Is burning the Qur'an even legal, according to the Constitution? Is it covered under the 1st Amendment?
The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that burning a cross is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion.
Isn't burning the Qur'an a similar action?
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.
no were in this does it say anything about harmful action, it says the the "Government will make no law obstructing Religion, speech, press, or peaceable assembly. and it says nothing more?
You are confusing legal right with common action. The burn would have to happen, then a suit filed and the Preacher would have to prove that burning the book was part of His religious practices. and or an exercise in Free speech meaning he would have to show proof that each time he practiced his belief he burned a Koran as a common practice of that religion. and or he practices free speech by burning the book. Not just one isolated incident.
The Only laws he would break is if he failed to get a Burn permit!!!!
that's why O'Conner shot down the cross burning, because it was not practicing religion, or exercising freedom of speech, it was an act of physical burning.
The Court considers 3 points when deciding a case.
1. Laws on the Books that say specifically it is illegal or not
2. Action of the party; is this common accepted practice and how long has that been that way
3. What is the standard accepted practices of society.
In other words do all other Churches of this Sect of religious belief practice the same.
before it could even get that far, it would have to be proven
that the Burn harmed an objecting party...physical, mental, monetary harm....
once that's established the court will hear it, then and only then can you say it is legal or illegal....nothing like this is happening, it is hype and hostility.
They have a right to exercise their beliefs, they are "Upheld" meaning allowed, but legal or not is not determined yet.
By all account burning a book is burning a book, regardless of what is in it. It's just another book, like any other.
Burning a "cross" and the fact that it is still illegal is because there still exists racism. Burning "crosses" is related to hate crimes.
It's not illegal to burn a bible. Therefore, it should not be illegal to burn any other religious book.
Just my take on it.
The same argument can be used for the bible and the Quran. The fadct that they might be meaningless to us does not mean that it is not a similar 'holy' symbol to others. The ruling is unimportant in itself, it is the resoaning behind the ruling that applies I think ?
Actually, it cannot. Learn the difference between racism and what isn't racism.
Symbol are to be burned, whenever deemed necessary in protest. That is specifically why the American flag can be burned, and isn't against the law. The right to protest against Government is every person's freedom of speech.
The reason is racism fueled, not protesting.
You make a good point, Habee. About the only difference I can see is that Quran burning has not become an institution yet; it has not become the symbol of hate and threat that cross burning was.
Perhaps if it does it will become unprotected as well.
I wonder if it matter under what circumstances the cross is burnt? If it is burnt as a form of hate speech then it shouldn't be covered under the 1st Amendment. But if it was part of political speech?
So it's legal to hate Muslims but not blacks? I get what you're saying, Cags. I know "Muslim" isn't a race, but burning the Qur'an still seems like a hate crime to me.
I didn't say it was legal to hate Muslims but not blacks. And, I find your question misleading.
You say you get what I'm saying, but do you? Your previous question would say you don't.
That's because, you would be offended if someone burned a bible, because you believe in god, which you got from the bible.
Then, burning a flag should be illegal by your standards. If not, then hypocrisy has you in it's grip.
The book is a symbol, it's not about race.
whether muslim or black you should not say that it is legal you say freedom what freedom is when people are hating among each other and you should do more studying too
muslim means you submit your will to god
black is a color so in all actuality you burning your own people
burning each others book fighting your own people it is hateful period we are people human being what religion separates us for no reason but mans craving to destroy this world
she is not in hypocrisy u r
study more boy
ohhh so you would follow that right of the 1st amendment to show hatred and destruction ummmmmmmmmm
Even if I didn't believe in God, I would still see burning the Qur'an as a hate-motivated action. Muslims hold the book holy, and it is symbolic to them. I've never understood hatred toward an entire group because of the actions of a few of its members. I'm not saying that you do this, Cags - just trying to explain my position. I need to do some more research on the 1st Amendment.
A very inteesting question.
I think every member of the Supreme Court would LIKE to prevent the burning of any religion's holy book. But I think that they would not go down the road of limiting free speech, no matter how vile.
The difference between burning ANY book and burning a cross is that for a black person, the burning cross is an act of violence, or intimidation - with the promise of violence.
