It's just plain dumb to invoke Freedom of Speech Re: Quran Burning.

[howard112211]

Claiming to be making a "statement against radicalization" and a "statement for free speech" in this particular form is just idiotic.
Burning books is not a statement towards free speech, it is a statement against it. By burning a book one seeks to destroy the words
written in this book, seeking to keep people from reading them or to suppress their meaning. A book burning is actually
authoritarianism and anti-freedom-of-speech in its purest form.

That said, I wonder when christians have ever had to endure this type of twisted "free speech". Yes, christianity gets mocked. Usually
in an intelligent form that exposes the weird behavior patterns it generates, such as Monty Python has done. Call me again when
we have "wipe your ass with the bible" videos on youtube...

[Syrinx]

1. book burning is generally vile and counterproductive

But if you own a book, it is up to you what you do with it.

I do think that preacher is an idiot and an asshole.

[gophates]

45. Got no problem seeing a big old bunch of Bibles burned.

I'll bring the marshmallows.

[diveguy]

2. I'll be damned

I tried to look it up on youtube. I cant watch the videos on this piece of crap work computer, but it's there. look up bible toliet paper. Also, a bunch of bible burning.

I wonder if it would be such an issue if it was a muslim burning a bible.

[howard112211]

4. Really? Crap, I stand corrected on that...

[ejpoeta]

11. you can bet that it would be a different story if it were someone burning a bible.

they would be pitching a fit. this crap is what the terrorists want, though. these people are doing the terrorists bidding. they are giving the terrorists what they want.

[WinkyDink]

13. The point is: Would YOU "be pitching a fit"? Or are you only BECAUSE it is the Quran?

See how that works? Defend both, or neither.

[ejpoeta]

20. well, i don't like the idea of burning any books. i wouldn't burn a bible or a quaran.

i don't believe in either, but i don't believe in burning books. my point was the hypocrisy of them burning a quaran when they would go ballistic if someone burned their precious bible. they don't seem to see that they might as well be burning their own bible. but i find the practice of burning books infantile at best. and it only proves to show the people burning it for who they really are.... not christian.

some idiot was on my tv this morning (today show) apparantly at the anti mosque thing. he said, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. exactly my thoughts. and it applies to burning books (any books) AND these yahoos protesting a community center.

[WinkyDink]

23. Your tone ("precious bible") seems at odds with your assertion of equal condemnation.

[ejpoeta]

28. my 'tone' is not anything but showing that they see their bible as preicious

and would go crazy at the thought of someone burning it. it is precious to them while the quaran, which is equally precious to those who follow it, seems to have no value to them at all.

[wookie72]

54. Give it a rest

One doesn't have to regard the Koran as sacred to find this reprehensible. Just as I found the destruction of the Buddhas in Afghanistan reprehrensible.
You're looking for some sort of "pro-Islam" sentiment where all there is is simple decency.

[wookie72]

53. A Muslim probably wouldn't burn a Bible.

[Taitertots]

3. Just like burning the flag, it is symbolic speech

It is just plain dumb to act like it is not protected speech.

[elleng]

7. Correct, but this issue has always been difficult for people to 'swallow.'

'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend unto death your right to say it.'

(This quote is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre.}

[howard112211]

15. I'm not saying it is not protected, I am saying that it is not a pro-free-speech gesture.

To claim to be for free speech and then turn around and burn a book as a symbolic gesture is like
claiming to be a pro-american nationalist and then turn around and burn an american flag. Makes no sense.

[Taitertots]

27. "pro-free-speech gesture" Expressing yourself in words and actions is freedom of speech

Saying and doing things that people disagree with is the essential pro-free-speech gesture. Obstructing them is diametrically opposed to the concept of free expression.

Lots of people have had foolish ideas before this, let them collapse as they make it apparent to everyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. As much as it is protected speech

it will get people killed, not in the US, but it will.

[DailyGrind51]

5. There is also the "..or prohibit the practice..." phrase which counters the 1st amendment assertion.

You can't prohibit Muslims from practicing their faith in America or any of its states.

[elleng]

6. The entire First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. how does burning your copy of the koran prohibit muslims

from worshiping with theirs?

Is there a shortage?

[Obamanaut]

21. +1 nt

[DailyGrind51]

30. How does it differ from burning a cross in front of an African American church?

Or painting swastikas on Jewish cemetery headstones?

[Codeine]

35. The cross is on someone else's property.

It's trespass.

the headstone belongs to some else. It's vandalism.

These Qurans belong to the burners. They have the right to burn their own shit.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. In both cases the crime of vandalism has occurred.

