qur'an burning in Florida

[YmirGF]

There should be a law against any activity that targets a group of people based on their Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

Canada already has "hate speech" laws. We don't need more infringements on our rights and freedoms. Thanks, anyway.

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.

Whoa, now just wait one second before we go crazy on this.

1. God/gods of the religions.

Um, why would an all-powerful god need the protection of a law here on Earth? If theists are proven to be correct, I rather expect those who might "desecrate" god(s) will be taken care of when the time comes. So, are you saying that we have to make life rough for such people, here on Earth, too? By the way, who gets to decide what "desecration" is and what constitutes an act of desecration? Have you actually thought about this much? Sounds like you are parroting the O.I.C.gameplan.

2. Prophet/Saints/ messengers of the religions.

Again, what exactly, constitutes desecration? Who decides who qualifies as a prophet, a saint, a messenger, a PR man/woman etc... ?

3. Books/Narrations/explanations of the religions.

So, if I am overly critical of a given narration, explanation or book, could you call my criticism a desecration? Have you heard of the Logical Fallacy known as the Slippery Slope? Heck, even comedy routines could be affected by this, as well as artistic ventures.

4. Places of worships/congregation of the religions.

This sounds fine on the face of it, but if I were to go to Mecca, I would be turned away because I am not a Muslim. My very presence would be considered a desecration in the "holy" city. Does that seem reasonable to you?

5. Holidays/religious observation and celebration days.

I don't like the sounds of this. An employer, by default, would have to bow to the special days of all believers otherwise it could be considered to be a desecration...

6. Flags/ National Anthem of countries.

Hmmm. That would include an awful lot of people at baseball games "murdering" their national anthems. You sure this is such a good idea?

7. Pictures/Idols objects of religious significance.

Granted, other religions do need to have some protection from rampaging Muslims, but I think we can already cover that with civil unrest laws. Does this mean I can't draw a picture of Muhammad if I so chose?

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

Nor does it give theists the right to bludgeon all opposition into submission with sweeping rules like these and the vague term of desecration.

If you don’t like someone else’s religion/belief system then don’t believe in it, you can object and point out what you don’t like about it objectively.

But how long would it take the retreating theist to start screaming that my very criticism is defiling or misrepresenting their allegedly "holy" beliefs? Sorry, you will never get a free pass from me.

Any person commits a crime needs to pay the punishment for his crimes.

Obviously, but do we really want to go down a road that is so rich and ripe for abuse?

If anyone wants to perform or engage in any activity that crosses the line of indecency, moral and ethical boundaries

Look. Put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. Keep your hands where I can see them. Are you serious? What moral, ethical and indecency boundaries are you using? Are you using my terms of reference or your terms of reference? Who's terms are correct?

can do so in the privacy of their own home or in the congregation of the like minded people is secluded settings provided such activities and behaviors could not and should not leak to others groups of people meaning it should not and cannot be recorded or documented and passed along to be consumed openly.

But for how long? My guess is that if this type of legislation were to be passed it would not take very long for even these activities to be hunted down and exterminated by mobs of raging theists looking for a good time.

 

[Revoltingest]

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

This raises a question.
If there are offensive passages in the Koran about us non-believers, then should the Koran be made illegal?

 

[Cordoba]

CAIR Responds to Book Burning with Educational Campaign

Article Details

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

My perspective springs from US laws, notably absent from the list.

Sure - We need to act locally and think globally – this effect us – on human level on global basis- and as a human race need to come up with laws that help us live in unity.

 

[Wandered Off]

Sure - We need to act locally and think globally – this effect us – on human level on global basis- and as a human race need to come up with laws that help us live in unity.

The problem is that "live in unity" is often translated as "Just shut up and do things my way, and *presto* we're living in unity! Yay! You clap now."

I have no desire to be in unity with those who oppress others.

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

The problem is that many muslims are insufficiently civilized to realize that thay have no right to impose their religion on others. That is what insisting on imposing muslim taboos on non-muslims amounts to. If muslims are to live peaceably with others, they need to abate their arrogance.

