• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Congress Ban Burning of the Quran

Would You Support Legislation that Would Ban Burning/Destroying the Quran?


  • Total voters
    92

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
56,518
Reaction score
28,328
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dangerous or not is for the courts to decide. Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black: true threats are unlawful
That's not really what I meant by "dangerous". I meant more that banning Quran burning could be an incentive for groups to act violently thinking it's a way to get their religious texts more legal protection.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
But in black vs Virginia it was established a blanket ban against cross burning was unconstitutional because it doesn't always amount to a true threat. Also, the ruling was heavily based on the use of cross burning to convey threats, no such history around Quran burning exists.
I agree, it isn't very broad, but sufficient for any lawful purposes.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
VIRGINIA V. BLACK

if anyone here is interested, here is the case law for black vs Virginia

Oddly enough, black was my neighbor while growing up.
 
Last edited:

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
56,518
Reaction score
28,328
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I may be speaking too soon, but I thinks it's actually pretty cool that, whatever the political lean, there's near universal agreement on this question.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Should the way people might react half a world away dictate what speech is protected and which isn't? Seems like a dangerous precedent and a near encouragement to behave brutally.
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.
 
Last edited:

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
56,518
Reaction score
28,328
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.
We cannot keep every piece of information or every message occurring w/in the US from being seen by those in other countries. We really can only be concerned about our own laws. If we're going to outlaw any speech that could be potentially offensive to those in other countries, we might as well abolish the 1st amendment all together.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We cannot keep every piece of information or every message occurring w/in the US from being seen by those in other countries. We really can only be concerned about our own laws. If we're going to outlaw any speech that could be potentially offensive to those in other countries, we might as well abolish the 1st amendment all together.
We could enforce laws to protect the human rights of those who have no say in our matters. We could have laws that prohibit the intentional harm with the sole purpose being to inflame and ignite rage in other countries. It would show very clearly that we are a noble people.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We could enforce laws to protect the human rights of those who have no say in our matters. We could have laws that prohibit the intentional harm with the sole purpose being to inflame and ignite rage in other countries. It would show very clearly that we are a noble people.
1)"not being offended" isn't a human right

2) if you don't allow language that "inflames' people, then you don't have free speech. Also, why should I curb my rights due to the unreasonable demands of some asshole in Afghanistan? What if he demands that all women in America need to wear a burqa, because not doing so offends his god, and in turn offends him?

**** that malarky bull****~!!!
 
Last edited:

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
We have to show some degree of respect for all the world's people. What's important is to protect our citizens' right to be completely offensive to Americans, not some other country with different beliefs and customs and laws.
Nope, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, no thought police please.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that he'd like to see Congress consider doing something about burning the Quran.

Lindsey Graham On Koran Burning: “Freedom Of Speech Is A Great Idea But We’re In A War.”

If legislation were proposed making it illegal to burn or destroy the Quran (at least publicly) would you support it?

Follow up question, would such legislation may survive a Constitutional challenge?
No, I wouldn't support that. And it would never survive a constitutional challenge. I understand the sentiment. And he was just running it up the flagpole. But he may be on to something:

BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Senate and House of Representatives --

(1) Believes that freedom of religion is a basic human right and that all religions throughout the world are worthy of respect.
(2) Abhors the acts of those individuals who would defame another's religion in any manner.
Or something like that...you get the picture. Couldn't hurt. Might help.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Nope, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, no thought police please.
You have no freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowed theater, ya know. Can't you just live with that? Do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon?
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You have no freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowed theater, ya know. Can't you just live with that? Do you feel that your rights are being infringed upon?
Bad comparison. Yelling fire in a theater creates the impression that there are circumstances, which deliberation of, could cause death. Such a scenario isn't created by burning a quran. people can deliberate after such an act and choose not to kill random people for it
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How about a no burning books rule. Maybe a book burning license only to be given to proper disposal authorities?