I don't think anyonce could make the case that some 50-memeber church in Bumflock, Florida are making a real threat of violence against any Muslim. (You could make the case that they are trying to incite violence, but not commit violence.)
Hi, Doug. I'm reading about the limitations on free speech. Two principles can be applied: the "harm principle" and the "offense principle." I think the "offense principle" is pretty subjective. What one person finds "offending," another might not.
I was just wondering. In the US is hate mongering illegal. We have freedom of speech but we are not free to incite people to hatred, it is considered a criminal act.
Is burning the Quran legal? The world "legal" is very amusing. There are different laws in different countries. Your law does not apply to those who are buring the quran. And their law never applied to others.. that is why those criminal terrorists destroyed the twin towers.. Is it legal?
We should not think only we can air our worries and hardships. Think for a moment. When the twin towers and pentagon were hit and were burning, I was in another corner of the world... but did not turn off the tv till the end. Our family members from different places contacted each other and watched with horror the heinous crime of terrorists as if we were near those towers. Then how will you imagine the condition of those affected.... the American people.... the American President George Bush?
In analysing international events, we should not use the word "legal and illegal", as the world is not one country.
The burning of Quran will bring nothing more than hatred and hardship to Americans. If Quran is burnt, they can have another copy of the book. But what will you do with the hatred earned? The twin towers were destroyed by terrorists and not by religious people, eventhough they may have abetted, aided and funded the carnage. Response to anything should be equal and fitting. If they have burnt the Bible, you are right in burning the Quran.... But they have not done like that. So, the AMERICANS SHOULD STOP THAT churchman from doing any mockery. He will burn it and go to hide inside the church. But who will face the backlash?
The US government of that day had taken an appropriate stand. That has not seen its end. So, it is needless to create another controversy.
Sure it's legal. Is it morally right? That's another issue completely. I personally don't think stirring up the pot like that -- and by an organization that supposedly promotes love -- is the right move to make...
Thank you for answering my question skitterdue. I was referring to laws within the US. Each country has it's own laws of course. Here it is illegal and is prosecuted as a hate crime. In other areas we are much more lenient than the US. So had this incident occurred in Canada it would have been quashed very quickly. I understand that in the US it is considered to be freedom of speech so between that and the press running it was bound to get a little ugly. My great concern would be for the young men and women that have already put themselves in harms way on our collective behalf in carrying out their duties in our collective armed forces. It is a shame that the press sees fit to add fuel to embers in such a way as to fan them into full blown flames.
Muslims Memorise the quran to keep it authentic, and accurate, is it not in their hearts the quran is kept? which can't be burnt? What about if i'm reading the quran on my iphone? and i want to burn my iphone?
Here is the correct answer, my good sir.
It is ILLEGAL for the CONGRESS of these United States to outlaw the burning of the qur'an.
But it is NOT illegal for a STATE to outlaw it.
So - it IS legal to burn the Qur'an, so long as your state has not outlawed it.
Which state do you live in? Check their constitution. I know that New York's Constitution would make it Legal to burn the book, they have a "freedom of religion" clause in their constitution.
by Rad Man 7 years ago
Florida pastor Terry Jones, who inflamed Muslims by once burning the Qur'an, says he has been denied permission to enter Canada to attend a Thursday evening speaking engagement in Toronto."I think to ban you from a country…I think there has to be more serious charges," he said. "I...
by ngureco 5 years ago
Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate speech for text we print on Facebook?
by Credence2 6 years ago
Here is the gist of it in a statement provided by the judge:"Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.”So much for the idea...
by Steven Escareno 4 months ago
According to a new poll that was taken, it seems a lot of Americans want the first amendment to be changed, as some feel jail time and/or a possible fine should be given to anyone who does "hate speech", which isn't defined that easily.Here's a link to the site in question that shows...
by Thomas Byers 2 years ago
Do You Believe The N.R.A. Should Have Any Voice In America?I've been watching the actions of the NRA which I once belonged to and supported and you know what. I'm not sure they should have any say in America and the politics of gun control. As a retired US Naval Officer and Native American I once...
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
...as I pointed out before, how does taking rights from one group secure the rights of another?“Conscience clauses are common in civilian law but conspicuously absent in the repeal legislation. Under the MRLFA, within disciplinary limits already set in the UCMJ, service members and chaplains would...
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|