Koran Burning and Freedom of Speech, Part II

Lemme ask yinz this…

How about some ultra-fundie religious group starts sending credible bomb threats to a school because the school is teaching evolution in science classes? What if the school decides, despite the credible bomb threat, that the school’s science teachers will continue to teach evolution and not creationism?

Then, what happens if the ultra-fundie religious group actually carries out its threat and bombs the school, and a number of innocent children are killed. Who do we blame? Is the school just as culpable as the religious bombers? Why should the school be allowed to blaspheme when it knows that such will likely result in harm?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

PZ Meyers must be proud of him.[/quote]

I had to look this up, but having done so, I’ll say, proud? He probably feels like a schmuck. Whatever you want to say about Jones he sure has the courage of his convictions. He makes this Myers look like a scared little child in comparison. :slight_smile:

A fair effort was made to dissuade Jones from doing this, and it failed, as was always possible. How do you stop someone who wants to from burning a book? You couldn’t, nor should you try. It’s just a book. How do you say, this book is more protected than others? There’s no place for that in my opinion, not in our country.

[quote=“Tigerman”]Lemme ask yinz this…

How about some ultra-fundie religious group starts sending credible bomb threats to a school because the school is teaching evolution in science classes? What if the school decides, despite the credible bomb threat, that the school’s science teachers will continue to teach evolution and not creationism?

Then, what happens if the ultra-fundie religious group actually carries out its threat and bombs the school, and a number of innocent children are killed. Who do we blame? Is the school just as culpable as the religious bombers? Why should the school be allowed to blaspheme when it knows that such will likely result in harm?[/quote]
We could what if this thing to death. It makes for interesting discussion and all, but I am not personally so interested in that sort of discussion at the moment. What I’m more interested in is what this guy did. He was told that the likely results from his actions included death of innocent people. He burned the book and people died. Very obviously the killers are solely responsible for the deaths, but as I said, how could he not personally feel awful? Wouldn’t you? I would.

The bigger problem is, IMHO, that people all over the world hold their opinions in such high regard that they don’t mind if people die just to protect their ideas. Religious zealots of all stripes, politicians, activists, and others think very highly of their ideals. We’ve all seen the deranged looks on anti-war protesters’ faces, the hatred on the faces of those who proclaim God’s love, etc. There is not a single opinion I hold that I would want anyone to die for.

I don’t see any difference. If you believe that the preacher should feel awful, then I can assume that you would also expect the school to “feel awful”? But, that doesn’t quite feel right, does it?

That’s exactly the same situation as in my hypothetical. Why the reluctance to explore one but no problem discussing the other?

So what’s the point? Sure, I always feel awful when people are murdered. Maybe the preacher does feel sorry for those innocent folks killed. But, what is your point? It seems to be that you think the preacher should feel [color=#0000FF]especially[/color] awful? Why? You state that the killers are “solely responsible” for the deaths. So, why should the preacher feel any more awful than you or I?

You’re contradicting yourself.

You stated above that “the killers are solely responsible for the deaths”. If that is true, then the people who were killed did not die as a result of the preacher insisting on expressing his opinion. They died because some religious wackos couldn’t control themselves, at all.

In America it is legal to burn the Koran. I hope it stays that way.

I don’t see any difference. If you believe that the preacher should feel awful, then I can assume that you would also expect the school to “feel awful”?

That’s exactly the same situation as in my hypothetical. Why the reluctance to explore one but no problem discussing the other?

So what’s the point? Sure, I always feel awful when people are murdered. Maybe the preacher does feel sorry for those innocent folks killed. But, what is your point? It seems to be that you think the preacher should feel especially awful? Why? You state that the killers are “solely responsible” for the deaths. So, why should the preacher feel any more awful than you or I?

You’re contradicting yourself.

You stated above that “the killers are solely responsible for the deaths”. If that is true, then the people who were killed did not die as a result of the preacher insisting on expressing his opinion. They died because some religious wackos couldn’t control themselves, at all.[/quote]
I don’t see it as a contradiction. If the guy had NO IDEA that people would react violently, I would get your point. Their actions are theirs and I agree that they are nuts. However, he knew this ahead of time. We shouldn’t ignore the fact that the outcome was predictable. Personally, I wouldn’t engage in an action that (as Jaboney has said, really has no value) I knew might inflame religious nutters to violence. I couldn’t live with myself. I doubt you could either.

