DWOC's International Burn a Koran Day

It has been transliterated in several different forms, your example being one of them. I believe that the most "accepted" as far as beliefs/accuracy goes is "Qur'an" but I could be mistaken.

lol @ Koran as in Korea.. where were you going with that?

You are correct. Qur'an is the most faithful transliteration for the Arabic title, which means "recitation" in English. Transliterating Arabic into English is difficult since there is not a one-to-one correspondence between sounds. Hence the many versions of English spellings.

Like most people i think that this is pretty dumb just because its disrespectful and doesn’t benefit anyone. Like even more people i also think its EXTREMELY stupid because many Muslims are literally going to go nuts. But i started thinking about it in just the sense that its going to cause Muslims to go nuts, and I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it now.

This kind of stuff is going to keep happening no matter if we agree with it or not. There were the Cartoon Riots a few years back, there was Draw Mohammad Day last year, there’s Burn a Koran Day this year, there is going to be something next year and so on. I honestly don’t think it will ever stop, people do these things because they know it will get a big reaction, because it the Western Culture’s eyes murdering someone or suicide bombing people over an act of expression like this is considered overreacting. But in many Muslim’s eyes that isn’t overreacting. So whats going to happen? Are we going to make special rules and laws about being extra sensitive with regards to Muslims? Are Muslims going to realize that their overacting?

Here are a bunch of quotes from around the world condemning the burring, including 2 from people that Westerns view as crazy people:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/09/florida.quran.reactions/ (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/09/florida.quran.reactions/)

A spokesman for the Taliban in Afghanistan tells CNN: "If in Florida they were to burn the Quran, we will target any Christians, even if they are innocent, because the Quran is our holy book and we do not want someone to burn our holy book."

A senior Iranian Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi Golpayegani, condemned the plan to burn the Quran and called for the arrest of Jones, head of the Dove World Outreach Center, according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency. Should such an "inhumane incident take place in America, the U.S. government and President Obama will be held responsible," he said, according to the report.

The above messages are irrational in Westerns’ minds. Honestly I dont think interacting with fundamentalist Muslims is ever going to work unless one of us changes our values. And I don’t think that’s going to happen in any of our lifetimes. I don’t think there is any common ground between are values.

So I guess im not sure how I feel about it because I think its important that we realize that we are not going to eventually just get along, that one day we can agree to disagree, that we can both have our cake and eat it too. Dumb people like this pastor are going to continue to do things to incite Muslims, I feel like we just need to accept that as part of life. There’s nothing we can really do about it or more importantly should want to do about it because that means compromising our values and principles.

Not all speech is protected speech per unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire). I am not convinced this pastor has the "right" to burn the Qur'an.

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" and was arrested. Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.

For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

The high court ruled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States):

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Unlike the Chaplinsky case above, DWOC's action is not directed at a single individual. Generally, I believe ('cause I don't have the time to research right now) it is okay to make hateful statements (for ex. burning the flag) as long as it is not aimed at an individual.

As I understand it, and as demonstrated by the case you cite, hateful speech akin to "fighting words" is not protected i.e. where someone is using hate speech to specifically provoke an individual or defined group. In Chaplinsky, the individual was not being charged for what he said in the public square, but, rather for the remarks directed at the arresting officer.

Holding that the statute's use of the term "offensive speech" was not vague or overbroad, the SC said (quoting,an earlier decision):

"The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . [S]uch words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace."

CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U. S. 568 :: Volume 315 :: 1942 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez (http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html)

DWOC's actions are hateful, but - I believe - unless they create an actual breach of the peace or are an attempt to incite an imminent (read immediate and actual - like yelling fire in a crowded theater) breach of the peace, they are protected.

Not all speech is protected speech per unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire). I am not convinced this pastor has the "right" to burn the Qur'an.



The high court ruled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States):Couple issues.
1) I believe the DWOC will be doing this on private property.
2) If Flag-burning and Bible burning are protected speech, Quran burning must be also.

From CBS: Quran Burning Legal? Protest Possibly Protected - CBS Evening News - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/eveningnews/main6846995.shtml)

I dont agree with the building of the mosque near ground zero, but burning Korans is truly an act of hatred. This guy is a complete fool.

Couple issues.
1) I believe the DWOC will be doing this on private property.
2) If Flag-burning and Bible burning are protected speech, Quran burning must be also.

From CBS: Quran Burning Legal? Protest Possibly Protected - CBS Evening News - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/eveningnews/main6846995.shtml)

I think flag burning is a little bit different in that it is mostly done to protest the government though if someone is burning it at a Vets conference you bet it falls under "obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words' those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and not protected speech.

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.

It's a community center with a prayer room, not a mosque. And the way some people talk you'd think a theme park reenacting planes flying into buildings was being built. Not sure I'll ever understand the connection between building this center and burning a holy book.

That's b/c you're a rational human being. Unfortunately for the (I believe) vast majority of rational, truth seeking, religious individuals, a large segment of people warp religious concepts to their own hateful, irrational way of thinking (and BB - don't kid yourself, if "religion" didn't exist these same irrational individuals would find some other way to bond and group themselves in order to justify their killing of people different than themselves or whatever hateful agenda they came up. You know - like marxism).

Two of my favorite post 9-11 Articles from the Onion really make the point so well:

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/)

Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell,1445/)

Truthfully, in my opinion, that issue of the Onion was their absolute finest hour. It is well worth a reread as we approach Saturday: Issue 3734 - 09.26.2001 | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/issue/3734/)

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.Legally.....these guys probably don't care, but reality is once they burn those Qurans they put a target on their backs and will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. I hope they think it's worth it.

I think flag burning is a little bit different in that it is mostly done to protest the government though if someone is burning it at a Vets conference you bet it falls under "obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words' those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and not protected speech.

If they are burning the Qur'an at thier private property then I think they're fine.

I say most of the flag burnings I've seen on TV was against the US and they want us all dead.