"Dude, you have no Quran!"

[Smoke]

[youtube]U2-KgBhslBQ[/youtube]

Protester steals Quran, thwarts burning | Amarillo.com | Amarillo Globe-News

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham's Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. ...

Protesters threw their hands on the grill Grisham planned to use to burn the Quran, someone took his lighter and Isom stole the Quran, leaving him with just lighter fluid. ...

Amarillo resident Nancy O'Gorman said she was shocked by the size of the turnout and initially thought she might be alone in her opposition.

"Just to be on the side of freedom," she said. "I couldn't see it (the burning) being done. It's mean."
​

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think this behavior is beyond inappropriate. It's an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of speech of the bigoted moron attempting to stage the burning. It really bothers me that this is being treated as a good thing, and that this idiot Isom is being hailed as some kind of hero. What he is, is a thief, and a thief moreover who committed theft to prevent an act of protest that he considered offensive.

Freedom of speech means nothing if it's denied in the case of unpopular and "inappropriate" speech. In my opinion, the protesters are intolerant boneheads, and not really any better than the bonehead who offended them. That they chose to prevent this idiot from burning the Quran and imagined themselves to be "on the side of freedom" is mind-boggling.

Really, these people are no different than the McCarthyite zealots of the 1950s. They just direct their intolerance toward a different "threat."

 

[YmirGF]

Really, these people are no different than the McCarthyite zealots of the 1950s. They just direct their intolerance toward a different "threat."

Anything involving Unitarian Universalists tends to make my gorge rise.

 

[Alceste]

Hang on now, are you saying the twit had a right to burn his Koran under your conception of free speech but those who disagree with him did not have the right to attempt to dissuade him or raise a public objection? What kind of "free speech" is that? I'm for free speech for everyone, not just book-burning lunatics.

Swiping the book? Meh. A childish shenanigan, maybe, but "theft" and a "constitutional infringement"? The guy was going to burn it anyway, so he obviously didn't want it any more. If that's "theft" then so is dumpster diving. Burning a book is not "speech", so there was nothing to infringe upon. In fact, I have a bit of respect for anybody who rescues any book (or any work of art, musical instrument, album, etc) that's about to be burned, no matter who is doing the burning and the rescuing or why. The last thing anybody wants to see in this day and age is big Mao-esque piles of everything vaguely "Muslimy" being thrown on a big bonfire by a bunch of angry revolutionaries. Best to nip this kind of thing in the bud.

 

[Smoke]

Hang on now, are you saying the twit had a right to burn his Koran under your conception of free speech but those who disagree with him did not have the right to attempt to dissuade him or raise a public objection?

No, I'm not. They had a right to attempt to dissuade him and they had a right to raise a public objection. They did not have the right to prevent him from doing it.

What kind of "free speech" is that? I'm for free speech for everyone, not just book-burning lunatics.

So am I. Including book-burning lunatics.

Swiping the book? Meh. A childish shenanigan, maybe, but "theft" and a "constitutional infringement"?

Of course it's theft. What else would you call it? And by preventing him from making his protest, however asinine that protest was, they unconstitutionally infringed his right to free speech.

The guy was going to burn it anyway, so he obviously didn't want it any more.

He wanted it for the purpose of burning it. He quite likely purchased specifically for that purpose.

Burning a book is not "speech", so there was nothing to infringe upon.

I disagree. Would you, following the same reasoning, support the Flag Desecration Amendment?

In fact, I have a bit of respect for anybody who rescues any book (or any work of art, musical instrument, album, etc) that's about to be burned, no matter who is doing the burning and the rescuing or why. The last thing anybody wants to see in this day and age is big Mao-esque piles of everything vaguely "Muslimy" being thrown on a big bonfire by a bunch of angry revolutionaries. Best to nip this kind of thing in the bud.

In general, who do you think ought to have to authority to decide what kinds of demonstrations ought to be nipped in the bud?

If I have a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which I do), should it be illegal for me to burn it? Should it be illegal for me to throw it in the recycling bin? Should it be legal to steal it from me to prevent it from being destroyed?

