Burn a Koran for free speech.

[lawtonfogle]

Why a Qu'ran? Why not a Bible? Why not a copy of On the Origin of Species?

Atheist/modern day Christians don't tend to have as many rage fest. You did not the part where I said I don't care if you burned a Bible instead.

Free speech hasn't been limited in the US, and burning Qu'rans has not been outlawed.

But those who burn them are blamed for the responses of adults who should know better than to riot.

So why suggest burning Qu'rans? Because you want to incite hatred and flick the bird at the Islamic community. Real mature.

No, more so flick the bird at those trying to blame an expression of free speech for the actions of mentally competent adults. As to maturity, if the other side wants honest debates I'll meet them on that issue, but they tend not to.

I agree with religious&reasonable: can you? Yes. Should you? No. Why? Because it's a gorram stupid idea.

It is stupid because of the way others will respond. This puts it on the slope to making it illegal. And even more simple expressions of freedom of speech have been made illegal recently.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yeah, that.

However, if you feel the need to burn books - doesn't that imply (at the very least symbolically) that you want them destroyed? Not just the copies that are turned to ashes there, but the very content purged from the face of the earth?

If I actually was burning the book because of what you said, you might have a point. But if I'm burning a book because of how people are reacting to the thought of that book being burned, then no.

And then, of course, there's the Heine-connection:

In his 1821 play, Almansor, the German writer Heinrich Heine — referring to the burning of the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, during the Spanish Inquisition — wrote, "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." ("Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.")

While we might be having physical burning these days, have you been missing the books we have been legally burning recently?

Under Florida law, even classical litterature that makes it into top 100 lists can be banned. Oh, the DAs there haven't yet applied the laws to anything popular, but the law has already been put in place.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, that’s a great idea. Why not give the Islamic militants even more reason to hate the US? It’s worked out pretty well so far, hasn’t it? After all, what could they do about it? It’s not like they’d fly planes into buildings or anything, would they?

You know, our legalizing sex outside of marriage is probably giving them all sorts of messages of how we are an evil society controlled by what their source of evil is. Why did we ever do something so stupid as to legalize sex outside of marriage, or legalize homosexual relationships; it just gives the militants so much more reason to hate us.

 

[Schneiderman]

The reaction to burning the qur'an is what would tempt me to do it. Just to spite those who lash out against free speech, whether it's the radicals who kill people in response to it, or the people who would advocate limiting my right to do it because they feel threatened by it. Personally I'm not interested in burning books myself, but the controversy itself surrounding the burning of the qur'an makes me kind of want to.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It is also legal to have sex outside of marriage, but many Christians would disagree with doing it just because we can. Just because we can it doesn't mean we should.

I think one of the biggest factors in me waiting for marriage is that no one force me, no one tried to make me do it. If someone was trying to ban sex outside of marriage, my choices would likely be different. Now, if someone was trying to ban homosexuality I still wouldn't become one because at some point it becomes personally too appeasing, but that is because of personal reasons (either choices or, as in this case, genetics). But if someone was trying to ban homosexuality, I would still react far more pro-homosexual than I generally do (for example, I am seen as much more of a homosexual activist at my church where I am one of the only ones telling people there to stay out of legislating the sex lives of others unless they ask for it).

 

[ChrisLeishy]

Aren’t there quite a few verses that encourage Christians to proselytise?

good opportunity for you to read the new testament and look them up for me, start at Matthew and work your way through. by the time you finish revelation you will have joined us.

drop em in when you finish lol it will give you something new to do on a Friday night. Is more fun than the gospel of atheism that's a bit empty for my liking

 

[Eudaimonist]

Should I limit my free speech by having to consider how others would interpret it?

Limit your free speech in law? No.

Choose the form and content of your speech wisely? Yes.

In any act of communication, you should consider how others will interpret it. Did you think you were speaking to yourself?

Even in writing this post, I am considering how lawtonfogle will interpret my message. There are many things that I could write that I won't, because I don't want to send the wrong message, or provoke the wrong reaction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[3sigma]

You know, our legalizing sex outside of marriage is probably giving them all sorts of messages of how we are an evil society controlled by what their source of evil is.

