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

sapphi_snake on 08 September 2010
scottie said:

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

Spoken liek a true capitalist!



"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)

Around the Network
DrStephenTColbert on 08 September 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:

Sorry to keep posting these things, but....

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."

Is from that article linked above.

I am sorry, we really have things backwards here. We have a group of stupid people in Florida, who due to not liking a Mosque going up in NY, chose to burn some books. BFD, no one gets hurt, and some books go poof.

Now, in retaliation to this, we think some people around the world are going to take this information, and start killing people with it. So, one group burns books, and one group murders people, and we are apologetic about the morons in Florida?

This is like someone sticking there tong out at someone, and getting there face blown off for it, and taking the side of the guy who pulled the trigger.

If burning a book makes someone want to kill, I say bring it.

You're missing the point entirely. Just because you (and I think all others on this board) strongly oppose one group in this conflict, the extremist Muslims, doesn't mean you have to support the idiots burning the Quran. Both groups are doing something wrong, yes the extremist Muslims are doing something much much more wrong - doesn't make the book burners right.

You shouldn't avoid burning the Quran out of fear of being hurt by Muslims, you should avoid burning the Quran because it's an entirely offensive and unnessecary gesture of hate.

Also comparing it to sticking the tongue out at somebody completely underestimates the level of offensiveness of this, there isn't really anything left in Western culture that lives up to the level of offensiveness because we've become pretty thick skinned (mostly due to free speech) but the closest would probably be calling a black person by the 'N' word. Don't take this as condoning their violence or threats by the way, it's not, but I completely understand their anger.


So if I called someone the 'N" word, and he shot me in the face, that's understandable?

Come on. I get sick of the US and our culture always being the ones that are "wrong", when the worst we do as a people is voice our opinion and demonstrate.

You don't see Christian Extremist groups heading over to the middle east and blowing shit up.

Did you miss the Iraq war.  70000 Iraqi civilians died in the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  You can't seriously say that the worst America does is demonstrate. 



DrStephenTColbert on 08 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Chrizum said:
RCTjunkie said:
Chrizum said:
RCTjunkie said:

Oh, Lord.

This is just wrong. This is exactly like the mosque. They have a right, but it's just wrong.


They don't have a right. It is agains the law.


But is it because of religion, or safety reasons? The article leaves that part out.

If it's for religous reasons, I would defend the people that want to burn the Quran because of religous freedom.

If it's for safety reasons, then I don't really know.

Too bad we'll never know what reason it's REALLY for....

It is also illegal to burn the American flag.

Uh, no it's not. The Supreme Court ruled it as free speech.

To be fair... I think he's from England, maybe it's illegal there?  I dunno.  Either way, people should be able to burn whatever the hell they want so long as it's not living, or someone elses and it's done safely.

Technically, everyone is right.  While the Supreme Court ruled (in the 70's I think) that burning the American flag was constitutionally protected, congress passed a law a couple of years ago (I'm thinking 2006) making the burning of the American flag illegal.  Funny thing is that the Flag Code states that any flag that is no longer fit should be destroyed by fire, as flags aren't supposed to end up at the town dump.



DrStephenTColbert on 08 September 2010

Here's the deal.  If Westboro Baptist Church gets to protest soldiers funerals, then I reckon we have an obligation to protect these idiots as well.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  It's what America does.  As to whether or not it would be protected given the Clear and Present Danger decision, it's over my head, but the ruling is quite nuanced.  If fought in court, the ACLU would likely argue that the proximity and degree of the Quran burning would not meet the threshold of what constitutes a clear and present danger.  The US government would have a heavy burden of proof.  This is not a group of people disseminating literature on a large scale opposing the draft.  As a result, I would guess that it would not meet the degree required to limit the freedom of speech. 



Kasz216 on 08 September 2010
DrStephenTColbert said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Chrizum said:
RCTjunkie said:
Chrizum said:
RCTjunkie said:

Oh, Lord.

