FREE TAPATALK APP

Aepervius · 9th September 2010, 01:50 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.

Same here. There are area designed for picnic, for barbecue, but for a bonfire are forbbiden there, and in private home you HAVE to ask in advance the firemen authorisation, and they can refuse it without an appeal possibility.

I think most city have such a law.

If they want to avoid that, they could still make their protest by drowning the book in a chemical toilet. Not as spectacular, but gives the same idiotic message out, and almost certainly authorized.

Aepervius · 9th September 2010, 01:51 PM

Or heck, make something useful : make papier mache with the paper, and bu8ilt some sculpture or stuff.

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 01:56 PM

Fires are useful.

tsig · 9th September 2010, 02:28 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...

You need to read noreligions' posts. He claims that burning the Koran is not free speech.

Once you start compromising rights where do you stop? Can't make a picture on Mohamed because that will offend Muslims, can't burn a Koran because that will offend Muslims, What will offend the Muslims next time?

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 02:30 PM

Fun's over. Go home.

R.A.F. · 9th September 2010, 02:35 PM

In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason.

aleCcowaN · 9th September 2010, 02:36 PM

Why do some people mix up freedom of speech with impunity? Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech. That's the law. That's the logic.

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!

This idea is devilish brilliant. Don't forget covering any visible cross.

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Why do some people mix up freedom of speech with impunity? Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech. That's the law. That's the logic.

What penal, civil, and moral consequences should attach to burning a book?

Moon-Spinner · 9th September 2010, 02:42 PM

Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone, but the Westboro Baptists have "Picked up the Torch", so to speak...

Westboro Link

Schrodinger's Cat · 9th September 2010, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Fun's over. Go home.

Quote:

The two announced they would fly to New York City this weekend to talk to Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Muslim cleric behind the proposed mosque being built near ground zero. Jones said that Muslim leader has agreed to relocate the controversial mosque, but that had not been confirmed.

I wonder if there's any truth to this?

Also, I wonder if he ever really planned to burn them in the first place, or this was all a giant publicity stunt which he would have found some excuse to cancel before it actually happened?

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 02:45 PM

The show must go on.

For once, I'd like to thank Fred Phelps for keeping things interesting.

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

I wonder if there's any truth to this?

We'll know soon enough, I guess.

Quote:

Also, I wonder if he ever really planned to burn them in the first place, or this was all a giant publicity stunt which he would have found some excuse to cancel before it actually happened?

I think it was all a ploy to meet Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf because, let's face it, that's one sexy dude.

SnakeTongue · 9th September 2010, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason.

This event is smelling fish...

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/...2010/PR069.asp

INTERPOL issues global alert for increased terror threat if Koran burning in US goes ahead as planned

LYON, France – INTERPOL has today issued a global alert to its 188 member countries following the request of Pakistan’s Minister of the Interior, and its own determination, that if the proposed Koran burning by a pastor in the US goes ahead as planned, there is a strong likelihood that violent attacks on innocent people would follow.

aleCcowaN · 9th September 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

What penal, civil, and moral consequences should attach to burning a book?

I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you.

But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you?

westprog · 9th September 2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

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.

And barbecues? Suppose someone was having a barbecue in his back garden, and used torn up papers to light it? Would that cause a public announcement?

Marquis de Carabas · 9th September 2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you.

Certainly people should only burn their own books.

Quote:

But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you?

Not every one, no, but as this is a discussion about a particular act of speech, I thought what you said might be relevant to the particular act in question.

R.A.F. · 9th September 2010, 03:02 PM

...and CNN is reporting that the pastor has changed his mind about "the burning".//will be traveling to NY to talk to the Iman...

Schrodinger's Cat · 9th September 2010, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you.

But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you?

Is your avatar Christopher McCandless?

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I think it was all a ploy to meet Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf because, let's face it, that's one sexy dude.

Woah...he is definitely trying to seduce me with his sexy stare.

R.A.F. · 9th September 2010, 03:11 PM

CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off".