If muslims could somehow demonstrate the truth of their religion, they might be able to make some kind of appeal for respect, but that is not the case for any religion.

Agree- that the third world countries have their share of problems of being lawlessness, ignorance and lack of education. Unfortunately most of the people you see rioting have not read and understood the Quran themselves instead they are following the other blindly…. And that does not make them right. And for this purpose we need to make sure that the first thing that needs to be established is a set of laws for mutual respect and order be brought live in peace.

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

The problem is that "live in unity" is often translated as "Just shut up and do things my way, and *presto* we're living in unity! Yay! You clap now."

I have no desire to be in unity with those who oppress others.

this is what we heard b4 "either u r with us or against us"

but I Agree- I have no desire to be in unity with those who oppress others-

 

[Looncall]

Agree- that the third world countries have their share of problems of being lawlessness, ignorance and lack of education. Unfortunately most of the people you see rioting have not read and understood the Quran themselves instead they are following the other blindly…. And that does not make them right. And for this purpose we need to make sure that the first thing that needs to be established is a set of laws for mutual respect and order be brought live in peace.

I largely agree with you about the source of the problem. Surely the solution is development and education in those countries that are having trouble with uncivilized behaviour.

Something that puzzles me, however, is that muslim-majority societies seem to be uniformly uncivilized ones, especially given muslim claims of superior morality.

Respect must be earned, it cannot be legislated. Those who demand respect, instead of earning it, are unworthy of respect.

 

[Beaudreaux]

There should be a law against any activity that targets a group of people based on their Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.
1. God/gods of the religions.
2. Prophet/Saints/ messengers of the religions.
3. Books/Narrations/explanations of the religions.
4. Places of worships/congregation of the religions.
5. Holidays/religious observation and celebration days.
6. Flags/ National Anthem of countries.
7. Pictures/Idols objects of religious significance.

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If you don’t like someone else’s religion/belief system then don’t believe in it, you can object and point out what you don’t like about it objectively.
Any person commits a crime needs to pay the punishment for his crimes. You cannot ask or seek the punishment from another person of that group based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If anyone wants to perform or engage in any activity that crosses the line of indecency, moral and ethical boundaries can do so in the privacy of their own home or in the congregation of the like minded people is secluded settings provided such activities and behaviors could not and should not leak to others groups of people meaning it should not and cannot be recorded or documented and passed along to be consumed openly.

No theocracy for me, thank you. The United States is about freedom. We protect the right to express pretty much any idea with VERY few limitations. As a result, people are allowed to say and do things that many others do not like. Our laws exist to protect the expression of unpopular ideas (popular ideas do not need protection). We allow Neo-Nazis to hold demonstrations. We allow people to burn our flag. We allow all manner of expression. Our country promotes freedom. Do I like the idea of Qurans being burned? Not at all, but I believe strongly that people who wish to do so should be protected by our laws. I would rather put up with expressions of ideas I find repugnant than have to worry about when someone will censor ME. I am sorry if your feelings are hurt.

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

Canada already has "hate speech" laws. We don't need more infringements on our rights and freedoms. Thanks, anyway.

Whoa, now just wait one second before we go crazy on this.


Um, why would an all-powerful god need the protection of a law here on Earth? If theists are proven to be correct, I rather expect those who might "desecrate" god(s) will be taken care of when the time comes. So, are you saying that we have to make life rough for such people, here on Earth, too? By the way, who gets to decide what "desecration" is and what constitutes an act of desecration? Have you actually thought about this much? Sounds like you are parroting the gameplan.

Again, what exactly, constitutes desecration? Who decides who qualifies as a prophet, a saint, a messenger, a PR man/woman etc... ?

