FREE TAPATALK APP

Oliver · 9th September 2010, 02:12 AM

Oliver · 9th September 2010, 02:38 AM

This is quite interesting:

The Original Burn the Quran Day

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

commandlinegamer · 9th September 2010, 02:56 AM

Wonder if the fact that 11 September coincides with the Eid-al-Fitr festival will have much significance?

Nanny Ogg · 9th September 2010, 06:26 AM

On a purely practical note, this church doesn't have a permit to go ahead with the burning.

City officials denied a burning permit, as book burnings are prohibited under the city's burning ordinance, and the church could face fines.

If anyone here has ever burnt paper, you know that it flies up and can drift upwards, landing on nearby roofs or trees, and set other things alight. It doesn't take much.

On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine.

And I'm sure the town Fire personnel have nothing better to do than babysit this event.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

He has already explained that to you.

No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

KingMerv00 · 9th September 2010, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer...

I answered and you ignored. What is and what is not protected by the Constitution is determined by legal precedent. The Supreme Court has weighed in on similiar expressive acts and said they are constitutionally protected.

Quote:

...because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Have a legal cite for that?

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because a long line of legal precedents from the Supreme Court has stated that actions can qualify as speech in certain situations. This is supported by my link above. If you want to learn more, I recommend you do some research.

Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country. I used to think your posts were well thought out but that has ended. Now do you care to tell us what specifically is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Because a long line of legal precedents from the Supreme Court has stated that actions can qualify as speech in certain situations. This is supported by my link above. If you want to learn more, I recommend you do some research.

Are you going to explain why burning a koran qualifies as free speech or are you just going to act pseudointellectual?

bokonon · 9th September 2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that cross burnings are protected free speech, and flag burnings are protected free speech, it would seem the burden of proof in this case is on you, to show why burning a Quran is not similarly protected.

Is there any statute in any state in the country which prohibits anyone from burning any book he owns and chooses to burn?

KingMerv00 · 9th September 2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country. I used to think your posts were well thought out but that has ended. Now do you care to tell us what specifically is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Originally Posted by noreligion

Are you going to explain why burning a koran qualifies as free speech or are you just going to act pseudointellectual?

I don't think you understand how constitutional law works.

Tell me, what would prove to you that Koran-burning is covered by free speech? What kind of evidence would you find viable?

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I answered and you ignored. What is and what is not protected by the Constitution is determined by legal precedent. The Supreme Court has weighed in on similiar expressive acts and said they are constitutionally protected.

Have a legal cite for that?

This is the last time I am going to ask you to give me a specific reason (not just a claim) as to why burning a koran qualifies as constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Any response other than an explanation (not a claim) and you go on ignore.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I don't think you understand how constitutional law works.

Tell me, what would prove to you that Koran-burning is covered by free speech? What kind of evidence would you find viable?

I couldn't care less what you think I understand or don't. Are you going to answer or shall I put you on ignore?

KingMerv00 · 9th September 2010, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

I couldn't care less what you think I understand or don't. Are you going to answer or shall I put you on ignore?

I'm asking you what evidence you would find acceptable in an attempt to answer your question.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I'm asking you what evidence you would find acceptable in an attempt to answer your question.

It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

bokonon · 9th September 2010, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

This is the last time I am going to ask you to give me a specific reason (not just a claim) as to why burning a koran qualifies as constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

The Supreme Court, in its unanimous opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, wrote:

Quote:

It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Therefore, burning the Quran, like burning Harry Potter, is protected free speech unless it falls into one of these categories, or unless you can demonstrate that it falls into another "well-defined and narrowly limited" class of speech which does not enjoy such protection.

I won't hold my breath.

Fnord · 9th September 2010, 06:59 AM

All this fuss and bother over a stupid book.

I bought mine yesterday at a used book store for $3. It's going into the firepit at 8:46 a.m. (EST), on Saturday, September 11, 2010. By lunchtime the coals should be low enough to grill some pork chops and pork ribs while the fat drips down into the ashes.

Similar events are planned throughout the U.S.A.

KingMerv00 · 9th September 2010, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by noreligion

It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

I'm sorry you don't understand the law. Your loss. You almost learned something.

Nanny Ogg · 9th September 2010, 07:03 AM

Am I the only one who would go to a book burning to snitch one of the books to actually read it and see what the fuss is about?

