PDA

View Full Version : You DO NOT have the right to burn the Koran.




JustinTime
09-15-2010, 12:23 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

So says Justice Breyer claiming the 'fire in a crowded theater' rule. IMO if you express yourself, no matter how offensive, and somebody gets violent, that person is the problem, not you.

Now before anyone starts, I do not want to burn a Koran, Im not a supporter of Rev. Wolfman Muttonchop and I would advise anyone planning on burning any Holy Book to refrain out of common decency, but my purpose in posting this is to ask this question: if we chip away at our right to express ourselves out of fear of violence, doesnt it set a very dangerous precedent? Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

Vessol
09-15-2010, 12:24 PM
I love how much of a slippery slope the "fire in a crowded theater" argument becomes. It can be pretty much used to ban everything.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 12:27 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

Vessol
09-15-2010, 12:28 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.


That would supersede the First Amendment which guarantees the right of expression. Not to mention it violates the inherant rights of man to life, freedom and property.

If I legally buy a cross, a Bible, a Qu'ran, anything I have the right to do anything I want to it. Whether it means pissing on it, burning it, or anything.

And what if I live in this local government and I don't agree with their "laws". Do I just leave it? How fair is that?

What if you lived in a local community that banned churches, would it be fair for me to tell you "Well if you don't like it, leave it"

Keep authoritarianism away from me please, no matter how good the intentions the ends never justify the means.

newyearsrevolution08
09-15-2010, 12:29 PM
I can burn any book I choose to, and those who read it can enjoy their copy. That is the point of our rights and freedoms.

you can't ban burning shit.

that is someone elses' religion not mine, same reason people burn the us flag in other countries, they don't respect it like we do however that is their damn right to do so.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 12:30 PM
That would supersede the First Amendment which guarantees the right of expression. Not to mention it violates the inherant rights of man to life, freedom and property.

If I legally buy a cross, a Bible, a Qu'ran, anything I have the right to do anything I want to it. Whether it means pissing on it, burning it, or anything.

the original intent and understanding of the 1st was a limitation on congress and only congress.

newyearsrevolution08
09-15-2010, 12:30 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

ok so ban cross burnings because it incites hate?

when was the last time you heard on the news

" the kkk struck again, burned crosses and killed minorities"

seriously funny how people think that some rights and freedoms are ok UNLESS they are personally against one.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2010, 12:31 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

There can be local ordinances against such things, yes.

low preference guy
09-15-2010, 12:32 PM
There can be local ordinances against such things, yes.

After incorporation? Do you know that the first amendment currently is applied to state governments as well?

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 12:32 PM
ok so ban cross burnings because it incites hate?

when was the last time you heard on the news

" the kkk struck again, burned crosses and killed minorities"

seriously funny how people think that some rights and freedoms are ok UNLESS they are personally against one.

As someone that truly understand how wonderful, and fragile freedom is, I can accept allowing local limitations to ensure that the concept of freedom survives.

Kludge
09-15-2010, 12:32 PM
Lol - might as well have just called the act "obscene" and declared it isn't protected by the 1st.

Ridiculous application.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2010, 12:34 PM
After incorporation? Do you know that the first amendment currently is applied to state governments as well?

Where did I say "state government"?

Nowhere.

Vessol
09-15-2010, 12:35 PM
As someone that truly understand how wonderful, and fragile freedom is, I can accept allowing local limitations to ensure that the concept of freedom survives.

And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

Should I submit to a bunch of local tyrants instead of a tyrant 100 miles away?

That's the same argument that the adherants to the Social Contract theory when you debate them about the Federal Government.

The only difference is the regional level.

Any law that one does not voluntarily submit to is unjust as long as one does not directly harm someone, limit their freedoms or harm their property.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 12:37 PM
And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

Should I submit to a bunch of local tyrants instead of a tyrant 100 miles away?

That's the same argument that the adherants to the Social Contract theory when you debate them about the Federal Government.

The only difference is the regional level.