So, if I am overly critical of a given narration, explanation or book, could you call my criticism a desecration? Have you heard of the Logical Fallacy known as the ? Heck, even comedy routines could be affected by this, as well as artistic ventures.
This sounds fine on the face of it, but if I were to go to Mecca, I would be turned away because I am not a Muslim. My very presence would be considered a desecration in the "holy" city. Does that seem reasonable to you?
I don't like the sounds of this. An employer, by default, would have to bow to the special days of all believers otherwise it could be considered to be a desecration...
Hmmm. That would include an awful lot of people at baseball games "murdering" their national anthems. You sure this is such a good idea?
Granted, other religions do need to have some protection from rampaging Muslims, but I think we can already cover that with civil unrest laws. Does this mean I can't draw a picture of Muhammad if I so chose?

Nor does it give theists the right to bludgeon all opposition into submission with sweeping rules like these and the vague term of desecration.

But how long would it take the retreating theist to start screaming that my very criticism is defiling or misrepresenting their allegedly "holy" beliefs? Sorry, you will never get a free pass from me.
Obviously, but do we really want to go down a road that is so rich and ripe for abuse?Look. Put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. Keep your hands where I can see them. Are you serious? What moral, ethical and indecency boundaries are you using? Are you using my terms of reference or your terms of reference? Who's terms are correct?But for how long? My guess is that if this type of legislation were to be passed it would not take very long for even these activities to be hunted down and exterminated by mobs of raging theists looking for a good time.

Canada already has "hate speech" laws. We don't need more infringements on our rights and freedoms. Thanks, anyway.

Whoa, now just wait one second before we go crazy on this.

Um, why would an all-powerful god need the protection of a law here on Earth? If theists are proven to be correct, I rather expect those who might "desecrate" god(s) will be taken care of when the time comes. So, are you saying that we have to make life rough for such people, here on Earth, too? By the way, who gets to decide what "desecration" is and what constitutes an act of desecration? Have you actually thought about this much? Sounds like you are parroting the OIC gameplan. .

Again this is not for protecting God – this is protecting one’s right to protect their belief system -

So, if I am overly critical of a given narration, explanation or book, could you call my criticism a desecration? Have you heard of the Logical Fallacy known as theSlipery Slop? Heck, even comedy routines could be affected by this, as well as artistic ventures.

And may I ask that don’t a Enlightend and Advanced and Civilized people have anything better to do that make fun of others. Is that the center of thoughts for you reason of free speech. – In my opinion leave them alone it in action of any individual cause you hurt/pain/suffering. Then you should use the laws that are already in the book – or if they exist the make some with the consensus of fellow beings.

This sounds fine on the face of it, but if I were to go to Mecca, I would be turned away because I am not a Muslim. My very presence would be considered a desecration in the "holy" city. Does that seem reasonable to you? .

Again consider this as property – that is owned by a specific group of people following a specific religion – no difference that Vatican – or walling wall. – the boundry of which is already defined. – I am not in agreement with all of the Laws of Saudi Arabic as a lot of these Laws not only un-Islamic but un human. – please not America is the biggest friend of Saudi Government.

Hmmm. That would include an awful lot of people at baseball games "murdering" their national anthems. You sure this is such a good idea?

Hmmm where is your sportsmanship ? J

Look. Put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. Keep your hands where I can see them. Are you serious? What moral, ethical and indecency boundaries are you using? Are you using my terms of reference or your terms of reference? Who's terms are correct?

HaHa – I am using OXFORD ENGLISH dictionary –

In any case man all I want to say that we should think about progressing towards coexistence – and I by no means writing here that you or anyone else should take as the definitive will of any group of people. This is merely a start of conversation.
If you know what I mean – cheers

 

[Meow Mix]

Sure - We need to act locally and think globally – this effect us – on human level on global basis- and as a human race need to come up with laws that help us live in unity.

Laws should only be enacted to protect people's rights from being violated, not to restrict people's rights.

A more sensible law would be like a hate crime law: if you violate someone's rights demonstrably solely because of their race/religion/sex/whatever, then your punishment is harsher because it's a hate crime.

However, burning holy texts, flags, etc. doesn't violate anyone's rights. I am glad that they have that freedom, even if I hope they never use it because I consider it asinine; but taking away those freedoms is a step in the wrong direction.

