Burning the Koran

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First let me correct an error on my part. My daughter was logged into AFF and I didn't realize I was posting under her name.

I am not sure what "Sloppy" is but I am pretty sure it doesn't apply to over 70 years of Supreme Court decisions many of which were unanimous on the topic. Personally, I don't see this as free speech I see it as a deliberate attempt to stir up violence. Complete ignorance.

lol..I thought we had another lawyer on our hands.

The idea of that being hate speech is pretty subjective. We need clear guidelines.

They aren't saying "hurt muslims". They are claiming this as protest reminder of 9/11

Im curious though why the flag can be burned. That could incite violence against Americans in other nations. But it's a protected freedom. What about putting a cross in a jar of urine?

Is it really a deliberate attempt to stir up violence? I mean, what kind? Against Muslims or by Muslims against Americans? The cross in the jar is offensive to Christians but Christians don't riot so they are free to walk all over our religion.

If we drew a satirical cartoon of Mohamed that can also now be seen as inciting violence, though the intent is to make a political or religious statement about Mohamed.

I think that is too dangerous and way to subjective. I do support this churches right to do that. I support that artist's right to do what he did. I support the cartoonists right. I support anyone's right to speak up and out against the religion of Islam. I support Muslims to speak up and out against Christianity. If they want to hold a bible burning rally, I support their right to do so. I don't support their right to make speeches at that rally and advocate harm to anyone, same goes for those Christians.

I really do believe that such a ruling is a slippery slope and will lead to the stuff they had happen in Australia where a pastor was jailed under the law for defining Islam as an evil religion. A Muslim was in attendance and reported the incident.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

lol..I thought we had another lawyer on our hands.

The idea of that being hate speech is pretty subjective. We need clear guidelines.

They aren't saying "hurt muslims". They are claiming this as protest reminder of 9/11

Im curious though why the flag can be burned. That could incite violence against Americans in other nations. But it's a protected freedom. What about putting a cross in a jar of urine?

Is it really a deliberate attempt to stir up violence? I mean, what kind? Against Muslims or by Muslims against Americans? The cross in the jar is offensive to Christians but Christians don't riot so they are free to walk all over our religion.

If we drew a satirical cartoon of Mohamed that can also now be seen as inciting violence, though the intent is to make a political or religious statement about Mohamed.

I think that is too dangerous and way to subjective. I do support this churches right to do that. I support that artist's right to do what he did. I support the cartoonists right. I support anyone's right to speak up and out against the religion of Islam. I support Muslims to speak up and out against Christianity. If they want to hold a bible burning rally, I support their right to do so. I don't support their right to make speeches at that rally and advocate harm to anyone, same goes for those Christians.

I really do believe that such a ruling is a slippery slope and will lead to the stuff they had happen in Australia where a pastor was jailed under the law for defining Islam as an evil religion. A Muslim was in attendance and reported the incident.

The violence must be expected from the speaker not the one reacting to it. If the speech is likely to incite those that are participating in the rally to violence OR make others fear that violence is impending (such as what often followed cross burning).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You know Prax, maybe they can. A high percentage of african americans in the US (25% of young men last count were convicted felons) engage in criminal activity and violence. A higher percentage than Muslims for sure. Maybe you should disenfranchise them ALLfor that. Wait, that was tried wasn't it? It was not right either.

.

Who said anyone should be disenfranchised for any reason. My point was in direct response to what you said. It doesn't just begin with us or anyone. It's something that needs to be reciprocal around the world by all of us. It reminds me of the cold war where the Russians expected us to get rid of most of our Nukes where they would only get rid of some, leaving them always with an advantage. Peace is not going to come just by Christians doing or not doing something. There are Muslims around the world who take advantage of Christians and harm them. It needs to work both ways bro.

That's all Im saying. Christians aren't fighting Muslims in the Philipines because they are Christians vs Muslims. The Muslims in PI are kidnapping, torturing innocent civilians and holding them ransom for money. They want to build a larger army and get their own independent Islamic state.

Same thing happens in India and Cashmere between Muslims and Hindus, they blow up trains and other things in India. In Pakistan they kill Christians and muslims.

That kind of stuff needs to stop too.

In Sudan they killed Christian

In Iraq Christians have been a frequent target, because they are Christians

In Palestine Christians have been run out of town by the Muslims despite having the same animosity towards the Jews of Israel.

Im sure you can generate your own list, but that doesn't annul my point. It starts with both sides reciprocating.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I am in a better position as to how christians and those of other faiths are treated in Muslim countries and I have shared openly what I know. They get rich here, raise their families here, hold services here, and live here better protected on the streets than they live or EVER lived there. They turn 60, have more money than they could possibly spend, and file for extensions to stay a couple more years. Their PENSIONS at 60 equal their salary and they have healthcare for life. Its not the money. It's the life.