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 03:17 PM

According to CNN

Quote:

The Rev. Terry Jones of the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center, standing with a Florida Muslim leader, also said the imam who planned a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero in New York has agreed to move it to another location. But the imam who appeared with him said that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in New York agreed to speak with Jones about possibly moving the center.

A spokesman from Soho Properties told CNN producer Vivienne Foley that "the Muslim community center called Park51 in lower Manhattan is not being moved."

Jones, meanwhile, said he will travel to New York on Saturday to meet with Rauf.

Jones canceled the book burning because somehow he was led to believe the mosque was moving. It isn't. I wonder when he'll find out. Probably at his meeting with the New York imam.

Meanwhile:

Quote:

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has offered to buy the lower Manhattan site where the Muslim group plans to build an Islamic community center for 25 percent more than the current owners paid for it.

Trump made the offer Thursday in a letter to Hisham Elzanaty, an investor in the Islamic center site.

"I am making this offer as a resident of New York and citizen of the United States, not because I think the location is a spectacular one (because it is not), but because it will end a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation that is destined, in my opinion, to only get worse," he wrote.

I concur with Trump's assessment of the situation.

Moon-Spinner · 9th September 2010, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off".

At which point Pastor Jones said "Hey, that's no fair, how come that Imam guy gets to build a Mosque, but I can't burn these Qurans?"

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 03:19 PM

ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected.

Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.

SnakeTongue · 9th September 2010, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected.

Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.

Oh yeah!

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=13124531

Springfield Minister Plans To Also Burn Quran

(AP) NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Springfield minister said he also plans to burn a Quran on Saturday to mark the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

R.A.F. · 9th September 2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Jones canceled the book burning because somehow he was led to believe the mosque was moving. It isn't. I wonder when he'll find out.

I suggest telling him on the 12th.

gerdbonk · 9th September 2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Moon-Spinner

Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone, but the Westboro Baptists have "Picked up the Torch", so to speak...

Westboro Link

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The show must go on.

For once, I'd like to thank Fred Phelps for keeping things interesting.

Gonna steal hisself some o' that there publicity Jones and his church been up-stirrin'.

Piscivore · 9th September 2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected.

Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.

"In Gainesville, Fla., a minister said he had canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the imam leading the mosque agreed to move its location. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said that he was surprised by the announcement and that he would not barter."

It's good to see the Imam doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

bobcarp · 9th September 2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

You need to read noreligions' posts. He claims that burning the Koran is not free speech.

Once you start compromising rights where do you stop? Can't make a picture on Mohamed because that will offend Muslims, can't burn a Koran because that will offend Muslims, What will offend the Muslims next time?

So you think the burning will cause no repercussions for us? If it was a matter of just offending them, then go ahead, burn baby burn. But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by bobcarp

But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?

The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking.

Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed?

bobcarp · 9th September 2010, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fortis

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?

I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians")

Fnord · 9th September 2010, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason.

Overseas military personnel are endangered by a Florida book-burning only if they stand downwind of the fire, because <NEWS FLASH> those overseas military personnel are in a war zone. The rest of your argument is a false analogy.

Piscivore · 9th September 2010, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking.

Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed?

I agree. To sum up:

Burning a koran = One has a right to, but it's a dick move.

Threatening to burn a koran unless the mosque is moved = Terrorism

Making people believe that a violent reprisals will follow burning of koran = Terrorism

Not burning koran because of fear of reprisals / not building mosque because of threats to burn koran = Spinelessness and letting the terrorists win.

Burning terrorists = Awesome.

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by bobcarp

I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians")

Of course he would; but it's not a cognitive dissonance thing. This individual and those of his ilk are convinced that even if they did not directly perpetrate attacks like 9/11, the vast majority of Muslims support and celebrate such attacks when they occur.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 04:04 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.

He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him.

Piscivore · 9th September 2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by noreligion

He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him.

Threatening to put people on ignore if they don't obey your demands = Pathetic and really, really funny.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 04:07 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.

I can make a claim too without evidence. How about providing a reason why burning a koran is "indisputably" protected speech and also explaining what protected speech encompasses (be specific).

