Are you for or against FL pastor burning 3000 Qurans

[darkangel218]

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am for it.
	1 (7%)
	Against it.
	13 (93%)
	Not sure.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[GreenStormCloud]

1. The First Amendment protects the right to do stupid things.

You need a poll choice protecting his right to be wrong.

[el_bryanto]

9. You can be morally opposed to someone doing something they should be legally allowed to do. nt

[etherealtruth]

66. Exactly!

[Turborama]

13. No, she doesn't, because that would answer a different question

She is not asking, does he have a right to do it or not?

It is a simple question of for or against him doing it.

[frazzled]

37. Really? The right to burn crosses in front of people's houses?

And don't say that's a property crime. My hypothetical example has the Klan burning a cross on the public strip of land outside someone's house.

[delta17]

65. True,

But you can burn a cross on your own property though. Burning a Koran is a dick thing to do, but it isn't a direct threat to anyone. I mean, would anyone question someone's right to burn Bibles?

[kestrel91316]

54. He has the legal right to do it and I have the legal right to disapprove and call him an asswipe.

[Democracyinkind]

2. Against. He shouldn't do it.

That said, he should be allowed to do it (and suffer the consequences).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. What consequence? No one has a right to react violently to a non-violent act.

[Democracyinkind]

46. Who said anything about violence?

People who insist on publicly behaving like asshole suffer all kinds of non-violent consequences for their actions...

[In_The_Wind]

3. Kick

[idwiyo]

4. There should be an option for "I am against burning books."

[SomethingFishy]

5. +1 Did this really need to be asked?

[darkangel218]

6. I think the poll choices are pretty clear and straight forward. nt.

[idwiyo]

12. Not really. As is it might be easily interprited as I am against it because its a quoran.

I dont give a fuck what book it is, I am against burning any books, period.

[pipi_k]

32. That

was my thought, too.

I'm against destroying any books unless they're beyond repair.

[el_bryanto]

7. I don't know - 3000 sounds like a lot - maybe he could just burn a few as a compromise. nt

[HappyMe]

8. He has the right to do it.

I am personally against it. I don't like burning or banning books.

[maddezmom]

10. Against it but as long as it is done in a lawful manner

He is entitled to his stupidity.

[X_Digger]

11. +1 n/t

[FSogol]

23. Seriously. How can you drive around in an unregistered truck pulling a steel canister filled

with kerosene-soaked books? That idiot got what he deserved and I see no 1st amendment violations.

[maddezmom]

25. Obviously you can't and he did get what he deserved.

Like I said, as long as it is done in a lawful manner and in this case it wasn't.

[Chipper Chat]

14. Obviously Florida has no curbside recycling.

And why pollute the atmosphere?

[darkangel218]

15. Awww.. A Round Tuit

Thanks for participating in the poll.

[tarheelsunc]

31. I think he/she clicked the wrong button. eom

[avebury]

16. While I am against it, I do view it as a First

Amendment issue which gives people the right to do stupid things. Free speech must apply to everyone or it is doomed to die a painful death.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. You want a painful death?

Go into a redneck bar and praise Al Qaeda, or go into an Irish bar in South Boston and praise the Black and Tans, or go into a Catholic Church and damn the Pope as the Antichrist, or praise Hitler in Borough Park, Brooklyn.

You have a right to do any or all of these, but actually doing them would be a bad idea.'

I understand what you are saying. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the right of free speech is meaningless unless it includes the right to say the unpopular thing. (Sorry, I cannot find the exact quote.) But acts of hate speech -- which is what Terry Jones is actually proposing -- is rightly limited.

[avebury]

58. There is no question that stupid actions may result in painful consequences.

Just like fighting for the rights of all people have had painful (if not lethal) consequences in the past. Freedom of speech has to be available to all, even those who are idiots. Whether or not a person chooses to utilize his/her right to freedom of speech remains his/her decision to make. Is it always a good idea - no. Can there be consequences - You bet, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Some people don't stop to think about whether or not what they are about to do or say is a bad idea. Some people just don't care because they just know that they are right. The receipt of common sense or a functioning brain is not guaranteed at birth.

[hobbit709]

17. Only if he sets himself on fire too.

[darkangel218]

19. +1000

[GoneOffShore]

18. If he threw the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, the Bible old & New

on the fire along with anything by Ken Hamm on the fire I'd be ok with it.

