Burning a Holy Text

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes.  By choosing the Quran and not, say, Stephen King's It, he's wordlessly announcing the target of his demonstration; and then acting as if he's the innocent.

It's bullshit.

Burning any book ought to worry freethinkers, anyway.  Those who will burn their books one day will burn yours the next.

[Har]

This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Unfortunately not all people are as thoughtful or tolerant as you.

There are some activist Muslims in the UK who wanted to protest about the Iraqi war at the funeral processions of the dead British soldiers. Their application to hold a 'peaceful demonstration' was refused. They screamed about discrimination and freedom of speech. The judge pointed out that they could protest, but not on the day of a funeral procession as it could lead to a 'disturbance of the peace'. Needless to say they didn't bother to protest on a day when a funeral procession was not planned thus validating the judge's ruling.

Burning a holy book shouldn't insight violence if all people are reasonable. But not all people are reasonable so burning holy books will insight violence. The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse. Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

And what of when they burn our flags or call innocent artists to be beheaded because they dared to criticise Islam? To me that is odious in the highest degree. And they don't even have to fear any kind of fallout from these despicable actions because we're so damn civil about it. It's always the same, they threaten with violence and we back down. Yeah, burning the Quran is a terrible thing to do, but the Muslims need to learn that whenever some individual in the west does something which displeases them, it doesn't give them the fucking right to be up in arms about it and burn our embassies or attack innocent people. If they react violently it will hopefully force a reaction from the West which will hopefully make them reconsider their violent knee-jerk reactions.

[philosoraptor]

This whole situation disgusts me.  We don't live in Nazi Germany, and book burnings are very reminiscent of the Holocaust.  Just because we can burn books that we don't agree with, doesn't mean we should, and I really think this is toeing the line as far as freedom of speech goes.

Edit to add, because I know I had said this in a different thread: German poet Heine referred to the burning of the Qu'ran during the Spanish Inquisition by saying "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings."  Heine was one of the authors whose books were burned during the Holocaust.

[karadan]

The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

[Tank]

The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

This is why responsible journalism is now an oxymoron. But, don't forget we want it this way. We want to see the dishonest politician. So if we let the journalist decide what needs to be reported how do we know what is going on? The 'responsible' bit would be reporting the book burning issue in the correct context of a little blow hard preacher in a backwater town trying to get publicity and 'God Points'.

[Tank]

This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Unfortunately not all people are as thoughtful or tolerant as you.

There are some activist Muslims in the UK who wanted to protest about the Iraqi war at the funeral processions of the dead British soldiers. Their application to hold a 'peaceful demonstration' was refused. They screamed about discrimination and freedom of speech. The judge pointed out that they could protest, but not on the day of a funeral procession as it could lead to a 'disturbance of the peace'. Needless to say they didn't bother to protest on a day when a funeral procession was not planned thus validating the judge's ruling.

Burning a holy book shouldn't insight violence if all people are reasonable. But not all people are reasonable so burning holy books will insight violence. The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse. Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

And what of when they burn our flags or call innocent artists to be beheaded because they dared to criticise Islam? To me that is odious in the highest degree. And they don't even have to fear any kind of fallout from these despicable actions because we're so damn civil about it. It's always the same, they threaten with violence and we back down.

I agree with you up to a point. Just because a troll trolls one does that mean one has to react as the troll desires. Would reacting as the troll desires be the right thing to do? Extremists want you to be scared of them. And in this case reacting to the acts of a few nutters by demonising the majority is exactly what the nutters want. You're doing their job for them. Take a Muslim family walking in a park. What do the nutters want you to do, walk past and shun them or be polite and say good afternoon, or whatever? I'm sure it's obvious the nutters want us to abuse their fellow Muslims so they start to hate us too.

Yeah, burning the Quran is a terrible thing to do, but the Muslims need to learn that whenever some individual in the west does something which displeases them, it doesn't give them the fucking right to be up in arms about it and burn our embassies or attack innocent people. If they react violently it will hopefully force a reaction from the West which will hopefully make them reconsider their violent knee-jerk reactions.

Sorry but an escalation of violence helps who? If your going to fight you do so to win and you use the appropriate weapons, tactics and strategies to do so. Reacting to violence with violence is not always the right thing. Take the body count of 9/11 vs that in Afghanistan + Iraq. Are Afghanistan and Iraq less likely to have people in them that hate the US than Britain now than before? I doubt it. Violence is often the first reaction, but isn't always the best.

The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

[PoopShoot]

The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse.

I completely disagree.  the offended has made as much of a choice to be offended as the offender has made in his choice of words.  "Cracker" and "nigger" are identical terms as far as overt racism goes, yet one of these is more likely to incite violence and the other is more likely to garner laughs.  The statement is only as powerful as the respondent makes it.  This church is a troll and the Muslim reaction to it means that it's working.

Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

Freedom of speech is what it is.  The response to it is often unnecessarily severe.  You have the right to call me a stupid americunt, I do not have the right to kil you for it.  People seem to forget that.

[karadan]

The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

This is why responsible journalism is now an oxymoron. But, don't forget we want it this way. We want to see the dishonest politician. So if we let the journalist decide what needs to be reported how do we know what is going on? The 'responsible' bit would be reporting the book burning issue in the correct context of a little blow hard preacher in a backwater town trying to get publicity and 'God Points'.

Exactly. Just give it a tiny segment in the very back of a paper and then forget the idiot.

[PoopShoot]

The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

[karadan]

The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

Drawing cartoons is one thing. Burning holy books is a whole different ball park.

There was a facebook group started where people were going to burn the koran. We saw no mention of this in the media apart from a small segment in a few online news sources. That group had over 1000 members.

This loony in Florida has, what, a 50-strong congregation?  He's getting way too much air time.

[PoopShoot]

Drawing cartoons is one thing. Burning holy books is a whole different ball park.

No it isn't, not in this context.

This loony in Florida has, what, a 50-strong congregation?  He's getting way too much air time.

Agreed.

[Tank]

The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse.

I completely disagree.  the offended has made as much of a choice to be offended as the offender has made in his choice of words.  "Cracker" and "nigger" are identical terms as far as overt racism goes, yet one of these is more likely to incite violence and the other is more likely to garner laughs.  The statement is only as powerful as the respondent makes it.  This church is a troll and the Muslim reaction to it means that it's working.

I completely disagree with me to. I stated as much above the bit you quoted. IF and that's a huge IF a person can control their feelings sufficiently not to rise to a person trying to offend them then all well and good. But the offended does not have as much choice as the offender. Humans are emotional before they are logical. Why do you think people love each other? There is no logic to love, none whatsoever, but it's possibly the biggest positive motivating emotion one can experience.  So the offender comes up with their plan logically to offend emotionally knowing that their target will have to overcome their initial emotional reaction. If one is going for shotgun offence one can be pretty sure somebody will have a hissy fit before they can get control of their emotions.  

Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

Freedom of speech is what it is.  The response to it is often unnecessarily severe.  You have the right to call me a stupid americunt, I do not have the right to kil you for it.  People seem to forget that.

I agree that response should be proportional to stimulus, eye for an eye and all that. However what possible benefit could I gain from calling you an americunt in the first place? I wouldn't like it, you wouldn't like it and what would it achieve? Sweet fuck all except the possibility of starting a flame war. I don't get off on offending people (no implication there that you do either) I find it pointless. I will be blunt and honest with people and that sometimes gets me in trouble as my comments are read as if they are intended to offend, they aren't their intended to elicit an honest response.

With freedom comes responsibility that's all I'm saying.

[Tank]

The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

I am coming to the conclusion that it is but that's a different thread entirely.

If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

I agree with you to a great extent. I agree that the violent reaction of a few Muslims to cartoons is ridiculous. I am however conflicted about how I should deal with that reaction and my own thoughts in the first place. You see I wouldn't draw a cartoon that I knew would upset somebody and then deliberately show it to them in the hope of causing offence.

[PoopShoot]

I stated as much above the bit you quoted.

Damn me and my 6am posting.  Sorry if I missed that.

But the offended does not have as much choice as the offender. Humans are emotional before they are logical.

I completely disagree.  Aside from the bit that we're emotional first, without the chemical sthat power emotion, our brains wouldn't even work.  Regardless, we treat emotional responses as valid because we're taught to.  We tell ourselves "it's ok, you're human and therefore emotional".  We let people's right to their emotions trump everyone else's rights.  Why?  Because we have emotions too and don't want to be bothered to train ourselves to put them on a tether?  That's why so many people can't be bothered to figure out that the world doesn't revolve around them.

I don't get off on offending people (no implication there that you do either) I find it pointless. I will be blunt and honest with people and that sometimes gets me in trouble as my comments are read as if they are intended to offend, they aren't their intended to elicit an honest response.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  You felt the need to insert a disclaimer in order to spare my feelings.  Why?  I'm a big boy and I can handle insults, especially when they are completely in my mind.  We need to stop placating people who can't.  And I DO get off on offending people, at least the ones who are too easily offended.  I don't intentionally bait people (not in serious discussion anyway), but I LOVE when someone gets offended at imaginary insults.  To me it's like a brain orgasm.  Why?  Because it means they haven't trained themselves to not have a knee jerk reaction to every minor potential implication of a statement.  If that's how they react to little stuff, how will they react to real-life drama?  If their ego is so fragile that they get pissed off at an opinion I have, they can GTFO.

[PoopShoot]

I am coming to the conclusion that it is but that's a different thread entirely.

Sounds interesting.  if you decide to start one, PM me a link, though I probably won't need it.

You see I wouldn't draw a cartoon that I knew would upset somebody and then deliberately show it to them in the hope of causing offence.

That assumes the motives of the artist.