• 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
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.

Most people do have respect. Every country is going to have some jerks and anyone with two brain cells knows that. The radicals know that most Americans are not that way, but they used one man's actions as an excuse to protest and kill innocent people.
Besides, if it was unconstitutional does that gaurantee no one would burn it anyway? People break the law every day of the week.
I mean, right now it is legal and you don't see people doing it on a daily basis.
 
We could enforce laws to protect the human rights of those who have no say in our matters. We could have laws that prohibit the intentional harm with the sole purpose being to inflame and ignite rage in other countries. It would show very clearly that we are a noble people.

Why don't we just demand the same thing of other countries? How would that work out? Do you think they would agree to be nobel? Do you think they would pass laws that made it illegal to burn bibles or the American flag?
Lets just ask them to be tolerant of other religions. Yea, I'm sure they would agree.
 
What if a child was taught to be hateful and murderous. Would his killing spree be his fault alone?

Pretty much. Liberals are always trying to make excuses for pediphiles, rapists, murderers. Sure it's interesting to know how they were raised and what they went through in their childhood, but in the end, they are the ones who did the deed.
 
Oh, I was referring to the situation in general.

Do you think muslims would burn the bible?

I wouldn't care if they did, we have manufacturing capacity to more than replace them. Heck, the Gideons alone place tons of bibles everywhere.
 
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 want you on my jury if anyone is stupid enough to try to torch a flag in my presence!
 
Certainly, you 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.

Yes we are free to insult religions and we do it all the time.

This is an interesting article. It shows a real double standard in the media when it comes to Muslims and Christians. When a Christian tried to destroy art that offended her she was blamed. When Muslims were offended by cartoons, the artist was blamed.
Shock and Awful Art
 
I would be totally against anything from limiting free speech. Burning the Quran started violence in another country. Their problem with our laws is something they have to get over. I am tired of giving "Radical" Muslims their time in the spot light. MY family has served in just about every major conflict overseas, and no one stopped the Hippies from burning the flag or people in those countries from burning our nation's flag. We just kept on with our daily lives. No one harps if Muslims slander or desecrate a CHRISTIAN site, yet we as a nation are suppose to hinder to a small (but growing) group of people. Heterosexuals are forced to get along with Homosexuals and transgenders, Racists are forced to get along with those that they hate KKK vs Black Panthers and vice versa, yet cause someone says they are offended by the burning of a piece of literature, not stolen but properly acquired we are limiting free speech. Look at the church that is slandering fallen soldiers and protesting at their funeral. we have to accept that as free speech. If they ban the burning of the Quran cause of some small reason, I see it being taken up and being burned in spite just to spit in the face of the justice and legal system.
 
"395 U.S. 444 (1969), argued 27 Feb. 1969, decided 9 June 1969 by unanimous vote; per curiam decision. Brandenburg v. Ohio was decided in the context of the significant expansion of First Amendment freedoms in the 1960s. It was the final step in the Supreme Court's tortuous fifty‐year development of a constitutional test for speech that advocates illegal action."

"In its various incarnations, the old clear and present danger test had permitted the punishment of speech if it had a “tendency” to encourage or cause lawlessness (Schenck v. U.S., 1919), or if the speech was part of a broader dangerous political movement, like the Communist party (Dennis v. U.S., 1951). (See Communism and Cold War.) The Brandenburg test, however, allowed government to punish the advocacy of illegal action only if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (p. 447).
By requiring an actual empirical finding of imminent harm, this test protects the advocacy of lawlessness except in unusual instances. But government may still punish speech that is demonstrably dangerous. The test is also distinctly more objective than the old danger test. Brandenburg is the linchpin of the modern doctrine of free speech, which seeks to give special protection to politically relevant speech and to distinguish speech from action"

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Information from Answers.com

The information to be taken from Brandenburg is there is no need for a blanket ban of any sort of speech; there is already a blanket precedent for it, which is great.
 
We should ban murdering people for burning the Quran and see if that cools off some of the hate in the ME...
 
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 government has the right to stop you anyway.
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.

It might cause harm or even death. It might not. It should be up to the government to decide and not somebody with a loose screw. Burning a Koran might not rile anybody. But it might cause a war. It just shouldn't be allowed. Period.
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.

Right. Explain that to the families of the dead. It is very easy to reason that burning the Koran might result in death given that it has happened!
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'
Pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger isn't nessecarily gong to kill you'
This is not just a stupid idea, but an unconstitutional one.
Stop dreaming that our founders had the idea that US citizens should be free to do anything they want. Say anything they want. Start wars whenever they want.
 
I find it interesting that people have jumped to defend the Quran from being burned even though the Holy Bible has been being burned for years and relatively little gets said about it.
 
I find it interesting that people have jumped to defend the Quran from being burned even though the Holy Bible has been being burned for years and relatively little gets said about it.

A lot gets said about religeous fanatics that disrupt the funerals of war heroes. Most people really have no stomach for things like bible burning or flag burning but it's the price we pay to live in a free country.
 
The government has the right to stop you anyway.

The SCOTUS has held that burning of items is a form of speech. The right to Free Speech and the right to protest are ones the government can not abridge unless our right is violating anothers. Burning a Quran in my front yard without fanfare violates no one elses rights.

It might cause harm or even death. It might not. It should be up to the government to decide and not somebody with a loose screw. Burning a Koran might not rile anybody. But it might cause a war. It just shouldn't be allowed. Period.

Gotcha. So you're on record stating that the government can remove anyones constitutional right if they feel that "it might" cause harm. Glad to know you think so poorly of the Constitution, it'll help arguments out in other threads where you pretend to be some defender of it.

