I say , if someone wants the burn the Koran : so frickin what ?

[UndertheOcean]

FREEDOM of speech includes the freedom of making an ASS of yourself.

This is also allowed in the USA :

1) using the American flag as toilet paper.
2) Flushing the bible down the toilet.
3) Saying that the president is Hitler.
-> In the Middle East innocently pointing any faults in the abilities of the exalted leader will get you in trouble (For example , I know that in jordan saying something like : "The king is a moron" will get you atleast a year in prison : and Jordan is one of the liberal Arab countries)
4)Claiming the holocaust never happened.

Freedom of Expression is one of the greatest things about America , even Europe puts holocaust deniers in jail.

Please , try to keep it.

[Swede]

1. It's yelling "fire" in a theater.

People are gonna die.

[uppityperson]

3. Reminiscent of "bring it on", isn't it?

[hughee99]

4. Really? Like fire in a crowded theater?

Is your thinking that the same idiots that are burning the Koran aren't going to be able to properly contain the fire, or are you going with the "our freedoms will upset others and create violence"? That's not really anything like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Better Believe It]

33. What percentage of seats must be filled before the threater becomes crowded?

And should one take a seat count before deciding whether or not to yell "fire"?

If only 30 seats out of 500 are occupied is it OK for me to alert everyone to leave the theater or should I wait until the movie is over with?

I just want to do the right thing now.

[NoNothing]

5. No, it definitely is NOT

And if that really is true, all the more reason to do it.

Of all the reasons NOT to say something, violent retaliation is the LEAST defensible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Since we already have had riots

due to desecration... I guess you are ok with that...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4535491.stm

American provincialism... STOOPID.

[Deep13]

6. No it's not.

This will not cause a panic in a crowd. While I agree the whole thing is idiotic, Christian Fundies still have a right to believe what they want including the idea that other religions are evil. They are responsible for their own behavior. They are not responsible for any acts of violence committed by others over the imagined offense their religious expression causes. Any retaliation will be deliberate, calculated and malicious. It will not be the result of mindless panic.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rebubula]

25. Only....

...if other, unhinged people act on it.

Yelling fire is a guarantee that people will clamor for an exit and possibly kill people in the process in order to save their lives.

Burning a Koran, while stupid and hateful, is no more hateful that then propaganda coming out of ME Mosques and Madrassas.

If you kill someone for something that someone else said - YOU ARE A LOSER.


The church that wants to do this is stupid and foolish, but they are not responsible for the violent actions of people that are 15,000 miles away.

[Better Believe It]

29. Nothing illegal about that. Should one whisper it? Or leave quietly hoping no one would notice?

Just asking.

I get tired of hearing the weak "fire in a theater" analogy to justify the repression of civil liberties.

[sabrina 1]

64. No one has the right to engage in religious persecution.

That is not considered to be a civil liberty. Freedom requires responsibility. Sad to see so little of it in this country today.

The religion that is currently under attack here, was used to torture people in Gauntamo Bay and in Abu Ghraib. This exact method, destruction of their holy books, was uses and widely condemned world-wide and considered a war crime crime.

Sad to see people here unwilling to simply condemn it. But I know it feels good to some, and gets a lot of attention, to pretend to be standing up for civil liberties. Those liberties are being seriously threatened at the moment in this country, if you are a Muslim/American.

[Deep13]

77. Who is being persecuted?

Muslims from having copies of their religion's book burned (without depriving them of their own copies)? Or Christian Fundies for not being allowed to express their rejection of other religions? There is no civil liberty in being free from a subjective feeling of offense. Everyone has a right to his or her own ideas including religious ideas. At the same time, one has to expect that not everyone will agree.

As long as it is a peaceful demonstration without damaging the property of others or incitement to violence, no one is being persecuted. Muslims remain free to practice their religion and read whatever they want. They do not have a right to require others to share their views.

[sabrina 1]

104. Muslims in the custory of the U.S. military were persecuted

for their religious beliefs by using those beliefs to torture them. Throwing the Quran in the toilet, forcing them to do things that was against their religion. All violations of International law. Not to mention the detention of people merely because they are Muslims, kept in detention for years without charges.

And the campaign against Muslims from the right, the attacks on Mosques and on individuals simply because they look like Muslims.

All this add a whole other dimension to this book burning which any rational person can see. No one denies they have a right to do it, although they have now been denied a permit to do so. But no one has to support them either, and posting an OP like this is a form of support which was completely unnecessary since we are fully aware of their rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. +1000

I wish I COULD RECOMMEND this...

[Freetradesucks]

124. No they were not,

They were detained due to their direct involvement in the planning of and execution of plans to murder civilians.

The fact that they were almost all Muslim as well is kinda what a lot of people are talking about.

Let me ask you this, do you think that there are any violent right wing fundie organizations that would like to commit violence?

[sabrina 1]

136. Well, you are clearly so misinformed as to how many of the detainees

ended up in Guantanamo Bay I would not know where to begin. Suffice it say you couldn't be more wrong, not to mention the many innocent Muslims who were rounded up right here after 9/11 and disappeared into detention centers in this country.

You have not addressed the use of their religion for torture. The whole world is very conscious of those vile, criminal practices in U.S. detention centers.

As to your last question, I believe the majority of rightwing fundie organizations have not committed violent acts. What they want to do I cannot imagine as I am not a mind-reader. The fact that a small minority of them have, certainly doesn't convict all of them, does it?

It is really shocking what all this has revealed about people who claim to be progressive democrats. I am sure the Nazis defended their scapegoating of Jews, Gays and Romas also and I'm sure they had their apologists. Otherwise they could not have succeeded.