Just call me Montag.

Jack by the hedge · 9th September 2010, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die.

Exactly. It doesn't really matter if what he intends to do is lawful in the jurisdiction where he does it (well it affect him, but not the rest of us) and it doesn't matter what radical islamists who already hate the west think of it. What matters is the result among the majority of muslims who aren't crazed islamists; and that result will be to radicalise a whole lot of people and recruit them to the ranks of the crazies.

bokonon · 9th September 2010, 07:09 AM

I think book burning, flag burning, and effigy burning is stupid and childish. It's real-world trolling, done just to incite an emotional reaction, and should simply be ignored by everyone.

Aepervius · 9th September 2010, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

This is quite interesting:

The Original Burn the Quran Day

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

In all fairness, the christian pretend the same sort of things (about the bible). And the same things about selecting some verse and losing the rest, etc...etc...

Aepervius · 9th September 2010, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die.

The one burning the books (and exploiting the publicity generated) don't want 9/11 to be the responsibility of an extremly small group of fanatic extremist. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the east/Islam so that they can strap themselves in bigotry and use it as an excuse to hate a whole swath of the US population as well as 1/4 of the humanity. I don't doubt that there will be riot and people will die.

Just like the same idiot which bomb abortion clinic in the name of the christ, or burn cinema room in the name of the christ (*).

Putting responsability of a few bad apple onto a whole group is IDIOTIC. pedophile Priest didling children don't make the whole christianity responsible. It only make the hirarchy which allowed that directly responsible.

(*) happened in France. If you wanna get some detail google last temptation of christ.

Towlie · 9th September 2010, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

I think book burning, flag burning, and effigy burning is stupid and childish. It's real-world trolling, done just to incite an emotional reaction, and should simply be ignored by everyone.

That's a nice safe post. I doubt that anyone will argue with you except to say "dream on."

Fortis · 9th September 2010, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Nanny Ogg

On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine.

And if it was a church that caught fire, the irony meter would be on over-load.

bobcarp · 9th September 2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Then let's talk about burning Korans. I'm not in favor of burning any books but it seems to me that freedom of speech allows them to do this. If Muslims get inflamed by it then that is the Muslims problem.

No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor...

Fortis · 9th September 2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by bobcarp

No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists.

I will accept their right to do what they are doing (though it is stupid and in the grand scheme of things make things worse) as long as they accept my right to burn bibles. Do you think that they would?

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by bobcarp

No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor...

It's actually a really good idea. If we can manage to turn the entire Muslim world against us, we can stop caring about collateral damage.

Giggywig · 9th September 2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

It's actually a really good idea. If we can manage to turn the entire Muslim world against us, we can stop caring about collateral damage.

What about mixed faith households?

Schrodinger's Cat · 9th September 2010, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by noreligion

It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question.

How mature.

You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks.

Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.

TimCallahan · 9th September 2010, 12:48 PM

These twits who want to burn copies of the Qur'an are missing a bet. What they ought to do is read the Qur'an. Then they can ask Muslims if they actually beieve some ofthe stuff that's written in it.

They could ask, for example, if they really think that Alexander the Great (called Duhl Qarnaiyn in Surah 18) built an iron gate at a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out Gog and Magog, a gate that is still standing today.

They could also ask why, if the archangel Gabriel dictated everything in the Qur'an to the Prophet, he kept repeating himself. The story of how Iblis refused to bow to the newly created Adam, as ordered by God, is related a total five times in the Qur'an.

Finally, they could write down all the verses about unbelievers who are nevertheless "People of the Book" and ask the Muslims to explain the contradictions: Do other People of the Book go to heaven or hell? Are they to be treated with tolerance or treated harshly? Etc.

I also wonder if the twits are going to be upset when some Muslim group decides to burn Bibles.

AvalonXQ · 9th September 2010, 12:48 PM

It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.

westprog · 9th September 2010, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question.

How mature.

You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks.

Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.

I don't think an ignore button is enough. I want a button to burn noreligion's posts.

BenBurch · 9th September 2010, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Towlie

Someone on Reddit came up with a great idea: Buy a bunch of these and sell them to people who want to burn a Quran. They won't know the difference!

That's evil. Therefore I love it.

westprog · 9th September 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.

