By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Church plans to burn the Quran on Sept. 11

Killiana1a on 08 September 2010

In this case, no the church does not have a US Constitutional Right to burn the books. A bit of history from Schenck v. United States (1919) will help clarify:

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 the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

- US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Jr.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

It is pretty much common knowledge the US is engaged in a war in Afghanistan whose population is majority Muslim. General Petraeus has denounced this act, saying it would lead to retaliations against US troops in Afghanistan and the Middle East. (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn enough Korans to fill a Mosque. Since we are at war, they do not have the 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech to do it.

This case of the proposed Koran burning is a classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. You just don't do it at this moment in time.

BOLD = corrected part



Around the Network
Lafiel on 08 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
Lafiel said:

I'm all for world peace, but then again ..there are way too many people living on earth already (I think the max should be at ~4 billion - best thing China ever died was restricting families to have 1 child), so some conflicts can't hurt, heh.

This is one of the scariest posts on here. So are you proposing genocide?

nope, but birth control might be a good idea - humanity will have to look into that anyway and it's better sooner than later



sapphi_snake on 08 September 2010
Lafiel said:
sapphi_snake said:
Lafiel said:

I'm all for world peace, but then again ..there are way too many people living on earth already (I think the max should be at ~4 billion - best thing China ever died was restricting families to have 1 child), so some conflicts can't hurt, heh.

This is one of the scariest posts on here. So are you proposing genocide?

nope, but birth control might be a good idea - humanity will have to look into that anyway and it's better sooner than later

Birth control is an amazing ideea. You're totally right about that. Too bad many people don't use it for religious reasons. It's a real shame, them popping kids like on a convator belt.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 08 September 2010
Killiana1a said:

In this case, no the church does not have a US Constitutional Right to burn the books. A bit of history from Schenck v. United States (1919) will help clarify:

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 the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Jr.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

It is pretty much common knowledge the US is engaged in a war in Afghanistan whose population has a majority of muslims. General Petraeus has denounced this act, saying it would lead to retaliations against US troops in Afghanistan and the Middle East. (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn a Mosque full of Korans. Since we are at war, they do not have the 1st Amendment Right.

This case of the proposed Koran burning is a classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. You just don't do it at this moment in time.

Burning Korans is one thing, but isn't burning a Mosque considered arsoning and illegal???



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Killiana1a on 08 September 2010

Furthermore, if this was brought up before the US Supreme Court right now, the US Supreme Court ruling from established precedent would come to a unanimous decision condemning the book burning.

Free Speech in wartime where the impacts of your small church's speech may lead to the possibility of death for a single US soldier or citizen is not protected under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Free Speech in peacetime is a different matter and this book burning would be condoned as the Freedom of Speech protected under the US Constitution.



Around the Network
Killiana1a on 08 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
Killiana1a said:

In this case, no the church does not have a US Constitutional Right to burn the books. A bit of history from Schenck v. United States (1919) will help clarify:

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 the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Jr.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

It is pretty much common knowledge the US is engaged in a war in Afghanistan whose population has a majority of muslims. General Petraeus has denounced this act, saying it would lead to retaliations against US troops in Afghanistan and the Middle East. (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn a Mosque full of Korans. Since we are at war, they do not have the 1st Amendment Right.

This case of the proposed Koran burning is a classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. You just don't do it at this moment in time.

Burning Korans is one thing, but isn't burning a Mosque considered arsening and illegal???

Of course burning any private property whether it is religious or secular is arson and illegal.It is illegal in peacetime or wartime because you are infringing on another's 1st Amendment right. Here is the text of the 1st Amendment of the US Consitution:

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.

The burning of someone else's private property, especially a religious institution infringes upon the Right of the People Peaceable to Assemble. Muslims cannot "peaceably assemble" if their Mosque has been burned down. Their right is protected the same as Christians or any other practiced religion in the US.

The burning of a religious text during peacetime is protected under the Freedom of Speech. During wartime, you do not have the right to burn a religious text if it will mean harm to another in the warzone.



sapphi_snake on 08 September 2010
Killiana1a said:

Of course burning any private property whether it is religious or secular is arson and illegal.It is illegal in peacetime or wartime because you are infringing on another's 1st Amendment right.

The burning of a religious text during peacetime is considered Freedom of Speech.

Isn't it illegal simply because it's the destruction of private property? Plus you're the one who said that If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn a Mosque full of Korans.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Killiana1a on 08 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
Killiana1a said:

Of course burning any private property whether it is religious or secular is arson and illegal.It is illegal in peacetime or wartime because you are infringing on another's 1st Amendment right.

The burning of a religious text during peacetime is considered Freedom of Speech.

Isn't it illegal simply because it's the destruction of private property? Plus you're the one who said that If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn a Mosque full of Korans.

My bad, I did not edit it quickly enough. I meant to say "enough Korans to fill a Mosque." I apologize for the misunderstanding and have rectified what you quoted in my earlier post.



sapphi_snake on 08 September 2010
Killiana1a said:
sapphi_snake said:
Killiana1a said:

Of course burning any private property whether it is religious or secular is arson and illegal.It is illegal in peacetime or wartime because you are infringing on another's 1st Amendment right.

The burning of a religious text during peacetime is considered Freedom of Speech.

Isn't it illegal simply because it's the destruction of private property? Plus you're the one who said that If this were during peace time when the US was not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq, then the church would have every right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to burn a Mosque full of Korans.

My bad, I did not edit it quickly enough. I meant to say "enough Korans to fill a Mosque." I apologize for the misunderstanding and have rectified what you quoted in my earlier post.

Good, maybe Christians had such rights during the Middle Ages, but thankfully not now.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

scottie on 08 September 2010

1) Buy copies of the Quran

2) Burn them

3) ???

4) Profit (for the people who are distributing the Quran)

 

I don't really see the point of shit like this, we can assume that there are idiots out there who hate Muslims for no good reason, they don't need to remind us of their presence every couple of days