R.A.F. · 9th September 2010, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

Overseas military personnel are endangered by a Florida book-burning only if they stand downwind of the fire, because <NEWS FLASH> those overseas military personnel are in a war zone. The rest of your argument is a false analogy.

Appeaently you've been eating your own feces...and I forgive you for that.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Fun's over. Go home.

To all those that kept claiming that this was protected under the first amendment I ask, did the president and Hillary Clinton break the constitution by asking Jones not to do it?

Piscivore · 9th September 2010, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by noreligion

To all those that kept claiming that this was protected under the first amendment I ask, did the president and Hillary Clinton break the constitution by asking Jones not to do it?

Are they congress? Did they make a law abridging the right to do it? That's your answer.

Checkmite · 9th September 2010, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Threatening to burn a koran unless the mosque is moved = Terrorism

I really don't think this is true. The point of terrorism is to invoke terror. Muslims aren't supposed to be "terrorized" by the burning, they're just supposed to feel insulted.

noreligion · 9th September 2010, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off".

Another name to add to the list of people that according to some here broke the constitution.

9th September 2010, 01:50 PM	#121
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,894	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. Same here. There are area designed for picnic, for barbecue, but for a bonfire are forbbiden there, and in private home you HAVE to ask in advance the firemen authorisation, and they can refuse it without an appeal possibility. I think most city have such a law. If they want to avoid that, they could still make their protest by drowning the book in a chemical toilet. Not as spectacular, but gives the same idiotic message out, and almost certainly authorized.
	__________________ 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, 01:51 PM	#122
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,894	Or heck, make something useful : make papier mache with the paper, and bu8ilt some sculpture or stuff.
	__________________ 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, 01:56 PM	#123
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Fires are useful.
	__________________ 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, 02:30 PM	#125
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Fun's over. Go home.
	__________________ 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, 02:35 PM	#126
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141	In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason.
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141

9th September 2010, 02:28 PM	#124
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	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... You need to read noreligions' posts. He claims that burning the Koran is not free speech. Once you start compromising rights where do you stop? Can't make a picture on Mohamed because that will offend Muslims, can't burn a Koran because that will offend Muslims, What will offend the Muslims next time?

9th September 2010, 02:36 PM	#127
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 1,742	Why do some people mix up freedom of speech with impunity? Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech. That's the law. That's the logic. 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! This idea is devilish brilliant. Don't forget covering any visible cross.
	__________________ si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO *[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]* -Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. "Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque

9th September 2010, 02:41 PM	#128
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by aleCcowaN Why do some people mix up freedom of speech with impunity? Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech. That's the law. That's the logic. What penal, civil, and moral consequences should attach to burning a book?
	__________________ 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, 02:42 PM	#129
Moon-Spinner Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Within a star too far to dream of Posts: 1,489	Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone, but the Westboro Baptists have "Picked up the Torch", so to speak... Westboro Link

9th September 2010, 02:44 PM	#130
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Fun's over. Go home. Quote: The two announced they would fly to New York City this weekend to talk to Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Muslim cleric behind the proposed mosque being built near ground zero. Jones said that Muslim leader has agreed to relocate the controversial mosque, but that had not been confirmed. I wonder if there's any truth to this? Also, I wonder if he ever really planned to burn them in the first place, or this was all a giant publicity stunt which he would have found some excuse to cancel before it actually happened?
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499

9th September 2010, 02:45 PM	#131
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	The show must go on. For once, I'd like to thank Fred Phelps for keeping things interesting.
	__________________ 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, 02:49 PM	#132
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat I wonder if there's any truth to this? We'll know soon enough, I guess. Quote: Also, I wonder if he ever really planned to burn them in the first place, or this was all a giant publicity stunt which he would have found some excuse to cancel before it actually happened? I think it was all a ploy to meet Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf because, let's face it, that's one sexy dude.
	__________________ 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, 02:52 PM	#133
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by R.A.F. In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason. This event is smelling fish... http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/...2010/PR069.asp INTERPOL issues global alert for increased terror threat if Koran burning in US goes ahead as planned LYON, France – INTERPOL has today issued a global alert to its 188 member countries following the request of Pakistan’s Minister of the Interior, and its own determination, that if the proposed Koran burning by a pastor in the US goes ahead as planned, there is a strong likelihood that violent attacks on innocent people would follow.

