Sharia law prohibits burning the Quran. Some US Senators want to enact Sharia in part...at least during this time of national emergency, with bipartisan support none the less.

Don't you mean Senators want to disallow the 1st Amendment?

The 1st Amendment protects arson?

As for the OP, does this mean that if there is any coincident law between the US code and Sharia that the US already has 'enact[ed] Sharia in part'? I believe that both take a dim view of murder and theft. The punishments differ (but I'm guessing that they would for this particular measure).

I'm not sure I am prepared to defend people who burn books. Books are precious things, whatever their content, and burning them up is the hallmark of evil, in my opinion.

*Snort* Try the arson argument with flag burning.

Creepy pastor-man isn't trying to cement a facist regime...he's looking for attention. Same as flag burners. The worst thing you can do to them is ignore them.

Let me run this up the flagpole and see who salutes. Rather than punishing the scripture-burners (which punishment they would revel in and thrive upon) instead prohibit any media broadcast. No cameras at the event. Any uploads to YouTube shut down. Any rebroadcast of camera captures punished with fines and loss of access. Sounds extreme no? Curtailing of the press is a serious step. But like Sen Graham says, "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

Look, either law (my notional one or the one being bruited about) is completely unenforceable anyhow. Millions of copies of the Koran, billions of cigarette lighters, billions of cameras, hundreds of anonymous ways to get whatever you want on the internet...I have a pretty good idea what would happen to hundreds of copies of the Koran if you make a literal federal case of the burning of it.

I respect Islam's reverence for its scriptures. I respect freedom of speech more.

I have little respect for stunts...one of which has obviously begat another.

Danivon, you are smarter than that. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with arson. Nice try with the sidestep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDoBvG1HoI

What other free speech do you not mind being infringed?

PC is right. Ignoring a putz like this makes him go away. I liken this to the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ". It was blasphemous and offensive. Did I go to the streets or shoot an atheist? I ignored it, and it went away.

Guys,

Any law passed to make Quran burning illegal doesn't just go against the free speech aspects of the First. It would also implicate the current judicial interpretations of the Establishment Clause aspects. I can't see how it would not be government favoring one religion (or group of religions) over another. Will the law ban burning just the Quran or all Holy Books? If it is just the Quran that is clearly Unconstitutional. If it is all holy books, how will that be defined? The amount of ligitation any potential law would create could be astronomical.

Honestly, having watched the two clips, neither was a serious call for action. Rather, both were political non-answers of the sort given when a response is required so you have to make it look like you considering doing something but really have no intentions in that direction.

Got to disagree with Dan on this one. Quran burning may well be provocative and insulting to Muslims, and it's certainly not something I'd choose to take part in or endorse, but some things are too important to legislate away. Religions should in no way, shape or form be entitled to special protection from the law. Nobody has the right not to be offended, and certainly nobody has the right to demand that the law of the land punishes those who offend them, especially if they're asking to be treated as a special case just because of the particular irrational superstition that they adhere to.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0 ... han-riots/

This report suggests that it was Karzai that took an event that received little coverage and brought it to the attention of the Afghan public.

Neal Anderth wrote:This report suggests that it was Karzai that took an event that received little coverage and brought it to the attention of the Afghan public.

That is pretty much what I have read as well. That nobody, even in this country, had heard of the event until Karzai commented on it.

Free speech must be protected, even when it may hurt.
I don't want to see Qurans burned, I don't want to see bibles burned, I do not want to see catcher in the Rye burned, I certainly do not want to see Penthouse magazine burned, hell I don't want to see the flag burned either. But these actions should be legal (aside from possible pollution and zoning laws?) and it can hurt to see these things burned but that's free speech for you. Myself, I think the comment was no call for some sort of law to be enacted but rather a discussion that ended up appearing that way.

Sassenach wrote:Got to disagree with Dan on this one. Quran burning may well be provocative and insulting to Muslims, and it's certainly not something I'd choose to take part in or endorse, but some things are too important to legislate away. Religions should in no way, shape or form be entitled to special protection from the law. Nobody has the right not to be offended, and certainly nobody has the right to demand that the law of the land punishes those who offend them, especially if they're asking to be treated as a special case just because of the particular irrational superstition that they adhere to.

Agree 100% with this caveat: I think malicious mischief against churches/temples/mosques has to be treated differently because of the proclivity toward religious intolerance and discrimination.

That said, who is talking about Iran seizing and burning 600 Bibles? Where are the riots? Why aren't Christians rounding up Muslims and committing violence?

A book made of paper was burned. In response, adherents of a "religion of peace" killed as many as 321, including 2 who were beheaded.

Paper . . . people . . . I see a difference.

Steve, you may well be right that there's a greater proclivity for religiously inspired violence in Islam than we see with other faiths at present, but I don't really see how it's germane to this subject. I'm not one of those types who always respond to that kind of shot by saying "yeah, but look at what Catholics were doing 400 years ago" but at the same time I don't think you can totally ignore the fact that similar atrocities have been carried out by adherents of all faiths at one time or another and wherever that kind of behaviour rears its head it should be condemned and not pandered to.

I don't really agree with your caveat either. The problem is that religious groups are not the only groups that are subject to intolerance and discrimination. If we accept that churches and mosques are a special case then logically we'd have to make a load more special cases within the law, which is a dangerous road to go down. Although in fairness I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'malicious mischief' anyway. If you mean vandalism and criminal damage then that should obviously be punished, but I'm not convinced it should be punished any more harshly just becauase the target was a church, not unless it could be proven that there was a clear intent to incite further violence.

Sassenach wrote:Steve, you may well be right that there's a greater proclivity for religiously inspired violence in Islam than we see with other faiths at present, but I don't really see how it's germane to this subject. I'm not one of those types who always respond to that kind of shot by saying "yeah, but look at what Catholics were doing 400 years ago" but at the same time I don't think you can totally ignore the fact that similar atrocities have been carried out by adherents of all faiths at one time or another and wherever that kind of behaviour rears its head it should be condemned and not pandered to.

In the 21st Century, murdering people because any book is burned is inexcusable. Feel free to name the last such incident in Christendom.

I don't really agree with your caveat either. The problem is that religious groups are not the only groups that are subject to intolerance and discrimination. If we accept that churches and mosques are a special case then logically we'd have to make a load more special cases within the law, which is a dangerous road to go down. Although in fairness I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'malicious mischief' anyway. If you mean vandalism and criminal damage then that should obviously be punished, but I'm not convinced it should be punished any more harshly just becauase the target was a church, not unless it could be proven that there was a clear intent to incite further violence.

It already is the law in CA. When you consider the racial overtones of churches burning in our history, maybe the reasoning becomes more clear?

In the 21st Century, murdering people because any book is burned is inexcusable. Feel free to name the last such incident in Christendom.

Sure, and you won't find me trying to excuse it. I'm wary of reading too much into the actions of a fairly small minority of people, but I'm more than happy to unreservedly condemn that kind of behaviour. I'm also fully aware that Islam tends to be worse than most other faiths in this regard and have already stated as such, so I'm not really sure what the argument is really.

It already is the law in CA. When you consider the racial overtones of churches burning in our history, maybe the reasoning becomes more clear?

Perhaps. I can see the reasoning but I'm still not convinced that vandalism of churches (or mosques) should be treated as a special case within the law. These things should be assessed on a case by case basis.

We have hate crime laws and while I'm not completely behind them (I tend to agree with Sass here) they do not apply to the act of burning books, the book burning itself is not a crime. Vandalizing the church/synagogue/mosque is however a crime and subject to those stricter hate crime laws.