I remember quite a few church of England priests were trying to ban Harry Potter books. Something about “promotion of witchcraft among Britain’s young”.

Oh, come on Tigerman: we all know why he should feel awful. YES, the murderers in Afghanistan are the killers. They bear PRIMARY responsibility. They bear overwhelming responsibility.

But the crazy guy who pretends he’s a preacher DOES also bear some responsibility for the deaths. True, he didn’t violate any US laws. True, what he did should remain to be legally protected in the US. But he had actual knowledge before burning the Koran that it was very likely to cause mass outrage in other parts of the world and lead to heightened discord and was likely to result in deaths, injuries and property damage in other parts of the world, but he went ahead and did it anyway.

So, YES the afghanis should be deemed legally responsible for the deaths. But the preacher dude DOES bear some responsibility. He intentionally committed an act with little or no redeeming value but with the prior knowledge that it was likely to cause death, injury, discord, etc.

Every human being with any decency (even atheists, agnostics and pagans) has a moral obligation to avoid causing deaths, pain, suffering and injury through intentional acts with little or no redeeming value, but a purported preacher (a purported follower of Jesus, whose teachings focus on peace and love) especially bears such a moral obligation.

That’s why he SHOULD feel more awful than you and me: because the murders resulted from his actions and he took those actions knowing they might lead to those results. The murderous rampage may have been crazy, irrational, excessive and wrong, but it was also perfectly predictable and preventable and the preacher guy chose to ignore those facts and perform the acts anyway. Therefore, he DOES share part of the blame.

Of course it is. if the killers are solely responsible for the deaths, then nobody else should feel personally awful. You are arguing on one hand that the preacher should feel some guilt, due to personal responsibility, while arguing on the other hand that the killers are solely responsible for the deaths.

That type of argument constitutes a contradiction.

In my hypothesis, the school has received credible bomb threats. Thus, the school has a good idea that the religious fundies intend to react violently. In my hypothesis, the violent outcome was threatened.

So, I ask you again, should we ignore the fact that the school bombing was predictable?

Ah, so its a value judgment? Who decides what values are important? Conservatives? Liberals? Athiests? Religious people?

[quote=“Tigerman”]Lemme ask yinz this…

How about some ultra-fundie religious group starts sending credible bomb threats to a school because the school is teaching evolution in science classes? What if the school decides, despite the credible bomb threat, that the school’s science teachers will continue to teach evolution and not creationism?

Then, what happens if the ultra-fundie religious group actually carries out its threat and bombs the school, and a number of innocent children are killed. Who do we blame? Is the school just as culpable as the religious bombers? Why should the school be allowed to blaspheme when it knows that such will likely result in harm?[/quote]

Sorry, but it’s a weak analogy.
The teachers in the school have a perfectly good, constructive reason to perform the action, and nobody could argue with their determination to do so.
Burning a symbol deeply tied to somebody’s belief system accomplishes nothing and has no inherent value, except to invoke the ire of the group concerned.

I don’t see any difference. If you believe that the preacher should feel awful, then I can assume that you would also expect the school to “feel awful”?

That’s exactly the same situation as in my hypothetical. Why the reluctance to explore one but no problem discussing the other?

So what’s the point? Sure, I always feel awful when people are murdered. Maybe the preacher does feel sorry for those innocent folks killed. But, what is your point? It seems to be that you think the preacher should feel especially awful? Why? You state that the killers are “solely responsible” for the deaths. So, why should the preacher feel any more awful than you or I?

You’re contradicting yourself.

You stated above that “the killers are solely responsible for the deaths”. If that is true, then the people who were killed did not die as a result of the preacher insisting on expressing his opinion. They died because some religious wackos couldn’t control themselves, at all.[/quote]
I don’t see it as a contradiction. If the guy had NO IDEA that people would react violently, I would get your point. Their actions are theirs and I agree that they are nuts. However, he knew this ahead of time. We shouldn’t ignore the fact that the outcome was predictable. Personally, I wouldn’t engage in an action that (as Jaboney has said, really has no value) I knew might inflame religious nutters to violence. I couldn’t live with myself. I doubt you could either.[/quote]
He probably believes it does have value or he would not do it. Your are seeing things only from your point of view which I guess is understandable being you.

What kind of responsibility?

So, what about my school hypothetical?

Who are we to decide what acts have redeeming values? I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that some acts are to be determined as having redeeming value while others are not, when in fact, a particular act is in no way rationally the cause of such a violent response.