[handmade34]

78. "freedom requires responsibility"

thank you for saying that... I have not once said the church has no right to burn the Korans, only that it is an irresponsible act and should be denounced

[True Earthling]

154. Why is religious ideology treated different than political ideology?

There wouldn't be much rioting if the pastor planned to burn a US flag or the constitution, in fact it would probably be cheered in a lot of countries. We condemn acts desecrating religion because the feelings and passions run deeper. We are indoctrinated with religion from the time we can walk and talk - especially in Islam. It's more intertwined in our lives - especially in the lives of Muslims. Islam has more political aspects to it than other religions so all the more reason to compare it a political ideology. I can understand their reactions but I believe we should be free to protest any ideology - political or religious. The pastor's book burning is a SYMBOLIC gesture and is not religious persecution - no more than protesting against political platforms.

That said - there would probably be a lot fewer political protests if the reaction of the offended party was to riot and cause deaths. The pastor must take some of the blame if US troops die or Americans are harmed because of this action. The violent reaction is easy to predict so hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the pastor finds a less abrasive way to express his point.

[TroglodyteScholar]

120. While I agree that it's a false comparison...

...you're missing the essential fact of the "Fire!" in a theater scenario. There is no fire. It's about stirring up a needless panic.

[gratuitous]

37. No it isn't

Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater presents a clear and present danger to the folks in the theater. The easily foreseeable result is a panicked stampede for the exits, in which case any injuries sustained would be the fault of the person who yelled. Burning a Koran that one owns, even doing so publicly with lots of fanfare, doesn't present a clear and present danger to anyone. Yes, some people will go off their nut, provoked beyond what they consider reasonable limits. But there isn't an emergent situation that endangers any of the people so affected, and they have the luxury of time to reflect and take appropriate action. The people in a crowded theater presume that they don't have the luxury of time, and have to respond immediately.

The First Amendment protects even stupid speech.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. So you are ok with the consequences

Riots over US Koran 'desecration'

Protests in Jalalabad turned violent
At least four people have died and many were hurt after police fired shots to disperse anti-US protests in the Afghan city of Jalalabad, officials say.
Hundreds rioted over reports that interrogators at America's Guantanamo Bay prison had flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet.

The city is now said to be calm after widespread damage to property. All but essential UN staff are being withdrawn.

US authorities have said they are investigating the Koran allegations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4535491.stm

Yeah stupid speech... but I guess it is ok... since the riot and race to the exits will NOT be at the local theater, but one on the other side of the world...

It is the equivalent... since we already have seen riots due to stoopid shit like this.

But I guess we are so fucking provincial we cannot see beyond OURSELVES and our LOCAL theater.

By the way, legally they can... are you volunteering to inform people's families WHEN they get killed? Given it's already happened ONCE...

:banghead:

[gratuitous]

106. Where are you going to draw a line?

What if your post here at DU caused some individual (or a group of individuals) to go off his rocker (or their collective rocker) and kill a bunch of people or riot. He or they specifically cite nadinbrzezinski's post as the rationale. Are you responsible for their actions? Would your culpability require advance warning, or something to have happened previously? Would you agree to submit your posts to a central authority that knows far better than you what you should and shouldn't say? Who would that be? Or, is it far more likely that the offenders made up a rationale, and you didn't have anything to do with it? Should you still have your posts reviewed by some all-knowing central authority, just in case?

Prior restraint (as the doctrine is known legally) has a very high bar, and for good reason. If we're willing to say that the knuckleheads in Florida can't express themselves, no matter how stupid we might find that expression, the day will come, and that right soon, when a group will be willing to make up bogus excuses for their contemplated bad actions in order to exercise prior restraint on words or actions that you think are quite vital to be aired. For example, say you and a bunch of like-minded citizens decide that you want to demonstrate against the foreign policies of the United States, which you think are incredibly screwed up. But the local authorities decide that the possibility is very strong that you will upset a large segment of the population, and those people might just confront you and a massive brawl might ensue. Some windows might even get broken. Would that be sufficient justification for law enforcement to stop your demonstration before it even started? If not, why not? Because you think you're right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. You don't get it

that is fine.

As I said LEGALLY they can. For all I care, throw in a few bibles, a copy or two of the US Constitution, and a few copies of the Holy books of Shinto, and the rest.

Hell, gather all the books you don't like and throw them in.

Realize there WILL BE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES... and I WISH that the US military takes this idiot and puts him on a family team, or State... or whoever wants or has to go inform somebody of this.

People WILL die... but that is ok. And this is why this is not only a propaganda coop for those who don't like us for our freedoms... but also something that while legally can be done, it should not.

Can it be legally stopped? No, and your point? That does not mean I am going to go stand in the corner and applaud this fucking idiot. If you want to, go for it.

[gratuitous]

113. Where did I say I applauded Mr. Jones?

Because unless you can point to where I said that, your point - whatever it is - is rather lost. I didn't say I supported Jones, his congregation or his demonstration. I think I've referred to it as "stupid" and "knuckleheaded," which don't fit my standard definition of "applause," but if you're determined to get bent out of shape over it, why don't you go throw a brick through a window and then blame the Jones gang?

Drop us a note from jail and let us know how that worked out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. I am not the one doing that

but whatever, have a good fucking life. Buy bye.

[TroglodyteScholar]

121. In case you haven't noticed...

...the poster you're engaging has a habit of carrying out prolonged arguments with posters who don't share her black-or-white views. In other words, arguing with her for 100 years won't change her overly simplistic view of things nor her hyperbolic rhetoric.