We have a good slogan we use in America, even if it was said by a Frenchman (FrenchWOMAN, some say): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Luminous]

I've seen Buddhists set themselves on fire (TV) but never someones book, business or other people. I think this comes under the heading of "do no harm." My question is "Is it any less evil to harm oneself?" .

Usually in both religious and secular societies the question is whether the actions are appropriate (in secular terms lawful).

I wonder how far the law can be taken against so called hate crimes. If a person burns a book because he opposes the views of another group, should he be jailed for five years? Can the government begin to discern the heart as to whether the person has hate in it?

It seems fair to me that a pastor can decide the Qu'ran is of the devil, if the Muslims are saying the Bible is a work of fiction. (I don't believe in either view). Of course a Muslim is less likely to burn the Bible because there is too much in the Qu'ran that supports it for them to disparage it entirely. Unfortunately there is no such constraint on a Christian pastor.

I suppose I could print out a few of the posts I disagree with on this forum and burn them but it just seems like a waste of time to me and I wouldn't likely get on TV for it, lol.

And my question would be...is it any less evil to lie and deny our agnosticism? you harm yourself simply by doing so; you are also harming other people. If we remember correctly Jesus let himself be killed...would it have been more idolistically venerable if the Buddhist (protesting and seeking attention) had simply allowed one of his friends that was not Buddhist set him on fire?
In anycase, If the books are the man's property...he may burn them. Now, whether he tries to make it a public spectable in dishonor of a group of people...that is when said person is simple trying to incite outrage and inspire crime. even if there is no "wrongful" motivation on their part, the fact is that it will cause bad things to happen...maybe he should be doing something constructive instead. The government is allowed to stop anyone in times of war...that is our historical constitution, dicerning what the heart wants matters little to an agency. The Muslims beleive the christian idol scripture is tainted with humanly things and mistakes, they believe it is rather NOT a work of fiction though. Many muslims would not burn the Bible because they venerate the simple names of their prophets and the historical scribblings that they do agree with, which it contains...such as Adam, Abraham, Jesus, etc.

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

Laws should only be enacted to protect people's rights from being violated, not to restrict people's rights.

A more sensible law would be like a hate crime law: if you violate someone's rights demonstrably solely because of their race/religion/sex/whatever, then your punishment is harsher because it's a hate crime.

However, burning holy texts, flags, etc. doesn't violate anyone's rights. I am glad that they have that freedom, even if I hope they never use it because I consider it asinine; but taking away those freedoms is a step in the wrong direction.

We have a good slogan we use in America, even if it was said by a Frenchman (FrenchWOMAN, some say): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

A more sensible law would be like a hate crime law: if you violate someone's rights demonstrably solely because of their race/religion/sex/whatever, then your punishment is harsher because it's a hate crime..

Sorry – I disagree here – I don’t think anyone can judge if you have hate in your heart or not. So the notion of having laws for hate vs non hate crime is hard to digest.

To me if your action produce any physical effects on items that I mentioned before. And those affects caused hurt pain and suffering of a group of religious people. Than that action should not be allowed.

Also – I notice that you have “Religion: N/A (atheist)” – So I am sure you know the “Atheist” is also a belief system and it in itself is a religion.
And your arguments here are sprung from that belief system. – As of now I don’t have time to discuss this with you in detail – but may some other time. J

We have a good slogan we use in America, even if it was said by a Frenchman (FrenchWOMAN, some say): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

As I mentioned earlier – saying something does not create any physical effects so its harmless- and any person has right to say anything about anything including – God- Prophet- or Bible, Quran etc – But on the other hand – writng, filming, burning , blowing , cutting , etc would create physical affects --

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry – I disagree here – I don’t think anyone can judge if you have hate in your heart or not. So the notion of having laws for hate vs non hate crime is hard to digest.

I'll concede this point to you; lawmakers do often have a difficult time proving hate crimes. However it's nice to have them on the books; for instance if a few people jump someone and all the witnesses hear and see them saying things like "You stupid Jew!" or "I hate you Muslim!" or whatever then having those laws on the books helps keep hateful people away from society a little longer when they commit crimes with that hate...

