Church plans to have a Qu'ran burning on 9/11/10

[Gnarwhal]

This is either going to escalate or it's going to draw an immediate reaction on the day of. They aren't any better than the Christians involved in the crusades or the inquisition—both are blots on Christian history. Sure, as Americans they have the right to do that but as Christians they should be thinking beyond just their human rights on to their responsibilities as followers of Jesus.

 

[TheUnwanted]

This is either going to escalate or it's going to draw an immediate reaction on the day of. They aren't any better than the Christians involved in the crusades or the inquisition—both are blots on Christian history. Sure, as Americans they have the right to do that but as Christians they should be thinking beyond just their human rights on to their responsibilities as followers of Jesus.

Typical double standard. They get to build a mosque on top of ground zero, because their rights are more important than our feelings, but we hgave to be mindful of their feelings to the point of curtailing out rights.

 

[Aimiel]

It's designed to be divisive and cause wavering faith. God doesn't want us burning their Koran any more than He wants them to burn our Bibles, which I have no doubt that they do, daily.

 

[probinson]

Typical double standard. They get to build a mosque on top of ground zero, because their rights are more important than our feelings, but we hgave to be mindful of their feelings to the point of curtailing out rights.

Um, this really doesn't have anything to do with the feelings of Muslims.

Here was my analysis, from just a few posts ago (emphasis added for clarity);

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Actually, I don't think you do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire;

Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
​

Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.


Source: Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Given the content of the last paragraph above, I do now wonder if it really would be considered within someone's rights to burn the Qu'ran on 9/11. Given the reasonable likelihood that such an action would result in elevated danger to American troops and civilians at home and abroad, and given that such an action may indeed be shown to result in "imminent lawless action", one could definitely make a reasonable case that because burning the Qu'ran would result in imminent danger to our troops and civilians, that such an action goes beyond the realm of "free speech".

This is why I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Please note that the reasoning, which you have incorrectly labeled a double standard, has NOTHING TO DO with Muslims feelings, and everything to do with the safety of innocent Americans the world over.

 

[gratefulgrace]

Originally Posted by Chilled Water

This is either going to escalate or it's going to draw an immediate reaction on the day of. They aren't any better than the Christians involved in the crusades or the inquisition—both are blots on Christian history. Sure, as Americans they have the right to do that but as Christians they should be thinking beyond just their human rights on to their responsibilities as followers of Jesus.
​

Typical double standard. They get to build a mosque on top of ground zero, because their rights are more important than our feelings, but we hgave to be mindful of their feelings to the point of curtailing out rights.

Do we have any rights as Christians. I am not sure the Bible tells us we have the right to do such a thing. Surely this is the issue for Christians not what we can legally get away with in our society. Again who are we listening too. gg

 

[TheUnwanted]

Um, this really doesn't have anything to do with the feelings of Muslims.Please note that the reasoning, which you have incorrectly labeled a double standard, has NOTHING TO DO with Muslims feelings, and everything to do with the safety of innocent Americans the world over.

Sorry... denying people their religious and free speech right to burn whatever they like because of how moslooms may react, i.e. with violence and killing of Americans, is "NOTHING TO DO with musloom feelings"? How does THAT work?

 

[Ramy Louis]

Does this father want to attract more Muslims to Christianity or he's consedring himself in a state of war with Muslims because of all the blood shed made him angery, so he's just anger and that is all.

and in this case he should read the Koran and hadith (Mohamed stories and sayings) which is exactly equally holy and important to Koran and criticize and discuss them, not to burn the Koran.
I don't think this is useful to Muslims or Christians, but also I think it's not so dangerous.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Typical double standard. They get to build a mosque on top of ground zero, because their rights are more important than our feelings, but we hgave to be mindful of their feelings to the point of curtailing out rights.

Their feelings aren't my main concerned, and like probby said that's not really the point. Although I'm very aware that if we go on offending Muslims it just makes it that much harder to win them to Christ.

Originally Posted by Chilled Water

This is either going to escalate or it's going to draw an immediate reaction on the day of. They aren't any better than the Christians involved in the crusades or the inquisition—both are blots on Christian history. Sure, as Americans they have the right to do that but as Christians they should be thinking beyond just their human rights on to their responsibilities as followers of Jesus.
​

Do we have any rights as Christians. I am not sure the Bible tells us we have the right to do such a thing. Surely this is the issue for Christians not what we can legally get away with in our society. Again who are we listening too. gg

Excellent point gratefulgrace.

We need to remember that we are Christians first and Americans second. We're ambassadors of Heaven to this world (and nation).

 

[probinson]

Sorry... denying people their religious and free speech right to burn whatever they like because of how moslooms may react, i.e. with violence and killing of Americans, is "NOTHING TO DO with musloom feelings"? How does THAT work?

Well, for one thing, I am concerned not with Muslims feelings, but rather the safety of American troops and civilians at home and abroad.

Aren't you?

 

[TheUnwanted]

Well, for one thing, I am concerned not with Muslims feelings, but rather the safety of American troops and civilians at home and abroad.

Aren't you?

Of course.