[gratuitous]

125. I reckon I've been put on ignore (again)

But I still don't see the point she was trying to make. Yes, the Jones idiocy is legal. No, there's nothing I can do from 3,000 miles away to deter it. No, I'm not willing to work up some kind of law (which wouldn't pass constitutional muster anyway) which would amount to prior restraint, as it would open the door for far more mischief than will be wrought by any silly thing the folks at Dove World do.

Ah well. The Constitution isn't all that popular nowadays anywho.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. That is what the ignore button is for

:-)

[roguevalley]

65. actually, if they want a fatwa brought down on their heads, so be it.

what you do, you have to face consequences for. sow hate, reap the whirlwind.

[Codeine]

81. Fuck the heckler's veto.

Burning an American flag will piss off the rednecks, but should I decide I want to do that I will. If these mouth-breathers want to burn a stupid book let 'em.

[JVS]

86. We invaded 2 countries. People have been dying for nearly 10 years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I will paraphrase Einstein on this

Those who burn books will burn people.

And as much as you can do that... you tell that to those who will pay for this for real, with their lives. No, this is not a scary theory... it's happened.

[JDPriestly]

13. The government, however, cannot enforce rules against burning books.

We still have separation of church and state. No book gets special protection because of its religious content.

And I say that as one who supports freedom of religion and also the building of the Muslim community center in the location several blocks from the 9/11 site.

It is not the job of a court or the government to protect religious books because of their religious content.

This is a matter of the judgment of the people who want to burn the books. They should have better sense. How would they feel if someone were burning Bibles. How mean can you get?

Would Jesus have burned the sacred texts of, let's say, the Samaritans or some other religion that existed at his time? I don't think so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. However the government can enforce not screaming fire

in a crowded theater. While in principle I agree with you, the consequences of this will be something to behold.

[TexasObserver]

138. Not even remotely the same as attempting to ban book burnings.

Book burnings are an exercise of free speech. The action is in the nature of protected speech. Our government has a duty to assure that those who wish to burn books can do so free of attack or suppression.

Those who want to burn books are free to do so, provided they own the books and they burn them within safety codes and rules for burning such materials.

The "you can't scream FIRE in a crowded theater" meme has absolutely no applicability to this matter.

[AsahinaKimi]

137. maybe they can get a misdemeanor

on a Air Pollution charge? After all, they are deliberately sending ash and smoke into the air. I don't know what their laws are, but in San Francisco, you can't even use your fire places, as there is an Air Ordnance against it.

[JDPriestly]

146. I guess the burners were refused a permit to have a bonfire.

Why they needed to have a bonfire is beyond me. I guess it is more dramatic. Yes, local government may find other reasons to prohibit the book-burning as long as it is not related to the content of the books.

[Deep13]

19. Two disconnected points.

First, this is not official censorship. The Quran is not a banned book. Second, those exercising free expression including free expression of religion are not responsible for deliberate violent crimes committed by others. If these Christian Fundies believe they are right and that Islam is wrong, they have a right to express that and to burn their own Qurans if they want to.

Frankly, the Islamic world needs to get used to the idea that not everyone agrees with them. We should value freedom of expression at least as much as people in Islamic states value their imagined right not to hear of anything unpleasant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. However it can enforce not screaming fire in a crowded theater

And people WILL get killed because abroad people cannot and will not make that distinction.

[Deep13]

74. False analogy. This will not induce panic.

And I refuse to allow a heckler's veto to undermine the First Amendment. This same argument could have been used and was used to oppose desegregation in the 1950s and 60s. To be clear, I am not equating the noble cause of civil rights with the idiotic need to claim my god is better than your god. Although if one really believes that his own god demands that all other gods be discredited, then it becomes a kind of moral imperative to do so. Equality before the law and freedom of religious expression are both fundamental human rights and we cannot allow mindless hatred to undermine either of them.

I would change my mind if I knew the book-burning crossed the line from religious expression to incitement to violence against any religious minority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Not in the US

Riots over US Koran 'desecration'

Protests in Jalalabad turned violent
At least four people have died and many were hurt after police fired shots to disperse anti-US protests in the Afghan city of Jalalabad, officials say.
Hundreds rioted over reports that interrogators at America's Guantanamo Bay prison had flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet.

The city is now said to be calm after widespread damage to property. All but essential UN staff are being withdrawn.

US authorities have said they are investigating the Koran allegations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4535491.stm

Try to look beyond your damn fucking borders. Oh and that was in 2005.

[Deep13]

95. Did I say I was only looking in the USA?

What you describe is rioting, not panic. Panic is an involuntary, but predictible reaction to the sudden revelation of serious danger. What you are describing is deliberately orchestrated mob violence. That is in fact what I was talking about.

At the very least we can protect basic freedoms of expression within our own damn, fucking borders. I suggest you resist the temptation to fall into moral relativism and see this kind of violence for what it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. I suggest you get a grip

and realize that these idiots are being quite irresponsible... but whatever.

I guess I can go on and do a little screaming fire in a theater... which THIS IS THE FUCKING EQUIVALENT in the world stage. You got NO FUCKING CLUE why this is exactly that and why that mob violence is not precisely organized. As to moral relativism... yep, I guess we should judge all from the point of view of this preacher... and islam is evil and should be destroyed... :sarcasm: have fun with that one.

He is actually stuck in the SAME FUCKING 12th century thinking, but go on.

Perhaps we should make you a member of the team that goes tells any American, if any should get caught in the violence, that they got killed, sorry... since some folks did scream fire in a crowded theater.

There are times that even if you could do something... the responsible thing is NOT TO... this is one of them... freedom comes with certain responsibilities. Seems some folks round these parts don't get that. So let's be an absolutist, and build a huge bonfire of religious books from all over the world... let's see how well that goes. I mean we can...

[JVS]

88. That's Heine, not Einstein. People have already burned, so what's the harm in some books?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. So we can torture too?