[MineralMan]

21. I'm sure he has not read the book.

I wonder how he'd feel about burning 3000 Bibles, which he has probably not read completely either?

[HangOnKids]

45. Best Post In The Thread!

[tenderfoot]

71. Here I am.

I can't PM because my star hasn't been transferred

[wercal]

22. How about an option for don't care?

These Qurans are inanimate objects...piles of paper like any other book. I understand there is symbolism involved, but I ask all those who are opposed to his burning them...

Do you agree with laws that prohibit burning the flag?

And is your position consistent on both issues?

[pipi_k]

36. Against

indiscriminate burning of books of any kind because it's needless destruction of objects that have the power to entertain, inform, or otherwise influence the human mind.

Whereas a flag is just a symbolic piece of cloth with no inherent meaning other than what someone wants to give it.

Different situations, IMO.

[wercal]

38. Ok...I'll change gears

How about Cash for Clunkers?

Those cars that were sent to the crusher were still very useful. And as a part time mechanic, I was sad to see all those useful parts get destroyed, as the cars were destroyed whole, and the junkyards were not allowed to pull the engines and other major components.

Did Cash for Clunkers cause the same type of angst for you?

And as a side note - its not like this lunatic is going door to door, collecting books to burn. He placed a large order with a printing company, and they produced them for him...essentially purpose built to be destroyed by burning...not unlike a rancher raising cattle specifically for slaughter. So I don't think its appropriate to equate his stunt with actual book confiscation. It is definitely not that, and really nothing more than symbolism, just like burning a flag...so I'll press again for an answer - for or against laws against flag burning?

And one more way to ask the question - what if this pastor saved himself some money, by only buying the covers, with a bunch of blank/unprinted pages in the middle. Nobody would ever know, and for all we know, he may be doing exactly that. Would you care or be opposed to that?

[pipi_k]

47. Well, if we're going to bring

angst into it, I have to say that book burning doesn't exactly cause me to feel it.

Just a sense of sadness.

Smashing up clunker cars? Meh. Was the metal recycled? if it was, then I really don't care.

What does cause me angst is the nearly wanton destruction of trees.

I read somewhere that in the time before Europeans came to this country, the area from the East Coast to the Mississippi was so thickly forested that a squirrel could go from one side to the other, in the trees, without touching the ground.

I wish I could have seen it.

[wercal]

62. Really - the last gasp is sadness over wasted paper?

I suppose this means you won't answer the question about a stance on flag burning.

As an aside, deforestation is the result of clearing for crops and a 19th century thirst for firewood. Book production isn't a major factor. And, if you hike in the mountains and hills of the southeast, some of them have 'firetowers' on them. You can climb to the top and see miles and miles of forests...in rows...just like crops...because they are crops. The trees used to make our paper are a managed resource, not unlike cropland. So the Quran burning won't damage our forests, you can rest assured.

I don't care if this idiot burns the Quran...and frankly he'd stop the nanosecond everybody else stopped caring.

Nobody took me up on my question...but I suspect there are plenty of people who feel it is a 1st amendment right to burn the flag, who would label the Quran burning 'hate speech' (a term used in this thread btw). I'm just curious to know how people rationalize that.

BTW - as to whether or not the metal was recycled. First of all, many of the parts are not pure metal, and not easily recycled (other than re-use, which was banned under cash for clunkers) windshields, seats, electronic sensors etc. But besides that, why are books put on a pedestal above an automobile? Why would shredding a book and recycling it into paper be less moral than crushing a car? Yes a book gives you knowledge, etc...but guess what? You can download it to a Kindle for 99 cents...the 'knowledge' is not embodied in the physical paper anymore. Books are just as inanimate and utilitarian as a car. It would be different if monks were using calligraphy pens to transcribe them, but we're a few printing presses and Xerox machines past that era.

[msanthrope]

24. Is the preacher standing on the pile? nt

[Mira]

42. DUzy

[jberryhill]

26. I don't know about your area, but you can't just go around burning stuff where I live

I'm pretty sure that burning a pile of pretty much anything in my area will get you shut down right quick.

[cliffordu]

27. I believe he should feed the poor and STFU.

[HappyMe]

30. He should, but he won't.

Not flashy enough and he's too consumed by his hatred to be bothered.