This is just wrong. This is exactly like the mosque. They have a right, but it's just wrong.


They don't have a right. It is agains the law.


But is it because of religion, or safety reasons? The article leaves that part out.

If it's for religous reasons, I would defend the people that want to burn the Quran because of religous freedom.

If it's for safety reasons, then I don't really know.

Too bad we'll never know what reason it's REALLY for....

It is also illegal to burn the American flag.

Uh, no it's not. The Supreme Court ruled it as free speech.

To be fair... I think he's from England, maybe it's illegal there?  I dunno.  Either way, people should be able to burn whatever the hell they want so long as it's not living, or someone elses and it's done safely.

Technically, everyone is right.  While the Supreme Court ruled (in the 70's I think) that burning the American flag was constitutionally protected, congress passed a law a couple of years ago (I'm thinking 2006) making the burning of the American flag illegal.  Funny thing is that the Flag Code states that any flag that is no longer fit should be destroyed by fire, as flags aren't supposed to end up at the town dump.

It's not a real law.  It's an "advisory law" and unefnorceable.  In fact if enforced it would break the first ammendment as stated.

The "Flag Code" i believe has been around for ever... it actually has nothing to do with real laws. 



Around the Network
Galaki on 08 September 2010

This is weird. I have the urge to play Civ4 from this tread.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

badgenome on 08 September 2010
DrStephenTColbert said:

Technically, everyone is right.  While the Supreme Court ruled (in the 70's I think) that burning the American flag was constitutionally protected, congress passed a law a couple of years ago (I'm thinking 2006) making the burning of the American flag illegal.  Funny thing is that the Flag Code states that any flag that is no longer fit should be destroyed by fire, as flags aren't supposed to end up at the town dump.

No, sir. The Supreme Court struck down all anti flag burning legislation in 1989, and again 1990. In 2006, there was an attempt to override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution, but it failed in the Senate.



scottie on 08 September 2010
Galaki said:

This is weird. I have the urge to play Civ4 from this tread.


I get urges to play Civ4 from all threads, dont worry about it



Lostplanet22 on 08 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
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.

Sounds like a good idea but it is not really helping.. The population still grew last year in China with 16 million; it only helps making the government richer...Not that is bad ofcourse;

Could be in fact good for countries who are having a huge debt.



 

steverhcp02 on 08 September 2010

Sounds like these SPECIFIC people are doing something stupid in the name of their religion. Just like those SPECIFIC people on 9/11 did something (obviously more) stupid in the name of their religon.

Bottomline, lots of people are fucking dumb regardless of religion.

The thing that ive taken away from this, people like Mafoo who obviously have an agenda have compromised parts of their logic and humanity for politically watered down reasons which has resulted in an argument youd see on a preschool playground.

As someone else pointed out, is it illegal to be a jerk? No, but why not error on the side of being kind? Is climate change "real" Who the fuck knows, but why not error on the side of safety? Sure it may be legal, but why not be a bigger person and not argue in favor of giving people ammunition (even if its not justified) when they know its only going to cause problems? The fact that they are essentially going against a hallmark and pillar of Christ's turn the other cheek teaching makes it more laughable.....but whats really disturbing is the results in this thread going great distances to try to explain why this SHOULD happen.

We can get into link wars pointing out crazies from each others "sides" but honestly? Why cant some of you just be above it. Just because somethings within mans law doesnt mean it should be done, I'd hope everyone regardless of religious preference or political party can draw the correlation that doing things out of spite knowing they are meant to incite is just wrong. 

As others have said, if its within the law we only have ethos to argue over. But the chirch and these people get nothing productive out of doing this. It fosters hatred, is an unhealthy way of coping and accomplishes nothing. It really shouldnt even be debatable since there is really no underlying benefit to this as there is with the Mosque at all other than hatred.

Just be nice to people and dont do mean things even if youre allowed. How about that?




Get Your Portable ID!