I mean we already did it.

Jeesus age... are people this dense? Or rather that fucking provincial?

[JVS]

97. Burning books is now as bad as torture?

I'm simply saying that if we're already killing people then why bother worrying about mere books.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Well we can, we have

so why not?

And yes to people stuck in the 12th century burning a religious book is the equivalent of torture.

But go on... why not add a few OTHER religious books to the mix.

There are days.

[The_Commonist]

7. You say that, and I say that...

...but the people who like the thing give it a holy mystical power, and to harm it is really, really bad. I don't see the value in pissing off a billion people just to make some twisted point.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, except maybe for the fact that I live in the city that already got some planes flown into buildings, and I don't really want to wake up to a dirty nuke in the harbor because some yahoo in Florida thinks it's fun to piss off muslims.

[tularetom]

8. I'd offer the same response as the liberal media did to the "ground zero mosque"

They have every right in the world (and in the Constitution) to burn the Koran or anything else they want.

I simply question the wisdom and the propriety of what they propose to do.

Of course the next time some assholes fly a plane into a building, these douchebags will be the first to scream "They hate us for our freedoms".

[uppityperson]

26. Doing something specifically to insult a group=doing something to promote peace/tolerance?

Poking someone and saying "nah nah nah nah nah nah" is not the same as offering a helping hand.

Promoting hatred against a group or religion is not the same as promoting understanding and working toward tolerance. Or should not be viewed the same as far as advisability goes.

[tularetom]

36. It was my feeble attempt at irony or maybe even sarcasm.

Sometimes it seems so obvious I don't bother to include the little :sarcasm: smilie.

[uppityperson]

48. Sorry, it is difficult here now, telling what is and what isn't.

I found I have to add sarcasm smilie sometimes also, just in case, since have been blasted. Sorry.

[tularetom]

56. Not a problem happens to me all the time too

I can't tell you how many times I've read one of these posts all the way through, shook my head at the stupid stuff the wing nuts were doing now and then noticed the link to the Onion at the bottom of the post.

Reality is becoming a satire of itself. :shrug:

[drmeow]

61. I'd also like to see

how they would react if I burned a bible.

[EmilyKent]

9. Book burning

In Bebel Square is a metal plaque on the ground where Heinrich Heine in 1821 wrote, "Those who begin by burning books, will end by burning people."

Bebel Square is where the Nazis had the book burning of 1933. This is where 20,000 books met their end, anything the Nazis didn't like, especially books written by Jews or pacifists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_University_of_Berlin#Third_Reich

[Dr. Strange]

14. Somewhat ironic.

I wonder what they'd say about "those who begin by banning books"?

[EmilyKent]

18. It has the same

'Fahrenheit 451' effect.

[KingFlorez]

10. Freedom of speech also means others are allowed to have an opposing opinion

Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to just shut up and agree, it's about opposing opinions.

[Burma Jones]

11. People are free to surround these whackjobs and voice their displeasure

If 100 people get together to burn Books, 10,000 should show up to shame them.

But, yeah......if these beady eyed, no-neck monsters want to burn books, they have that right.

[Mz Pip]

23. That's what I want to see

a huge and peaceful counter protest that will make these clowns look like the stupid minority they are.

[BurtWorm]

12. You know something...

You're absolutely right!

:applause:

[craigmatic]

15. They're putting our diplomatic/military people at risk doing this shit.

[LiberalLoner]

20. Yup, exactly. n/t

[SnakeEyes]

44. Same bullshit arguement

that was used against us protesting the war.

[Bragi]

52. Yep. Same old, same old /nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Except that... this actually happened

as in riots and people actually getting killed after rumors or fact of desecration of the Koran left Bagram Air Force Base. I am sure you already knew this, or perhaps not.

[Drale]

16. well

Its not the physical burning of the book, but what it really means is "we hate those raghead sand n$$$$rs, so get them out of MY country." and that is what is horrible about this, the misinformation these ignorant pricks think is "real news" is frightening.

[NoNothing]

34. Maybe, maybe not

I have to admit it is a difficult issue.

On the one hand, it is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where such a deliberately provocative act as book burning is in any way a good idea.

But - on the other hand. If one side says, don't you burn those books, or ELSE! The thing is, at some point, you have to call their bluff somehow. You can't allow people to dictate the activities of private individuals on the basis of threats or intimidation.

This is not a very good analogy, but, imagine a lunch counter is the worst, most disgusting greasy spoon in your city. Someplace you would ordinarily never voluntarily go. But now they put out a sign that says "X PROHIBITED," where X is white, or black, or gay, or something that you are. Wouldn't you at some point feel a need to go and eat there anyways, just to prove that you have that right? That just because you don't want to, doesn't mean they can tell you that you can't?

[Turbineguy]

17. You also have the freedom

to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions.

[slackmaster]

21. K&R - Those who exercise freedom must also take responsibility for the consequences of their actions

Which in this case is one nauseating discussion after another about it.

[dennis4868]

22. obviously....

you don't have any family members or close friends fighting on behalf of the USA in the middle east and around the world....

[UndertheOcean]

28. No , I don't.

[SnakeEyes]

45. Did you have this same belief...

when the Bush administration made a similar argument against those of us protesting the war?

[JCMach1]

24. We also have the freedom to tell them to STFU...

[sinkingfeeling]

27. Sure it's legal, but it also continues to prove to the world that the USA has no moral

compass and is intolerant (I'd say afraid) of 'others'.

[NoNothing]

39. If the rest of the world cannot distinguish

Between "The USA" and "a couple of dozen wackos," then I am afraid the rest of the world is rather unreasonable.

[Bragi]

53. Nonsense

Claiming that troops will die because books are burned is hokum.

