Is Koran Burning Protected by Free Speech?

[JohnOfSheffield]

so you burning the Quran= Disrespecting/upsetting a religious group for the sake of promoting 1st Amendment rights.

The intent might not be anti-Islamic however the act itself is still anti-Islamic.

Not according to my beliefs.

 

[routan]

You will never get this because burning one in a billion copy book, the Quaran, for some reason is the same to you as a direct insult to your family and relatives...

You just never will and i can't explain it in any more ways than i already have.

It's now clear to me that you, like most other religious people have completely given up your ability to think.

JohnOfSheffield, perhaps you should talk to the people in Afghanistan and understand the concepts of Muslim brotherhood and what an Ummah is.

Muslims take greater offense to religious offense than offense on family. But ofcourse, since in YOUR opinion, one qualifies as a greater offense means I must follow your categories of levels offense too 🙄

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

JohnOfSheffield, perhaps you should talk to the people in Afghanistan and understand the concepts of Muslim brotherhood and what an Ummah is.

Muslims take greater offense to religious offense than offense on family. But ofcourse, since in YOUR opinion, one qualifies as a greater offense means I must follow your categories of levels offense too 🙄

And i DO NOT CARE what others find offensive, to me Religion, the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RELIGION is as fucked up as it gets, fairy tales which are only used by more powerful people to use less powerful people for their own purposes.

To you, ethnicity is obviously not ethinicity or whatever strange thoughts you cooked up in your little brain.

I don't respect religion, i respect people.

 

[TheWiseOne]

Not according to my beliefs.

 

[routan]

And i DO NOT CARE what others find offensive, to me Religion, the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RELIGION is as fucked up as it gets, fairy tales which are only used by more powerful people to use less powerful people for their own purposes.

To you, ethnicity is obviously not ethinicity or whatever strange thoughts you cooked up in your little brain.

I don't respect religion, i respect people.

JohnOfSheffield, lol. Similarly, I do not care that you hold "ethnic offense" to be a greater offense than "religious" offense.

From any source of information, antisemitism is used to describe hatred towards Jews, and not all Semites are Jews.

Your argument is, to put it simply, bullcrap.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I know a way to solve this:

Have the troops complete an anonymous survey with a single question that asks if koran burning should be protected speech while they are abroad, while bearing in mind that such practices could increase their risk of harm.

I believe that it should be protected speech. But if the soldiers aren't willing to fight for it, openly hostile demonstrations could be made unprotected.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

JohnOfSheffield, lol. Similarly, I do not care that you hold "ethnic offense" to be a greater offense than "religious" offense.

From any source of information, antisemitism is used to describe hatred towards Jews, and not all Semites are Jews.

Your argument is, to put it simply, bullcrap.

I'm done with this argument, you don't understand what i write and you never will because you don't have the capacity to step outside of your little bubble even for more than a second and understand how personal attacks (which an attack on ethnicity would be in my case) is not the same as burning a fucking general one out of a billion book.

Now, i would never burn a fucking Quaran, simply because i'm one of those greedy big nosed Semites and i could probably sell it instead.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I know a way to solve this:

Have the troops complete an anonymous survey with a single question that asks if koran burning should be protected speech while they are abroad, while bearing in mind that such practices could increase their risk of harm.

I believe that it should be protected speech. But if the soldiers aren't willing to fight for it, openly hostile demonstrations could be made unprotected.

Of course it should be protected speech and of course all soldiers are prepared to fight for it.

Should burning an American flag at a Nascar race be free speech? Should the soldiers vote on that? Should the soldiers be there to protect some nimrod doing it?

Just shut the fuck up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

These kind of strange salutes are highly offensive to me.

You should remove it ASAP or i shall sue you for hurting my feelings!

 

[BoberFett]

Nevermind, I had the wrong poster. I thought it was dahunan. I guess it was senseamp.

Those who are attacking Obama for defending the First Amendment. They are domestic enemies of the Constitution.

So we should see senseamp in here any second to start calling people against burning the Koran enemies of the state.

Right?

 

[OCGuy]

Yes. Go away.

 

[Zorkorist]

Pray to your God, OCGuy, and he will go away.

Oh, did that not work?

Then shut the fuck up.

-John

 

[OCGuy]

Pray to your God, OCGuy, and he will go away.

Oh, did that not work?

Then shut the fuck up.

-John

I have a god? You really don't lurk here I take it.

 

[Zorkorist]

I don't lurk here, but my experience in forums ia that people that tell people to go away,are defending some sacred held belief, like religion.

I apologize if I mischaractarized you.

-John

 

[Madwand1]

Who else but Muslims would it be anti-Islamic to? Buddhist monks? Would a Buddhist monk care two hoots about anti-semitic speech? Masterclass words of wisdom.

Many a Buddhist monk would actually caution and advise against anti-Semitic or other hateful speech and attitudes, because they understand a broader rule of conduct and are the wiser for it. Not everyone's attitude is us-vs-them, and Buddhists deserve more credit than you give them.

Many Buddhist monks also well-understand the notion of protest and protest for the defense of liberties against a state or foreign occupier, so would understand that symbolic acts can be meaningful without the presumption of hatred, which generates more hate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

An old antiquated concept. Sometimes it's best not to do a thing because it's rude and no good comes of it. Yes, civilized people actually did that. It's not seen much since they've become an endangered species.

 

[PokerGuy]

I know a way to solve this:

Have the troops complete an anonymous survey with a single question that asks if koran burning should be protected speech while they are abroad, while bearing in mind that such practices could increase their risk of harm.

I believe that it should be protected speech. But if the soldiers aren't willing to fight for it, openly hostile demonstrations could be made unprotected.

