This has nothing to do with freedom of speech though.
Burning a book, religious or otherwise, is an expression of disagreement or disdain with the said book and/or religion, and falls under the "Freedom of Speech" category.
The people who do this kind of stuff (people like Terry Jones and pretty much anyone in the BNP) have very clear and publicly known view on other religions. Fine, they're allowed opinions on such things. But what exactly does burning a Qur'an achieve? Nothing. It's a pointless act of violence and vandalism that is done purely to piss people off and incite hatred.
You're absolutely right on that one. It is pointless and can incite hatred, but as long as people don't use it as an excuse for violence, that's their right. You say people are entitled to have their opinions, but do the rules change when they decide to voice those opinions, especially if they're not politically correct? There's a lot of different ways to voice those opinion's people are entitled to - speech, protests, or book burnings. As long as the way people voice those opinions is peaceful and orderly, they're well within their rights to do so.
Hell, it's bordering on a violation of peoples freedom of religion.
How does this infringe on others freedom of religion? I don't see how burning the Qur'an or the Bible the same thing as telling others "you can't practice this religion". It's more like screaming "I effing hate this religion so here's what I think of it!" in a pretty disrespectful way, but that's a different ballpark than actually preventing people from worshiping the said religion.
Except that if someone went to burn a bible, the government would stop them.
I'm assuming you're speaking of the US Government right? Actually, no, it doesn't stop people from burning the Bible. Where did you get that idea?