Troops will die because they are fighting a pointless war they cannot win and that our leaders refuse to end.

[Codeine]

82. The rest of the world has the sense to realize

this is being down by fundie mouth-breather and not actual humans.

[sabrina 1]

30. How about wearing white sheets and burning crosses on

people's lawns? Do you support that also?

With freedom comes responsibility. Many people were killed as a result of this misinterpretation of freedom of speech.

[UndertheOcean]

32. people's lawns are private property , and fire is a hazard.

[sabrina 1]

40. You support hate speech I see.

I am going to unrec this post as I do not support hate speech or con artists scape-goating people for their ethnicity or their religious beliefs or anyone who supports them.

This is a disgusting thread to see on a progressive board.

[UndertheOcean]

46. huh ?

[SnakeEyes]

47. Supporting hate speech and

supporting someone's right to free speech, regardless of content, or two different thing.

[sabrina 1]

60. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves

to see how what they intended to be a guarantee of freedom to criticize the government without retaliation has been turned into such a tool of hatred.

Singling out people for public humiliation because of their religious beliefs was not what they intended at all. In fact

Of course there will always be scum who will misuse any good intention and legal protection. And there will always be those who defend them. See Bush and Torture eg.

The fact is what they are attempting to do is now illegal. They have been refused a permit to carry out their hateful little stunt and hopefully will be arrested before their hate fest even begins.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. You mean the slave holding founding fathers, or the non-slave holding founding fathers?

Given that the founding fathers were:

1. So bigoted by modern standards that the make this guy look like Gandhi by comparison

and

2. they overthrew their own government

I don't think the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves by this.

They'd probably be more insulted by the way you're misinterpreting their beliefs.

[sabrina 1]

75. They have been denied a permit, so take up your

crusade for bigotry with the local authorities who appear to disagree with you.

As for the painting of the FF with the broad brush you just used, you clearly need to learn more about those individuals.

But ignorance is not illegal either, which I am glad of as we get to see it displayed, especially on the internet on a regular basis and therefore know whose opinions are worth anything and whose are not. Saves a lot of time that might otherwise be wasted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. They've been denied a burning permit.

Hate speech, however, remains free speech.

"As for the painting of the FF with the broad brush you just used, you clearly need to learn more about those individuals."

Wow, there's the pot calling the kettle black."

"But ignorance is not illegal either, which I am glad of as we get to see it displayed, especially on the internet on a regular basis and therefore know whose opinions are worth anything and whose are not.

Kiddo, the claim that hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment is not a matter of opinion.

It's a factual statement, and it's just plain wrong.

And if it were an opinion, it'd be a pretty stupid opinion.

[ZombieHorde]

145. You just saved me several minutes. Thank you, HiFructosePronSyrup.

The founding fathers should not be our standard for ethics.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. You're against freedom of speech, I see.

Oh, and I'm not exaggerating.

[Codeine]

84. I openly and fervently support hate speech.

I support ALL speech. I do not feel anyone has the right to make judgments about the hatefulness or value of speech in a legal context. Speech is speech, and the freedom to use that speech is guaranteed.

I am a free speech absolutist, and I distrust "progressives" who feel otherwise.

[sabrina 1]

94. Are you, really? Then you must be absolutely devastated by

our Civil Laws on Libel, Slander and Defamation.

You must be livid over the fact that we cannot use speech to promote violence against this government.

And how do you live in a country that won't allow people to promote the assassination of public figures or even private ones for that matter?

I am not suspicious of anyone unless they give me reason to be. But it's hilarious that you are suspicious of people who don't agree with your absolutism using that right to express their opinions. Too funny.

Lol, you really did just shoot down your own argument.

This is why I love 'absolutists'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Yes and no respectively.

Wearing white sheets and promoting racial hatred in general is precisely the sort of thing freedom of speech is intended to protect - freedom of speech for good people only is meaningless.

Direct or implict threats of violence or harrassment against individuals - of which cross-burning is an example - is not.

[Initech]

31. It's not illegal, it's frowned upon.

[sabrina 1]

62. It's illegal now. They have been refused a permit to do this.

Hopefully they will be arrested and then we will hear no more about them.

[Xithras]

103. It's not "illegal", and they can't be arrested for it.

Burn permit violations are an infraction that results in a fine. They can no more be arrested for this, than you can be arrested for driving 35mph in a 30mph zone.

[sabrina 1]

123. Really? Then why are war protestors arrested for

not having permits to be in certain areas? I hope that's true as in the future it will make a good defense for those who are arrested sometimes just for wearing the wrong tee shirt.

This is a protest, not just a burn issue. I would think they would be subjected to the same treatment all protestors, at least those on the left, are subjected to.

[Xithras]

131. Nope, different argument.

War protesters are arrested for gathering on public property without a permit, and can be arrested for failing to disperse. The Quran burning will happen on private property. You do not need a permit to gather on private property, and the police cannot order a legal gathering on private property to disperse (1st amendment freedom of assembly).

You'd have a good argument if they were going to burn these in a public park or on the steps of city hall, but they are planning on burning them on the front lawn of their own church. You can't arrest people for gathering on their own lawn (well, the police technically , but they'd lose a mint in the civil rights suit that would follow).

[sabrina 1]

132. Churches are non-profit. They are not supposed to

involve themselves in political issues. Private propterty or not. If they do, they can and should lose their non-profit status.