Right. Explain that to the families of the dead. It is very easy to reason that burning the Koran might result in death given that it has happened!

Appeal to Emotion.

Lets ban cars. Cars have helped result in the death of millions. Go tell the families of the dead that we shouldn't ban all cars from being produced. Its very easy to reason that owning a car may result in the death of someone given that its happened.

Pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger isn't nessecarily gong to kill you'

But it is far more likely to kill you, and a more reasonable assumption, than stating that someone three states away purchasing a holster is going to result in your being killed. Could their purchasing of a Holster result in a gentleman meeting his quotas for the month and getting a raise which caused him to travel to your state to have an affair with your wife to which you find out and find that man's gun and shoot yourself? SURE, it COULD happen! I guess we need to legislate against holsters. Or we should recognize there's a difference between things that can theoritically happen over a period of time in very narrow scenarios and things that are likely to happen in a broad range of scenarios at the immediete moment.

Stop dreaming that our founders had the idea that US citizens should be free to do anything they want. Say anything they want. Start wars whenever they want.

The irony of this coming from you is astounding. Whether or not the "founders" wished it to be that way or not, the document they created and the systems they have put in place have established that the burning of an item is a form of speech, and that there is freedom of speech and to protest. You're bellowing on about hypothetical horrors, I'm pointing out what the courts have actually ruled with regards to burning items as a form of speech.
 
A lot gets said about religeous fanatics that disrupt the funerals of war heroes.

And yet by and large people have stated that they don't believe those things should be made illegal.

Most people really have no stomach for things like bible burning or flag burning but it's the price we pay to live in a free country.

ROFL

This coming from the man that's advocating we, in this free country, ban the burning of a book.

So its okay to burn some religious texts, but not others. Its okay to burn the flag even though that could incite violence, but its not okay to burn the quran because that might incite violence.

Your argument might have merit if it was logical, consistent, or constitutional.
 
I find it interesting that people have jumped to defend the Quran from being burned even though the Holy Bible has been being burned for years and relatively little gets said about it.

I don't care if either get burned. I can get either book at the local book store for $5. Now if this were the middle ages and the printing press hadn't been invented yet and such books were rare or unique, I would be super pissed. (well probably not if the last Koran was burned, but I consider that religion silly anyway)
 
Last edited:
The government has the right to stop you anyway.

The government has no rights.

It also doesn't have the authority, anyway.

It might cause harm or even death. It might not. It should be up to the government to decide and not somebody with a loose screw. Burning a Koran might not rile anybody. But it might cause a war. It just shouldn't be allowed. Period.

Why not? If some country is so loosely wired it would be willing to start a war over a few burned pages, then it's going to start the war anyway. But to surrender our freedoms because a handful of people left their testicles behind isn't a good idea. That would lead to more people losing track of their balls. And eventually someone is going to slip on them and hurt themselves falling down the stairs.
 
I find it interesting that people have jumped to defend the Quran from being burned even though the Holy Bible has been being burned for years and relatively little gets said about it.


It's really not the issue. There's a certain class of people that wants the United States to be destroyed, and this completely irrelevant issue is one they can use to try to destroy the First Amendment, the very foundation of American freedom. They're similar to the head collecting terrorists in Afghanistan in that they're not well-soldered together and tend to crack at the least provocation. They make little sense when they crack, but, somehow, their responses can be predicted in advance to be whatever course of action would harm the United States the most or restrict the most liberty.
 
It's really not the issue. There's a certain class of people that wants the United States to be destroyed, and this completely irrelevant issue is one they can use to try to destroy the First Amendment, the very foundation of American freedom. They're similar to the head collecting terrorists in Afghanistan in that they're not well-soldered together and tend to crack at the least provocation. They make little sense when they crack, but, somehow, their responses can be predicted in advance to be whatever course of action would harm the United States the most or restrict the most liberty.

how can you sleep at night, knowing there are subversives all around?

seriously, dude, i don't care for right wing politics, but i don't think republicans want to destroy the country. i think we all love our country, or at least the majority of us do. your thinking borders on fanaticism.
 
And yet by and large people have stated that they don't believe those things should be made illegal.

This coming from the man that's advocating we, in this free country, ban the burning of a book.

So its okay to burn some religious texts, but not others. Its okay to burn the flag even though that could incite violence, but its not okay to burn the quran because that might incite violence.

Your argument might have merit if it was logical, consistent, or constitutional.
ROFL
It's not ok to use freedom of speech to cause foreigners to want o kill us. If you want to burn a Koran do it in the bathroom. ROFL The bathroom is also a good place to cry about your precious right to say anything you want to say no matter the harm.

ROFL
 
The most we can do is reprimand him.
 
ROFL
It's not ok to use freedom of speech to cause foreigners to want o kill us. If you want to burn a Koran do it in the bathroom. ROFL The bathroom is also a good place to cry about your precious right to say anything you want to say no matter the harm.

ROFL

Your words on an internet forum MIGHT cause some foriegner to want to kill someone.

You should obviously be banned from the internet because it MIGHT cause a foreigner to do harm.

:roll:

Your argument is so illogical and out of bounds with constitutional law that its almost makes me wonder if you're just trying for poorly done satire then making an actual honest attempt at an argument here.
 
Come to think of it, banning the burning of the koran would be a violation of church and state. It would be the government making a law respecting a religion (Islam) and deciding that it is illegal to burn the koran because Muslims believe it is holy. This could also fall under the same category as blasphemy laws which would also be a violation of separation of church and state. Of course it would also be a violation of our freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
It's my book and I own it. I'll be damned before I let the government tell me what I can do with my property.
 
Back
Top Bottom