Any law that one does not voluntarily submit to is unjust as long as one does not directly harm someone, limit their freedoms or harm their property.

unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

Vessol
09-15-2010, 12:39 PM
unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

I understand that working in conjunction within a community is essential, but the basis of valid moral laws is within the voluntary nature of them.

If community passes laws that I do not voluntarily agree to because I think they are stupid or immoral, what should I do about it.

Plus, how do you think valid laws of such communities should be passed? Through oligarchy or rule of majority?

Again I ask you, what if a few leaders on the local level decided that no churches could be built in your local community. What would be your reaction?

JustinTime
09-15-2010, 12:39 PM
unless you think you are strong enough to protect all of your freedoms without help, then you better learn to accept it.

How does simply burning a Koran take away anyones freedom? We have no freedom from being offended.

RedStripe
09-15-2010, 12:41 PM
Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

pcosmar
09-15-2010, 12:42 PM
Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

As it has ever been.

;)

Danke
09-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

No.

Jordan
09-15-2010, 12:45 PM
Lol - might as well have just called the act "obscene" and declared it isn't protected by the 1st.

Ridiculous application.

Obscenity actually has some judicial standing too.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 12:46 PM
I understand that working in conjunction within a community is essential, but the basis of valid moral laws is within the voluntary nature of them.

If community passes laws that I do not voluntarily agree to because I think they are stupid or immoral, what should I do about it.

This would depend on your conviction. I violate some. I follow others, and there are some things that would cause me relocate, and possibly even take up arms. :mad:


Plus, how do you think valid laws of such communities should be passed? Through oligarchy or rule of majority

If the principal behind removal of rights is to protect rights, then majority is the only way that makes sense.


Again I ask you, what if a few leaders on the local level decided that no churches could be built in your local community. What would be your reaction?

as an atheist, I would probably smile a little on the inside. :D

LibertyEagle
09-15-2010, 12:53 PM
And what if I don't agree with the local laws?

Either ya love it or leave it?

/

Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

Brian4Liberty
09-15-2010, 12:56 PM
the original intent and understanding of the 1st was a limitation on congress and only congress.

Huh? The Bill of Rights applies to all government at all levels.

Dr.3D
09-15-2010, 12:58 PM
So if my township decided to have "burn a kitten day" and I didn't want to participate, I should have to sell my home and move?

WaltM
09-15-2010, 01:03 PM
Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

took me a whole minute to get that.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 01:09 PM
Huh? The Bill of Rights applies to all government at all levels.

sure, 100+ years later.

but not when it was originally ratified.

Elwar
09-15-2010, 01:30 PM
Politicians talking about raising taxes sends me into a frenzy...

Vessol
09-15-2010, 01:32 PM
Yup. You certainly do.

That is what is meant by the saying.... vote with your feet. We were never supposed to be a one-size-fits-all country. I shouldn't be having to tell you this.

That's how it was supposed to be under the Confederalist system, but the Federalist system changed that and made it null and void. It was a good system of checks and balances, but in the end it is still immoral.

Just because that is the way the framers originally intended things does not make it moral. How is it moral for me to be forced to relocate under threat of violence or imprisonment because I disagree with a local law?

You're using the argument that the idolizers of the Social Contract use when justifying their actions. Both Socialists and Neo-Conservatives alike. Don't like the interventionalist and anti-free market government, you can just move to another country you know!

BFranklin
09-15-2010, 01:34 PM
I think people can burn the flag, the cross, the Bible, the Koran or whatever else they please. They can do what they want and make fools of themselves. Why would some person burning these things bother me? I wouldn't let it, I'd roll my eyes and thank God I live in a place where these things can be done.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 01:36 PM
That's how it was supposed to be under the Confederalist system, but the Federalist system changed that and made it null and void. It was a good system of checks and balances, but in the end it is still immoral.

Just because that is the way the framers originally intended things does not make it moral. How is it moral for me to be forced to relocate under threat of violence or imprisonment because I disagree with a local law?

