• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Quran and the Constitution

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,311
Reaction score
31,901
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"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."

What do you think?



 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In order to mollify those that get pissed at the burning of the Quran we would have to totally dump the 1st Amendment. Even the Free Press part as some news company could post some picture of the Quran being burned. No way in **** would any real American go for that.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"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."

What do you think?




Who's saying that? Certainly no one here.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who's saying that? Certainly no one here.

I've seen lots of people that want hate speech laws enacted and they invariably almost always speak up when talking about "burning the Quran"...along with many other topics which they believe "promotes hate" (at least in their views).
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've seen lots of people that want hate speech laws enacted and they invariably almost always speak up when talking about "burning the Quran"...along with many other topics which they believe "promotes hate" (at least in their views).

I haven't seen it so I'll take your word for it.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If a government institution would burn the quoran, then yes, that would be a violation of this:
"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."

Because you would be making a religious statement.

But terry jones is just an individual, not a representative of the government. He should do whatever he wants, and the burning of the quoran is free speech.
 

douglas

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
458
Reaction score
290
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
As a poll from a similar thread shows, if there's any strong force on DP that is for illegalizing book burning, they're staying silent.
poll.jpg
That certainly doesn't make us for book burning (I'm truly repulsed by the thought), but we understand and support the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"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."

What do you think?​


How do we balance this with preventing activities in the US that will get US servicemen, Federal employees and contractors killed for no good reason?

We should not infringe upon the bill of rights, but at the same time we have an obligation to prevent harm to our fellow citizen. I don't see a good option here.​
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,525
Reaction score
15,432
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rights are not absolute and the right to free speech has limitations. For instance, the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor does it protect the right to incite violence, insurrection or riots.

"...Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[25][26] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action"......read

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6]....read

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn. I doubt few people would say that burning crosses wasn't hate speech. So why wouldn't burning Qurans be hate speech, too?
 
Last edited:

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,311
Reaction score
31,901
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Rights are not absolute and the right to free speech has limitations. For instance, the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor does it protect the right to incite violence, insurrection or riots.

"...Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[25][26] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action"......read

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6]....read

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn. I doubt few people would say that burning crosses wasn't hate speech. So why wouldn't burning Qurans be hate speech, too?

Hate speech alone is not illegal here. How do you justify giving special protection to the Quran in light of the Establishment Clause?
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
books are importan materials for the cognitive ,intellectual development of the humans ,nobody should burn no book

l dont support any application of sharia laws but the act of burning a book seems so psychotic to me and l believe no amendment should approve such a thing in the name of freedom of speech .because it seems more like a freedom of provocation

similarly l always condemn such protestos too

kuranin-yakilmasina-tepki-gosteren-eylemciler,-amerika-bayragi-yakti--1072674-02.jpg
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,525
Reaction score
15,432
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hate speech alone is not illegal here. How do you justify giving special protection to the Quran in light of the Establishment Clause?

I was arguing the freedom of speech clause and really haven't given the establishment clause much thought since it mostly applies to the government.

Hate speech that incites violence is illegal. Cross burning is also illegal so why wouldn't burning the Quran be illegal, too?
 
Last edited:

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rights are not absolute and the right to free speech has limitations. For instance, the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, nor does it protect the right to incite violence, insurrection or riots.

"...Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[25][26] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action"......read

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"....In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6]....read

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There also has to be intent to cause harm or imminent danger. Burning a Quran is done to make a statement, not to incite violence. Also Hate speech is irrelevent because we do not have ANY hate speech laws.

Burning Qurans is little different than burning a cross on someones front lawn. I doubt few people would say that burning crosses wasn't hate speech. So why wouldn't burning Qurans be hate speech, too?

You're right. There is little difference. How ever you are wrong that burnning a cross would be considered hate speech. The KKK routinely burns crosses in some of thier ceremonies and no one ever bats an eye about it. Heck, I can't even remember the last time anyone even hollered about the Bible being burned, much less the cross.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Terry Jones wasn't arrested for "hate speech". He was arrested because 3000 kerosene soaked books violated Florida law for unlawful conveyance of fuel. It is required that large quantities of fuel be stored in proper tanks and containers during transportation for obvious safety reasons.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Terry Jones wasn't arrested for "hate speech". He was arrested because 3000 kerosene soaked books violated Florida law for unlawful conveyance of fuel. It is required that large quantities of fuel be stored in proper tanks and containers during transportation for obvious safety reasons.

If this is true then i'd say they are just charging him just to charge him with something. If a person spills kerosene in the back of their pickup are they violating the law?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was arguing the freedom of speech clause and really haven't given the establishment clause much thought since it mostly applies to the government.

Hate speech that incites violence is illegal. Cross burning is also illegal so why wouldn't burning the Quran be illegal, too?

Cross burning is not illegal. KKK do it all the time.
 

Mr X

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
177
Reaction score
80
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"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."

What do you think?




As long as I can also burn the original copy of the declaration of independence without fear of arrest.
 

lolabird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
114
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
If this is true then i'd say they are just charging him just to charge him with something. If a person spills kerosene in the back of their pickup are they violating the law?

Yes, if they strike a match.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As long as I can also burn the original copy of the declaration of independence without fear of arrest.

Burning one original document vs 3000 copies.....hmm...me thinks that there is about a 3000 bit of a difference there. Even I would understand people being outraged with someone burning the Original Quran. But copies are just that...copies. No other intrinsic value. So I won't say a thing if you burn 3000 copies of the DoI. ;)

But besides that, the DoI is owned by the Government. Not a particular individual. Burning it would be destruction of government property. A federal felony.
 

lolabird

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
642
Reaction score
114
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Doesn't matter. It is protected speech via the 1st amendment. No matter what law VA has it cannot trump the 1st amendment.

Do your research because the Supreme Court upheld VA's ban on cross burning.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
With the arrest of Terry Jones comes the familiar argument that we should modify our laws to mollify those who would react violently to the burning of the Quran (and other such speech). The typical response is to point to our First Amendment right of free speech. While that is very valid, I do believe it is not the only part of the First Amendment that would be implicated here.

I believe that making it illegal to burn the Quran would also violate the Establishment Clause by carving out special legal protections for the religious book if one religion over all others.

"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."

What do you think?




No I don't think that fits here. Just like I don't think praying in a public function equates Congress establishing a religion.
 
Top Bottom