing to do with my question. Are you going to answer or keep evading?
 
MG1962 said:
Yup and one can only imagine how things would be if we all went and burned a bible out the front of their church
Click to expand...

How different is the fecal Madonna from burning a bible ? http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html The Vatican regularly denounces things it objects to. The JDL and others regularly denounce anti-semitic jackasses like Oliver Stone. That is proper civil discourse. Rioting, killing people and burning overturning cars is not acceptable civil behavior. Doing so over a cartoon image points to the pathetic belief system.

Frankly I think you could burn bible in front of a church (or a Torah in front of a Synagogue), and say you'd be called names but that's about where it would stop.

In the West Christianity has had a lot of the rough edges worn down since protestantism evolved. These people may believe that they are right,and even inherently superior to others, but they have some sense of tolerance for other POVs. You can't really say the same of Islam.

I down't want to paint with too broad a brush, practical Islam in more advanced places like Turkey or Iran seems fairly different from the practices in Egypt, Somolia, sub-Saharan Africa, but it is basically a religion of intolerance. It's intolerant of apostacy, it's intolerant toward egalitarianim, it's intolerant of "pagan" beliefs and it's violently opposed to atheism.. Read up on Sharia law sometime. Not only does it enforce it's own religio-cultural values, but it's treatment of women and non-believers is appalling. It contradicts any Islamic claim of civilization. It's rules of evidence are no better than those of 5th century Visogoths and germanic tribes, and arguably worse..

It seems they avoided iconography only to make a fetish of anti-iconography.

So let's not draw blatently false comparisons. You can't honestly believe that burning a bible, torah and koran would each elicit the same sort of response.
 
noreligion said:
Your calling me a troll will be reported.
Click to expand...
It's that reading comprehension thing I guess. (a) I didn't call you a troll, but asked if you were trolling, giving other options. (b) I asked if that post was trolling, not if you were a troll. Look up in the MA, "attack the argument, not the arguer". In this case, rather, the lack of argument.

noreligion said:
Is it necessary for you to argue by bringing up another thread?
Click to expand...
I had the faint hope that by bringing to your attention that this posting behaviour also managed to annoy a lurker (viz. me in that other thread) might help you re-evaluate this behaviour. Apparently not.

noreligion said:
The question has not been answered and your bringing up porn, flags and same sex dating has nothing to do with my question. Are you going to answer or keep evading?
Click to expand...
Your question has been answered several times. Insisting it hasn't been answered doesn't make that true, and the utter lack of argument for that position only adds to its incredibility.

And the other examples I gave are relevant, as you asked: "what is covered by the constitutional guarantee of free speech", which is a wide-ranging question and not just confined to book burning.
 
noreligion said:
Yes but judging from the past....well let's just say I wouldn't want to be the book burner. How exactly does freedom of speech allow book burning? Book burning isn't speech unless one places the burning books on someones body so they scream.
Click to expand...

noreligion said:
Your calling me a troll will be reported. Is it necessary for you to argue by bringing up another thread?


The question has not been answered and your bringing up porn, flags and same sex dating has nothing to do with my question. Are you going to answer or keep evading?
Click to expand...

Your question has been answered many times.

There doesn't seem to be a law against it so burning books looks completely legal. You latched onto the phrase "free speech" to completely derail the thread.

Since the book is private property the owner can dispose of it however they want.

I think burning a koran is unwise because it just gives it more credence in the eyes of believers as in " the kuffir are scared of the words of Allah".
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
...
So let's not draw blatently false comparisons. You can't honestly believe that burning a bible, torah and koran would each elicit the same sort of response.
Click to expand...
.
Needs to be a bunch of bibles, torahs and korans tossed on that fire.
Just to be ecumenical.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Needs to be a bunch of bibles, torahs and korans tossed on that fire.
Just to be ecumenical.
Click to expand...

The Bhagavad Gita , the Book of Mormon and Dianetics would be good additions.
 
That would make the event truly newsworthy. :)
And some I Ching sticks.
 
Yes, I second "Dianetics"...if anything should be burned, it is that.

Oh, and maybe any of the Dan Brown books.
 
noreligion said:
Once again I ask you what is covered by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and why burning a koran qualifies as free speech.
Click to expand...
He has already explained that to you. Go back and read his explanation again, which is where he correctly compares this to flag burning, also a matter of protected speech/expression of dissent and disagreement.