But do we surrender our freedoms and rights because someone somewhere else made threats of violence against us? I do so hate to use a cliche, but isn't that how the terroists win?

Seriously, today we stop people engaging in their free speech and religious freedom, because it might "insight violence against us". You think demanding we don't burn the Koran is where they'll stop? What about all the other things that allegedly "incite violence against us"? Our support of Israel, for example? Should we abandon Israel and the Middle East peace process because certain mooslim extremist make threats of violence over it?

Or do we say "get stuffed, our country, our rules"?

 

[probinson]

Of course.

But do we surrender our freedoms and rights because someone somewhere else made threats of violence against us? I do so hate to use a cliche, but isn't that how the terroists win?

I can tell how much you hated to do that.

Seriously, today we stop people engaging in their free speech and religious freedom, because it might "insight violence against us". You think demanding we don't burn the Koran is where they'll stop? What about all the other things that allegedly "incite violence against us"? Our support of Israel, for example? Should we abandon Israel and the Middle East peace process because certain mooslim extremist make threats of violence over it?

Or do we say "get stuffed, our country, our rules"?

I think there's another option.

I'm not suggesting to you that this church and these people don't have a right to do this (although there may be legal precedent to disallow this kind of thing for the safety of our troops and citizens... see my previous posts).

My point is just because the pastor and the church are allowed to do it doesn't mean they should.

I can already hear the cries of HYPOCRITE! forming on people's keyboards as we speak, since much of the debate around Park51 has centered on that exact same premise, but let me tell you why this is different;

THEY'RE CHRISTIANS.
​

IOW, I believe that the Love of God sometimes compels us to forgo our "rights". According to 1 Corinthians 13:5, Love does not insist on its own rights, nor its own way. Therefore, I find it perfectly reasonable to express to my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though you may have the right, that doesn't make it right.

With that said, even though I disagree with them, I still support their rights. Even though I personally find the whole thing remarkably irresponsible, selfish and self-serving, not to mention a horrible witness for Christianity, I absolutely respect their right to do it.

I believe there is a remarkable difference between giving up your rights because the Love of God compels you vs. giving up your rights because someone else tells you that you should.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Disclaimer: My posting this comic strip/cartoon, whatever you want to call it, in no way illustrates what I think about this book burning. I'm not going to be giving my opinion on this. I just thought it would be a good place to post this.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Disclaimer: My posting this comic strip/cartoon, whatever you want to call it, in no way illustrates what I think about this book burning. I'm not going to be giving my opinion on this. I just thought it would be a good place to post this.

Haha, it's funny cause it's true.

 

[SharonL]

 

[psalms 91]

Personally I would love to join in but really what purpose does this serve?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Personally I would love to join in but really what purpose does this serve?

Well, it gives people a chance to call other people names, point the finger at them, and among other things.

I don't know, I guess I will give my opinion. In the sameway that I think the Imam who wants to build this mosque in NY is being reckless, uncompassionate, and wrong I think this pastor in Florida is being reckless, uncompassionate, and wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right and burning books as a form of protest is definately wrong for christians to engage in.

The cartoon above I think is a good illustration of two wrongs not making a right.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I can tell how much you hated to do that.



I think there's another option.

I'm not suggesting to you that this church and these people don't have a right to do this (although there may be legal precedent to disallow this kind of thing for the safety of our troops and citizens... see my previous posts).

My point is just because the pastor and the church are allowed to do it doesn't mean they should.

I can already hear the cries of HYPOCRITE! forming on people's keyboards as we speak, since much of the debate around Park51 has centered on that exact same premise, but let me tell you why this is different;

THEY'RE CHRISTIANS.
​

IOW, I believe that the Love of God sometimes compels us to forgo our "rights". According to 1 Corinthians 13:5, Love does not insist on its own rights, nor its own way. Therefore, I find it perfectly reasonable to express to my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though you may have the right, that doesn't make it right.

With that said, even though I disagree with them, I still support their rights. Even though I personally find the whole thing remarkably irresponsible, selfish and self-serving, not to mention a horrible witness for Christianity, I absolutely respect their right to do it.

I believe there is a remarkable difference between giving up your rights because the Love of God compels you vs. giving up your rights because someone else tells you that you should.

Hopefully they will listen to you Probby this is the point I have been trying gently to make. I think Jesus weeps over this perpetuation of hatred. And by the way it is a very fundamental extremist muslim thing to do IMHO. gg

 

[Questioning Christian]

Why are you trying to take away the Florida pastor's 1st Amendment rights?

I don't understand why you guys are against religious freedom.

[see if you can read between the lines]

 

[simonpeter]

Why are you trying to take away the Florida pastor's 1st Amendment rights?

I don't understand why you guys are against religious freedom.

[see if you can read between the lines]

The pastor is making a fool out of himself (and out of Christians world over). Don't you care? It is your reputation too (as a Christian) that will be hurt.

 

[Questioning Christian]

The pastor is making a fool out of himself (and out of Christians world over). Don't you care? It is your reputation too (as a Christian) that will be hurt.

But you're taking away his religious freedom