[Niceguy1]

28. I really don't care either way

Not into killing the 1st over it, either

[mysuzuki2]

29. If they are his Korans and he doesn't violate the fire code.

I don't give a shit.

[forestpath]

34. +1

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. ^Amen^

[Throd]

40. I agree.

[oldhippie]

44. ^ What he said. ^ nt

nt

[kenny blankenship]

35. Did he get a burning permit?

If he needs one, and didn't get one, then "no." Maybe he didn't need one. Florida is kind of a fucked up place.

Was he going to do this on his own property? If not, then "no".

Here ends my legal concern with Pastor Fuckface's activities. If he wants to pay Aramco for enough kerosene to burn a huge pile of books, and he doesn't mind paying royalties to the Mecca HQ of the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate for 3,000 copies of the Holy Quran, then he's at liberty to do so, provided he stays within the bounds of his local health and safety ordinances. This is still the United States of America, where he is free to burn Bibles or Qurans to his heart's content, and I am free to ignore him.

[KamaAina]

53. He did not

and he got pulled over for transporting the 3000 Qu'rans, soaked in kerosene, inside a barbecue grill!

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. He was arrested for lack of permit

and transporting the kerosene soaked books, posing a danger to others.

[TroglodyteScholar]

39. I defend his right to use free speech...

...in the interest of showing everyone what a hateful prick he is.

Of course, my view flips on end if it moves into the territory of advocating violence against any group...

[Mira]

41. This must be a trick question, and I won't be tricked into voting n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Both --

I am totally against him doing it, but he has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so.

[B Calm]

48. Only if the FL pastor supports someone burning 3,000 Bibles!

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. I'm FOR his right to do so, and AGAINST him actually doing it.

It's a dick move, but I believe it falls under the category of protected "speech."

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Whether I am for it or not is besides the point

it is truly a first amendment issue. He was arrested for being stupid and transporting those things the way he did and not having a burn permit.

The First is kind of special that way. I love it, it protects my functions as a reporter, and it protects NAZIs, White Supremacists and this idiot. It is what it is.

[MNBrewer]

52. Yes

[tularetom]

55. It's his right to do it

I'm neither for nor against him doing it, I wouldn't do it myself but the 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects his right to do it, just like if he wanted to burn 3000 American flags, 3000 bibles or what the fuck ever.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. As opposed to some other number?

[xfundy]

59. Michelle Bachmann's upset she didn't think of it first.

The guy's just a publicity addict who gets off on inflaming hate. And, of course, a Christopublican.

[PeteSelman]

60. It's a pointless thing to do.

I really don't think it matters one way or the other. Burning one or burning a million of them equal the same thing really, nothing.

[riqster]

61. Agree with his right to do it, but not with him doing it.

The First Amendnent protects saints and slime alike.

[Skip Intro]

63. I am for the First Amendment. n/t

[watch the sky]

64. against it in this case

It's a fire and safety hazard to have that much soaked in gas around.

[0rganism]

67. I'm for his right to do it, yet object to it for pragmatic reasons

The least harm it can possibly do is pollute the air.

It's likely to create further antagonism in a world of far too many grudges.

The only positive result I can imagine coming from it is if thinking people of faith come to understand this pastor is acting like a repulsive dick. It would be nice if there were at least some in his congregation who speak out against this idiocy.

[Initech]

68. Remember the first rule of teh internets: Do not feed the troll.

And Terry Jones is just that - a troll who wants attention. If we ignore it, it goes away.

[LostOne4Ever]

69. Do I support the symbolism?

No of course not. Its bigotry and islamophobic and should be condemned.

Am I for him having the right to do it? Absolutely. I support free speech even if its the speech of a bigot.

Do I think burning books is ever a good idea? No. Books are about knowledge and even if I disagree with them I don't support the willful destruction of any book.

Do I care if he burns the books? Not really. It is just another book of myths to me and its his property. He can do with it as he wishes.

Do I think this poll needs way more options. Yes I sure do.

[csziggy]

70. He should do it in his own community on his own property

Instead he is going to a completely different community where he is not welcome or wanted in an effort to stir up trouble. Mulberry, Florida, has become a culturally diverse town. As soon as this idiot announced his plans to burn Qurans there, the residents of Mulberry came out against him. The majority of the people of Mulberry want nothing to do with him or his acts of hate.

If he chooses to burn the religious books of some religion, he should do it where he lives, not in a place that does not agree with his bigotry.