Ethical values in Religious & Modern America?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

One poster asked, if ownership of a copy of the Koran meant that it could be legitimately publicly burned under the US constitution, would the same freedom of expression apply to a ritual burning of the US flag that one owned? I have no idea, but from a very quick reading of the first amendment, it appears that this might also be deemed to be OK as an act of freedom of expression.

Could someone in the know enlighten me, please?

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

This may or may not be of any interest to the participants of this thread. But it's of interest to me, so I'll post, anyway ...

I was reading an Australian thread yesterday, related to the proposed Koran burning event in Florida. Time after time posters expressed dismay or incomprehension at the emphasis on freedom of expression in the US, with little (apparent) regard for responsibility ... for the consequences of such inflammatory words.

One poster asked, if ownership of a copy of the Koran meant that it could be legitimately publicly burned under the US constitution, would the same freedom of expression apply to a ritual burning of the US flag that one owned? I have no idea, but from a very quick reading of the first amendment, it appears that this might also be deemed to be OK as an act of freedom of expression.

Could someone in the know enlighten me, please?

Quote:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

http://en.wikipedia.org

But it's also important to put that into perspective: Mr Petraeus would have no military objectives in Iraq for Mr. Jones to endanger if America hadn't invaded it because of Iraq's nuclear weapons and its links to Al Quaeda, neither of which existed, and both of which the American executive made up. Compared to this 100,000-lives problem, any moral problems raised by Pastor Jones's Quran burning are trivial

So US states can have laws which don't uphold the US constitution?

Does a state law like this one become invalid after such Supreme Court ruling?

(I'm confused.)

Quote:

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155

Quote:

But it's also important to put that into perspective: Mr Petraeus would have no military objectives in Iraq for Mr. Jones to endanger if America hadn't invaded it because of Iraq's nuclear weapons and its links to Al Quaeda, neither of which existed, and both of which the American executive made up. Compared to this 100,000-lives problem, any moral problems raised by Pastor Jones's Quran burning are trivial

.

I agree about Iraq, however we got to deal with the reality we live in whether it is our (US) making or not. The reality is that we are involved with people of the Islamic faith in either trying to form alliances or fighting extremist in Muslim nations and a burning of the Quran is a extremely sensitive issue which may have adverse effects on what we are trying to accomplish in that capacity.

I am not saying he should not burn the books if he wants to as that is his right. However the president and the military and others will have to double up efforts to make it clear that although we have freedom of speech in the US the sentiments expressed by the Quran burning fellow is not one shared by most of the American people or that of the President.

The fellow might not have political views, he may just be against Islam for screwed religious reasons, but the consequences are political big time.

.. or perhaps he's just a crank, after his 15 minutes of fame?

I find myself worrying for vulnerable minorities in a situation where it sounds like anyone can say pretty much whatever they choose with total immunity. Those who have neither the confidence, the standing in the community or the numbers to defend themselves. It must feel terribly oppressive to be an established, law abiding US Muslim & just have to wear such garbage sprouted by some fruitcake in Florida ... & to know that he's perfectly within his rights to spew such divisive poison.

If I may come in, even if you hypothesise that the paster whateverhisname wants to attract like-minded individuals, and so may not be true, he is anyway doing a highly immoral act.

The immorality is evident from the clear and explicit violation of the doctrine of peace, doctrine of peaceful-coexistence, doctrine of not causing hatred among groups and so on and so forth. This violation is loud and clear by the reactions pouring in from all sides. The General of the Army has given some statement, but his appeal is a lame and selfish position to take.

While the life of soldiers is important, the question should be how a religious person, as assumed by his job or vocation can be allowed to burn someones elses article of faith and reverence. The scriptures are not merely books. Books are just instruments to communicate. The words in the scriptures is the basis on which many humans adhering to those authority conduct their daily lifes, whether christains, muslims, hindus, or jews. It is in their consciousness. (I do not adhere to those authorities or to any religion or groups)

A mere burning of a book called The Holy Quran in the backyard of a nondescrpit church is not the problem, the problem is the public posturing and political agenda to score some points over something which is the cause of worry. The burning of 200 books in public exhibition is and will be considerred as an assault on the entire faithfuls and their beliefs, around the world.

Whether the act is conforming to The American Consitution is not relevent at all, and whether the act can be compared with flag burning is highly inappropriate.

Societies carries out its function on the principle of ethical behaviour in Public life. This guy has no such principles as his action seems to suggest.

Even as he violates all such doctrines and principles followed by a majority of societies and people at large, the excuse that it is legally permissible in America cannot be condoned for the simple reason that it is indeed a highly immoral idea, and an unpardonable unethical behaviour .

So US states can have laws which don't uphold the US constitution?

Does a state law like this one become invalid after such Supreme Court ruling?

Calling the Holy Qu'ran burning an expression of religion is like calling Rape the violent expression of sexuality...

To say hatred has some part in the worship of the God of love and peace is a filthy lie...

The fellow might not have political views, he may just be against Islam for screwed religious reasons, but the consequences are political big time.