• 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
jamesrage said:
So you are saying Terry Jones taught these crazy nutjobs in the middle east to be hateful and murderous?
Click to expand...

Thats an idiotic argument :roll:

jamesrage said:
Yes. Humans are not mindless machines.
Click to expand...

Without going too far off topic, if you've been brought up your entire life believing something and never knew anything else, you cannot be held liable for holding those beliefs.
 
repeter said:
Thats an idiotic argument :roll:
Click to expand...

sazerac seemed to be suggesting that.

Without going too far off topic, if you've been brought up your entire life believing something and never knew anything else, you cannot be held liable for holding those beliefs.
Click to expand...

You can to be held liable for your own actions because you did it. There is this thing called free will.
 
jamesrage said:
sazerac seemed to be suggesting that.
Click to expand...

:facepalm: No, you suggested that

jamesrage said:
You can to be held liable for your own actions because you did it. There is this thing called free will.
Click to expand...

Of course you're going to be held liable for it, but at the same time, you are not completely responsible.

Let me give an irrefutable example: a child is raised in a cave from birth to believe that people with blonde hair deserve to die. His parents raise him like that. When he is 18, they give him some weapons, and let him out of the cave. He kills a few people before being captured by police. Are his parents held liable?

Obviously yes. He did those things, but the parents are also responsible, and I would argue even more than the kid. That kid would be in a mental institute, the parents held liabel for the msot part.
 
repeter said:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, speech with minimal social value, and that which might incite others to imminent lawless action, or might incite an immediate breach of the peace is unprotected.

Ergo, if that is the only reason, it is already unprotected speech. Or at least should be if that person is taken to court for that speech.
Click to expand...

"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
 
repeter said:
:facepalm: No, you suggested that
Click to expand...

These are his words-
"What if a child was taught to be hateful and murderous."

Of course you're going to be held liable for it, but at the same time, you are not completely responsible.

Let me give an irrefutable example: a child is raised in a cave from birth to believe that people with blonde hair deserve to die. His parents raise him like that. When he is 18, they give him some weapons, and let him out of the cave. He kills a few people before being captured by police. Are his parents held liable?

Obviously yes. He did those things, but the parents are also responsible, and I would argue even more than the kid. That kid would be in a mental institute, the parents held liabel for the msot part.
Click to expand...
No his parents are not liable. Yeah they are scumbags for raising him that way. Parents in various parts of the country raise their children to be racists, we do not force them to foot the bill for what ever damage the cross fires their grown adult children have lighted. We do not legally punish the parents if their children grow up to be serial killers, gang bangers, or what ever else because they were or we think they were ****ty parents.
 
sazerac said:
You have no freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowed theater, ya know. Can't you just live with that? Do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon?
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater, and saying/expressing something that pisses someone off.
 
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...

No, I wouldn't support it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
No! But understand if you do it in a public way that you may encourage death to our troops and innocent people. You are free to look like a dumbass and burn the Quran all ya want but understand if you brag about it on the news and on the net? You are doing a disservice to your fellow mankind. If you do such things and get your ass hauled down for questions in reguards to Nat. Security? Do not come crying to me about it as you knew that hotbed when you did it.
 
No. That's asinine. No matter how distasteful our outrageous it is to burn a religious book or icon, it is the right of a person to do.
 
What a stupid idea.

The First Amendment first prohibits Congress from passing laws regarding the free exercise of religion.

Then then First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech.

Then there's Article I, Section 8, which seems to miss allowing Congress the power to kiss muslim butt or cower before the nation's enemies and put chains on Americans instead.

Then there's the Tenth Amendment that says since the rest of the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to be a sharia court, then the power to be a sharia court does not exist for Congress.

And Article 4, Section 4 requires the states to have republican forms of government, which again, limits their power to be dumb-asses.
 
It's AMAZING how many want to blame the murder of people on actions not taken by the murderers. That's inexcusable to be making excuses for people like that.
 
sazerac said:
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people.
Click to expand...