9th September 2010, 02:59 PM	#134
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 1,742	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas What penal, civil, and moral consequences should attach to burning a book? I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you. But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you?
	__________________ si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO *[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]* -Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. "Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque

9th September 2010, 03:01 PM	#135
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ 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. And barbecues? Suppose someone was having a barbecue in his back garden, and used torn up papers to light it? Would that cause a public announcement?
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

9th September 2010, 03:01 PM	#136
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by aleCcowaN I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you. Certainly people should only burn their own books. Quote: But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you? Not every one, no, but as this is a discussion about a particular act of speech, I thought what you said might be relevant to the particular act in question.
	__________________ 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, 03:02 PM	#137
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141	...and CNN is reporting that the pastor has changed his mind about "the burning".//will be traveling to NY to talk to the Iman...
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141

9th September 2010, 03:07 PM	#138
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by aleCcowaN I can guarantee that if you burn one of my valuable collectibles as a part of your free speech you'll face penal and civil consequences. The moral ones I'll change them by the punch in the face that I'd give you. But, are you sure that you're not asking just for making conversation? You surely was aware that by saying "Say (or burn) your speech freely, later face the full penal, civil and moral consequences of your speech." I didn't mean every act of free speech has or should have such consequences, wasn't you? Is your avatar Christopher McCandless? Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas I think it was all a ploy to meet Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf because, let's face it, that's one sexy dude. Woah...he is definitely trying to seduce me with his sexy stare.
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Last edited by Schrodinger's Cat; 9th September 2010 at 03:10 PM.

9th September 2010, 03:11 PM	#139
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141	CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off".
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141

9th September 2010, 03:17 PM	#140
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,981	According to CNN Quote: The Rev. Terry Jones of the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center, standing with a Florida Muslim leader, also said the imam who planned a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero in New York has agreed to move it to another location. But the imam who appeared with him said that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in New York agreed to speak with Jones about possibly moving the center. A spokesman from Soho Properties told CNN producer Vivienne Foley that "the Muslim community center called Park51 in lower Manhattan is not being moved." Jones, meanwhile, said he will travel to New York on Saturday to meet with Rauf. Jones canceled the book burning because somehow he was led to believe the mosque was moving. It isn't. I wonder when he'll find out. Probably at his meeting with the New York imam. Meanwhile: Quote: Real estate mogul Donald Trump has offered to buy the lower Manhattan site where the Muslim group plans to build an Islamic community center for 25 percent more than the current owners paid for it. Trump made the offer Thursday in a letter to Hisham Elzanaty, an investor in the Islamic center site. "I am making this offer as a resident of New York and citizen of the United States, not because I think the location is a spectacular one (because it is not), but because it will end a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation that is destined, in my opinion, to only get worse," he wrote. I concur with Trump's assessment of the situation.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

9th September 2010, 03:17 PM	#141
Moon-Spinner Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Within a star too far to dream of Posts: 1,489	Originally Posted by R.A.F. CNN is reporting that Sec. Gates personally contacted pastor Jones appearently telling him to "knock it off". At which point Pastor Jones said "Hey, that's no fair, how come that Imam guy gets to build a Mosque, but I can't burn these Qurans?"

9th September 2010, 03:19 PM	#142
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,981	ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected. Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

9th September 2010, 03:29 PM	#143
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Checkmite ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected. Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change. Oh yeah! http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=13124531 Springfield Minister Plans To Also Burn Quran (AP) NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Springfield minister said he also plans to burn a Quran on Saturday to mark the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

9th September 2010, 03:30 PM	#144
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141	Originally Posted by Checkmite Jones canceled the book burning because somehow he was led to believe the mosque was moving. It isn't. I wonder when he'll find out. I suggest telling him on the 12th.
R.A.F. Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,141

9th September 2010, 03:30 PM	#145
gerdbonk Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula Posts: 3,103	Originally Posted by Moon-Spinner Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone, but the Westboro Baptists have "Picked up the Torch", so to speak... Westboro Link Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas The show must go on. For once, I'd like to thank Fred Phelps for keeping things interesting. Gonna steal hisself some o' that there publicity Jones and his church been up-stirrin'.
	__________________ You fools! I'm savoirferret! My ancient and apparently abandoned comic strip blog is Unbolded Did you say Photos of TAM 9?

9th September 2010, 03:33 PM	#146
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,566	Originally Posted by Checkmite ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected. Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change. "In Gainesville, Fla., a minister said he had canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the imam leading the mosque agreed to move its location. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said that he was surprised by the announcement and that he would not barter." It's good to see the Imam doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

9th September 2010, 03:42 PM	#147
bobcarp Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sacramento, California Posts: 252	Originally Posted by tsig You need to read noreligions' posts. He claims that burning the Koran is not free speech. Once you start compromising rights where do you stop? Can't make a picture on Mohamed because that will offend Muslims, can't burn a Koran because that will offend Muslims, What will offend the Muslims next time? So you think the burning will cause no repercussions for us? If it was a matter of just offending them, then go ahead, burn baby burn. But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?
	__________________ 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, 03:47 PM	#148
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,981	Originally Posted by bobcarp But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it? The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking. Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 Last edited by Checkmite; 9th September 2010 at 03:49 PM.

9th September 2010, 03:56 PM	#149
bobcarp Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sacramento, California Posts: 252	Originally Posted by Fortis 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? I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians")
	__________________ 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, 03:57 PM	#150
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by R.A.F. In my opinion, purposefully endangering the lives of our overseas military personal is treason and should be "treated" as such...after all, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason. Overseas military personnel are endangered by a Florida book-burning only if they stand downwind of the fire, because <NEWS FLASH> those overseas military personnel are in a war zone. The rest of your argument is a false analogy.
	__________________ 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, 04:03 PM	#151
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,566	Originally Posted by Checkmite The fact that it's the 21st century and yet this is actually a serious question is heartbreaking. Nevertheless: Two or three months ago, it seemed to be the opinion of many that the point made by drawing pictures of Mohammed despite threats of violence was worth any negative repercussions that would've resulted. What has changed? I agree. To sum up: Burning a koran = One has a right to, but it's a dick move. Threatening to burn a koran unless the mosque is moved = Terrorism Making people believe that a violent reprisals will follow burning of koran = Terrorism Not burning koran because of fear of reprisals / not building mosque because of threats to burn koran = Spinelessness and letting the terrorists win. Burning terrorists = Awesome.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

9th September 2010, 04:03 PM	#152
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,981	Originally Posted by bobcarp I saw this guy on Anderson Cooper or some show and that question was asked, and of course he said, “Well, they have a right to burn bibles as well”. I mean, what else could he say. But I’m sure if there was a group that wanted to “Send a message” to the child molesting priests by burning bibles, this guy would speak up and say that we shouldn't burn bibles just because one small part of the Christian people committed atrocities against children. (Although I guarantee this guy like most protestant Christian churches don't really consider Catholics "Christians") Of course he would; but it's not a cognitive dissonance thing. This individual and those of his ilk are convinced that even if they did not directly perpetrate attacks like 9/11, the vast majority of Muslims support and celebrate such attacks when they occur.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

9th September 2010, 04:04 PM	#153
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	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. He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him.

9th September 2010, 04:06 PM	#154
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,566	Originally Posted by noreligion He didn't give an answer although he was asked several times. All he did was make a claim and when he was told anything other than an answer would result in him going on ignore he asked a question instead. If he read what I said, and you did also, you wouldn't be making such a dumb post defending him. Threatening to put people on ignore if they don't obey your demands = Pathetic and really, really funny.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

9th September 2010, 04:07 PM	#155
noreligion Guest Join Date: May 2010 Location: Easton, Pennsylvania Posts: 1,002	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. I can make a claim too without evidence. How about providing a reason why burning a koran is "indisputably" protected speech and also explaining what protected speech encompasses (be specific).