Thread: Does burning the Quran endanger U.S. troops?

What about this?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=11602792

Asked by ABC News if he elevated the pastor who launched the Koran burning day, Obama defended his administration's decision to speak up, saying he was concerned people across the country would take similar steps to get attention.

"The idea that we would burn the sacred text of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this country was founded on," he said, adding that such rhetoric is the "best imaginable tool for recruiting al Qaeda," and endangers U.S. troops.

Bold is mine...

Does the 1st Amendment, or does it not, grant exactly this type of "speech?" How is he claiming that burning anything, a flag, a book, a figure in effigy, etc as a form of protest, not part and parcel of America? That is pretty friggin clear. While I do not agree with the speech (or in this case act), I support the right to say it. But, for the President to claim that dissent and protest is not part of what this country stands for is, IMO, crazy.

Yet another example of someone attempting to micromanage, and project, onto something which should be beneath him. This is some clueless, and probably congregation-less, bumpkin that is out for publicity. The more I read up on the guy, the more I realize that it's a stunt to garner attention. Now that everyone and their mother is paying attention (including the President, and SecDef, and Gen. Petraeus for crying out loud) there are a bunch of copy-cat idiots proclaiming their intent to do the same thing now.....so the President weighing in on this to stop the copy-cats worked out pretty well huh? Because everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. News Media, the President, SecDef, etc showed the crazies of the world that pulling the same crap is sure-fire fame. Hell, I heard yesterday that the WBC is complaining that they received no coverage when they did the very same thing two years ago.

Where is the outrage when someone burns a flag, or a Bible, or the Torah, or the Bhagavad Gita?

That's right, it is understood that those acts, while despicable to some, and obscene, to many are protected forms of speech and therefore sacrosanct and untouchable. But more to the point, there aren't a bunch of half crazed Jews or Christians or Hindus running around killing people for burning their sacred things either. Yet the threat of an act against a symbol identical in meaning to one specific group is cause for worldwide consternation? It is deemed worthy enough for heads of state to stop what they're doing to wring their hands and plead that the act not occur. Pussies. I swear. The one group in the world (currently) that actually follows through on its threats and everyone takes out the kid gloves.

I think this guy nailed the whole media circle-jerk over this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_712229.html

Originally Posted by Alundil

Does the 1st Amendment, or does it not, grant exactly this type of "speech?" How is he claiming that burning anything, a flag, a book, a figure in effigy, etc as a form of protest, not part and parcel of America? That is pretty friggin clear. While I do not agree with the speech (or in this case act), I support the right to say it. But, for the President to claim that dissent and protest is not part of what this country stands for is, IMO, crazy.[/IMG]

I don't see that as him saying that they don't have the right, just that it goes against the spirit of our nation's founding.

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

An exercise in imagination:

"President Obama said: "Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country."

Quoted from http://www.anncoulter.com/

LOL

Of course the president did not take such a college professor stance take on THIS subject.

I don't see your point. He is saying that about this subject.

The president did not actually say that Trigger.

I don't expect you to go reading Ann Coulter's site, but in the context of her article, it discusses the antiseptic view applied to the ground zero mosque,

Specifically that they have the right to build there with no consideration as to whether it is a good idea, versus the lack thereof applied to the same at the opposite end of the spectrum, (burning of the Koran) equally legal yet antagonistic and divisive.