• 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

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he'd like to see Congress consider doing something about burning the Quran.

On Face The Nation today, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said that the reaction to the Koran burning in Florida suggests that Congress should look into limiting some forms of speech

Snip

[Sen. Graham said,] “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. Having said that, anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we should do it, and I look forward to working with Senators Kerry, and Reid, and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based on the name* of religion. But General Petreaus understand better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said.”

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?
 
Last edited:
Symbolic speech, like destroying something like a religious icon, or burning the flag, is protected by the first amendment.
 
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he's like to see Congress consider "doing something" about burning the Quran.



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?

Again, give me a minute to get the poll up.


Of course not. We're a nation that values free speech - even the unpalatable free speech of utter morons like this Koran burner. I think this would be like the many flag burning amendments that have passed through - a political gesture to gain points, knowing full well it would never pass so there is no danger of having to then really support it. The other thing is, doing so is like giving in to a form of blackmail.
 
Absolutely not, just as I wouldn't support a law or constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag or Bible.
 
agreeing with paschendale, if you ban burning the quran then you have to ban burning all religous icon's which would be infringing on the first amendment.
 
Of course not. We're a nation that values free speech - even the unpalatable free speech of utter morons like this Koran burner. I think this would be like the many flag burning amendments that have passed through - a political gesture to gain points, knowing full well it would never pass so there is no danger of having to then really support it. The other thing is, doing so is like giving in to a form of blackmail.

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.
 
I am curious to know what other kinds of speech have been banned in the past, because of war..
 
Of course not. We're a nation that values free speech - even the unpalatable free speech of utter morons like this Koran burner. I think this would be like the many flag burning amendments that have passed through - a political gesture to gain points, knowing full well it would never pass so there is no danger of having to then really support it.
I admit, I have supported those amendments in the past. I've since changed my position (long before this Quran question came up).

The other thing is, doing so is like giving in to a form of blackmail.
Good point. In a sense it would mean giving into extremists.
 
Last edited:
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.

"Concerned" in what way?
 
Hell no, it would be pissing on the 1st Amendment and one of our core American values.
 
Emphatic No. What if I need a Quran for firewood or something.
 
Last edited:
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?

Answer to first question no. Its just a bunch of pieces of paper bond together and nothing more. Making it illegal to burn it suggests that it is some how more than just a book. The people who react to someone burning a Koran or any other religious book need to see a quack for some psychiatric help.

It won't survive constitutional challenge because we are not some Euro-trash country or Canada that bans speech we find offensive. And because congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion as defined in our first amendment("separation of church" and state is not in the constitution). Banning the burning of any religious book would most certainly be a law respecting an establishment of religion. We also have free speech which United States v. Eichman declares that burning stuff is a form of speech,so if flag burning is a form of free speech then burning a religious book falls under the same category.
 
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?

I would not support it. I should be free to burn my flag or bible or quran if I feel the need to do so. And I doubt it would survive a Constitutional challenge even if they did make some law. This is all forms of protected speech.
 
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?

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.
 
I am amazed that anyone even would consider such draconian steps
 
It just doesnt fly with our government and law. It's not possible.
 
Aside from the first amendment argument, there really is no need to, and doing so would be completely reactionary. There is already a SC precedent for discerning speech that has social value, and that which does not. Some instances of burning the Quran, like some instances of burning the flag, are not protected speech, but for the most part (like 99.9999%) it is.
 
No. It doesn't serve any practical purposes. People should always have the choice to be stupid.
 
I don't know. It seems that burning a Koran is not the same as burning a bible or a flag. Christians have a degree of tolerance that Muslims do not.

What if burning a Koran to them was like slamming passenger jets into our tall buildings? I don't know enough about it.
 
I don't know. It seems that burning a Koran is not the same as burning a bible or a flag. Christians have a degree of tolerance that Muslims do not.

What if burning a Koran to them was like slamming passenger jets into our tall buildings? I don't know enough about it.
Should the way people might react half a world away dictate what speech is protected and which isn't? Seems like a dangerous precedent and a near encouragement to behave brutally.
 
Should the way people might react half a world away dictate what speech is protected and which isn't? Seems like a dangerous precedent and a near encouragement to behave brutally.

Dangerous or not is for the courts to decide. Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black: true threats are unlawful
 
I don't know. It seems that burning a Koran is not the same as burning a bible or a flag. Christians have a degree of tolerance that Muslims do not.

What if burning a Koran to them was like slamming passenger jets into our tall buildings? I don't know enough about it.

that wouldn't amount to such logic being valid nor represent any rational reason for curbing rights.

After all, people don't have a right not to be offended
 
Dangerous or not is for the courts to decide. Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black: true threats are unlawful

But in black vs Virginia it was established a blanket ban against cross burning was unconstitutional because it doesn't always amount to a true threat. Also, the ruling was heavily based on the use of cross burning to convey threats, no such history around Quran burning exists.
 
Back
Top Bottom