[Xithras]

155. Again, incorrect. Churches can participate in political activities.

Two points:

1. It is a common misconception that churches cannot speak out on political or social issues. There is no state or federal law ANYWHERE in the United States that bars churches and other tax exempt religious organizations from participating in political arguments, or from taking political stances. The ONLY restrictions are that they cannot endorse or campaign for specific candidates, and they cannot attack a specific candidate in a way that could be seen as an endorsement of their opponent. It's perfectly legal, however, for churches to take political stances on virtually every other issue. No need to take my word for it either...a 60 second Google search will confirm this.
   
   


2. Even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't matter. This is a church taking a stance against a religion. The fact that a particular churches doctrine might have political ramifications doesn't automatically make their beliefs and actions political. The Catholic Churches anti-abortion stance, as an example, is a fundamental part of their global faith. The fact that it has political implications doesn't make it a political position or statement. This is a GOOD thing, because otherwise it would be trivially easy for the government to dictate the "acceptability" of a particular churches religious beliefs.

[Lightning Count]

107. So if an art exhibit with a crucifix in a jar of urine was denied a permit to be displayed

then you would support that as well?

[dembotoz]

35. The question is how will it play in Peoria.

This will be given huge play amoung those who hate us.
Like they don't already have enough reasons.

Do we really have to go out of our way to provide justification to those fun seeking individuals who want to recuit more suicide bombers.

Yeah burn what you want, its your right. but do not be surprised then when bad things happen.

[pnwmom]

38. And freedom of speech also means that everyone else is free to say

ANYONE WHO BURNS OTHER PEOPLE'S HOLY BOOKS IS A MORON.

[Bragi]

54. Yep

[doc03]

41. They are doing it for the same reason Rev. Phelps

does his crap because it gets the attention of the MSM.

[seabeyond]

42. of course there is the freedom too. as there is freedom of society to say they are fuckwads

if they have so very little respect for their fellowman

[Lucian]

43. I agree with all your points.

[BlueCheese]

49. Ugh.

The biggest mistake in both this thing and the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan is the press furor around it.

Without all the hubbub, the Islamic center would have opened and operated quietly and most people wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Without all the hubbub, these Quran burners would have been little more than a neighborhood nuisance. But now they get exactly what they wanted--a huge amount of publicity and with it, the chance to insult Muslims all over the world.

I'm not comparing the two at all--the first is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, while the second is the idea of some seriously disturbed people.

Both, however, are legal and protected activities under the laws of the United States, as they should be.

[Arkana]

50. They're ultimately allowed to wipe their asses with the Koran if they want.

Doesn't mean it isn't horribly offensive for no good reason other than the fact that they hate Muslims.

[Bragi]

51. I totally agree with the OP

Freedom of speech means the freedom to insult any religion one chooses to insult. This includes Islam.

What the Muslim world needs to hear right now is that because someone in America burns a Koran, it doesn't mean everyone in America hates Islam.

And if they feel offended, then they are free to express it however they wish, but they are not free to do any harm to anyone because they feel offended.

[mstinamotorcity]

57. It may be freedom of speech

But it is one of the most stupid things that any person could have conceived in their confused minds. They don't even understand what we are up against in other countries. They are exploiting the very freedoms that our soldiers are in battle over and the fact of 9/11. Ignorant ( lack of knowledge) folk.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. You may be correct,

but what is sorely lacking in today's society is a little bit of respect for America's diversity. Sure, we can do all of these things, but why? What's the point?

[Matariki]

59. Personally I think the real problem we're facing is the media

A bunch of right wing kooks, who should get as much attention as crazy folks that rant on street corners, get FAR more media attention than they should. It makes it look as if a majority in this country are bigoted and intolerant and it gives those assholes a certain legitimacy they don't deserve.

[BlueCheese]

63. Exactly.

Why these clowns are getting any attention at all is beyond me.

[EstimatedProphet]

66. No one is saying they don't have the right

That doesn't make what they do right, however. there is no way around the fact that book-burning is an ugly practice, fit for the mean and bullies. they can do it all day and not break the law. But it will disgust the rest of the world.

[firehorse]

67. Freedom?

There is a bunch of problems with burning the Koran.

Here's a few:

#1 we are playing into what the terrorists want, we are puppets once again, behaving in reaction mode, while pandering to the bigots.
#2 its a lame publicity stunt built on bigotry
#3 it puts peoples lives at risk: people living abroad, people living in Florida, and once again people living in NYC
#4 its another bad examble of why its bad to mix religion with politics

I live in lower Manhattan. I watched from my roof people jumping out of the world trade center so that they didn't have to experience dying instead by jet fuel.

It irks the hell out of me when dum-asses in other places use religion and "their freedom...of whatever" to risk other people's freedoms for things like living so that they can exercise their bigotry. Ever since 9/11 the US has bought into propaganda and made anything islamic the new boogie man. This kind of garbage just feeds right into it. It's easy to do something lame like that when you don't have to deal with the consequences afterwards. But other people will.

[Fuzz]

73. I agree with you, what I object to is the hypocrisy and hate from these idiots.

[spanone]

80. american muslims are also free to burn the bible, if they choose to

[GOTV]

83. A choice can be your right to make and also be a very bad idea for others can it not?

that's what's "so frickin what"

Or do you not know the difference between a "right" and a "good idea"

[Imajika]

85. Agreed...

I am shocked so many people here argue otherwise.

What is next? Will people here support idea of banning Prophet Muhammad comics? You know, to keep the troops safe!

Let this idiotic church burn a Quran. Stop making a big fuss out of it. The next time some nimrod wants to do it no one will cover it or care. Try to stop them from burning it, and you'll have boneheads all over the place threatening to burn a Quran for the media attention they get from it.

[woo me with science]

111. +1000 nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Just because something is legal, dosn't mean that it is a good idea

[apnu]

90. I don't think the OP is suggesting the idea is good.

He/she is just saying that its legal to make an ass of yourself, and, I believe, there's an undertone suggesting its OK to call the asses out for what they are.