But this thread reminds me of a different thread on these sub forums, wherein skeptics are encouraged by a leading skeptic "don't be a dick."

I think the pastor of this church who wishes to make a big deal about burning Al Quran should likewise heed that advice: don't be a dick.

I can see nothing positive in this. This man is harnessing, deliberately, negative emotion. Not a good example of loving one's neighbor as one's self ...

If the guy had a nut in his sack, he'd burn the Koran in Mecca, in public.

That, I'd respect him for: speaking out in dissent where it can cost you.

What he's doing is little more than attention whoring.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
He has already explained that to you. Go back and read his explanation again, which is where he correctly compares this to flag burning, also a matter of protected speech/expression of dissent and disagreement.

But this thread reminds me of a different thread on these sub forums, wherein skeptics are encouraged by a leading skeptic "don't be a dick."

I think the pastor of this church who wishes to make a big deal about burning Al Quran should likewise heed that advice: don't be a dick.

I can see nothing positive in this. This man is harnessing, deliberately, negative emotion. Not a good example of loving one's neighbor as one's self ...

If the guy had a nut in his sack, he'd burn the Koran in Mecca, in public.

That, I'd respect him for: speaking out in dissent where it can cost you.

What he's doing is little more than attention whoring.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it can't cost you your life here in the US?

It only takes a fatwa.
 
noreligion said:
Once again I ask you what is covered by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and why burning a koran qualifies as free speech.
Click to expand...

Because a long line of legal precedents from the Supreme Court has stated that actions can qualify as speech in certain situations. This is supported by my link above. If you want to learn more, I recommend you do some research.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Texas v. Johnson
Click to expand...



Might be helpful to quote a little bit from the wiki to highlight the major decision.


from the link said:
In determining the case, the court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.

The First Amendment specifically disallows the abridgment of "speech," but the court reiterated its long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was an uncontroversial conclusion in light of cases such as Stromberg v. California (display of a red flag as speech) and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (wearing of a black armband as speech).

The court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."

The court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment... Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."
Click to expand...
 
If the guy had a nut in his sack, he'd burn the Koran in Mecca, in public.

That, I'd respect him for: speaking out in dissent where it can cost you.
Click to expand...
I would not. Pure machismo.... worthless and pointless as any of the other spiteful platitudes of conventional speech. As for myself, I would respect an eloquent and timeless statement of ineffable truth which caused reflection and captured the hearts and minds of the intended targets, and changed their attitude for the better.

But of course, that's not the Christian thing to do.
 
Book burning isn't speech unless one places the burning books on someones body so they scream.
Click to expand...

Very funny. Reminds me of someone who used to post here and would say such things and be serious...oh, sorry.:D
 
Darth Rotor said:
He has already explained that to you. Go back and read his explanation again, which is where he correctly compares this to flag burning, also a matter of protected speech/expression of dissent and disagreement.

But this thread reminds me of a different thread on these sub forums, wherein skeptics are encouraged by a leading skeptic "don't be a dick."

I think the pastor of this church who wishes to make a big deal about burning Al Quran should likewise heed that advice: don't be a dick.

I can see nothing positive in this. This man is harnessing, deliberately, negative emotion. Not a good example of loving one's neighbor as one's self ...

If the guy had a nut in his sack, he'd burn the Koran in Mecca, in public.

That, I'd respect him for: speaking out in dissent where it can cost you.

What he's doing is little more than attention whoring.
Click to expand...

A number of people are going to die over this, and he isn't one of them. He wouldn't get into Mecca, but he could do it in Cairo easily enough, and become a martyr.

Provoking angry people into becoming angry to show how angry they are is a stupid exercise. We know that there are crazy muslims out there who will kill the nearest Christian over this. It doesn't help anyone when they actually do it.

It also doesn't matter whether it's P.Z. Myers or Draw Mohammed day. Deliberately provoking crazy people to make them more crazy is a dumb thing to do, if that's the only intention. It's also extremely arrogant to think that because I value something less than you do, that my valuation should take precedence. There are a lot of things which people have the right to do in a free society. Mostly, they should refrain from doing them. Because it's permitted doesn't mean it's compulsory.
 
tsig said:
Why do you think it can't cost you your life here in the US?

It only takes a fatwa.
Click to expand...

The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom