[quote=“housecat”]“Oh yeah? Well, I don’t know you either, but I hate you, and I’ll kill you and all your countrymen because you treated my book wih disrespect!”[/quote] The thing is, they killed four Nepalese, a Swede, a Norwegian, and a Romanian, I guess to show how much they hated Americans.
To top it all off, killing seven people apparently wasn’t enough: Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants the U. S. Congress to condemn the Quran burning.
It’s almost too weird to think about.
Since 9/11, polls have consistently shown that Americans associate Islam and Muslims with violence. Well, this is why. Some cartoonists in Denmark draw a dozen or so provocative cartoons of Muhammad, and an angry mob of Muslims go out and kill people. A small congregation in Florida burns a book in a private ceremony inside a building, and an angry mob of Muslims go out and kill people. The victims weren’t even associated with the people who engaged in the offensive behavior, not that the offenses justify violence in any case. What a fruitless waste of a human life.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“housecat”]“Oh yeah? Well, I don’t know you either, but I hate you, and I’ll kill you and all your countrymen because you treated my book wih disrespect!”[/quote] The thing is, they killed four Nepalese, a Swede, a Norwegian, and a Romanian, I guess to show how much they hated Americans.
To top it all off, killing seven people apparently wasn’t enough: Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants the U. S. Congress to condemn the Quran burning.
It’s almost too weird to think about.[/quote]
I didn’t realise that they had killed so indescrscriminatley, but that just goes to show how much they have in common with Mission Mustache. I watched part of an interview with him and he was asked if burning that book was worth the loss of life that resulted. He said it surely was worth it because maybe hundreds of lives would be saved, too.
THAT is UTTERLY un-Christian. In fact, it sounds a lot like the rationalization of a Muslim fundamintalist about to blow himself up and take out a lot of innocent people.
As far as congressoinal condemnation, well it IS illegal to yell fire in a crowded house. Could this be equated with such an act? SHOULD it be.
I don’t think congress should condem this, or any, act of free speach–don’t get me wrong. And I don’t think it sets any kind of good precident to give special consideration to Muslim materials or beliefs just because the believers might flip out and kill innocent people. But I CAN see the argument that this guy’s rights to burn stuff might be less than the greater rights of the general public not to have to deal with the fallout.
Not at all equal.
It isn’t the preacher’s fault that a bunch of nutters went nuts. The preacher is not at all to blame for the actions of the nutters. In fact, those nutters were just looking for an excuse to go nuts.
Ask yourself this: When some Christian fundie pro-lifer murders a doctor at an abortion clinic… do you blame the Christian fundie pro-lifer or the doctor?
Not at all equal.
It isn’t the preacher’s fault that a bunch of nutters went nuts. The preacher is not at all to blame for the actions of the nutters. In fact, those nutters were just looking for an excuse to go nuts.
Ask yourself this: When some Christian fundie pro-lifer murders a doctor at an abortion clinic… do you blame the Christian fundie pro-lifer or the doctor?[/quote]
We’re on the same side of this issue, Tigerman. I’m not arguing that the preacher is responsible for the Muslim nutters. I’m equating them with one another. Two nutters.
Yeah, well, FWIW, I read at least two different newspaper accounts of the attack on the UN compound that never even mentioned Rev. Johnny Wayne Fatback’s Koran-B-Q.
I don’t equate a guy who burns a book with people who go on a murderous rampage because someone on the other side of the planet burned a book. There is simply no equating these. At all.
I don’t equate a guy who burns a book with people who go on a murderous rampage because someone on the other side of the planet burned a book. There is simply no equating these. At all.[/quote]
come on, that guy didn’t JUST burn a book. It was an act of hatred. He doesn’t have to agree with the book or its believers, but there is no reason to burn it. No reason other than expressing hatred. Granted, that kind of thing is protected in the States–and I agree that it should be.
But I am much offended by people burning the US flag, too. I don’t feel like there are any good reasons to do it. I respect that it is a right as an expression. I don’t go and kill people who burn US flags. Or Korans. Or anything else. It’s silly. All of it.
I respect that in the US people have the right to burn stuff that other people value. I do think that it’s right silly most of the time, and down right hateful some of the time. And I don’t think it’s okay to be hateful just because you can.
I don’t equate a guy who burns a book with people who go on a murderous rampage because someone on the other side of the planet burned a book. There is simply no equating these. At all.[/quote]
come on, that guy didn’t JUST burn a book. It was an act of hatred. He doesn’t have to agree with the book or its believers, but there is no reason to burn it. No reason other than expressing hatred. Granted, that kind of thing is protected in the States–and I agree that it should be.
But I am much offended by people burning the US flag, too. I don’t feel like there are any good reasons to do it. I respect that it is a right as an expression. I don’t go and kill people who burn US flags. Or Korans. Or anything else. It’s silly. All of it.
I respect that in the US people have the right to burn stuff that other people value. I do think that it’s right silly most of the time, and down right hateful some of the time. And I don’t think it’s okay to be hateful just because you can.[/quote]
I believe I see Tigerman’s point, that burning a book doesn’t cause de facto injury or fatality, compared to crazed savages mounting a frenzied attack inciting death and mayhem upon other humans who were just minding their own business.
Even so, I myself have always found the public burning of any kind of symbol to be excessively and counterproductively hateful.
Whether it’s books, flags, Beatles records ( a particularly dunderheaded effort, IMO), or crosses, the general act serves no constructive purpose whatsoever, other than to whip the participants into a mindless state of rancor, and intentionally shock, outrage, and raise the ire of the targeted group for whom the specific objects hold particular meaning.
Nothing going on there even remotely related to promoting or improving discourse.
Personally, it’s a civil liberty I could easily do without.
No. He JUST burned a book.
So? Is hatred against the law? What if it was an act of defiance, and the same group of nutters went on a murderous rampage in response. Would that make a difference?
Why does he need a reason to burn a book? Anyway, hatred seems like a good enough reason to burn a book.
That’s why I am not denouncing or blaming this preacher.
I think in many cases it isn’t silly at all. But, in any case, there is no equating the burning of a book or a flag with a murderous rampage.
Hate is not good. No argument there. But, banning people from hating is dangerous.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Hate is not good. No argument there. But, banning people from hating is dangerous.[/quote]
But I’m not arguing that that preacher, or anyone else, should be banned from hating. I’m saying that both the preacher and the nutters were WRONG to do what they did because of their hate.
Do I think that killing innocent people is worse than burning a book? Of course I do! But I can’t condone that man’s act, either.
[quote=“the chief”]I believe I see Tigerman’s point, that burning a book doesn’t cause de facto injury or fatality, compared to crazed savages mounting a frenzied attack inciting death and mayhem upon other humans who were just minding their own business.
Even so, I myself have always found the public burning of any kind of symbol to be excessively and counterproductively hateful.
Whether it’s books, flags, Beatles records ( a particularly dunderheaded effort, IMO), or crosses, the general act serves no constructive purpose whatsoever, other than to whip the participants into a mindless state of rancor, and intentionally shock, outrage, and raise the ire of the targeted group for whom the specific objects hold particular meaning.
Nothing going on there even remotely related to promoting or improving discourse.
Personally, it’s a civil liberty I could easily do without.[/quote]I see the point as well. Obviously, this nut job ‘pastor’ is on safe legal ground. He can burn anything he likes and he can’t be held responsible for the violent actions of others. Don’t we all wish that people in the Middle East would be like JK Rowling and let it all roll off of them. I have tried to come up with book ideas that would be inflammatory enough to have thousands of copies burned. It could be quite profitable. 
On a human level, forgetting the law for a moment, this pastor could easily predict that lives would be lost if he went through with his actions. That’s sick, IMO. In that sense, it’s a violent act. It was predictable. That doesn’t make it right, it doesn’t make him culpable from a legal standpoint, but it does put him in the category of sick, fucked up, religious zealot who regards his own beliefs and opinions as more important than human life. In that way, he is not much different from the nut-jobs who did the act. It was an act that put opinions ahead of human life.
