• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Congress Ban Burning of the Quran

Would You Support Legislation that Would Ban Burning/Destroying the Quran?

  • Total voters
    92
I would not support such a Congressional initiative. The flag is not sacrosanct, and neither is the Quran.
 
sazerac said:
Could you show any evidence that they wanted people to have the particular rights I outlined?
Click to expand...

Could you show any evidence that they didn't want the people to have the maximum liberty possible consistent with maintaining a civil and peaceful society?

no, you can't, because that's exactly what they wanted and exactly what the Constitution gave us, if we can keep it.

Lock up the dangerous loonies with the urge to get head, not the hate filled asses who attack books, that's what they wanted.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Could you show any evidence that they didn't want the people to have the maximum liberty possible consistent with maintaining a civil and peaceful society?.
Click to expand...


There is nothing civil or peaceful about enraging other countries or religeons to the point of war and murder. Or will constant insulting and demeaning with our free speach eventually turn them into people just like us? Then we won't have to hate them anymore,
 
sazerac said:
Could you show any evidence that they wanted people to have the particular rights I outlined?
Click to expand...

Certainly, you said:
be free to instigate war with other countries by insulting their religions? Or even damaging trade relations?
Click to expand...

The first amendment gives people the right to insult other peoples religions, the responses of other countries to that free speech is the prerogative of the other countries, not the person making the statement.
 
Bruce said:
The first amendment gives people the right to insult other peoples religions, the responses of other countries to that free speech is the prerogative of the other countries, not the person making the statement.
Click to expand...

My gawd, the first amendment is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. A constitution providing an amendment that we can burn the constitution even!
 
X Factor said:
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he'd like to see Congress consider doing something about burning the Quran.



Lindsey Graham On Koran Burning: “Freedom Of Speech Is A Great Idea But We’re In A War.”

If legislation were proposed making it illegal to burn or destroy the Quran (at least publicly) would you support it?

Follow up question, would such legislation may survive a Constitutional challenge?
Click to expand...

People overreacting is not a legitimate reason to ban this sort of activity.
 
SE102 said:
Well it's certainly not an overeaction if you actually believe whats written in the thing.
Click to expand...

Under no circumstance would be killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the actual book burning be reasonable.
 
But what if they don't seem unreasonable according to the book?
 
SE102 said:
But what if they don't seem unreasonable according to the book?
Click to expand...

Then I wouldn't care if those guys think they have a good reason.
 
SE102 said:
How perplexing.
Click to expand...

Why?

If I have a point of view that opposes someone else's point of view, then I am going to prefer my point of view over theirs.
 
Oh, I was referring to the situation in general.

Do you think muslims would burn the bible?
 
I enjoy watching someone who in another thread suggested he was some great caretaker of the constitution sitting here and ****ting upon the rights to protest and the rights to free speech.

Last I checked, the police aren't thought police. You COULD burn a quran to incite and enrage other people. You could also do it out of protest. You could do it as a symbolic message regarding your own religions place above the others. You could do it as a broad condemnation of religion. There's many reasons you could potentially burn a Quran other than to incite people into violence.

The fire in a threater argument is absolutely retarded to try and compare. In that situation someone is stating something that would have little purpose other than to causea panic (if its done to be a "joke", the "joke" would only be "funny" because people react to it as if its real, ie panic). Furthermore, the reasonable universal reaction to a fire is to get away from that area which can cause a mob panic and rush that can unintentionally on the part of the actors bring harm to people. The person yelling fire is DIRECTLY interacting with the people inside the theater causing an immediete reasonably expected action that could cause harm to others.

In regards to the Quran, it is unreasonable to think burning it will result in the death of other people. The amount of militant muslims in the world is estimated at what, less than 10%? So not only would a Muslim need to find out about it, but it'd need to be one of those small percentage of muslims. This is a far lower level of expectation that the action is going to have a direct and immediete negative effect on other individuals than with regards to the fire analogy. Additionally, the actions by said extremist Muslims would not be a reactionary quick reaction to speech but would be a significant, deliberated, thought out, action. It is more akin to telling someone that they're wife is ugly and having that person then come back 3 months later and murder you than it is to the fire analogy. Because while it is a "reaction" of sorts to the Quran burning, its not an immediete reaction.

It is reasonable to suggest that yelling fire in the middle of a crowded threater, regardless of whose there, where that theater is, etc, is always likely to result in people attempting to exit the area quickly. It is not reasonable to suggest that a guy in the middle of a small town in Georgia burning a Quran on his front stoop is always likely to result in a muslim attempting to kill someone.

This is not just a stupid idea, but an unconstitutional one.
 
 
X Factor said:
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he'd like to see Congress consider doing something about burning the Quran.



Lindsey Graham On Koran Burning: “Freedom Of Speech Is A Great Idea But We’re In A War.”

If legislation were proposed making it illegal to burn or destroy the Quran (at least publicly) would you support it?

Follow up question, would such legislation may survive a Constitutional challenge?
Click to expand...

Lindsey Graham is an embarassment to the Republican party.
 
SheWolf said:
I am leaning no, but the difference is that is speech ended up getting people killed and put our service men and women at risk. I understand the Pentagon called the pastor and asked him to not do it. If people that high up in the government are concerned, then this an act we should all be concerned about.
Click to expand...

Personally I despise this so-called snake oil pastor - he has a history of actions designed to gain media attention. He obviously doesn't care what his actions lead to - it's always going to be someone else's fault. He hates Muslims and knew full well the consequences of his actions with out a care for the possibility of loss of life either of Americans or foreigners. He is of a type with the Westboro Baptist creeps.

However...to make a law banning the burning of a specific religious book or any religious book sets a bad precedent that may not even be constitutional.
 
SheWolf said:
I am leaning no, but the difference is that is speech ended up getting people killed and put our service men and women at risk. I understand the Pentagon called the pastor and asked him to not do it. If people that high up in the government are concerned, then this an act we should all be concerned about.
Click to expand...

We can't let terrorists dictate what goes in our constitution. Can you imagine what a win for them that would be? I can see all the celebrations now and later thinking of something else they could demand.
 
Let's see -- should we base our laws upon actions or the potential for reaction? If the latter, then we are providing a perfect recipe for the most thuggish and intolerant to hold sway.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No! If people can burn the US flag then by god (no pun intended) can burn the Quran. I would consider it to be a major insult if such legislation were passed (or even suggested) while totally ignoring the fact that our national flag gets burned.
Click to expand...

Not just the flag, but how would it look if we allowed bible burning but not Quran burning?
 
Congress couldn't if they wanted, it's protected free speech under the First Amendment. They'd have to amend the Constitution if they wanted to do that and there's no way in hell anyone would go for that.
 
X Factor said:
I may be speaking too soon, but I thinks it's actually pretty cool that, whatever the political lean, there's near universal agreement on this question.
Click to expand...

I voted and when the poll came up, my eyes got wide. I was sure there would be several who thought it was a good idea. It was a pleasant surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom