Should There Be A Punishment For Burning The Quran?

I take back any negative thing I may have posted about you in the past. You are an F'n genius. I guarantee you could find VC for something like this, even in today's crappy money market. Some would buy it just to be able to wipe their ass with the Qu'ran.

 

I think it should be strictly punished, not only burning the Holy Qur'an but burning every book in this world is an really big idiot thing a man with his brains in the head can do. From a book you can learn things, you can read it use it for good and then you can give to a library and others can read it, books aren't made for burning, you can go and buy wood or coal to burn but not books. It's a really stupid thing a human does! Especially burning Quran when it is a Holy book for Muslims. Don't be such a dork to burn books, read them or leave them in the right place so others can read.

 

I think quran toilet paper can be thought of as an expression of freedom of speech. This was interesting (I thought): Muslim Facebook Boycott Protests 'koran toilet paper'. It is an article about a Facebook page called Koran Toilet Paper Roll. There was another Facebook account for Islam that threatened to boycott Facebook, and now if you go to the Koran Toilet Paper page, you just see a message saying it's been hacked - and it's just information about islam.

What I find more disturbing than quran toilet paper, is the inability to allow freedom of speech and thought. Like the idea that someone should be killed for burning a quran...

 

Inciting hatred (and there can be no other reason for what you describe) is neither freedom of speech nor thought, because the end result is it encompasses an act not conducive with freedom of speech or thought.

 

I was going to reply negative things about you on the last thread, but I really like a good compliment even though sarcasm is in the mix. But very funny

There's a market for it, if that was made after 911 someone would be a billionaire by now. Even today I guarantee it that it would sell. Reason as to why I wont do it, is because of that damn Fatwa, just hate to have my throat slash while rich choking on my own blood. alah ak bar.

 

In that post where this question is, you quoted 2 sentences of mine. Look at the 2nd sentence and maybe this will answer your ... not so smart, yet again ... question.

And, just for the probable case that you didn't get it from the text:
I'm against burning of books even if books are pure evil. Its a principle.
The reasons for this are a bit complicated for your intellect and reading comprehension abilities so u'll have to excuse me if I skip it.

 

Come on, it's a digital age, try Amazon Kindle instead, lets throw them in fires and dance like gypsies.

Making books causes a great destruction on the environment. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trees take the carbon dioxide CO 2 from the atmosphere and use it in the process of photosynthesis. Excess CO 2 , principally from the burning of fossil fuels, is considered the primary cause of global warming. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Burning it maybe not a good idea, but making them a toilet paper is

 

So my idea isn't original? a crap! If they make koran toilet paper I would buy it and use it every day, I will even wipe my neighbors ass with it for fun.

 

You never mentioned "pure evil" in your previous post, you said you was against burning books because "it's terrible", the follow up question was "even if it's evil?", then your answer was "I covered it check sentence 2", which you didn't which makes you sound like a moron.

I know why, your an Atheist. If you said "pure evil" books should be burnt then the Talmud/Torah would be first to burnt but you have a fetish for the Talmud and the Torah

So feel free to skip it.

Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

 

Toopac - I'm not sure where you're coming from. Your initial reaction and vote, was that no one should be punished for burning the quran, then you edit that to say "as long as the act is not designed to create hatred." Then with an additional disclaimer saying, "Inciting hatred (and there can be no other reason for what you describe) is neither freedom of speech nor thought, because the end result is it encompasses an act not conducive with freedom of speech or thought." At this point, I'm really not sure what you think.

It sounds like you're now saying people should be punished for burning the quran.

What I believe is that we should be able to express how we feel without fear. "Inciting hatred" is a phrase easily abused to silence critics, and in doing so, can actually prevent meaningful communication. In reality, there is no one that can incite hatred within you, except for you. (sarcasm)One option is we can silence everyone that disagrees with us. We could close down the Stormfront forums immediately, execute holocaust deniers, ban books with "dangerous" hateful ideas. Look at this, this is worrisome - a clown hating site. What did clowns ever do to deserve this kind of wrath? What a shame. A little prison time may be in order for this webmaster. (sarcasm)

The quran has many quotes that would qualify as inciting hatred. In fact, here are some specific phrases that have been used from the quran by islamic militants to justify terrorist acts:

O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is. Quran 9:73

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust. Quran 5:51

And fight them until there’s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah. Quran 8:39

Therefore, would you say that quran quotes should not be allowed to be spoken out loud? If we as a society decide to ban the inciting of hate, all these hateful religious texts have GOT to go! Now. Who should be responsible to interpret what hate is - so that we can punish everyone who dares to incite our definition of hate? I HATE blasphemy laws, hate, hate, hate them.

I don't believe in laws for punishment for "inciting hate" - only for inciting violence, when there is an imminent threat.

Funny.

 

If you cannot understand this then let me help you.

As a proper Atheist (not a fake Atheist or agnostic), all the religious books to me are just that "books", being a book it's no different nor means anything more to me than 'Anne Colters latest release', so if one wants to burn the book to symbolize there objection to 'Anne Colter' or political Islam that is fine.

As far as I'm concern The Lord, Allah, Yahweh all suck - Can you say the same? or even ChaosTrivia. I doubt it.

Here's the pretext to understand the next points.

When I say 'incite hatred' (I'm not using the legal definition, I mean in real terms), if you burn a Torah in front of a Synagogue, a Quaran in front of a Mosque, a Bible in front of a Church that's designed to show your hatred and it is designed to inflame and creates hatred back, it's counter productive and is not free speech nor is it free thought. Speech is speech and thought is thought. So proper criticism would be by using free speech.

I didn't add anything additional, I replied to your post saying "wiping your ass on a Quaran is the same as burning it"

Wiping your ass on a Torah, Quaran, Bible or even Anne Colters latest release shows perfectly that your dealing with someone 'abnormal', after all who would want to wipe there ass on any book? and for what purpose? I can see that as only being designed to hate and create hate it. Theres no purpose to it.

That's like offering Bacon sandwiches to those leaving Mosque and Synagogues to show them your disgust at primitive religions that refuse to eat such tasty meat and they believe stupid things like "non Jews are pigs".

Agreed.

The KKK should be allowed to say what they like, Neo-Nazis, bigots and the religious and non religious.

A good example of freedom of speech being suppressed is the fact that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries.

 

As a "proper atheist", why would you say they suck? That is most definitely implying that they exist.

This thread is about burning the quran, and about the video on YouTube as a political protest. The question was "Should There Be A Punishment For Burning The Quran?"

You said, "No, of course not!"

You had the choice of, "No, but I think it's a terrible thing to do." but you didn't choose that, you didn't choose a fine, jail time, or the death sentence. In the context of this thread, this protestor from Iran posted a video to YouTube- your reaction was that no he shouldn't get any punishment whatsoever. I still have the same question, do you think he should get punishment or not? Now, you're trying to bring in new scenario - a guy takes a quran to the front of a mosque and lights it on fire. For that, there is an element of possible violence, because he may start the mosque on fire. That's a little different - the imam should probably call the police. If you could though, answer the original question about the scenario in the context of this thread.

No. Are you just making up stuff as you go along? Tell me you didn't just place "wiping your ass on a Quaran is the same as burning it" in quotes to pretend as if I actually said that?!...

You replied to my post here, that said "What I find more disturbing than quran toilet paper, is the inability to allow freedom of speech and thought. Like the idea that someone should be killed for burning a quran..."

 

Well I was going to say "fuck The Lord, Allah, Yahweh" but to be a little politer I chose to say "they suck".

Not one of these things/beings whatever you class them as exists "The Lord, Allah or Yahweh" do not exist.

You could equally extract from my previous quote of me saying "The Lord, Allah, Yahweh - all suck", that I believe all 3 are real (which religion is that? Atheism?).

So now we are down to the 'nitty-griity':

Can you say "fuck The Lord, Allah, Yahweh"? or even our Atheist ChaosTrivia?

I'm not some person (like some here that has ulterior motives) that pose as agnostics/Atheists/Muslims or Christians, what I say I mean the answer has given "No, of course not!".

Why should it be an offence?

What I'm trying to show you is this, there's a fine line between hate and criticism esp as you propose them. Criticizing Islam, Judaism, Christianity the Gods/prophets is fine, talking about these and discussing them also fine.

I draw the line at clear hatred, wiping your ass on a Quaran has what purpose? (you failed to answer this). It ridiculous, as ridiculous as:

Wiping your ass on the Torah
Wiping your ass on Talmud
Wiping your ass on Bible
Shitting in Kippahs
Wiping your ass on Burkas
Wiping your ass on Anne Colters book
Shitting in Rasta hats

For three of the above you'll be called "anti-semetic" even though it's not illegal, so what's "wiping your ass on the Quaran"?

You voted in the poll the same option that I did to burning the Quaran in a protest over political Islam "No, of course not!" - IMO that's valid.

You then said:

I then said:

Basically it is hate, even if you cannot see that, it's not "speech" or "thought", it's not even a normal form of protest, it's designed to hate only. You would of been better off saying it's "freedom of expression".

Even this should not be illegal, but pointing out that it's hatred is not illegal either

 

NO.

I said:

Then you said:

Then you make an attempt to misquote what I said:

Therefore you are suggesting that those are my words by quoting, and I don't appreciate that. Again, what you were replying to was my statement "What I find more disturbing than quran toilet paper, is the inability to allow freedom of speech and thought. Like the idea that someone should be killed for burning a quran..." which is evident here. In any case, I never even said the words "wiping your ass on a Quaran is the same as burning it". This is not the only discussion we've been in, where it seems after the first few posts the entire conversation needs to be repeated over and over for clarity.

No, thank you. I don't choose to use that type of language. Further, I'm agnostic. Though, you may certainly exercise your freedom of speech in doing so.

 

Like where?
It's a book. If people want to burn a book that's their choice... at least in a free and democratic society.
Shit... I just seized on the nub of the problem!

 

For clarity you did, even if not quoted exactly, say both are freedom of speech or thought.

1) Your vote (says burning the Quaran is fine "freedom of speech or thought").

2) In your quote:

IE "freedom of speech or thought", if you think I challenged the latter your wrong.

3) I didn't add anything additional to my first post, I replied to your post as you accept.

4) I replied to your post saying "wiping your ass on a Quaran is the same as burning it" (which was a "sic").

5) Do I have to make a separate post to ask "what is the purpose of wiping your ass on the Quaran or saying it"?

You can say suck? or all are stupid? all are great?

If you believe saying something bad against "these things" (as an agnostic) is wrong, maybe you are not that 'agnostic'.

Your probably having difficulty choosing between Allah and Yahoo?

I think we can safely rule Allah out lol, so you just think Yahoo might not exist?

Would you mind if I borrowed your threads idea? to see what opinions are on other books? It would be interesting to compare results.

 

for the 3rd time, my quote was:

The keyword is highlighted and enlarged for a deficient mind.
You know the meaning of the English word, "ALL"? "all" means - "all". not "some". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all
I also never mentioned "cartoons for children". So maybe I think that burning children cartoon books is great? damn, I had to mention it.
waste of time.

 

Being an Atheist Chaostrivial, Can you say Yahweh does not exist and the idea of Yahweh is stupid?

Your answer Chaostrivial to the question I posed is circular, if you can't see that you must be stupid, but I suspect not.

 

Yahweh does not exist and the idea of Yahweh is stupid.

And your stupidity is beyond my ability to find English words, if I have to explain to you 3 times what
"My answer [that I think its terrible to burn books] is valid for all books, not just the quran"
means.
It is really not the most philosophically complicated sentence I have managed to write in my lifetime.

 

It's circular esp with the follow up question that I gave, which was "why is it terrible to burn the book if the book is pure evil?" then you say "see what I said earlier it's terrible". Do you know why it's circular? because it doesn't answer "why you believe it is terrible", how you reach the conclusion?

A proper answer would be like this:

Even though I think it's "pure evil" and the followers of it are following this "pure evil", I do think it's terrible to stop "pure evil".