So I'm in NJ on family business, wake up, open my paper and see this. If he was only burning a flag he'd still have his job.

Quote:In a striking case of fighting fire with firing, the New York Daily News reported on September 14 that NJ Transit worker Derek Fenton has been terminated for ripping a few pages from the Qur'an and burning them at the planned Ground Zero mosque site on the ninth anniversary of September 11, 2001.

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/t...ing-quran/

Where is your Union now?

Burning a bible or a flag, still OK.

We're at a boiling point people.

What does this have to do with his job performance?
I hope he goes postal on that mofo.

(09-15-2010 01:12 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  What does this have to do with his job performance?
I hope he goes postal on that mofo.

He's probably a conservative. Do you still care?

(09-15-2010 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Burning a bible or a flag, still OK.

We're at a boiling point people.

100% accurate.

(09-15-2010 01:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 01:12 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  What does this have to do with his job performance?
I hope he goes postal on that mofo.

He's probably a conservative. Do you still care?

It doesn't matter what he is. It's just stupid to fire someone for no reason.

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.

Breyer -- appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book “Making Our Democracy Work” -- made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones’s ability to broadcast his actions, poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.

“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”

“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” Breyer replied. “People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are -- in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”

While the “core values remain,” Breyer continued, “how they apply can change” over time, he suggested.

Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”

On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333

(09-15-2010 02:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

What an astoundingly scary thing for a judge to say...

To extend the example of non political speech (fire in a theater) to political speech (Burning a book) is borderline grounds for impeachment. (Am I allowed to say that?)

(09-15-2010 02:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  (CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.

Breyer -- appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book “Making Our Democracy Work” -- made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones’s ability to broadcast his actions, poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.

“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”

“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” Breyer replied. “People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are -- in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”

While the “core values remain,” Breyer continued, “how they apply can change” over time, he suggested.

Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.

“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”

On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333

insanity

only encourages threats of violence. If you burn my book, I kill people. If you burn my flag, I kill people. If you build a McDonalds in my country, I kill people. If you build a church in my country, I kill people. If your store is open on my holy day, I kill people. If you don't convert to Islam, I kill people.


BREYER is insane. Burning my flag pisses me off to no end, but I've been told for half a century that Its protected. I guess I just should have threatened to kill people. The difference between this and yelling fire is that the people inflicting the damage would be acting rationally, not illegally. The better analogy would be yelling fire, and then when people left the building, shooting them. Intentionally killing people is illegal. Accidentally trampling someone to save your own life is not.


BTW, thuis is a 1st amendment violation wrongful termination. COunt on it

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said.

I don't think there is anything insane about this at all. He's not saying it has changed, and he's not saying that it will change. He's asking the question and saying that it might change.

He also said this during his talk show circuit.

Quote:A Florida pastor who canceled plans for his congregation to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks had the right to follow through with his intentions, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Wednesday.

In an interview Wednesday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the associate justice compared the act of burning Islam's holy book to setting the American on flag on fire when asked whether the Rev. Terry Jones had the right to carry out the controversial plan.

"We protect expression that we hate," he said. "When you have a country of 300 million different people who think different things, it is helpful. It is helpful to tell everyone, 'You can think what you want.'"

Breyer, who served in the Army, acknowledged that witnessing an American flag being burned during the Vietnam War era triggered "a physical reaction of repulsion" in him. But, he added, free speech applies equally to popular and unpopular statements.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/15/US-Brey...tml?hpt=C1

Several recent threads have mentioned that burning a bible is still acceptable in this country. I've done a little searching and haven't found any recent examples. There was almost one (it was one of the KJV only pastors who wanted to burn other versions of the Bible along with other "heretical" Christian literature), but public pressure & the local authorities prevented him (lack of burn permit or some such thing). Have there really been public burnings of the Bible recently?

This isn't really relevant, but I came across this during my search & thought it was interesting.

Quote:A judge in Johannesburg, South Africa, has blocked a plan by a Muslim to burn Bibles on the anniversary of Sept. 11.

An Islamic intellectual organization, Scholars of the Truth, had sought the order. It bans the burning of any holy books. “I’m very pleased the judge came to this decision. Not only did he ban this protest but he also banned other people from burning the Bible,” The Christian Scientist Monitor quoted plaintiff’s lawyer Yasmin Omar as saying.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-new...uth-africa

(09-15-2010 02:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  “And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”

[ed: breyer went on to say] ... the First Amendment ...

(09-16-2010 12:57 AM)jh Wrote:  Several recent threads have mentioned that burning a bible is still acceptable in this country. I've done a little searching and haven't found any recent examples. There was almost one (it was one of the KJV only pastors who wanted to burn other versions of the Bible along with other "heretical" Christian literature), but public pressure & the local authorities prevented him (lack of burn permit or some such thing). Have there really been public burnings of the Bible recently?