You're using the argument that the idolizers of the Social Contract use when justifying their actions. Both Socialists and Neo-Conservatives alike. Don't like the interventionalist and anti-free market government, you can just move to another country you know!

you are surrounded by evil statists that embrace their immorality

Vessol
09-15-2010, 01:38 PM
you are surrounded by evil statists that embrace their immorality

The reason why taxation exists in the first place is so that people can steal the wealth from their neighbor without having to resort to violence on their part. How morale is that?

However many Statists, both here and around claim morality is the reason for so many things. It's a contradiction in that so many embrace the idea of morality yet fail to follow through with it.

Is it immoral for me to go to my neighbor, point a gun at them and to say "You can not ever burn a Qu'ran anymore! Never!. Is it moral for the government to do the same thing? Inconsistencies in morality are more common than warts on a old mans ass.

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 01:40 PM
I think people can burn the flag, the cross, the Bible, the Koran or whatever else they please. They can do what they want and make fools of themselves. Why would some person burning these things bother me? I wouldn't let it, I'd roll my eyes and thank God I live in a place where these things can be done.

I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

squarepusher
09-15-2010, 01:42 PM
I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

who cares about employers? This worker should be happy and collect his unemployment for 2 years imo, hell probably get a few million now though

Krugerrand
09-15-2010, 01:43 PM
This is what scares me:

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Sorry, Steve. Your rights are your rights - no matter how judges interpret laws.

Vessol
09-15-2010, 01:43 PM
I agree. And I think people can be free to picket, boycott, and take other voluntary actions to inflict financial harm on people that do such a thing.

Which leads us to this game of chicken. Knowing that others will be upset, and prone to picket and boycott, why should the employer be forced to also suffer from the financial blowback of actions taken by the employee?

A employer and an employee enter within a voluntary contract. If the employee violates this contract in any way or if in that contract is a clause that allows the employer to terminate the employee at any time. I would fully support if an employer fired an employee who burned a Qu'ran or something else if it potentially damaged his buisiness. If that is what you are talking about.

IF however people decide that the burner of the Qu'ran must have their door broken in and then be chained up and locked up for months for their "crime". Then no I would not support that.

Promontorium
09-15-2010, 02:10 PM
Certainly there are a lot of issues being thrown around here, but the justification for banning something because people don't take a shine to it is still unfounded. Nevermind your rights, as long as we're making shit up, do you believe if people vote to reinstate slavery that would be alright? If they vote to murder all children under 10?

If you think there's no federal establishment of supremacy for protecting rights, and such an arbitrary act as lighting fire to a piece of wood can be wholesale banned with literally no justification beyond authoritarianism or democratic vote, then you have defined no standards.

That is not a Republic you are describing. And it isn't even a voluntary system, because you give no quarter for rationality, if the first vote was to forbid movement, and the second vote was to commit mass murder, the victims would be criminals in your line of reasoning.

The idea of a republic is to accept that many things will be in flux, but some limitations on government exist. You say no limit should exist. By rejecting an all-encompassing standard, you must admit you have no standards. For if having a standard is a choice by the government, then it is never an absolute for the people.

JustinTime
09-15-2010, 02:36 PM
Should it be a crime for me to make a credible threat to kill you or your children?

Is burning a Koran a credible threat to harm anyone?

Live_Free_Or_Die
09-15-2010, 02:51 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

Because we'd all much rather live in a society where the first option is not freedom of expression but freedom to kill your opposition. Let's create a society where nobody ever needs to protest because they simply kill people they don't agree with.

LDA
09-15-2010, 03:34 PM
The first amendment protects the right to free speech. This is not simply a limitation on the federal government. This amendment, along with other amendments included in the bill of rights, apply to all governments within the United States.