You can, with appropriate permits from the fire department, burn a cross on your lawn, not mine, and you can paint any damn thing you want on your tombstone, as long as the cemetery owners allow it, just not on mine.

Do you really not see the difference here?

[sabrina 1]

33. It doesn't. But Muslims are under attack in this country at the

moment which gives this book burning a whole different dimension.

Their religion was used as a means of torture by the U.S. in Abu Ghraib and other detention centers.

Was that just an expression of free speech also?

If we are to defend 'free expression' we need to decide how far we want to take it. For example, I could it being used as a legal defense for murder and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Your neighbor offends you, so blow him away. Simple, you were just expressing your opinion! Protected under the 1st Amendment.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I am fine with opposition to muslim hating koran burning

and certainly support your right to protest such idiocy. But the question posed was one of rights, specifically 1st amendment rights, and the hateful church bigots have the right to conduct their hateful protest, and we all have the right to protest their idiocy. What we cannot and should not do is demand that the government protect us from their hateful protests.

[sabrina 1]

44. I agree. And I didn't see anyone asking for that. Which is why

it was unnecessary to post an OP on the subject since that was never an issue. Highlighting the rights of religious bigots could be seen as support for what they are doing. I'm sure they appreciate it.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. The OP seems to claim that book burning is not protected speech.

Although the OP leaves enough wiggle room to not make that unambiguously clear.

[sabrina 1]

52. You are right, I was confused after reading the other

OPs on this which claimed that this was no big deal.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Perhaps you've never heard

of "Piss Christ"? I'm a bit surprised to hear from people on this forum who say "don't burn a Koran" while insisting on someone's right to burn a US flag. They're both symbols, striking out against those symbols is free speech, isn't it?

[howard112211]

17. It is free speech. But it isn't "pro free speech".

I cannot claim to be for freedom of speech and then turn around and burn a book, just as I cannot claim to be a pro-america nationalist and
then turn around and burn a US flag.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Burning the book

does not stifle the rights of another person to write or read that book. It's merely symbolic speech.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Piss Christ was made by a man born and raised Christian

Had a member of another faith made it, it would have had a different meaning. And as far as that meaning goes, that piece of art, like the Elephant dung Mary, have been greatly misunderstood by the right wing, to the point where their view of the works is accepted. I would contend that 'piss Christ' is not a destructive piece, and is nothing like a burning, nor is it a castigation of the faith but of the commercialization of religious icons. It is in fact, a rather pleasing photo, and part of a series of religious icons photographed in various fluids, such as milk or blood.
And that is my cultural screed of the day.

[customerserviceguy]

40. It seemed to have a very clear meaning

for most reverent Christians. Apparently you disagree with them, especially on that 'pleasing photo' thing. Some would find an image of a burning Koran as pleasing as you seem to find an image of a crucifix submerged in urine.

What matters to me is the free speech rights of Americans to feel any way they want to about any competing religion, or all religions. I don't hold any religious symbols as being beyond the reach of free speech, as long as it does not impugn the property rights of someone else. If I were to make a Star of David, and paint a swastika across it, that would be entirely different from painting a swastika on the side of a Jewish synagogue.

[Nye Bevan]

47. How do you think "Piss Muhammed" would be received?

Even if they made it into a "pleasing" photo?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. no it isn't.

It is free speech, political speech, and exactly what the 1st is intended to protect.

[howard112211]

16. I don't claim it is not protected. I claim it makes no sense.

The rationale that a book burning can be viewed as a symbolic pro-free-speech gesture is what I am claiming is absurd.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Of course it makes sense.

Defending the 1st always makes sense. It is when we fail to protect our rights because we find some expression of them unacceptable that the authoritarians win and our rights are eroded. Your rights are my rights. It is transitive. If I remove your right to free speech I remove my right to free speech.

[WinkyDink]

12. And you capitalize "Monty Python" but not "Christianity" because?

Nobody is saying any book-burning is right. It is, in fact, stupid and pointless.
And that IS the point, with Gen. Petraeus' trying to claim it will anger the Muslim world and thereby put US troops in harm's way, as if drones, bombs, torture, invasions, lies, and killings are not sufficient unto themselves. It is Petraeus who is at fault in his attempt at controlling, through a disgusting implication of some lack of patriotism bordering on treason, the behaviors of civilians---EVEN IF those behaviors ARE THEMSELVES DISGUSTING.

And just for fun:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_in_gaza_fear_for_their_lives.html?cat=9
"Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on."

Muslims have also destroyed ancient Buddhism artifacts, FWIW.