It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship. Whatever the local fire regulations are for, it certainly has nothing to do with preventing mayhem and uproar in the Islamic world, however desirable that might be. Despotic regimes are often quite ingenious at using health and safety rules to stifle opposition. It's not a good thing to do. A book can be safely burned outdoors without any significant hazard.

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Giggywig

What about mixed faith households?

Once we turn the entire Muslim world against us, Muslim partners will leave their iniquitous relationships with infidels.

Drewbot · 9th September 2010, 01:18 PM

Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Nanny Ogg

On a purely practical note, this church doesn't have a permit to go ahead with the burning.

City officials denied a burning permit, as book burnings are prohibited under the city's burning ordinance, and the church could face fines.

If anyone here has ever burnt paper, you know that it flies up and can drift upwards, landing on nearby roofs or trees, and set other things alight. It doesn't take much.

On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine.

And I'm sure the town Fire personnel have nothing better to do than babysit this event.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think instead of "Burn the Koran Day" they should have like a "Draw Mohammed Day" or something. Same deal, less danger.

AvalonXQ · 9th September 2010, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship.

The city I grew up in has a blanket ban against bonfires within the city limits. If you want a bonfire, you leave the city limits and do it on public land (or rent private land) in the surrounding township.
The city doesn't care WHY you want the bonfire; the answer is no (it might be possible to get a permit granted for an exception). Even if someone wanted to have a religious or political bonfire, that doesn't suddenly exempt them from the fire safety regulations. They can do it elsewhere.

AvalonXQ · 9th September 2010, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?

What's nutty about being willing to kill or die to preserve your rights?

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?

The latter, by far.

9th September 2010, 02:56 AM	#83
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,994	Wonder if the fact that 11 September coincides with the Eid-al-Fitr festival will have much significance?
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

9th September 2010, 06:36 AM	#86
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by noreligion No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer... I answered and you ignored. What is and what is not protected by the Constitution is determined by legal precedent. The Supreme Court has weighed in on similiar expressive acts and said they are constitutionally protected. Quote: ...because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Have a legal cite for that?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 9th September 2010 at 06:37 AM.

9th September 2010, 06:44 AM	#89
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by noreligion No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that cross burnings are protected free speech, and flag burnings are protected free speech, it would seem the burden of proof in this case is on you, to show why burning a Quran is not similarly protected. Is there any statute in any state in the country which prohibits anyone from burning any book he owns and chooses to burn?
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy. Last edited by bokonon; 9th September 2010 at 06:49 AM.

9th September 2010, 06:44 AM	#90
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by noreligion Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country. I used to think your posts were well thought out but that has ended. Now do you care to tell us what specifically is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. Originally Posted by noreligion Are you going to explain why burning a koran qualifies as free speech or are you just going to act pseudointellectual? I don't think you understand how constitutional law works. Tell me, what would prove to you that Koran-burning is covered by free speech? What kind of evidence would you find viable?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

9th September 2010, 06:51 AM	#93
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by noreligion I couldn't care less what you think I understand or don't. Are you going to answer or shall I put you on ignore? I'm asking you what evidence you would find acceptable in an attempt to answer your question.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

9th September 2010, 06:26 AM	#84
Nanny Ogg Scholar Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Eastern USA Posts: 99	On a purely practical note, this church doesn't have a permit to go ahead with the burning. City officials denied a burning permit, as book burnings are prohibited under the city's burning ordinance, and the church could face fines. If anyone here has ever burnt paper, you know that it flies up and can drift upwards, landing on nearby roofs or trees, and set other things alight. It doesn't take much. On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine. And I'm sure the town Fire personnel have nothing better to do than babysit this event.

9th September 2010, 06:32 AM	#85
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor He has already explained that to you. No he hasn't and to be honest nobody here has either and nobody is going to answer because burning a koran is not constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

9th September 2010, 06:39 AM	#87
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Because a long line of legal precedents from the Supreme Court has stated that actions can qualify as speech in certain situations. This is supported by my link above. If you want to learn more, I recommend you do some research. Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country. I used to think your posts were well thought out but that has ended. Now do you care to tell us what specifically is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

9th September 2010, 06:42 AM	#88
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Because a long line of legal precedents from the Supreme Court has stated that actions can qualify as speech in certain situations. This is supported by my link above. If you want to learn more, I recommend you do some research. Are you going to explain why burning a koran qualifies as free speech or are you just going to act pseudointellectual?