PreDeadMan
09-15-2010, 03:37 PM
So if I buy a Koran... it's not my property? If i'm not allowed to destroy or deface it... how can it be my property? same with an american flag or <insert religious or nationalist symbol here>

Kludge
09-15-2010, 03:45 PM
So if I buy a Koran... it's not my property? If i'm not allowed to destroy or deface it... how can it be my property? same with an american flag or <insert religious or nationalist symbol here>

When you become a citizen of a nation, you forfeit all natural rights and are forced to struggle to keep as many rights (legal rights) as possible.

It isn't just Korans and this isn't something new.

You do not own your computer. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your gun. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your land. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your car. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your food. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

Everything we "own" is subject to the government's terms and conditions. They are the ultimate owners, for our own good, perhaps.

Dr.3D
09-15-2010, 03:46 PM
Well, I'm damned tired of being protected from myself.

tpreitzel
09-15-2010, 03:47 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

So says Justice Breyer claiming the 'fire in a crowded theater' rule. IMO if you express yourself, no matter how offensive, and somebody gets violent, that person is the problem, not you.

Now before anyone starts, I do not want to burn a Koran, Im not a support of Rev. Wolfman Muttonchop and I would advise anyone planning on burning any Holy Book to refrain out of common decency, but my purpose in posting this is to ask this question: if we chip away at our right to express ourselves out of fear of violence, doesnt it set a very dangerous precedent? Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

Well, so much for SCJ Breyer's intelligence, i.e. lack thereof. I can yell "fire" in a crowded theater all I want. The other stooges in the theater are responsible for their potentially irresponsible actions, i.e. trampling one another, etc. My words are simply words. FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! Damn it, FIRE Justice Breyer!

idirtify
09-15-2010, 04:01 PM
You DO NOT have the right to burn the Koran.

So says Justice Breyer claiming the 'fire in a crowded theater' rule. IMO if you express yourself, no matter how offensive, and somebody gets violent, that person is the problem, not you.



Breyer didn’t really say that at all. He only said the SC would probably come to a decision based on that concept over a series of cases (paraphrased).

phill4paul
09-15-2010, 04:07 PM
When you become a citizen of a nation, you forfeit all natural rights and are forced to struggle to keep as many rights (legal rights) as possible.

It isn't just Korans and this isn't something new.

You do not own your computer. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your gun. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your land. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your car. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your food. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

Everything we "own" is subject to the government's terms and conditions. They are the ultimate owners, for our own good, perhaps.

That clappy black-and-white Orson Wells clappy thingy. That I didn't cut-paste.

The one where he is black-and-white, and in a black-and-white tuxedo and he is in a seat and clapping. He appears to be really enthused.

That one.

torchbearer
09-15-2010, 04:12 PM
I like to see him try to stop me. :)

Vessol
09-15-2010, 04:26 PM
That clappy black-and-white Orson Wells clappy thingy. That I didn't cut-paste.

The one where he is black-and-white, and in a black-and-white tuxedo and he is in a seat and clapping. He appears to be really enthused.

That one.

http://uvtblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1233928590_citizen-kane-clapping1.gif

QueenB4Liberty
09-15-2010, 04:59 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

So you're okay with banning burning inanimate religious objects because it might offend someone? Didn't you say you were atheist?

LibertyVox
09-15-2010, 05:29 PM
I think the OP was well meaning but it would have been better received if it was posted as a positive suggestion. One can do it, but should one? Of course context is always important.

erowe1
09-15-2010, 05:35 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

So says Justice Breyer claiming the 'fire in a crowded theater' rule. IMO if you express yourself, no matter how offensive, and somebody gets violent, that person is the problem, not you.

Now before anyone starts, I do not want to burn a Koran, Im not a supporter of Rev. Wolfman Muttonchop and I would advise anyone planning on burning any Holy Book to refrain out of common decency, but my purpose in posting this is to ask this question: if we chip away at our right to express ourselves out of fear of violence, doesnt it set a very dangerous precedent? Effectively, the most violent groups sensitivites become law.

No need for your third paragraph. Breyer is out to lunch. The fact that he thinks that just makes me want to burn one more.