We need to ensure we show no respect for lunatics who murder random people because someone else 10,000 miles away burned a copy of a book of which there are literally a billion copies of.

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.
Click to expand...

What's important is ensuring that our freedoms as American's aren't infringed upon by cowards afraid of lunatics in other countries.

The American flag was the one flag that didn't dip in fear of Hitler at the 1936 Olympics opening ceremonies, and it damn well better not be drooping to some damn mullah living in cave in Afghanistan.
 
sazerac said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's already against the law to set people on fire in the United States, as it is also against the law to avulse their heads, stab them, or shave their beards.

It's even against the law to pull off hijabs.

The torching of a book does not violate anyone's human rights. There's no human "right" to be protected from offense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why does anyone need to burn a Quran?

We have a living Constitution, but we don't live in the 1800's anymore.
Click to expand...

Ran out of newspaper and need something to start a chimney starter to barbecue some pork ribs?

We have a living Constitution, but we don't live in the 1800's anymore.
Click to expand...

We do not have a living constitution.So if you wish to make changes to it then it must be amended.
 
Last edited:
sazerac said:
You have no freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowed theater, ya know. Can't you just live with that? Do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon?
Click to expand...

Mayor Snorkum is fairly certain that if it's not protected to yell fire in a crowded theater it also isn't protected to start a fire in a crowded theater.

But, if someone is outside and has a cozy little bonfire, then sure they can burn all the Korans they own. Or, if they have a fireplace, as the Mayor does, they can scatter Koran-smoke all over their neighborhood, along with the vaporized bacon grease, if they want.

You're never going to pass your naturalization exam if you can't figure out the First Amendment.
 
sazerac said:
Should we send the bill for the damage caused by your insuits to your home or to your office? Could we arrange for you to meet the families of the soldiers who were killed defending your right to free speach so you can thank them?
Click to expand...

The insults didn't cause any damage.

The insane inflamed terrorist crazies did.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What a stupid idea.

The First Amendment first prohibits Congress from passing laws regarding the free exercise of religion.

Then then First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech.

Then there's Article I, Section 8, which seems to miss allowing Congress the power to kiss muslim butt or cower before the nation's enemies and put chains on Americans instead.

Then there's the Tenth Amendment that says since the rest of the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to be a sharia court, then the power to be a sharia court does not exist for Congress.

And Article 4, Section 4 requires the states to have republican forms of government, which again, limits their power to be dumb-asses.
Click to expand...

Do you honestlly think the founders of this country wanted the people to be free to instigate war with other countries by insulting their religions? Or even damaging trade relations?
 
sazerac said:
Do you honestlly think the founders of this country wanted the people to be free to instigate war with other countries by insulting their religions? Or even damaging trade relations?
Click to expand...

Yes, they viewed the individual as more important than the state.
 
Bruce said:
Yes, they viewed the individual as more important than the state.
Click to expand...

Could you show any evidence that they wanted people to have the particular rights I outlined?
 
sazerac said:
Do you honestlly think the founders of this country wanted the people to be free to instigate war with other countries by insulting their religions? Or even damaging trade relations?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment has nothing to do with that.
 
sazerac said:
Do you honestlly think the founders of this country wanted the people to be free to instigate war with other countries by insulting their religions? Or even damaging trade relations?
Click to expand...

Absolutely they wanted the people to be free.

Not being childish ignorant asses, they were both perfectly aware of the religious wars of Europe, and of the definition of the word "responsibility", and they would know that the man who burned his own bible in Philadelphia would never be responsible if someone in Liverpool heard about it and rushed out to kill a dozen people in the streets as a result.

They'd have both the wisdom and maturity to know that a man's freedom cannot be curtailed just because some other people are crazy.

In fact, it's pretty certain that they'd believe the lunatic should be locked up long long before anyone considered taking away an innocent man's freedom.

And that sounds like such a perfectly reasonable notion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom