Qur'an burning day

Ginja Ninja

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-pastor-terry-jones-vows-to-go-ahead-with-koran-burning-on-september-11-14936702.html

I think they're crazy and asking for a retaliation, opinions?*

*you wanted thread,I bring thread

QueenOfLeon

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-pastor-terry-jones-vows-to-go-ahead-with-koran-burning-on-september-11-14936702.html

I think they're crazy and asking for a retaliation, opinions?*

*you wanted thread,I bring thread

Out of all the present news options....:pac:

Ehh...thats awful fo sho. Burning bits of paper, shame on them...

Pygmalion

Angry fundamentalists pissing off angry fundamentalists.

I'll bring the popcorn.

Grindylow

Whats a Quaran?

QueenOfLeon

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Whats a Quaran?

:facepalm:

Away to LC religion with ya :P

theowen

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Whats a Quaran?

Islam equivalent of the bible methinks.

I'm sure some terrorist is on his way over with a rocket or something...

seriousfizz

Pygmalion basically summed it all up. Bunch o' ticks, but no better than the bunch o' ticks they're trying to piss off. Leave them to it, I say.

Jamie Starr

I think a few countries should pitch in and buy an island off the coast of Greece (their government would do anything for a bit of cash), and then round up all the nutters who want to argue about religion and let them fight it out there.

Pygmalion

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I think Britain should pitch in and donate a strip of land off the coast of Egypt (their government would do anything for a bit of cash), and then round up all the nutters who want to argue about religion and let them fight it out there.

Redlion

seriousfizz wrote: »

Pygmalion basically summed it all up. Bunch o' ticks, but no better than the bunch o' ticks they're trying to piss off. Leave them to it, I say.

You can't exactly just leave them to it, as the retaliation from the Islamic side will be aimed at innocents/Western soldiers who had no involvement in the booking burning.

Pygmalion

Redlion wrote: »

You can't exactly just leave them to it, as the retaliation from the Islamic side will be aimed at innocents/Western soldiers who had no involvement in the booking burning.

And the retaliation from the Christian side will be aimed at innocents/clergymen who had no involvement in suicide bombings.

I'm not saying this cancels out, if anything it's worse, but it happens.

Redlion

Pygmalion wrote: »

And the retaliation from the Christian side will be aimed at innocents/clergymen who had no involvement in suicide bombings.

I'm not saying this cancels out, if anything it's worse, but it happens.

I know it happens, but at least the Americans have a chance to stop this from happening and damaging international relations further

sock puppet

Redlion wrote: »

I know it happens, but at least the Americans have a chance to stop this from happening and damaging international relations further

They don't really. Nothing the government can do.

randylonghorn

Actually, I suspect they could step in under "incitement to racial hatred" leg.

The questions probably revolve around whether that would make the situation worse or better, as it might incite other right-wing US loonies to do worse. They're probably having their usual argument over federal vs. state vs. local jurisdiction as well, the US can be a bit loopers like that.

EverybodyLies

I say we abolish Religion and see what happens then. Will they blame each other or join forces to defeat the evil Atheists/Agnostics?

Sirrusly though. These people are crazy!

Four

sock puppet wrote: »

They don't really. Nothing the government can do.

Apparently in Florida you have to have license to burn something :rolleyes: .So the government's plan is just not to give him the license :pac:

sock puppet

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, I suspect they could step in under "incitement to racial hatred" leg.

The questions probably revolve around whether that would make the situation worse or better, as it might incite other right-wing US loonies to do worse. They're probably having their usual argument over federal vs. state vs. local jurisdiction as well, the US can be a bit loopers like that.

Could they? It's still legal to burn the American flag there as far as I know so would burning the Koran not be something similar?

Pygmalion

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, I suspect they could step in under "incitement to racial hatred" leg.

The questions probably revolve around whether that would make the situation worse or better, as it might incite other right-wing US loonies to do worse. They're probably having their usual argument over federal vs. state vs. local jurisdiction as well, the US can be a bit loopers like that.

That's in most countries lawbooks/constitutions, but I don't think it's in the US one.
Plenty of times people've tried to ban Nazi rallies and the like and been told to FO by the Supreme Court for attempting to limit free speech.

dubbeat

If you burn korans in the U.S or any other big christian country your fine but if you went and burnt a bible you'd probably get done for inciting hatred or disturbing the peace or some such. Go to Iran and the oppisate would be true except you wouldnt get arrested..... you'd probably be hung if you're lucky.

Anyway... I'm no expert on christianity but I reckon burning bibles of other faiths, inciting hatred and bigotry and general other acts of revenge and intolerance is not christian, it's just retarded.

Next it'll be unemployed people burning lodgement forms

randylonghorn

sock puppet wrote: »

Could they? It's still legal to burn the American flag there as far as I know so would burning the Koran not be something similar?

I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert on American law or indeed social policy, but I think the two situations are a bit different.

Burning the American flag would be covered more under freedom to protest against the state / the government ... we're not talking about an action aimed at a minority (ethnic or otherwise), it's more political protest by the citizens of a country against their own government, or at least the state.

This would be an action aimed against one specific minority and realistically calculated to incite a violent reaction. I suspect there would be room to manouevre on two fronts in fact ... one would be "incitement to racial hatred"; the other would be under the Homeland Security legislation, in order to prevent a counter-reaction.

I'm really not claiming any expertise here though; I just have a vague memory of reading about similar situations arising and the authorities did step in under one code or another.

It's always a difficult one for any government though: are they better to ignore it, and hope it's a damp squib, or step in and guarantee maximum publicity and maybe copycat events. Plus, as I say, there usually tends to be a flurry about jurisdictional buck-passing in the US on things like this.

sock puppet

randylonghorn wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert on American law or indeed social policy, but I think the two situations are a bit different.

Burning the American flag would be covered more under freedom to protest against the state / the government ... we're not talking about an action aimed at a minority (ethnic or otherwise), it's more political protest by the citizens of a country against their own government, or at least the state.

This would be an action aimed against one specific minority and realistically calculated to incite a violent reaction. I suspect there would be room to manouevre on two fronts in fact ... one would be "incitement to racial hatred"; the other would be under the Homeland Security legislation, in order to prevent a counter-reaction.

I'm really not claiming any expertise here though; I just have a vague memory of reading about similar situations arising and the authorities did step in under one code or another.

It's always a difficult one for any government though: are they better to ignore it, and hope it's a damp squib, or step in and guarantee maximum publicity and maybe copycat events. Plus, as I say, there usually tends to be a flurry about jurisdictional buck-passing in the US on things like this.

Yeah I've no idea if there's laws against this kind of thing either. I doubt there are though. The 1st amendment seems to protect his rights to do it.

randylonghorn

Pygmalion wrote: »

That's in most countries lawbooks/constitutions, but I don't think it's in the US one.
Plenty of times people've tried to ban Nazi rallies and the like and been told to FO by the Supreme Court for attempting to limit free speech.

I do remember something being struck down by the SC over ambiguity over what exactly "racial hatred" was / how one defined it. I thought that some compromise had been reached eventually though (I could be wrong!)

Pretty daft with all the ultra-PC legislation they have especially about employment if they have nothing in place.

randylonghorn

sock puppet wrote: »

The 1st amendment seems to protect his rights to do it.

The USSC has held the 1st amendment not to be absolute before though, and balanced it against other rights, such as the right of citizens not to be endangered.

The famous "Schenck test" is a case in point ... the Court held in Schenck v. United States that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" ... basically where an action or speech or piece of writing which would normally be protected by the 1st amendment is likely to cause danger to the state or its citizens, then the state has a right to intervene and prevent.

In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court held that "In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger."

So there's precedent. I do agree though that the tendency has been to hold the 1st amendment as inviolate in most circumstances, and those cases where it has been held to be superceded have generally been to do with what has been seen as political subversion against the government.

sock puppet

randylonghorn wrote: »

The USSC has held the 1st amendment not to be absolute before though, and balanced it against other rights, such as the right of citizens not to be endangered.

The famous "Schenck test" is a case in point ... the Court held in Schenck v. United States that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" ... basically where an action or speech or piece of writing which would normally be protected by the 1st amendment is likely to cause danger to the state or its citizens, then the state has a right to intervene and prevent.

In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court held that "In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger."

So there's precedent. I do agree though that the tendency has been to hold the 1st amendment as inviolate in most circumstances, and those cases where it has been held to be superceded have generally been to do with what has been seen as political subversion against the government.