 

[Venatoris]

This guy is my hero. I think he is exercising his freedom of speech in the same way that these hate mongering fools are. "Dude, you have no Quran" Priceless!

 

[Caladan]

I'm hardly impressed by this guy, he is no hero, and this is not a victory to be impressed by. this is a victory and heroism:

More than 20 religious leaders from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim backgrounds around Gainesville had the same Quran passage read - along with Christian and Hebrew scriptures –
at their congregations over the weekend. Local synagogues made it part of their Rosh Hashanah celebrations.

It was a sign of unity after weeks of talk by a Florida pastor who threatened to burn the Muslim holy book on 9-11 but who ultimately cancelled the event.

“It just seemed that the reading of Quran was the most affirmative thing we can do,” said Reimer, who has served at the United Church of Gainesville for 36 years.
“You might say (we) befriended the Quran and brought it into everyone’s framework, everyone’s point of view.”

Reimer came up with the idea a few days after he learned of the planned Burn A Koran Day from worried parishioners.
He approached local religious leaders to join him in reading common Hebrew, Christian and Muslim scriptures at their Sabbath services.

The response from the community was overwhelming positive, he said.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-churches-read-quran-face-proposed-quran.html

 

[Smoke]

This guy is my hero. I think he is exercising his freedom of speech in the same way that these hate mongering fools are. "Dude, you have no Quran" Priceless!

If, instead of burning the Quran, Grisham had intended to read from it, and Isom had stolen it to prevent him from reading it, would Isom have been your hero? Would he have just been exercising his freedom of speech?

 

[Venatoris]

If, instead of burning the Quran, Grisham had intended to read from it, and Isom had stolen it to prevent him from reading it, would Isom have been your hero? Would he have just been exercising his freedom of speech?

Lol, I meant in a "**** my pants laughing" sorta way but I'll humor you. First off, I doubt Grisham can actually read, no literate person would burn a book. If he intended to read the book no one would give a ****. Yes, if you grab a book that someone is reading, it is theft. And as for freedom of speech, he can say whatever he wants but he can't do whatever he wants. When some ******* breaks the windows of a clothing store he isn't protected by his right to free speech. Free speech implies you are capable of using your words, like a big boy. Vandalism, arson, assault, and verbal abuse aren't constitutional rights covered under freedom of speech whether you're protesting or not. Problem is, most Americans don't seem to know this.

 

[Smoke]

And as for freedom of speech, he can say whatever he wants but he can't do whatever he wants.

Grisham or Isom?

When some ******* breaks the windows of a clothing store he isn't protected by his right to free speech.

Is it permitted to break one's own window? To burn one's own book? How about one's own letters?

On what basis do you decide that someone has no right to burn a book he owns?

Free speech implies you are capable of using your words, like a big boy. Vandalism, arson, assault, and verbal abuse aren't constitutional rights covered under freedom of speech whether you're protesting or not. Problem is, most Americans don't seem to know this.

Grisham didn't commit vandalism, arson, or assault. Verbal abuse is not illegal in America. Grisham broke no law. Isom, on the other hand, did. Maybe he should have used his words, like a big boy, instead of resorting to theft.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. Would you, following the same reasoning, support the Flag Desecration Amendment?

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, but just to slip into Devil's Advocate mode for a moment, if actions are protected speech, then mightn't the act of taking the Quran be protected speech as well?

We're not talking about shoplifting or burglary here; the act was apparently an expression of Isom's beliefs about the sacredness of the Quran.

America. Grisham broke no law. Isom, on the other hand, did. Maybe he should have used his words, like a big boy, instead of resorting to theft.

Not sure if it applies here, but IIRC, when the pastor in Gainesville first announced that he was going to burn a bunch of Qurans, city staff refused to issue him an open-air burning permit. Hypothetically, if the burning itself was illegal, do you think that would change your position on Isom's actions?

 

[Smoke]

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, but just to slip into Devil's Advocate mode for a moment, if actions are protected speech, then mightn't the act of taking the Quran be protected speech as well?