9th September 2010, 06:47 AM	#91
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I answered and you ignored. What is and what is not protected by the Constitution is determined by legal precedent. The Supreme Court has weighed in on similiar expressive acts and said they are constitutionally protected. Have a legal cite for that? This is the last time I am going to ask you to give me a specific reason (not just a claim) as to why burning a koran qualifies as constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Any response other than an explanation (not a claim) and you go on ignore.

9th September 2010, 06:49 AM	#92
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I don't think you understand how constitutional law works. Tell me, what would prove to you that Koran-burning is covered by free speech? What kind of evidence would you find viable? I couldn't care less what you think I understand or don't. Are you going to answer or shall I put you on ignore?

9th September 2010, 06:57 AM	#94
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I'm asking you what evidence you would find acceptable in an attempt to answer your question. It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

9th September 2010, 06:57 AM	#95
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by noreligion This is the last time I am going to ask you to give me a specific reason (not just a claim) as to why burning a koran qualifies as constitutionally guaranteed free speech. The Supreme Court, in its unanimous opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, wrote: Quote: It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Therefore, burning the Quran, like burning Harry Potter, is protected free speech unless it falls into one of these categories, or unless you can demonstrate that it falls into another "well-defined and narrowly limited" class of speech which does not enjoy such protection. I won't hold my breath.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

9th September 2010, 06:59 AM	#96
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	All this fuss and bother over a stupid book. I bought mine yesterday at a used book store for $3. It's going into the firepit at 8:46 a.m. (EST), on Saturday, September 11, 2010. By lunchtime the coals should be low enough to grill some pork chops and pork ribs while the fat drips down into the ashes. Similar events are planned throughout the U.S.A.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

9th September 2010, 07:01 AM	#97
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by noreligion It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry you don't understand the law. Your loss. You almost learned something.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 9th September 2010 at 07:13 AM.

9th September 2010, 07:03 AM	#98
Nanny Ogg Scholar Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Eastern USA Posts: 99	Am I the only one who would go to a book burning to snitch one of the books to actually read it and see what the fuss is about? Just call me Montag.

9th September 2010, 07:09 AM	#99
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,511	Originally Posted by westprog The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die. Exactly. It doesn't really matter if what he intends to do is lawful in the jurisdiction where he does it (well it affect him, but not the rest of us) and it doesn't matter what radical islamists who already hate the west think of it. What matters is the result among the majority of muslims who aren't crazed islamists; and that result will be to radicalise a whole lot of people and recruit them to the ranks of the crazies.

9th September 2010, 07:09 AM	#100
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	I think book burning, flag burning, and effigy burning is stupid and childish. It's real-world trolling, done just to incite an emotional reaction, and should simply be ignored by everyone.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

9th September 2010, 07:40 AM	#102
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by westprog The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die. The one burning the books (and exploiting the publicity generated) don't want 9/11 to be the responsibility of an extremly small group of fanatic extremist. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the east/Islam so that they can strap themselves in bigotry and use it as an excuse to hate a whole swath of the US population as well as 1/4 of the humanity. I don't doubt that there will be riot and people will die. Just like the same idiot which bomb abortion clinic in the name of the christ, or burn cinema room in the name of the christ (). Putting responsability of a few bad apple onto a whole group is IDIOTIC. pedophile Priest didling children don't make the whole christianity responsible. It only make the hirarchy which allowed that directly responsible. () happened in France. If you wanna get some detail google last temptation of christ.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

9th September 2010, 07:53 AM	#103
Towlie ancillary character Join Date: May 2009 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,476	Originally Posted by bokonon I think book burning, flag burning, and effigy burning is stupid and childish. It's real-world trolling, done just to incite an emotional reaction, and should simply be ignored by everyone. That's a nice safe post. I doubt that anyone will argue with you except to say "dream on."