LibertyVox
09-15-2010, 05:36 PM
No need for your third paragraph. Breyer is out to lunch. The fact that he thinks that just makes me want to burn one more.

so you've already burned one? lol

jkr
09-15-2010, 05:38 PM
well now i GOTTA burn one...LOSERS!

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 06:20 PM
So you're okay with banning burning inanimate religious objects because it might offend someone? Didn't you say you were atheist?

it's more complicated then that.

What I said is I'm ok with concept of empowering local government to hinder the use of rights as that gives us all the best chance of creating an environment where the largest number of rights are capable of being defended.

I learned long ago that it doesn't matter what rights you are born with. If people don't want to fight to help you protect your rights, they don't stand a chance of surviving

ARealConservative
09-15-2010, 06:21 PM
so you've already burned one? lol

:D

Thrashertm
09-15-2010, 06:21 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.

You want to live somewhere with less Freedom. Hah, go live on a college campus!

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2010, 06:35 PM
As someone that truly understand how wonderful, and fragile freedom is, I can accept allowing local limitations to ensure that the concept of freedom survives.


You remind me of what Freud said in his essay on group psychology. He cited Gustave LeBon (noted for his works promoting racial superiority and how individuals become "dumb" when in crowds-the latter of which he makes valid observations about) in asserting that the individual's nature is "drowned" in the context of society. It's indeed sad that you accept such archaic European notions that diminish the individual in favor of "society". :(

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2010, 06:36 PM
You want to live somewhere with less Freedom. Hah, go live on a college campus!

lolz! ;)

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2010, 06:38 PM
I don't want to live in a society where people have the right to burn crosses and other crass things in an attempt to incite hatred and riots.

It doesn't have to be a federal issue, because the constitution doesn't have the power to deal with it, nor should it have the power to deal with it.

But local government can, and should have the power to handle this.


You already do. :( The government uses fear-mongering (though not quite so obvious) to manipulate the masses on a regular basis.

PreDeadMan
09-15-2010, 07:10 PM
When you become a citizen of a nation, you forfeit all natural rights and are forced to struggle to keep as many rights (legal rights) as possible.

It isn't just Korans and this isn't something new.

You do not own your computer. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your gun. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your land. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your car. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

You do not own your food. You may not do with it as you please. Improper use will lead to confiscation.

Everything we "own" is subject to the government's terms and conditions. They are the ultimate owners, for our own good, perhaps.

I understand that government can take away our property or treasures without a reason.... the funny part is where do they get the moral power to RULE over me? take away my property... i refuse to participate in this idiotic corrupt system voting is a sham whoever gets into office government always slips in.

QueenB4Liberty
09-15-2010, 07:24 PM
it's more complicated then that.

What I said is I'm ok with concept of empowering local government to hinder the use of rights as that gives us all the best chance of creating an environment where the largest number of rights are capable of being defended.

I learned long ago that it doesn't matter what rights you are born with. If people don't want to fight to help you protect your rights, they don't stand a chance of surviving

But you don't have a right not to be offended.

hillbilly123069
09-15-2010, 07:44 PM
I have to post a new path for this conversation. After listening to Hannity yesterday(9/14) on the radio with his 2 guests, the korn needs to be examined a little closer. A commandment to lie until #'s are sufficient to start a war against ALL non believers????
1 woman on the show was headline on al kida's top site 3 times in the last 6 months.
Both were in hiding and agreed that it's only a matter of time b4 they're dead, and that the korn had to be exposed.
Yes I said korn because Jesus is the only begotten son of God Himself. I have NO respect for the deception that is islam.

Kludge
09-15-2010, 07:59 PM
I understand that government can take away our property or treasures without a reason.... the funny part is where do they get the moral power to RULE over me? take away my property... i refuse to participate in this idiotic corrupt system voting is a sham whoever gets into office government always slips in.

In that case, you own any Koran you can keep and you can do whatever you want with it until you're no longer able to resist the occupying government -- But... it'll probably be a short life.

erowe1
09-15-2010, 08:13 PM
so you've already burned one? lol

No. I meant it makes me want to do it more, meaning more than I already want to do it. I've been itching to lately.