Are you stupid? What someone feels about my rights doesn't impact what my rights are, soldiers or not. It's completely irrelevant. You have the right to burn whatever book you own. If someone doesn't like it, too freakin' bad for them.

 

[routan]

Many a Buddhist monk would actually caution and advise against anti-Semitic or other hateful speech and attitudes, because they understand a broader rule of conduct and are the wiser for it. Not everyone's attitude is us-vs-them, and Buddhists deserve more credit than you give them.

Many Buddhist monks also well-understand the notion of protest and protest for the defense of liberties against a state or foreign occupier, so would understand that symbolic acts can be meaningful without the presumption of hatred, which generates more hate.

The contradictory thoughts are strong in this poster.

One act is considered hateful speech and attitude. The other is a "protest for the defense of liberties" and a "symbolic act" 🙄

Can a protest not be made without burning the Quran? Apparently not according to the intellect of most AT Users.

Was the act predicated with the notion of "freedom of speech" or a "symbolic protest for the defense of liberties"? Not to my knowledge. It was obviously, by far, a symbolic attack on Islam and Muslims. The simple fact that such was planned on 9/11 does not just warrant a presumption of hatred, but an acceptance of the hatred of the organizers.

 

[spacejamz]

Can a protest not be made without burning the Quran?

This is why there will never be peace on this earth...Muslims will never understand or embrace the concept of freedom of expression among ALL members of its society. Most modern societies allow their citizens to protest pretty much anything they want just as long as they do it legally....

The saying 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it' means nothing to them and is yet the cornerstone of what this country was built on. If they cannot embrace this, how can they expect to integrate into Western society (assuming that they want to integrate here and not expect the US to adapt its laws to their traditions and customs)?

Routan, please explain this to me...Muslims expect the world to respect it traditions and customs but these same Muslims do not want the respect the laws of other countries. Why is this? A good example of this is the depiction of Muhammed. How are Muslims supposed to deal with the laws of other countries that they now live in that are in direct contradiction with their beliefs? Are they supposed to turn the other cheek? Issue Death Threats against those who disrespect them? I have seen more examples of the latter than the former....

 

[routan]

This is why there will never be peace on this earth...Muslims will never understand or embrace the concept of freedom of expression among ALL members of its society. Most modern societies allow their citizens to protest pretty much anything they want just as long as they do it legally....

The saying 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it' means nothing to them and is yet the cornerstone of what this country was built on. If they cannot embrace this, how can they expect to integrate into Western society (assuming that they want to integrate here and not expect the US to adapt its laws to their traditions and customs)?

Routan, please explain this to me...Muslims expect the world to respect it traditions and customs but these same Muslims do not want the respect the laws of other countries. Why is this? A good example of this is the depiction of Muhammed. How are Muslims supposed to deal with the laws of other countries that they now live in that are in direct contradiction with their beliefs? Are they supposed to turn the other cheek? Issue Death Threats against those who disrespect them? I have seen more examples of the latter than the former....

spacejamz, you take a snippet of my entire post and construct a critique solely from that line. If you are replying to my post, I would request that you do so in its entirety.

Please read the entire thread. I have not at any point disagreed with the right to protest or the right to free speech.

It is quite a sad state of affairs that anti-semitic speech, while completely permissible under the right to free speech is condemned by everyone, but anti-Islamic speech is encouraged and supported.

Where have you seen a Muslim in the United States physically oppose the formerly planned act? If I as a Muslim oppose the act, speak against it, you still wish to silence me deferring to "freedom of speech" while limiting my freedom?

With respect to death threats, they are but threats from crazy fanatics and retards. There are similar non-Muslim retards. The retard who tried to knife the Muslim cab driver in NY. The retards who have fire-bombed a mosque in Jacksonville. Set a mosque in Marietta on fire.

In all seriousness, why are all conversations always one-sided, attributing ALL fault to Islam/Muslims, without any blame to retards who are NOT Muslims?

 

[her209]

Um, the issue was her using her official office to discriminate (though that was proven to be false) Very different. Her issue was not an issue of speech.

No, Shirley was "fired" because her comments were "controversial".

 

[routan]

No, Shirley was "fired" because her comments were "controversial".

Yes, that was the case. Her comments were deemed "controversial". There was never a case of "discrimination".

 

[Sinsear]

s:

Can a protest not be made without burning the Quran? Apparently not according to the intellect of most AT Users.

That's because we see through you, troll.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Indeed

 

[spacejamz]

spacejamz, you take a snippet of my entire post and construct a critique solely from that line. If you are replying to my post, I would request that you do so in its entirety.

Please read the entire thread. I have not at any point disagreed with the right to protest or the right to free speech.

It is quite a sad state of affairs that anti-semitic speech, while completely permissible under the right to free speech is condemned by everyone, but anti-Islamic speech is encouraged and supported.

Where have you seen a Muslim in the United States physically oppose the formerly planned act? If I as a Muslim oppose the act, speak against it, you still wish to silence me deferring to "freedom of speech" while limiting my freedom?

With respect to death threats, they are but threats from crazy fanatics and retards. There are similar non-Muslim retards. The retard who tried to knife the Muslim cab driver in NY. The retards who have fire-bombed a mosque in Jacksonville. Set a mosque in Marietta on fire.

In all seriousness, why are all conversations always one-sided, attributing ALL fault to Islam/Muslims, without any blame to retards who are NOT Muslims?

I am addressing a specific point in your post...you are obviously disagreeing with free speech/expression if you don't understand why it is okay to burn anything (your Quran, the American flag, etc)...you did question why does it need to burned, didnt you???

it seems to me you have problems with people who don't share your viewpoints...you assume that they are anti-muslim...instead of trying to understand why we do what we do here and embrace it, you question our motives instead...