9th September 2010, 08:36 AM	#104
Fortis New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2	Originally Posted by Nanny Ogg On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine. And if it was a church that caught fire, the irony meter would be on over-load.
Fortis New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2

9th September 2010, 09:35 AM	#105
bobcarp Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sacramento, California Posts: 252	Originally Posted by tsig Then let's talk about burning Korans. I'm not in favor of burning any books but it seems to me that freedom of speech allows them to do this. If Muslims get inflamed by it then that is the Muslims problem. No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor...
	__________________ Any claim presented without evidence, can be brushed away without evidence. "There's no "I" in TEAM, but there is "LIE" in BIBLE."

9th September 2010, 10:14 AM	#106
Fortis New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2	Originally Posted by bobcarp No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. I will accept their right to do what they are doing (though it is stupid and in the grand scheme of things make things worse) as long as they accept my right to burn bibles. Do you think that they would?
Fortis New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2

9th September 2010, 12:15 PM	#107
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by bobcarp No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor... It's actually a really good idea. If we can manage to turn the entire Muslim world against us, we can stop caring about collateral damage.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

9th September 2010, 12:33 PM	#108
Giggywig Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,853	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas It's actually a really good idea. If we can manage to turn the entire Muslim world against us, we can stop caring about collateral damage. What about mixed faith households?

9th September 2010, 12:35 PM	#109
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by noreligion It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened. He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question. How mature. You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks. Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Last edited by Schrodinger's Cat; 9th September 2010 at 12:43 PM.

9th September 2010, 12:48 PM	#110
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212	These twits who want to burn copies of the Qur'an are missing a bet. What they ought to do is read the Qur'an. Then they can ask Muslims if they actually beieve some ofthe stuff that's written in it. They could ask, for example, if they really think that Alexander the Great (called Duhl Qarnaiyn in Surah 18) built an iron gate at a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out Gog and Magog, a gate that is still standing today. They could also ask why, if the archangel Gabriel dictated everything in the Qur'an to the Prophet, he kept repeating himself. The story of how Iblis refused to bow to the newly created Adam, as ordered by God, is related a total five times in the Qur'an. Finally, they could write down all the verses about unbelievers who are nevertheless "People of the Book" and ask the Muslims to explain the contradictions: Do other People of the Book go to heaven or hell? Are they to be treated with tolerance or treated harshly? Etc. I also wonder if the twits are going to be upset when some Muslim group decides to burn Bibles.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212

9th September 2010, 12:48 PM	#111
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment. However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th September 2010, 12:50 PM	#112
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question. How mature. You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks. Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well. I don't think an ignore button is enough. I want a button to burn noreligion's posts.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

9th September 2010, 12:53 PM	#113
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,493	Originally Posted by Towlie Someone on Reddit came up with a great idea: Buy a bunch of these and sell them to people who want to burn a Quran. They won't know the difference! That's evil. Therefore I love it.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

9th September 2010, 12:54 PM	#114
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment. However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like. It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship. Whatever the local fire regulations are for, it certainly has nothing to do with preventing mayhem and uproar in the Islamic world, however desirable that might be. Despotic regimes are often quite ingenious at using health and safety rules to stifle opposition. It's not a good thing to do. A book can be safely burned outdoors without any significant hazard.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

9th September 2010, 12:57 PM	#115
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by Giggywig What about mixed faith households? Once we turn the entire Muslim world against us, Muslim partners will leave their iniquitous relationships with infidels.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

9th September 2010, 01:18 PM	#116
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

9th September 2010, 01:24 PM	#117
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,978	Originally Posted by Nanny Ogg On a purely practical note, this church doesn't have a permit to go ahead with the burning. City officials denied a burning permit, as book burnings are prohibited under the city's burning ordinance, and the church could face fines. If anyone here has ever burnt paper, you know that it flies up and can drift upwards, landing on nearby roofs or trees, and set other things alight. It doesn't take much. On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine. And I'm sure the town Fire personnel have nothing better to do than babysit this event. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think instead of "Burn the Koran Day" they should have like a "Draw Mohammed Day" or something. Same deal, less danger.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

9th September 2010, 01:26 PM	#118
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by westprog It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship. The city I grew up in has a blanket ban against bonfires within the city limits. If you want a bonfire, you leave the city limits and do it on public land (or rent private land) in the surrounding township. The city doesn't care WHY you want the bonfire; the answer is no (it might be possible to get a permit granted for an exception). Even if someone wanted to have a religious or political bonfire, that doesn't suddenly exempt them from the fire safety regulations. They can do it elsewhere.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853