So you think Islamic militants see that as equivalent to deliberately burning the Qur’an? Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that you are suggesting we give them even more reason to hate the US by adding Qur’an burning to the list things that infuriate them.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Not one by law makers, but there seems to be a growing voice who want to outlaw it because of the violent reactions, and there are other cases where free speech is getting hammered on.

What result are you expecting from people doing this? How will it fix the apparent problems with "some people" wanting to outlaw the practice?

 

[3sigma]

good opportunity for you to read the new testament and look them up for me, start at Matthew and work your way through. by the time you finish revelation you will have joined us.

Matthew 10 gives a good example. It encourages Christians to go forth and proselytise and be hated for it.

i got a better idea lets burn the God delusion that would be heaps more fun. Everyone can burn that it would be very uniting.

What would you expect to see? Do you think the headlines would read, “Christian burns ‘God Delusion’; atheists riot killing seven UN workers”? No, that’s laughably unrealistic. Here’s another example I would never expect to see: “Creationist burns ‘On the Origin of Species’; scientists riot killing seven UN workers”. However, the headline, “Christian Pastor burns Qur’an; Muslims riot killing seven UN workers” is not unexpected nor is the headline, “Student removes communion wafer from church; receives death threats from Catholics”. The fact that those headlines are all too common speaks volumes about religious beliefs and the people who hold them.

 

[ScottFishes]

Should I limit my free speech by having to consider how others would interpret it? Consider how extreme some religions get, especially the ones more akin to a cult, and even honest questioning of the religion becomes fighting words.

It is not so simple as limiting free speech or not. You have a responsibility as an American (I am assuming you are) to consider the ramifications of you actions and how it will effect others. I understand that we should never limit free speech. It is a right that we fight and die for and I would not have that taken away. However you should take responsibility for the using of your rights. Violence has escalated in the middle east since the burning of the book. Our soldiers, my buddies, are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of the dicision to burn the Qur'an. Soldiers are dying because of that decision. The Commanding General asked that the book not be burned because of the problems it will cause for the troops, and he was ignored. I do not think free speech should ever be limited by the government. I fight to protect that right, but should children grow up without fathers, and wives be widowed because somebody here, who doesnt have to face the guns, wanted to make a point. We consider the results of our actions in other facets of life. Don't drink and drive, dont steal, kill, etc. Why not the same here. I will toe the line any and every time to protect the rights of my countrymen, so why not consider how your actions will effect my job. I know I volunteered, but if not me then who. What if it was your brother, son, father, or husband?

 

[hollyda]

Do you have the right to burn the Qur'an? Yes.
Should that right be revoked? Absolutely not.
Should you enact that right just to make noise? I would say no, and even if you did so, I would defend your right to do it even if though I think you shouldn't.

This is the same as "I severely dislike the Westboro Baptist Church but I agree they are protected under the first amendment, and therefore have the right to protest soldier funerals in the name of God." I do believe WBC is protected by our Constitution, but that doesn't mean I'd join them in spreading hate and bigotry. Do I wish they would stop? Yes. Am I disgusted by them? Absolutely. But I would defend their right under the US Constitution to exercise freedom of speech.

Similarly, book burning, regardless of the book, is protected by the Constitution, but I would not advocate doing something in the name of hate. There are much more worthwhile causes on which to focus.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It is not so simple as limiting free speech or not. You have a responsibility as an American (I am assuming you are) to consider the ramifications of you actions and how it will effect others.

Which is that some people will get mad. How they react to their anger is not my responsibility. Perhaps my concern, but to make it my responsibility begins the process to limit freedom of speech.

I understand that we should never limit free speech. It is a right that we fight and die for and I would not have that taken away. However you should take responsibility for the using of your rights. Violence has escalated in the middle east since the burning of the book. Our soldiers, my buddies, are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of the dicision to burn the Qur'an.