My preference is still that if he really wants to put his opinions to the forefront, he should put his ass on a plane to anywhere in the region with a truck full of books and burn away. I wonder how brave he would be then? I bet he wouldn’t do it, which just goes to show that he knows his life would be in danger. That being so, he knows others’ lives are in danger. Again, on a human level, why put lives in danger? If he doesn’t feel the personal cringe of that, and if it doesn’t at some level tear his soul apart, then he is a deranged sicko.
So, would you say the same of say, the director of a clinic that hires doctors to perform abortions? What if the clinic has received death threats from Christian fundie pro-lifers who are infuriated that doctors at the clinic are performing “murder”? What if one of these doctors is then murdered by a Christian fundie pro-lifer in an act of “vengence”? Is the clinic director also a deranged sicko if he/she does not immediately close the clinic?
So, would you say the same of say, the director of a clinic that hires doctors to perform abortions? What if the clinic has received death threats from Christian fundie pro-lifers who are infuriated that doctors at the clinic are performing “murder”? What if one of these doctors is then murdered by a Christian fundie pro-lifer in an act of “vengence”? Is the clinic director also a deranged sicko if he/she does not immediately close the clinic?[/quote]There’s an important distinction to be made between offering a medical procedure and spouting off. Both are protected, but its reasonably safe to assume that the motivations are very different. It may be reasonable to assume that the guy spouting off is a bit off.
An important distinction? Sure, the clinic is killing babies! Babies! The guy burning a book is just spouting off. That’s one heck of a distinction. So, who’s a bit off? The guy burning a book or the guy killing babies?
Or saving the life of a woman who desperately wants, but can’t, carry the child full-term.
So, would you say the same of say, the director of a clinic that hires doctors to perform abortions? What if the clinic has received death threats from Christian fundie pro-lifers who are infuriated that doctors at the clinic are performing “murder”? What if one of these doctors is then murdered by a Christian fundie pro-lifer in an act of “vengence”? Is the clinic director also a deranged sicko if he/she does not immediately close the clinic?[/quote]There’s an important distinction to be made between offering a medical procedure and spouting off. Both are protected, but its reasonably safe to assume that the motivations are very different. It may be reasonable to assume that the guy spouting off is a bit off.[/quote]
You call it offering a medical procedure. Others call it murdering babies. Those people would claim the killing of a baby-murderer is morally justifiable to save many more lives of innocent babies.
Likewise, you (all) call it “just burning a book.” Others call it an outrageous and clearly unacceptable affront upon Allah, for which death and mayhem (even upon innocent bystanders) is the obvious and rational recourse as proscribed by Allah Himself, so that those who commit such acts of retaliation are not acting unreasonably, or even voluntarily, but are only carrying out the will of Allah, whose powers and directions are far greater than mere mortals can understand (how many times have Christians and Jews used the latter language), so those who question the response are simply ignorant and unknowing.
Allahu Akbar 
If we’re going to hold the preacher responsible in any way for the ridiculous actions of some far-away religious fanatics, then it seems reasonable to me that we hold the clinic director equally responsible for the ridiculous actions committed by some religious fundies in our own back yard.
You are trying to justify murder to a religious fundie. Why aren’t you trying to justify free speech to religious fanatics?
I’m not an absolutist on free access to abortion, nor free speech. I believe there ought to be reasonable limits to both.
There’s an obvious, immediate (albeit utilitarian) justification for protecting access to abortion; there’s none for protecting the right to burn somebody else’s scripture. I understand the further argument, I’m simply not concerned with that at the moment.
Pared down to the bone, what’s seen as the doc’s outrage may very well save a life; the pastor’s outrage does nothing substantial.
Doesn’t matter what you think. It seems the concern is with what the religious nutters think.
[quote=“Jaboney”]There’s an obvious, immediate (albeit utilitarian) justification for protecting access to abortion; there’s none for protecting the right to burn somebody else’s scripture. I understand the further argument, I’m simply not concerned with that at the moment.
Pared down to the bone, what’s seen as the doc’s outrage may very well save a life; the pastor’s outrage does nothing substantial.[/quote]
Ye of little faith! The Koran-burning preacher is saving SOULS! That’s much more significant than the doc saving a mere life. 
And looking at it the other way, the Koran-burning preacher only burned a book. The doctor murdered a baby.