BlackTerrel
09-15-2010, 08:39 PM
I have to post a new path for this conversation. After listening to Hannity yesterday(9/14) on the radio with his 2 guests, the korn needs to be examined a little closer. A commandment to lie until #'s are sufficient to start a war against ALL non believers????
1 woman on the show was headline on al kida's top site 3 times in the last 6 months.
Both were in hiding and agreed that it's only a matter of time b4 they're dead, and that the korn had to be exposed.
Yes I said korn because Jesus is the only begotten son of God Himself. I have NO respect for the deception that is islam.

Was the username hillbilly123068 taken?

PreDeadMan
09-15-2010, 09:48 PM
In that case, you own any Koran you can keep and you can do whatever you want with it until you're no longer able to resist the occupying government -- But... it'll probably be a short life.


Of course I can't go up against the government a gigantic coercive violent monopoly. If it wants something and it doesn't get it FORCE will be used. If you don't comply to its wishes even though it's CLEARLY immoral... FORCE will be used.

Trigonx
09-15-2010, 09:52 PM
I never thought of burning any book in general in my life. But now, after hearing "i do not have the right" to burn some book, I kind of want to.

Pericles
09-15-2010, 10:21 PM
I never thought of burning any book in general in my life. But now, after hearing "i do not have the right" to burn some book, I kind of want to.

Sam Adams would be proud of you.

hillbilly123069
09-15-2010, 10:49 PM
Was the username hillbilly123068 taken?
My username is the same everywhere you go. I'm easy to find if you look. Are you ashamed of what you feel or believe?

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 05:58 AM
Breyer didn’t really say that at all. He only said the SC would probably come to a decision based on that concept over a series of cases (paraphrased).

Would probably come to that decision? Well golly, thanks for making me feel so much better.

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 06:03 AM
I think the OP was well meaning but it would have been better received if it was posted as a positive suggestion. One can do it, but should one? Of course context is always important.

When government gets involved, the "should you?" question is out the window. I dont even think you should, but regardless the government has no business telling you that.

Its not the Koran, Muslims, or any of that attention grabbing stuff so popular in the media that irks me about this. Its the idea that our right to expression should be restricted by government because it may offend violent people.

I know it sounds like a strech, but I can see a day when government makes all sorts of speech illegal by using agent provocateurs to cause violence.

ARealConservative
09-16-2010, 06:50 AM
You remind me of what Freud said in his essay on group psychology. He cited Gustave LeBon (noted for his works promoting racial superiority and how individuals become "dumb" when in crowds-the latter of which he makes valid observations about) in asserting that the individual's nature is "drowned" in the context of society. It's indeed sad that you accept such archaic European notions that diminish the individual in favor of "society". :(

you remind me of every high school/college libertarian I have ever met.

sophomoric thinking works great when life is so simple.

ARealConservative
09-16-2010, 06:57 AM
But you don't have a right not to be offended.

in context, your response makes no sense.

never did I say a thing about being offended.

it seems like you don't have a clue what I am saying but felt the need to reply anyway

hillbilly123069
09-16-2010, 08:00 AM
When government gets involved, the "should you?" question is out the window. I dont even think you should, but regardless the government has no business telling you that.

Its not the Koran, Muslims, or any of that attention grabbing stuff so popular in the media that irks me about this. Its the idea that our right to expression should be restricted by government because it may offend violent people.

I know it sounds like a strech, but I can see a day when government makes all sorts of speech illegal by using agent provocateurs to cause violence.

How has anyone overlooked the fact that the more the fed govt gets involved with everyday events, the worse our situation gets?

Feenix566
09-16-2010, 08:22 AM
If the federal government wants to get into the business of stopping people from doing things that might provoke muslim hatred of the United States, they could start by banning drone attacks in Pakistan.