When it ceases to get a reaction, it becomes less of a "statement of protest" to do so. That is sort of the point of why we peacefully protest the building of a Mosque very near what some people call a tomb... or carry signs when someone makes a picture of the Virgin Mary with feces and urine and THEY kill people for drawing pictures of Mohammed.

Saudi regularly burns confiscated bibles, but as a matter of policy, not protest.

(09-16-2010 11:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 12:57 AM)jh Wrote:  Several recent threads have mentioned that burning a bible is still acceptable in this country. I've done a little searching and haven't found any recent examples. There was almost one (it was one of the KJV only pastors who wanted to burn other versions of the Bible along with other "heretical" Christian literature), but public pressure & the local authorities prevented him (lack of burn permit or some such thing). Have there really been public burnings of the Bible recently?

When it ceases to get a reaction, it becomes less of a "statement of protest" to do so. That is sort of the point of why we peacefully protest the building of a Mosque very near what some people call a tomb... or carry signs when someone makes a picture of the Virgin Mary with feces and urine and THEY kill people for drawing pictures of Mohammed.

Saudi regularly burns confiscated bibles, but as a matter of policy, not protest.

I can't find any examples of public bible burnings in America, recent or not. Of course, the search is dominated by the recent controversy, making it a little harder. And many of those articles mention the same meme, that buring a Bible is ok but burning a Koran is not. Yet none of them ever provide an example of a public Bible burning (there is mention of the KJV nut & an incident in Afganistan where some Bibles were disposed of because they were in violation of Army regulations). So it there really a double standard or do people just wish there was?

I don't really care what Saudi Arabia does with the Bible. If we ever start comparing ourselves to Saudi Arabia (and I understand that you aren't, just providing an example), then I think we can pretty much fold up the tent because we've already lost. For the record, I consider the confiscation of the Bibles to be a far more serious issue than what they do with them after that.

JH... your argument is flawed.

The fact that you can't find evidence of bible burning in the US doesn't mean a) that there haven't been or b) that it's not legal to do so. What difference does it make if we don't generally practice burning them? The same law that applies to the right to burn the US flag applies to anything else... and we have certainly burned flags in protest. I KNOW you aren't arguing that it is illegal to burn bibles.

Second... I don't care what Saudi does with the bible either. I'm not the one complaining about burning the Qur'an. The reason for the mention of Saudi is because they share the same religion as these protesters. It is public policy in Saudi to censor, including the burning of books. It also happens elsewhere in the Muslim world. The very people protesting the threat to burn the Qur'an are burning US flags. They are Hypocrits, and I am simply pointing it out. As to "being lost already"... If we are willing to sacrifice our right to protest something so fundamental because of a threat of violence, then our elected officials have violated their oath of office to protect and defend the COnstitution.

Why will you not address the fact that you are willing to suspend the rights of these people to burn private property in protest because of the threat of violence.

(09-16-2010 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  JH... your argument is flawed.

What argument? I'm asking a question. People keep saying that nobody would have objected if Jones had wanted to burn a bunch of Bibles because burning Bibles is socially acceptable in this country. I'm asking for some type of support for this statement, for some factual back up to an emotionally charged statement (I thought only liberals relied on emotion rather than reason in their arguments).

Quote:The fact that you can't find evidence of bible burning in the US doesn't mean a) that there haven't been or b) that it's not legal to do so. What difference does it make if we don't generally practice burning them? The same law that applies to the right to burn the US flag applies to anything else... and we have certainly burned flags in protest. I KNOW you aren't arguing that it is illegal to burn bibles.

Of course I'm not arguing that it's illegal to burn bibles (I have realized that I'm really confused about the proper capitalization fo the word, however), though I despise book burning more than probably any other form of protest. Just as it's not illegal to burn the Koran.

The general theme of the comments (and I'm not just talking about on here) have been that the only reason there was a public outcry in this country is becasue it was a Koran. Had it been a Bible, nobody would have said anything. I don't think this is true so I'm looking for some justification for the claim. If I can't find an example where Bible burning was socially & politically acceptable, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people making the comments haven't found one either (if they even bothered to look). In fact, the closest example I could find was handled in almost exactly the same way.

Quote:Second... I don't care what Saudi does with the bible either. I'm not the one complaining about burning the Qur'an. The reason for the mention of Saudi is because they share the same religion as these protesters. It is public policy in Saudi to censor, including the burning of books. It also happens elsewhere in the Muslim world. The very people protesting the threat to burn the Qur'an are burning US flags. They are Hypocrits, and I am simply pointing it out.

Not all protestors are the same. The people burning flags (like certain Afganis) to protest the burning of the Koran are indeed hypocrits. Those protesting the burning of the Koran while going to court to prevent the burning of the Bible in retaliation (like certain South Africans) and those merely peacefully protesting (like the Indonesians) aren't.

Regardless, I hold myself, and my fellow Americans, to a higher standard than a bunch of backwardass people living in totalitarian regimes needing 400 odd years of social progress to catch up. Isn't the point of American Exceptionalism that we're better than everyone else?