Ah I see. The White House haven't said anything about banning the burning. Maybe they're waiting to see if he can be persuaded otherwise first.

randylonghorn

sock puppet wrote: »

Ah I see. The White House haven't said anything about banning the burning. Maybe they're waiting to see if he can be persuaded otherwise first.

Mind you, all I'm really saying is that there is precedent for laws being allowed which appear to go against the 1st Amendment where the SC has balanced other rights against that.

You can't prosecute under the Constitution tho', let alone under a precedent that the 1st Amendment is not sacrosanct under all circumstances.

I honestly don't know what the most up-to-date situation is re: incite-to-hatred legislation. I do know one act was struck down on the grounds that it was too vague and ambiguous; I *thought* that a compromise had been reached and enacted, but I may be very wrong on that, I haven't really been paying attention. We need someone who is actually expert on US law ... that's not me!

Mind you, there is such a raft of legislation in the US at federal, state and local level that I guarantee you there's a loophole if they want to step in ...

TheCardHolder

I love how this is in every newspaper in the country and abroad. I'm sure certain groups of muslims do similar things to bibles all the time but you never hear about that in the press because quite frankly, who cares; its a book. Muslims/ muslim related activity is treated with such a double standard in the press and media. Anytime i see something like this i immediatly think of the episode of south park which summed it all up so well. Having said that I do agree with the point that it is just crazy fundementalists pissing off crazy fundementalists from which no good can occur.

randylonghorn

TheCardHolder wrote: »

I love how this is in every newspaper in the country and abroad. I'm sure certain groups of muslims do similar things to bibles all the time but you never hear about that in the press because quite frankly, who cares; its a book. Muslims/ muslim related activity is treated with such a double standard in the press and media. Anytime i see something like this i immediatly think of the episode of south park which summed it all up so well. Having said that I do agree with the point that it is just crazy fundementalists pissing off crazy fundementalists from which no good can occur.

I'm pretty sure if a group of Muslims published their intention to burn the bible in either Ireland or America, though, there would be outrage.

Also, it is part of the culture of Islam to be much more respectful (and I suppose on the downside, uptight) about such things than most Christians, even practising ones.

For instance, even Catholics of strong belief in Ireland regularly "use the name of the Lord in vain" ... people go "Jaysus, this ..." and "Jaysus, that ..." and very few people would even notice, let alone complain. Muslims find that incomprehensible, their cultural norms are very different.

Similarly, the "Jesus LOL" meme would never spark off the outrage here (though ... among some of the really fundamentalist US sects, maybe!) which the Danish cartoons of Mohammed sparked off throughout the Muslim world.

Mind you ... go up the north and try having a ritual burning of an orange sash on the walls of Derry on the 4th, see what the response is!

And that's part of the point on this one ... regardless of whether you think it's wrong or not that this guy wants to ritually burn the Qu'ran, there are public safety issues involved in terms of what such a public act would evoke in terms of a response from the extremists.

EuropeanSon

Are they buying hundreds of Qur'ans for this purpose? Or do they happen to have stacks of them lying around? Seems an awful waste of money to buy books just to burn them. I expect Qur'an manufacturers will be thrilled. :P

KnifeWRENCH

Heh. The Qu'ran will be top of the bestseller list. That would be quite funny.

Other than that, this is such a retarded idea. They may not fly planes into buildings, but Christian fundamentalists are still dangerous fúckers. Burning Qu'rans will just incite retaliation from crazy fundamentalist Muslims, aswell as being offensive to decent, peaceful Muslims.

In the words of Stephen Fry: "Religion. Shít it."

Sentineil

Randy wrote:

I'm pretty sure if a group of Muslims published their intention to burn the bible in either Ireland or America, though, there would be outrage.

Burning Bibles and American flags seems to be a favourite pastime for the middle east. It's often publicised, but no one gives a shìt.

The outcry over this is both hilarious and insane.

"Woo, burning Bibles is fun!, wait, what? They're burning the Qu'ran, how dare they!"

The absence of logical thinking in the middle east is scary though. In the west this one nutjob preacher has being universally slated by everyone. The state, other nutjob fundamentalists, and athiests all think he's an idiot.

The reaction from fundo Muslims is to threaten an american embassy.

The fact that western troops are being put in danger because of an attention whoring priest and an over the top Muslim reaction is ridiculous.