No, your buddies have to deal with immature individuals who can't handle an insult. The fault lies on those rioting.

Soldiers are dying because of that decision.

No, they are dying due to riots. If we blame the ones who caused the reason they are rioting, then the law makers who made America a place of freedom and democracy are the reason the soldiers are dying.

The Commanding General asked that the book not be burned because of the problems it will cause for the troops, and he was ignored. I do not think free speech should ever be limited by the government. I fight to protect that right, but should children grow up without fathers, and wives be widowed because somebody here, who doesnt have to face the guns, wanted to make a point.

Burning the book killed no one. Those brats (for lack of a word I could use here) who rioted over it are the ones who took the father away.

We consider the results of our actions in other facets of life. Don't drink and drive,

I the bar responsible because a drunk person decides to drive, or is it the driver's fault?

dont steal, kill, etc. Why not the same here. I will toe the line any and every time to protect the rights of my countrymen, so why not consider how your actions will effect my job. I know I volunteered, but if not me then who. What if it was your brother, son, father, or husband?

My father was in the military, he's retired out of it now. But I put the blame of the harm on the rioters.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So you think Islamic militants see that as equivalent to deliberately burning the Qur’an? Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that you are suggesting we give them even more reason to hate the US by adding Qur’an burning to the list things that infuriate them.

Not as bad, but the point still stands.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Limit your free speech in law? No.

Choose the form and content of your speech wisely? Yes.

But what about content that is not acceptable to the majority regardless of form?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Lawtonfogle,

What would the Quran burning campaign achieve ? Is it supposed to stave off some future move to outlaw Quran burning? I'm really not seeing how it would do anything that productive. Unless maybe you consider inflaming hatred between religions as something productive? That's about all that would come out of it save maybe if it actually provoked the anti-Quran burning laws that you are worried are around the corner (despite there being no real talk of it in the Congress or the Senate). If anything it might end up being counter productive in that regard.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Some states have already banned cross burnings. Are you going to do that too?

 

[Rajni]

So, would there be anything wrong with trying to start a movement to burn Koran (and any other books people want to) just to show this (where I live, because I'm talking about where I live) is the USA and we have freedom of speech, a freedom that we will exercise even when others threaten violence if we speak.

While I personally find the burning of books distasteful, it is like honey compared to limiting free speech. I say every American should go out and burn a book just to show they have the freedom to (and no, I don't actually care if you burn a Bible instead).

Are we talking freedom of speech, or freedom of pyromania ?

.

 

[Spiritlight]

go lead by your example of love. Show the world Jesus love.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheist/modern day Christians don't tend to have as many rage fest. You did not the part where I said I don't care if you burned a Bible instead.

I did, I just didn't see the relevance. You may not care if people burn Bibles, but something tells me someone, probably in the Deep South of the US, would be rather ticked off.

But those who burn them are blamed for the responses of adults who should know better than to riot.

Indirectly, yeah. They knew burning Qu'rans would incited anger in Islamic countries. They knew that insulting Muslims leads to riots. That doesn't justify Muslims rioting, of course, but it does place at least some blame on those who deliberately and knowingly poured petrol on the fire.

No, more so flick the bird at those trying to blame an expression of free speech for the actions of mentally competent adults.

Well, those who place the blame on those who burnt the Qu'rans are right: even if their actions were legal, they're still at least partially culpable for the riots and deaths. No one is saying their actions should be made criminal (or, at least, I hope not). They're free to burn as many Qu'rans as they like. But that doesn't make it a moral or righteous thing to do. It's borderline retarded, WBC-style.

As to maturity, if the other side wants honest debates I'll meet them on that issue, but they tend not to.

That could be said by any side of any controversial issue.

It is stupid because of the way others will respond. This puts it on the slope to making it illegal. And even more simple expressions of freedom of speech have been made illegal recently.

Such as? For what it's worth, I'm opposed to any infringement on on the freedom of speech, and other associated freedoms (expression, association, etc). The US has gone from being the butt of international jokes, to a state with worryingly limited freedoms and liberties.