Portland Protesters Burn Stack of Bibles Outside Besieged Federal Courthouse

Pigs heads, bibles and flags. As they constantly crave attention, we will just continue to pray that the city officials are able to get some control over their streets.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray ; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen


Yes burning books but what book is first but the bible.

What type of control are you hoping for with this? Ex: conformance to fire ordinances when engaged in burning books?

1 Like

I’m trying to think of a good group that has burned books. I can’t.
Nazis and other fascists, communists, tyrants of all sorts, sometimes even religious zeolites.
This is the company this group falls into.

The censorship has started. Big tech, cancel culture, and book burning. Hammer and sickle or swastika, Red shirt or Brownshirt, it’s all the same.


Not that this is an exception, but I recall a bit over a decade ago some parents were burning a book in Colorado that they didn’t want their children to read. It was some book about a protagonist that was doing some religious exploration while transitioning into adulthood.

I feel like we’ve had variations of silencing the voices of others for quite some time. What appears to be different now is there are so many more ways to be heard and to respond to that speech.

If you’re burning your own books as a statement, sure.

I assume you agree with me that this was neither good nor an excuse to do it to others.

At least for now.

The tweet referenced in the article says that the activist brought bibles. I didnt see anything stating the bibles were the property of someone else.

There may be scenarios in which we have agreement. But I speculate we might disagree on some situations on whether or not someone is being targeted for silence. What comes to mind is when a social media site decided to close down one of the groups that had an account there. The site owners said they found themselves habitually spending too much time dealing with complaints against the group and it was easier for them for the group to just not be there. Some might see this as the site owners trying to silence the group.

I didn’t either. Just a standard. Same with flags.

Actually, it is mob veto of speech, not unlike what we see on college campuses. If the standard is we support free speech until a group, even the majority, want it silenced, it isn’t a standard to begin with.

I don’t think there is a standard. A given entity will decide what they do or do not want to deal with and the amount of resources they are willing to put into it.


Flags, statues of Columbus, kneeling for the National Anthem, burning bibles. It’s all the same thing; disrespect for the symbols of this society by people who want it to be something very different from what it is.


I knew book burnings would be next after the destruction of historical monuments.


The American standard is a free exchange of ideas.

I make a distinction between expressing views in actions: kneeling, burning a flag Or books one owns, and trying to solve suppress the speech of others, or Destroying the property of others.

It boils down to whether or not social media outlets are public space or not.

Personally I think they’re basically a utility/modern public square at this point and so free speech should reign.

But if it’s not, they should be considered publishers or editors and held responsible for any criminal activity that gets propagated on their servers.


Sure. People can exchange ideas. What is lacking is a duty for most others to facilitate that exchange.


In the Constitutional sense of public space, only those aspects of an account that are controlled by government officials would fall under that category. Social media services themselves, at least according to various court rulings, don’t fall under this. They are not “traditional public spaces” and are not taking over functionality traditionally provided by the government. Since the aspects controlled by the government do fall under this criteria both AOC and Trump had to unblock people on Twitter. By blocking they were violating the First Amendment (the first Amendment constrains the government, but not private entities). An account being suspended by Twitter however is not such a violation.

If you are referencing what I think you are, that dichotomy is applied to a specific item of speech in question. For a given statement, if the service provider played a role in authoring or editing the statement, then the service provider is considered one of the speakers of the statement. Thus, the same entity can be considered a publisher/speaker of one statement but not of another.


If The New York Times had a section where people could comment on articles, the NYT would only be considered the speaker on the articles themselves and in comments that were made by NYT employees. The NYT would not be considered the speaker of comments made by others.

As of yet, social media isn’t considered an essential service.

Yes, there has unfortunately been a significant amount of violence in Portland recently.

Look for CNN to report that most of the 150 rounds were fired peacefully. :face_vomiting:

The Bible burners know who their real enemy is. God can take all they have and more, but the act will hurt the protesters way more than it hurts God.


Check this out:

Maybe the protesters will get in trouble for impersonating the press. That is serious.

On second thought, CNN has been impersonating journalism for some time now.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.