And if that's correct, then I agree with the OP. Let these morons burn their books and let the world laugh at them, send them death threats, spawn bible burning and all that. Then these, so called, people of Christ, will learn of the dangerous waters they tread.

And they are being very ass-like. They contracted a nutty militia group to provide "protection" at the book burning and those thugs chickened out! Apparently the density at that church in FL is greater than the density of the average knuckle-dragging, gun nut, wanna be Rambo. That's some special cranial thickness.

[firehorse]

98. It's also a moral issue...and the idiot is a hypocrite representing a church

when he really is an attention whore who should be representing a hate-group.

Besides that the issue is not about legality or what one can get away with.

There are responsibilities with and consequences that come with freedoms.

Is this guy willing to pay the price of deaths he may cause in Afghanistan. Is he willing to pay the therapy bills of New Yorkers when they spend another 7 years dealing with their 9/11 PTSD if we are bombed again?

Is he willing to give up his tax status as a church?

[apnu]

110. The answer to all your questions is "no"

All I'm saying is, these people will only learn the hard way. So I say let the chips fall where they may. As far as I'm concerned, that guy you're talking about, is representing a hate-group. So what if he hides behind a "church". As for morality, whose morals are you talking about?

On the issue Afghanistan, those people will kill anybody for any reason. The Taliban is pretty fucked up, that should be clear to all of us by now. It doesn't matter anybody does, the Taliban will gleefully kill for any reason. We could give them all, personally, 1 million dollars cash per person, and they will still chant "Death to America" and then shoot at our troops while they're handing out free medicine, gold bullion, and happy meals to the children of their villages.

My point is, there is nothing at all the United States can do in Afghanistan. Bush fucked it up, like everything else he touched, and the problem has been out of hand for a while now and there is no solution to Afghanistan. We should just leave, it would be better for everybody if we did. Burning books will change nothing there, but will change things here as they are blamed for the deaths of soldiers and innocents, are targeted by other non-Christian hate-groups, and gain the attention of the Federal Government and its scrutiny, which is no small thing.

They will reap what they sow, no matter what, and it will not be the crops they think it will be. Hate begets hate, and they're going to see that first hand in living color.

But none of this changes the central issue that there is a group of people in the world, some here in the US, some out there just want to fight each other. I wish we could get these folks together so both sides could work out whatever issues they have, and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

But you are right when you say there are responsibilities with freedoms, that applies to all people in the world. So, really, I see no difference between the ass-hats here and ass-hats there. They're both ass-hats. And there isn't anything you can I can do about that.

Also, don't forget, we were "bombed" (as you say) on 9/11 for a lot less than burning symbols of Islam, and we've gone on from that to to a lot worse to the Islamic world up to this point. I really don't see this one event upsetting the Islamic world any more than they already are.

To finish all this up, what we should be doing is working towards a peaceful solution here. Instead of inflaming people we, and by that I mean both the East and the West, should be cooling off. Americans should be denouncing and ridiculing this Miami church and Muslims should be doing the same with their radicals. But the path to peace need two to tango, and so far I see a dance floor with nobody dancing.

[brooklynite]

93. The key element is not to argue the LEGALITY of book burning...

...but rather to point out the CONSEQUENCES of book burning, AND to point out that the same right applies to people they may not agree with.

[timtom]

100. This is a good post.

From the title alone, I was all set to go off on you, but your post makes perfect sense and is 100% in agreement with my sentiments.

[UndertheOcean]

112. thanks!

[bik0]

101. Idiots burning books is the price we pay for freedom...

You have to tolerate the abuses of freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of freedom. You cannot just exclude those exercises of freedom you disagree with.. you have to accept the whole package.

[walldude]

102. While you are right that they are free to do something totally moronic

"so freakin what" is a bit of an understatement. The pictures of this "expression of freedom" will be used to inflame anti-American sentiment for years to come.

[firehorse]

105. The fact that he now represents America and me is what bugs me the most

I hate that this guy represents me as an American. He represents America to the rest of the world.

If he expects to exploit and abuse the freedoms Americans have, then I feel that he should also have the tolerance and be held repsonsible for any consequences his actions my induce. And if he can't then he should give up his citizenship.

His church should discredit him. America should discredit him.

[walldude]

130. Welcome to Du... and yeah the guy has all of 50 followers

yet he is everywhere. 300,000,000 people and we are going to be judged by the actions of this jackass and his 50 followers. sucks.

[AngryOldDem]

108. We, as a nation and a society, should be better than that.

Book burning in and of itself is heinous, in my opinion; book burning as a result of intolerance and ignorance, even more so.

[Dappleganger]

116. I bet if someone you loved was a soldier

over in the Middle East, you'd think differently.

Or better yet, if someone you loved was a Muslim, you'd think differently. Why do we want to hurt people with our freedoms? It is one thing to say "That is not for me!", but hurtful when you purposefully burn what is important to them. Yes, you have the freedom to do that but it doesn't make it good. If the only way you can feel better about your faith or lack of it is by burning someone else's holy books, there's something wrong with you.

[backscatter712]

117. If they're free to burn the Koran, we're free to ask them why they hate the troops!

C'mon! How many times have the wingnuts used that line against us?

Now that General Petraeus has said that this Koran-burning will directly endanger U.S. troops, I'm all about using that to score some political points against the teabaggers and fundies!

[Nye Bevan]

118. Never a good idea to upset Islamic extremists

Far safer to submerge a crucifix in a jar of urine if you want to make some kind of anti-religious statement. Pope Benedict does not issue many fatwas.

[sabrina 1]

122. Never a good idea to scapegoat people because of their

ethnicity or their religious beliefs. History is replete with the consequences of such scape-goating.