Are they really Christians? How do you know? I know a Missionary that spent time in SA. They are forbidden to own bibles, forbidden to bring them into the country. Forbidden to hold meetings. All meetings have to be clandestine. Why do "Christians" go there? Same reason Filipinos go there., They go for jobs. Same reason why Muslims come to America I hope, but we dont confiscate their Qurans. We don't forbid them from telling others about their religion. We don't criminalize having Islamic services. We don't kick them out of the country if they are caught.

You seem to be hung up on America vs SA, which I didn't care about to begin with. I wasn't in that discussion. You just brought it to me which is a red herring and has nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making.

Maybe the specific Muslims who do specific actions in specific countries should pay for their specific actions and the specific Muslims who are not guilty of anything at all should be left alone.

No no no. They should stop. You speak of penalizing, I speak of stopping. I speak of reciprocal equivocal mutual peace and freedom of religion. What do you speak of?

You know, individuals COULD be held accountable for their individual actions. When all individuals in a group are classified under one umbrella, grouped into a class, and judged as a group it crosses a line.

Here is what I think. Most Christians in America might not agree with Islam and have an issue with the extremists but we also stand up against the Quran burners actions and say we are against it. We fight for YOUR right to worship in OUR country in a manner YOUR country will not give to non-Muslims without fear of political or religious reprisals by a state sponsored police force. Yes there are some non-muslims here that don't feel that way, but the rest of us would gladly show you that we support your right. It would be nice of the Muslims around the nation by and large did the same. Again Im not saying all, because I know how impossible it is to get all to do the same.

There is a legal right to do anything but actions that put others in danger.

As I said, I support their legal right,. I don't agree with their actions

Even our General in Afghanistan who is trying to work with the Afghan (Muslims also) and who has Afghan (Muslims) working with him spoke against this action as fueling violence in his area of responsibility.

Did you read what I said? I said I disagreed with their actions. I support their legal right just as I support the legal right for Muslims to build their Mosque.

You think he did that because he has a love for Islam? No - it is wrong to engage in deliberate action to incite violence and hatred and if this results in spilled blood you can bet and believe that this "free speech" right will have one more chip removed from it because a 50-person church could not figure out a way to use their free speech rights responsibly.

Did you read what I said????? I said I disagree with their actions.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The violence must be expected from the speaker not the one reacting to it. If the speech is likely to incite those that are participating in the rally to violence OR make others fear that violence is impending (such as what often followed cross burning).

That seems rather subjective. I don't have any reason to believe that after a quran burning at that church that those in attendance will run out and do harm to muslims.

I think the part about "Or make others fear that violence is impending" is a huge problem. Anyone or any group can make the claim they feared for their welfare in abuse of that law.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That seems rather subjective. I don't have any reason to believe that after a quran burning at that church that those in attendance will run out and do harm to muslims.

I think the part about "Or make others fear that violence is impending" is a huge problem. Anyone or any group can make the claim they feared for their welfare in abuse of that law.

That's the court decision for better or worse. I don't know what will happen In suspect that something will be said as well they aren't silently throwing Korans in a fire.

No anyone can't just claim they feared, though we have exactly that with restraining orders.

If someone shows up in front of an African-American family's home with a burning cross in the back of their pickup the inhabitants could without a doubt claim a fear of violence.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

That's the court decision for better or worse. I don't know what will happen In suspect that something will be said as well they aren't silently throwing Korans in a fire.

No anyone can't just claim they feared, though we have exactly that with restraining orders.

If someone shows up in front of an African-American family's home with a burning cross in the back of their pickup the inhabitants could without a doubt claim a fear of violence.

So then, they have a legal right to do this until someone get's up and makes a speech that supports or foments violence...

So no law can prevent them, but if someone makes a speech that fuels violence then legal action after the fact can be taken against the church and or pastor?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So then, they have a legal right to do this until someone get's up and makes a speech that supports or foments violence...

So no law can prevent them, but if someone makes a speech that fuels violence then legal action after the fact can be taken against the church and or pastor?

Well legal action could be taken if some harm came to someone and it might impede others having a similar protest in the future. Let's say that the speech leaked out and local law enforcement determined that there was a call for violence then they could preemptively shut it down.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Well legal action could be taken if some harm came to someone and it might impede others having a similar protest in the future. Let's say that the speech leaked out and local law enforcement determined that there was a call for violence then they could preemptively shut it down.

Ok but that really has nothing to do with just Quran burning itself. It has to be with speech that could been seen as a call for violence

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Ok but that really has nothing to do with just Quran burning itself. It has to be with speech that could been seen as a call for violence

No. Cross burning with an intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment. I would suspect that under the right conditions burning a Koran could also fall into that category.