We're not talking about shoplifting or burglary here; the act was apparently an expression of Isom's beliefs about the sacredness of the Quran.

If I believe in the Bible, and believe the Quran is a demonic deception, to I have the right to express my beliefs about it by stealing a Quran to burn it?

Not sure if it applies here, but IIRC, when the pastor in Gainesville first announced that he was going to burn a bunch of Qurans, city staff refused to issue him an open-air burning permit. Hypothetically, if the burning itself was illegal, do you think that would change your position on Isom's actions?

Not really. We're talking about a single book that's the demonstrator's own property. Now, if it happened to be illegal to light a fire in the barbecue grills in that park, and the police issued Grisham a citation, that would be another thing.

 

[Demonic Kitten]

I'm hardly impressed by this guy, he is no hero, and this is not a victory to be impressed by. this is a victory and heroism:


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-churches-read-quran-face-proposed-quran.html

I have to agree with you one this one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I believe in the Bible, and believe the Quran is a demonic deception, to I have the right to express my beliefs about it by stealing a Quran to burn it?

That's what I'm asking, basically. Free speech has limits; where are they? Where should they be?

Not really. We're talking about a single book that's the demonstrator's own property. Now, if it happened to be illegal to light a fire in the barbecue grills in that park, and the police issued Grisham a citation, that would be another thing.

Say a person was about to light an illegal fire; would it be proper for you, a private citizen, to take his firewood away to stop him?

 

[Smoke]

That's what I'm asking, basically. Free speech has limits; where are they? Where should they be?

They should be somewhere shy of being permitted to steal as an expression of your beliefs.

Say a person was about to light an illegal fire; would it be proper for you, a private citizen, to take his firewood away to stop him?

Proper? I doubt it, but I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Excusable? Maybe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anything involving Unitarian Universalists tends to make my gorge rise.

There had to have been coffee around there somewhere.

 

[Yerda]

Really, these people are no different than the McCarthyite zealots of the 1950s. They just direct their intolerance toward a different "threat."

Not think yer getting a bit carried away, chief?

Out of curiosity, had that hippy guy been a Muslim would you have been quite so enraged?

 

[Smoke]

Out of curiosity, had that hippy guy been a Muslim would you have been quite so enraged?

Rage never entered into it.

To be clear about it, Grisham is a hateful bigot and a bully and I despise everything he stands for. However he has his rights just as the Muslims have theirs, and the Unitarians have theirs. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have no meaning if they are extended only to people one likes.

When I first read the story, I thought it was funny. It was only on reflection that I realized Isom and the crowd of Unitarians cheering him on were, in this instance, standing in the place of the bully, and depriving Grisham of his rights. I was troubled to note how easy it was for me to dismiss the rights of someone I dislike, but I only decided to start a thread on it after I saw several liberal blog posts hailing Isom as a hero. He's not a hero. He's someone who sees fit to interfere with the liberties of someone with whom he disagrees, and in that respect not much different from Christians and Muslims who seek to deprive me of my civil rights and liberties.

 

[Yerda]

Rage never entered into it.

To be clear about it, Grisham is a hateful bigot and a bully and I despise everything he stands for. However he has his rights just as the Muslims have theirs, and the Unitarians have theirs. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion have no meaning if they are extended only to people one likes.

When I first read the story, I thought it was funny. It was only on reflection that I realized Isom and the crowd of Unitarians cheering him on were, in this instance, standing in the place of the bully, and depriving Grisham of his rights. I was troubled to note how easy it was for me to dismiss the rights of someone I dislike, but I only decided to start a thread on it after I saw several liberal blog posts hailing Isom as a hero. He's not a hero. He's someone who sees fit to interfere with the liberties of someone with whom he disagrees, and in that respect not much different from Christians and Muslims who seek to deprive me of my civil rights and liberties.

Good answer, man.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Flag Desecration Amendment?

I clicked on that and found this picture. I thought it quite amusing

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Oops. Giant.