I would prefer that Qu'rans and bibles weren't burned. How to effectively implement any way to do that is another question. Society sets the precedent. If people get up in arms 'literally' over it and begin killing other people. Maybe it should be illegal. Ya know. :shrug:
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If we were going to do that, then virtually every political, religious, and philosophical text would be banned. Almost any speech can inspire murder. Should we have banned Catcher in the Rye, because that guy shot John Lennon? If we put people's feelings, even crazy/extremist people's feelings, above freedom, we become their slaves. Terry Jones is an ass, but the only ones responsible for the violence in Afghanistan are the killers themselves.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What if I say "Mohammed was jerk off who had an inflated sense of his own importance" and some bunch of ignorant losers take offense and kill our troops or other citizens? Do we ban me from saying that?
 
Last edited:

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What if I say "Mohammed was jerk off who had an inflated sense of his own importance" and some bunch of ignorant losers takes offense and kills our troops or other citizens? Do we ban me from saying that?
Should we send the bill for the damage caused by your insuits to your home or to your office? Could we arrange for you to meet the families of the soldiers who were killed defending your right to free speach so you can thank them?
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bad comparison. Yelling fire in a theater creates the impression that there are circumstances, which deliberation of, could cause death. Such a scenario isn't created by burning a quran. people can deliberate after such an act and choose not to kill random people for it
It's exactly the same! You are saying something with the purpose to cause panick and violence. It's the same thing/
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should we send the bill for the damage caused by your insuits to your home or to your office? Could we arrange for you to meet the families of the soldiers who were killed defending your right to free speach so you can thank them?
If I go out and kill random people, because I'm deeply offended by your desire to curb free speech, are you liable for my actions? Should you pay the hospital bills of the people I assault and apologize to their families for what I did of my own volition?

Such thinking would have done immeasurable damage to our country and stifled everything from the civil rights movement, to open discussion about evolution.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It's exactly the same! You are saying something with the purpose to cause panick and violence. It's the same thing/
Unless you think people in Afghanistan/Muslims lack all faculties of independent thought, and control over their action, then no, it's not the same.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If we were going to do that, then virtually every political, religious, and philosophical text would be banned. Almost any speech can inspire murder. Should we have banned Catcher in the Rye, because that guy shot John Lennon? If we put people's feelings, even crazy/extremist people's feelings, above freedom, we become their slaves. Terry Jones is an ass, but the only ones responsible for the violence in Afghanistan are the killers themselves.
What if a child was taught to be hateful and murderous. Would his killing spree be his fault alone?

If there is no other purpose than pissing off foreigners then it should be banned. It is the governments job to pick our fights, not any insividuals.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
56,518
Reaction score
28,328
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
How about a no burning books rule. Maybe a book burning license only to be given to proper disposal authorities?

I would prefer that Qu'rans and bibles weren't burned. How to effectively implement any way to do that is another question. Society sets the precedent. If people get up in arms 'literally' over it and begin killing other people. Maybe it should be illegal. Ya know. :shrug:
I would prefer it if they weren't burned either, same with the American flag, but if we compromise our right to free speech, the extremists, like the terrorist thugs who stormed the UN compound, will have truly won.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What if a child was taught to be hateful and murderous.
So you are saying Terry Jones taught these crazy nutjobs in the middle east to be hateful and murderous?


Would his killing spree be his fault alone?
Yes. Humans are not mindless machines.
 
Last edited:

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Unless you think people in Afghanistan/Muslims lack all faculties of independent thought, and control over their action, then no, it's not the same.
I have no doubt that any person who commits suicide hijacking passenger jets is without any independent thought or any faculties. They are robots.

Seriously, if anybody is so upset with the Koran that they would cause a war they should go to the mideast and preach the love of the bible. Do it under the guize of yoga fitness.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If there is no other purpose than pissing off foreigners then it should be banned.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, speech with minimal social value, and that which might incite others to imminent lawless action, or might incite an immediate breach of the peace is unprotected.

Ergo, if that is the only reason, it is already unprotected speech. Or at least should be if that person is taken to court for that speech.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I have no doubt that any person who commits suicide hijacking passenger jets is without any independent thought or any faculties. They are robots.
No, they are just like you an able to think over the consequences of their actions. Acting an ass doesn't change that, nor that many people choose not to behave in such a manner

Seriously, if anybody is so upset with the Koran that they would cause a war they should go to the mideast and preach the love of the bible. Do it under the guize of yoga fitness.
free speech isn't limited to the type that you approve of.
 
Top Bottom