Quote:As to "being lost already"... If we are willing to sacrifice our right to protest something so fundamental because of a threat of violence, then our elected officials have violated their oath of office to protect and defend the COnstitution.

Why will you not address the fact that you are willing to suspend the rights of these people to burn private property in protest because of the threat of violence.

I have never said a single thing suggesting that I didn't believe they had a right to burn the Korans. Go back to the thread FoShizzle started on this very topic. I said you could make a weak case based on the fire example but that it probably wouldn't win.

I think they had every right to burn the Korans. In fact, the burn permit was probably improperly denied, just as it most likely was in North Carolina to keep the bibles from being burnt. Burning books is a disgusting thing to do, but people do disgusting things all the time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...rning.html

http://www.thesuntimes.com/opinions/x907...fanaticism

http://amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/news.html

Doesn't look like they stopped it. I'd like to read that... did I miss it somewhere here in this thread?? It seems that it rainsed so they shredded them. Ever hear about any protests of this?? Ever hear of any death threats?? Barely made the news because to people of faith, it's a pile of paper. It's an insult as it mocks their faith, but it isn't "their faith". Apparently it happens pretty regularly. Why no video?? Perhaps because video is THE DEVIL

Your point about "being better than Saudi" is the misditrected one... The point is that the only reason the MUSLIMS are complaining is because it is the Qur'an... not Americans. They (the threatening/protesting Muslims) obviously (see Saudi) don't have a problem burning bibles or flags... or people for that matter. There are certainly Americans willing to back down from this fight... who wouldn't back down from the same fight with Christians. Why?? Because when someone threatens to bomb an abortion clinic, the police are dispatched to protect the clinic and the lunatics are tracked and arrested. The President doesn't go on TV and suggest they stop having abortions... we don't have military officers saying we are placing soldiers at greater risk from the vatican (who has also said that abortion is an abomonation and has vowed to eliminate it) and people on here don't talk about the "insane" doctors. They RIGHTFULLY talk about the insane PROTESTERS.

Quote:All the protestors and media got wet; we were inside where it was nice and dry...

Some have written praising God that he intervened and stopped the Book Burning because of the rain, protestors, and state laws about burning paper....

This is from their website, confirming that they were prevented from holding a public book burning by state law (so they privately destroyed the "offensive" materials by other means), that there was media coverage, and that there were protestors. Was there as much media attention as Terry Jones got, overblown though that was (we would have been better off if both sets of crackpots had been completely ignored)? Of course not, but there was enough that I had heard about it last year. But since it doesn't fit into a larger storyline (I'm pretty sure the only people who care about the KJV only bunch are the people who believe only in the KJV) like Islam versus the West the story simply isn't as big a deal. The same is true with Obama's involvement. There are no possible foreign policy implications of a nutty little group destroying a couple of bibles. The protestors weren't violent, but I haven't heard on a single instance of a violent protest against Terry Jones in this country either.

I don't see this as proof that burning bibles is acceptable in this country, except to a small group of ultra-fundamentalist Christians. Somehow it's not even legal in North Carolia (because it's paper, not because it's a Bible). Our protests are less violent than thoase of the Muslim extremists, but that's because we're better people than they are.

This year the North Carolina bunch plans on shredding (it gets more people more involved - yipee) everything before taking it to another state where it's legal to burn paper (there's a bilbical reference to burning books so shredding them isn't enough). All will be done super secretly. And they plan to include Korans as well, so that should make everyone happy.

They shredded them last year, too and plan on doing it again in a month. Any media coverage??

The Qur'an protesters would be just as upset if they shredded a Qur'an. You can't even draw a picture of their prophet.

Why in the hell are we arguing about whether or not there has been a bible burning?? Who cares?? Had you EVER heard of this church before this week?? Super Secret?? There's a damn web-site advertising it!! They're 10 times the size of the church where the guy wanted to burn Qur'ans. Not one word in the media and CERTAINLY not one word from the President. Why?? BECAUSE CHRISTIANS DON"T THREATEN TO KILL PEOPLE FOR DESTROYING THEIR BOOK!!!

Your straw man arguments are pointless because the fact remains... we're being THREATENED into giving up a right we all know exists. Did the state warn nearby non-KJV people that this group might kill them?? You may as well ask" when did you stop beating your wife". You're looking for evidence of something that used to happen in the 60's and 70's... before there was much video... and claiming that because you can't find it, it isn't clear that its not a problem.

Do you deny that flags are burned regularly? Do you deny that Saudi burns bibles? Do you deny that Breyer himself says we have the Constitutional right to burn books even while saying that may need to change??

Foriegn Policy implications?? From a small bunch of extremists?? I thought all Muslims were peaceful except a few extremists? Why would it cause us trouble with a peacefully Muslim country? Can they not control a few dozen lunatics?? If they can't control theirs, how can they expect us to control ours? MAYBE the problem is they don't WANT to control their extremists... AND that there are millions of them, not dozens.