To me if your action produce any physical effects on items that I mentioned before. And those affects caused hurt pain and suffering of a group of religious people. Than that action should not be allowed.

As an American, I fully support someone's rights to burn an American flag as a sign of protest. Does that seem contradictory to you?

Either we have freedom of expression or we don't. If we start taking away freedoms of expression just to ensure no one gets offended, where does it stop?

If I purchase a bible or a book about atheism or whatever, do I not have rights to it? Someone else can step in and say "No, you can't do such and such with it because that offends me?"

I happen to own a very nice copy of the King James Version of the Bible. As I typed this I glanced at my bookshelf to see what it's sitting next to: sure enough, it's sandwiched between George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" and Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." What if a Christian finds it offensive that their holy text is sandwiched between such books? Seriously, it sounds like a dumb question, but where does it stop if we can't do things with our own possessions for fear of someone being offended?

Legislating laws protecting someone from being offended actually infringes rights; it doesn't protect rights. Any laws that infringe rights should be taken very seriously. In this case, we have to ask what's the payoff:

1) If we ban freedom of expression when it comes to symbols we may prevent some people from being offended, but at the cost of overturning some liberty and setting the precedent for more liberties to be stripped away at a future time by referencing this law. In the year 20XX people might say "Well it's ok to strip rights for that reason, so let's take it a bit further and..." and before you know it, your rights are gone.

2) If we don't ban freedom of expression when it comes to symbols, what is the cost? Some people may get offended. No, to be more precise, some people may choose to get offended. That's their choice: someone is free to express themselves by burning a symbol and in retaliation someone else is free to be offended. Clearly this scenario has the most freedom and nobody gets hurt.

If someone does get hurt, then it's actually whoever that's doing the hurting that's in the wrong; whether that's because a flag burner ended up burning down a building during their protest for instance or if someone retaliated with violence.

Freedom comes with responsibility. We can't be afraid of that responsibility or else we don't deserve any freedom at all.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin

I'm with ol' Ben on this one. Restricting rights to avoid people CHOOSING to be offended is wrong and tyrannical.

On the same note I disagree with people who would burn a book just to try to incite people into getting offended. However as I said before, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it." That's the lesser of two evils. In fact, having more liberty is more than the "lesser of two evils," it's actually a good.

Also – I notice that you have “

Religion: N/A (atheist)” – So I am sure you know the “Atheist” is also a belief system and it in itself is a religion.
And your arguments here are sprung from that belief system. – As of now I don’t have time to discuss this with you in detail – but may some other time.

Atheism is not a belief system or a religion, and discussing secular laws about freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

As I mentioned earlier – saying something does not create any physical effects so its harmless- and any person has right to say anything about anything including – God- Prophet- or Bible, Quran etc – But on the other hand – writng, filming, burning , blowing , cutting , etc would create physical affects --

Writing, filming, burning, blowing, cutting, etc. doesn't harm anyone unless they choose to let it harm them.

We have another saying in America: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."

So it goes for burning a book or a flag, too.

 

[Luminous]

{cammon man please wake up }

this is your answer -- "If muslims don't like it, tough."
if you are civilized as you claim to be .... you can do better than that

but that's almost the exact same argument that you are making... I don't get it.

 

[AxisMundi]

I largely agree with you about the source of the problem. Surely the solution is development and education in those countries that are having trouble with uncivilized behaviour.

Something that puzzles me, however, is that muslim-majority societies seem to be uniformly uncivilized ones, especially given muslim claims of superior morality.

Respect must be earned, it cannot be legislated. Those who demand respect, instead of earning it, are unworthy of respect.

You miss a few major facts.

1. Christian held areas of Africa are seeing genocide, rape, murders, witch burnings, and other nasty, uncivilized behavior.

Education is certainly key to many of the world's problems, that we might agree on however.

2. The areas of the Middle East where we see these atrocities occuring does not hold the bulk of the global Muslim population.

When's the last time you saw a gay-hanging or girl stoning in Turkey? Indonesia? Egypt?

