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.
I believe the Qurans are being burnt because we, as Muslims, haven't dealt sincerely and intellectually with very serious issues that certain Quranic passages raise, particularly in the West. These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can't be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it's OK to kill converts from Islam.
We, as Muslims, need to tear a few pages out of the Quran—symbolically, at least, by rejecting literal adherence to certain problematic verses.
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.
The "rights" afforded under your laws, are the same "rights" that were afforded under Nuremburg laws.
Let's be clear here.
I know I'm dealing with an American audience so I'll try to explain this in simple terms.
Laws afford people rights.
This means that you can do something and the law will protect you.
With me so far?
So, if the law says that you can burn a book, you can burn a book and the law will allow you to burn a book.
One can choose to "exercise that right" or one can choose to "refrain from exercising that right".
In exercising that "right" the law will protect you.
In Nazi Germany, rights were also afforded to those who wished to terrorise the Jews.
One could choose to "exercise that right" to terrorise the Jews or one could chose to "refrain from exercising that right".
Under both sets of respective laws, one could "exercise ones rights" and not run the risk of breaking the law.
Nowhere did I suggest that US law contained Nazi/Nuremburg rights.
I merely made the point that in exercising ones rights, under the respective laws, one can get away with anything within the letter of the laws.
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.
Whether you shave your face or your wife wears whatever she wants, is immaterial to me.
(I'm not Muslim btw).
I'm talking about "rights".
One can be legally protected to do something : it doesn't make the act which is perpetrated right, does it?
Like the Nuremburg laws which made it legal for a Nazi to do something, allowing someone to burn a book may well have very serious consequences in your country.
Bad law is bad law.
As Wilde said "the law is an ass".
The "rights" afforded under your laws, are the same "rights" that were afforded under Nuremburg laws.
Let's be clear here.
I know I'm dealing with an American audience so I'll try to explain this in simple terms.
Laws afford people rights.
This means that you can do something and the law will protect you.
With me so far?
So, if the law says that you can burn a book, you can burn a book and the law will allow you to burn a book.
One can choose to "exercise that right" or one can choose to "refrain from exercising that right".
In exercising that "right" the law will protect you.
In Nazi Germany, rights were also afforded to those who wished to terrorise the Jews.
One could choose to "exercise that right" to terrorise the Jews or one could chose to "refrain from exercising that right".
Under both sets of respective laws, one could "exercise ones rights" and not run the risk of breaking the law.
Nowhere did I suggest that US law contained Nazi/Nuremburg rights.
I merely made the point that in exercising ones rights, under the respective laws, one can get away with anything within the letter of the laws.
You could be less condescending.
What does saying that we can "get away" with legal things mean in the context of this event?
In the US free speech is valued. There are a lot of laws that could be used nefariously. There is good and bad in a lot of things.
Whether you shave your face or your wife wears whatever she wants, is immaterial to me.
(I'm not Muslim btw).
I'm talking about "rights".
One can be legally protected to do something : it doesn't make the act which is perpetrated right, does it?
Like the Nuremburg laws which made it legal for a Nazi to do something, allowing someone to burn a book may well have very serious consequences in your country.
Bad law is bad law.
As Wilde said "the law is an ass".
Whether you shave your face or your wife wears whatever she wants, is immaterial to me.
(I'm not Muslim btw).
I'm talking about "rights".
One can be legally protected to do something : it doesn't make the act which is perpetrated right, does it?
Like the Nuremburg laws which made it legal for a Nazi to do something, allowing someone to burn a book may well have very serious consequences in your country.
Bad law is bad law.
As Wilde said "the law is an ass".
I'm talking about "rights".
One can be legally protected to do something : it doesn't make the act which is perpetrated right, does it?
No it doesn't. But do you want some other ruler to decide that things are good because they feel they are and then when the next ruler comes along they think the opposite?
Good and bad are not always absolutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
I am not getting what you are trying to state here.
You want to know when an enemy of the USA burned the US flag and it didn't inspire violence???
What does that scenario have to do with this?
Are you thinking there will be violence by supporters of the Koran burners HERE?
In my hypothetical example, say we were at war with Canada and Canadians in the US burned US flags. Don't you think that would insight violence against Canadian soldiers fighting against US soldiers?
I am trying to find real world examples of this, but I can't think of any right now.
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.