[howard112211]

14. For the same reason I didn't capitalize "Youtube"...

;)

[WinkyDink]

22. Speaking of which:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S9RqpSFLU

[stray cat]

18. It is stupid but it is protected

[howard112211]

19. Protected yes. But not a gesture pro freedom of speech.

[LanternWaste]

37. Nor is deleting my pdf copy of Huck Finn....

"Protected yes. But not a gesture pro freedom of speech...."

Nor is deleting my pdf copy of Huck Finn.... unless of course we apply context. However, if we apply context to one, I imagine we're bound by intellectual honesty to apply it to both.

[gratuitous]

24. This post is just plain dumb

It should be banned.

[Bragi]

25. Sorry, you are quite wrong

Freedom of speech IS the issue. I have no use for the dimbulbs planning to burn the Koran, but I think it is way more important to defend their right to be jackasses than it is a) to pretend that their stupid Koran-burning protests are meaningful in any way, and b) to apologize to Muslims who threaten tantrums and/or violence over this offense to their religion.

Fact is, in America, people have a right to insult other people's religions, and if they do, anyone feeling offended is free to offend the other guy's religion.

This conflict is of no importance or meaning to me or anyone else outside the fray. But their right to free speech includes the right to engage in derogatory speech about another religion. Period.

[woo me with science]

39. + 1000 nt

[Posteritatis]

31. "Freedom of speech" and "speech of asshole" are not mutually exclusive. (nt)

[tritsofme]

34. I see very few differences between the Koran burning and the Park 51 project.

Both parties are taking what some consider to be controversial and insensitive actions, both are clearly protected by the First Amendment.

I don't find much wisdom in either endeavor.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. this is where the Park 51 Project is coming from - I think there is quite a difference

Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero


By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and SHARAF MOWJOOD
Published: December 8, 2009


snip:

“ As a Sufi, Imam Feisal follows a path of Islam focused more on spiritual wisdom than on strict ritual, and as a bridge builder, he is sometimes focused more on cultivating relations with those outside his faith than within it.

snip:

Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding.

“He subscribes to my credo: ‘Live and let live,’ ” said Rabbi Arthur Schneier, spiritual leader of Park East Synagogue on East 67th Street.

snip:

The mayor’s director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Fatima Shama, went further. “We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody,” Ms. Shama said. Imam Feisal’s wife, Daisy Khan, serves on an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, and Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the memorial, said, “The idea of a cultural center that strengthens ties between Muslims and people of all faiths and backgrounds is positive.”


snip:

“ Building so close is owning the tragedy. It’s a way of saying: ‘This is something done by people who call themselves Muslims. We want to be here to repair the breach, as the Bible says.’ ”

The F.B.I. said Imam Feisal had helped agents reach out to the Muslim population after Sept. 11. “We’ve had positive interactions with him in the past,” said an agency spokesman, Richard Kolk. Alice Hoagland of Las Gatos, Calif., whose son, Mark Bingham, was killed in the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, said, “It’s quite a bold step buying a piece of land adjacent to ground zero,” but she said she considered plans for the site “a noble effort.”

snip:

Joy Levitt, executive director of the Jewish Community Center, said the group would be proud to be a model for Imam Feisal at ground zero. “For the J.C.C. to have partners in the Muslim community that share our vision of pluralism and tolerance would be great,” she said.

Mr. El-Gamal agreed. “What happened that day,” he said, “was not Islam.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1

Now on youtube - Christiane Amanpour interviews Daisy Khan and Rabbi Joy Levitt

Daisy Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal. Rabbi Joy Levitt is from the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan

link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE_XnmQRDPA

link to the cordoba intiative:

http://www.cordobainitiative.org /

link to Imam Feisal Press Conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIPO7CVflA


/

[LanternWaste]

38. I perceive one difference... one I believe to be a critical difference.

I perceive one difference... one I believe to be a critical difference. One party is promoting honesty and tolerance, and the other party...? Not so much.

[customerserviceguy]

41. Well said

It's about the difference between what one can do, and what one should do, in the eyes of others.

[wookie72]

55. Legally there is no difference

Just as there is no difference between the March On Washington and the Nazis marching on Skokie. One, however, will involve building something for an underserved group of people. The other will attempt to spread fear and hatred,

[and-justice-for-all]

48. It is an exercise in the freedom of expression....

As they are going to burn the Quran, because they think their invisible friend(s) and desert dogma are better then Islams, others can turn and have a bible buring party; they can bitch and cry all they want, but the freedom of expression is a two way street no matter how absurd it may be.

I have no repect for religion whats-so-ever; it is simply all nonsence all the time.

[gophates]

49. Best. post. yet. Just on the basis of the last line.

[unblock]

51. it is free speech, even if odious, misguided, stupid and even self-contradictory.

that said, the appropriate response to odious free speech is more free speech, denouncing it (but not calling for the government to ban it).