[True Earthling]

119. The Quran is not Islam or Allah or Muhammad...

It's paper and ink. Confusing symbolism with reality is one of the greatest sources of conflict in history. When will we learn that the symbol is not the thing it represents. The pastor is exploiting this myth. Although it's lawful, it is rightfully condemned.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. this is not just the issue of one crazy church burning the Koran or one hate campaign against one

community center in New York.

Right now there is a nationwide campaign of anti-Muslim hysteria being whooped up by right-wing politicians, the crazy wing of fundamentalist Christianity and the likes of Newsmax and Fox News. There is a grave danger of this hysteria becoming - if it has not already - completely mainstream discourse in American society. There are campaigns against mosques all across America right now.

This hysteria has dangerous ramifications, not only for the American-Muslim community but for the entirety of society and the direction it is going. The 20th Century has surely shown that hate campaigns are not controllable and can and do lead society down extremely self-destructive paths.

This hysteria has even more dangerous ramifications for American foreign policy.

There are right-wing religious crazies in America who now pretty much dominate the Republican Party and there are the neoconservatives who are bent on promoting a permanent American war in the Middle East and I believe they must be stopped or America and the whole world will experience a catastrophe beyond imagination. The religious crazies believe they must help facilitate the battle of Armageddon in order to usher in the second coming of Christ. This is not a small marginal group of kooks. This is a group who are to a large degree now calling the shots in the Republican Party while their allies the neoconservatives work out the details.

Opposing this hysteria, denouncing it firmly and not allowing this hysteria to become mainstream discourse is one of the most important stands anyone can take - The consequences of anti-Muslim hysteria growing and becoming even more mainstream are just too dire.

[proteus_lives]

127. I agree with you.

Burning books is horrible and I'll always spit on those who do but our freedoms are more important then hypothetical dangers.

[Obamanaut]

128. +1 and rec. nt

[dkf]

129. Celebrating all uses of free speech means celebrating Koran burning.

Me...I think it's a bad idea but to each their own.

[saltpoint]

133. The Klan is within legal rights to conduct a Hate March

down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, but that doesn't make it good citizenship.

This guy in Florida is a shithead, plain and simple.

That it is legal to be a shithead doesn't make being a shithead any better.

[gophates]

134. your four examples aren't arguably race-based hatred

masquerading as "free speech."

[lonestarnot]

139. Welp I can see right off, you're no fucking octopus. Snort

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

140. You don't frickin' get it, do you?

This ISN"T ABOUT AMERICA, you dumb frick. Not EVERYTHING in this frickin world is covered by the frickin American First Amendment.

It's about the BILLION OR SO Muslim adherents ACROSS the GLOBE. An AMERICAN is about to INSULT ALL OF THEM by burning Korans.

Think this will end up well for all the Americans living OUTSIDE the frickin UNITED STATES?

Am I getting through to you, Mr. UnderTheOcean?

[Budgies Revenge]

143. Couldn't the same argument

be made against the release of the torture photos from Abu Ghraib or printing a cartoon of Muhammad? Come to think of it, that argument was made...

[Canuckistanian]

151. Releasing Abu Ghraib photos was owning up to responsibility

Both the cartoon and this Koran burning are hateful PROVOCATIONS.

[Hekate]

141. To some of us, book burnings are the hallmark of superstitious ignorance going back to the Dark Ages

Superstitious ignorance that ends in some human being thrown on the pyre for good measure.

That's why.

Hekate

[Skip Intro]

142. I agree. If freedom of expression doesn't apply to all, it doesn't apply, in reality, to any.

of course, people have a right to voice and express opposition as well, but not to the point it intrudes on others' rights, not to the point of intimidation.

Took courage for you to defend, not the act, as you surely have been accused of, but the right. And you are correct.

[Matariki]

144. It's also the right of everyone who finds it disgusting to speak up.

And point out how disrespectful, intolerant and bigoted it is.

Sometimes silence equals consent.

[donheld]

147. For a Christian to forget "Do unto others as you'd have them do to you"

is sin. This Church group has definately forgotten that.

[HuckleB]

148. You can say what you want about it.

And so can I!

Burning the Koran is as unAmerican as it gets!

See how I can say what I want to say about it?

[UndertheOcean]

149. cool

[mmonk]

150. You mean like when the nazis had book burnings of books by Jewish authors?

Yeah, let's keep that "freedom of expression".

[True Earthling]

152. Slightly different here... Nazi book burning was state sponsored burning of ALL books

This is an individual making a SYMBOLIC statement.

The pastor is an idiot but in a free society you are free to be an idiot and free to make symbolic statements.

[Bragi]

153. You lose! Godwin's Law invoked!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[SOS]

156. The whole thing is highly unlikely

With the full force of the United States Department of Defense stomping on his neck, Jones will fold.

[Malikshah]

157. Stop with the Red Herrings. With freedom comes responsibility. For what purpose are these cretins

going to burn the Qur'an? Have they given any sane answer to that question?

They are merely expressing their guttural base hatred. In so doing they could put many people in harms way, thus becoming accessories to further death and destruction.
They wish to have extensive attention paid to them to make sure their hatred has the fullest effect. This merely compounds the asinine nature of their actions and their culpability.


This whole Freedom of Speech argument is a tiresome red herring. No one is denying them that, nor should they. End of debate.

At the same time, I am a big supporter of taking responsibility for one's actions and holding people accountable for blatant hatred and stupidity.
Personally, each member of this "church" should be publicly shunned should they go through with it. They defame their own purported belief as much as those who would kill innocents in name of theirs. Neither group is being true to their belief system and should have that fact broadcast far and wide.