Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given the level of gun crime in your country, if an Imam attempted to publicly burn a Bible in America, it highly probable that there would be a violent outcome.
That is your opinion,nothing more.
The US flag has been burned before.
Rights enshrined by the Nuremburg Laws, gave legal justification for acts which in any normal society would be considered wrong.
Citing laws does not condone the act permitted.
If it did, every Nazi would and should have walked away scot free.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note
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.
Please point out here where it says its ok for Nazis to kill people?
The Nuremburg laws have diddley-squat to do with anything we have been talking about here.
You are blowing your creditability you might have had comparing these 2 events. There is a huge difference between burning a book and murdering millions of people.
We recognize his right to burn any book he purchases. We may not agree to his actions but it is part if the freedoms that we have that you will never understand.
Next he might want to write a book or do an editorial cartoon that might offend you. I support that right also.
You miss the point.
I wasn't for a moment attmepting to suggest that burning a book and the murder of a person was comparable.
In qualitative terms there is no comparison.
In legal terms, under respective laws, the "right" to commit an act (book burning and, separately commit murder) was protected under respective laws.
Exercising that "right" is protected in both cases.
And claiming that "respecting that right to act" is acquiescing to the action.
Who does condone his actions,we support his right to do it.I personally don't CARE whether Muslims are offended or upset.
I think you are wrong,we have had people burn the US flag before...
Your reading comprehension is willfully lacking.
I said, if we were at war with Canada and then they burned the flag it would incite violence. I did not say if someone burned the flag in general that it would insight violence.
Again, I'm trying to say why he shouldn't do it, not saying that he can't. If he wants to it is his right. However, the people on my side of the argument believe it is not a good idea and not something to be defended.
Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that I (and others) think that it is a good idea to do it.
I said, if we were at war with Canada and then they burned the flag it would incite violence. I did not say if someone burned the flag in general that it would insight violence.
And I disagree....as has been shown when the flag is burned in the past.
Quote:
Again, I'm trying to say why he shouldn't do it, not saying that he can't. If he wants to it is his right. However, the people on my side of the argument believe it is not a good idea and not something to be defended.
Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that I (and others) think that it is a good idea to do it.
The underlined is where your position falls apart.
I do not want that Mosque built in NYC,I would prefer it wasn't,but I defend their right to do so.
I wasn't for a moment attempting to suggest that burning a book and the murder of a person was comparable.
In qualitative terms there is no comparison.
In legal terms, under respective laws, the "right" to commit an act (book burning and, separately commit murder) was protected under respective laws.
Exercising that "right" is protected in both cases.
And claiming that "respecting that right to act" is acquiescing to the action.
You make no sense in your argument. We have a lot of rights that you might not agree with. I have the right to shave my face which you might find the act offensive. My wife has the right to wear clothes that you may find offensive. I have the right to drink alcohol that you might disagree with.
Almost every American will not agree to burn any book, but we will fight for the right to do so. If it is private property it's within my rights to use it or destroy it no matter how I see fit.
Your argument is lame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