Even those who murder, such as "honor killings" that have occured in teh States, are immigrants from culturally repressed areas such as the Pashtun Mountain area or those areas where religion holds sway.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Also – I notice that you have “Religion: N/A (atheist)” – So I am sure you know the “Atheist” is also a belief system and it in itself is a religion.

[sigh...]. Atheists are a group of people whose only necessary common trait is that they refuse to assert a belief in God. That's it. We can and do have differing views on philosophy, ontology, epistemology and every other ology there is. Atheism is not a religion.

 

[gnostic]

Agree- that the third world countries have their share of problems of being lawlessness, ignorance and lack of education.

All too true.

Unfortunately most of the people you see rioting have not read and understood the Quran themselves instead they are following the other blindly…. And that does not make them right.

That's not always true.

Many of these riots have been following the clerics' lead. Many of these clerics had organized these riots.

Unless, you think the clerics are themselves "ignorant" about the Qur'an, then you can't really say that the protesters led by these clerics don't understand the Qur'an. But then again, clerics are humans too, and I don't think all clerics have the same level of understanding of the Qur'an, let alone general higher education.

Of course, some of these clerics might have different motives, for leading these riots.

 

[AxisMundi]

Sorry – I disagree here – I don’t think anyone can judge if you have hate in your heart or not. So the notion of having laws for hate vs non hate crime is hard to digest.

I agree here. "Hate crime laws" are a farce. Crime is crime, no matter what the motivation.

To me if your action produce any physical effects on items that I mentioned before. And those affects caused hurt pain and suffering of a group of religious people. Than that action should not be allowed.

How many qurans are there in the world? Does an event such as this remove all qurans from the world? Is it even a priceless artifact being burned, some ancient and irreplacable religious artifact?

No?

Then sorry, vandalising your own property should never be outlawed.

While I find this "pastor's" actions highly irresponsible, he has the right to burn qurans. It is a Free Speech issue.

The moment Rights are infringed upon to cater to some minority, or others that might be "offended", is the moment that Right is lost for everyone.

Right after this man's Freedom of Speech Right is removed, anything crtitical of any religion would be banned. Since some people find those "God Bless US" signs offensive, those couldl be banned.

Get the picture?

Just as this man has the right to burn qurans, people, including Muslims, have the inherent right to speak out against the act solely BECAUSE this man retains his Free Speech Rights.

Also – I notice that you have “

Religion: N/A (atheist)” – So I am sure you know the “Atheist” is also a belief system and it in itself is a religion.
And your arguments here are sprung from that belief system. – As of now I don’t have time to discuss this with you in detail – but may some other time. J

Oh, by the gods, not this lame argument again.

As I mentioned earlier – saying something does not create any physical effects so its harmless- and any person has right to say anything about anything including – God- Prophet- or Bible, Quran etc – But on the other hand – writng, filming, burning , blowing , cutting , etc would create physical affects --

So? Speech, art, movies, etc. are all expressions of the spoken language. Burning, blowing, cutting, etc. are all manifestations of opinion as long as there is no intent to physically harm anyone, or anyone else's property.

 

[Revoltingest]

To me if your action produce any physical effects on items that I mentioned before. And those affects caused hurt pain and suffering of a group of religious people. Than that action should not be allowed.

This is something you believe. Many of us non-Muslims believe otherwise. I suspect that this will be a common difference for eternity,
& I suggest that you get comfortable with it because there is little value in fuming at the inevitable offensive opinion.

Religion: N/A (atheist)” – So I am sure you know the “Atheist” is also a belief system and it in itself is a religion.

If I say this offends me greatly, does this make it wrong for you to say it?

As I mentioned earlier – saying something does not create any physical effects so its harmless- and any person has right to say anything about anything including – God- Prophet- or Bible, Quran etc – But on the other hand – writng, filming, burning , blowing , cutting , etc would create physical affects --

.
You have a novel definition of "physical". The vast majority of English users would not apply it to writing or filming.
This gives an impression that you're playing word games to justify some onerous censorship be imposed upon us.