Travlyr
09-16-2010, 08:44 AM
If I buy a Koran in an auction with a bunch of other stuff, I have the right to throw it out along with other stuff I did not want. That is my right.
What is wrong is for me to call Hannity and tell him about it so he can make a big deal of it to perpetuate hatred and war.

idirtify
09-16-2010, 11:43 AM
Would probably come to that decision? Well golly, thanks for making me feel so much better.

Sorry for the not-perfectly-explicit wording. Breyer did not seem to be saying which way the decision would or should probably come out; but only that the question of legality based on the concept of “yelling fire in theatre” would probably come up in future cases. That says nothing about which way he thinks it would or should go. It’s really just a fancy way of saying “yes, it’s a question”.

Vessol
09-16-2010, 12:13 PM
you remind me of every high school/college libertarian I have ever met.

sophomoric thinking works great when life is so simple.

I share heavenlyboy's thoughts and opinions on this matter.

I do not live simply. I've grown up fairly rough, I was homeless for a couple months when I was 16. Currently I am struggling with just affording a meal a day. I personally enjoy the challenge and living fully independently on my own. I'm attending college full time while fully supporting myself working 30 hours over the weekends.

I find the fact that you think that those whom believe in individualism are just "sophomoric thinkers living the simple live" VERY insulting.

These beliefs while more developed as I've gotten older and studied, have always been at the core of my morality system. That what you earn by your own sweat is yours and that you are your own ruler.

Plus you again make just another Ad hominem attack. You attack the person instead of attacking their argument or idea, which is actually against the rules on this forum if you didn't know.

Warrior_of_Freedom
09-16-2010, 12:30 PM
I'm getting sick of all this crap. It just makes me want to make a bonfire out of every religious text in existence.

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 02:48 PM
Sorry for the not-perfectly-explicit wording. Breyer did not seem to be saying which way the decision would or should probably come out; but only that the question of legality based on the concept of “yelling fire in theatre” would probably come up in future cases. That says nothing about which way he thinks it would or should go. It’s really just a fancy way of saying “yes, it’s a question”.

It shouldnt be a question at all. Its ridiculous to even consider it.

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 02:51 PM
I share heavenlyboy's thoughts and opinions on this matter.

I do not live simply. I've grown up fairly rough, I was homeless for a couple months when I was 16. Currently I am struggling with just affording a meal a day. I personally enjoy the challenge and living fully independently on my own. I'm attending college full time while fully supporting myself working 30 hours over the weekends.

I find the fact that you think that those whom believe in individualism are just "sophomoric thinkers living the simple live" VERY insulting.

These beliefs while more developed as I've gotten older and studied, have always been at the core of my morality system. That what you earn by your own sweat is yours and that you are your own ruler.

Plus you again make just another Ad hominem attack. You attack the person instead of attacking their argument or idea, which is actually against the rules on this forum if you didn't know.

That, and the fact that he can't find his caps key, makes him calling you a sophomoric thinker LOLworthy.

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 02:52 PM
If the federal government wants to get into the business of stopping people from doing things that might provoke muslim hatred of the United States, they could start by banning drone attacks in Pakistan.

Amen to that.

JustinTime
09-16-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm getting sick of all this crap. It just makes me want to make a bonfire out of every religious text in existence.

I can relate, but thats not really my point, its not Islam or even religion but the idea the law should criminalize saying/doing things that make others threaten violence.

It should be the other way around, the law should protect you from the violent types.

We live in crazy times.

QueenB4Liberty
09-16-2010, 05:56 PM
in context, your response makes no sense.

never did I say a thing about being offended.

it seems like you don't have a clue what I am saying but felt the need to reply anyway

No, there isn't anything wrong with burning a religious book, unless it isn't yours. We should ban things just because they might cause violence? (actually it'll just offend people so much they will react in a violent manner). That's absurd.

free1
09-17-2010, 03:12 PM
If you download it and then delete it, is that the same?

I could set it up to automatically do that 20,000 time a day. Would that help the cause?

iPhone; "there's an ap for that" :)