How would you like it if the world was ruled by crazy fanatics who decided on what acts have redeeming value and which ones do not and then determined your responsibility for certain acts based on whether or not some redeeming value existed?

That’s a dangerous idea, IMO. Again, who decides what acts have or lack redeeming value?

So, what about my school hypothetical?

Well said.

suiyuan: Then such nutters have you right over a barrel because they’ll be able to emotionally blackmail you with “don’t…or I/we’ll…”

The value in what he did was freedom of speech.

Mother Theresa: No, he is in no way responsible. Is anyone else in the West responsible for deaths just because some medieval fuckwits don’t like how they live or act? These tools in places such as Afghanistan don’t need a reason to go apeshit, they want an excuse. I happen to think Duane Allman was fucking rad. If I saw someone in a Justin Bieber t-shirt jump up and down on an original vinyl copy of Live at the Fillmore East, they would be in no way responsible if I went on a rampage against all Justin Bieber fans. Seriously, these tools in the Muslim world need to grow the fuck up. Pretty well every other religion is on the end of mockery on a regular basis and its followers just deal with it. It’s not some divine thing, it’s a fucking book. Pieces of paper and ink. No different from a Danielle Steele novel. The rest of us shouldn’t have to be forced to buy into their belief in imaginary friends in a de facto sense just because these guys are fucking morons and willing to break shit and throw tantrums. Fuck them.

the chief: It has no value to you. To some of us atheists, we’re sick of this sorcery being taken seriously and actually having an influence on society.

That’s simple. Liberals, well, after consultation with Muslims. Please note that other religions do not have to be consulted or respected. Thank you for getting this straight.

Oh, come on Tigerman: we all know why he should feel awful. YES, the murderers in Afghanistan are the killers. They bear PRIMARY responsibility. They bear overwhelming responsibility.

But the crazy guy who pretends he’s a preacher DOES also bear some responsibility for the deaths. True, he didn’t violate any US laws. True, what he did should remain to be legally protected in the US. But he had actual knowledge before burning the Koran that it was very likely to cause mass outrage in other parts of the world and lead to heightened discord and was likely to result in deaths, injuries and property damage in other parts of the world, but he went ahead and did it anyway.

So, YES the afghanis should be deemed legally responsible for the deaths. But the preacher dude DOES bear some responsibility. He intentionally committed an act with little or no redeeming value but with the prior knowledge that it was likely to cause death, injury, discord, etc.

Every human being with any decency (even atheists, agnostics and pagans) has a moral obligation to avoid causing deaths, pain, suffering and injury through intentional acts with little or no redeeming value, but a purported preacher (a purported follower of Jesus, whose teachings focus on peace and love) especially bears such a moral obligation.

That’s why he SHOULD feel more awful than you and me: because the murders resulted from his actions and he took those actions knowing they might lead to those results. The murderous rampage may have been crazy, irrational, excessive and wrong, but it was also perfectly predictable and preventable and the preacher guy chose to ignore those facts and perform the acts anyway. Therefore, he DOES share part of the blame.[/quote]Quoted for truth and stated better than I had stated it. And goes to show that the issue can be discussed without hypotheticals that distract from the topic at hand. Why use hypotheticals when there is a real situation to work with?

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]suiyuan: Then such nutters have you right over a barrel because they’ll be able to emotionally blackmail you with “don’t…or I/we’ll…”

the chief: It has no value to you. To some of atheists, we’re sick of this sorcery being taken seriously and actually having an influence in society.[/quote]
Amen to that! :bravo:

fenlander: Thanks, but you quoted me before I had time to edit the shit English from my post. :raspberry:

[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]suiyuan: Then such nutters have you right over a barrel because they’ll be able to emotionally blackmail you with “don’t…or I/we’ll…”

the chief: It has no value to you. To some of atheists, we’re sick of this sorcery being taken seriously and actually having an influence in society.[/quote]
Amen to that! :bravo:[/quote]

You guys are saying that burning a book actually accomplishes something??? :noway:

[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]suiyuan: Then such nutters have you right over a barrel because they’ll be able to emotionally blackmail you with “don’t…or I/we’ll…”

the chief: It has no value to you. To some of atheists, we’re sick of this sorcery being taken seriously and actually having an influence in society.[/quote]
Amen to that! :bravo:[/quote]
They wouldn’t have me personally over a barrel because, as I said, there is no opinion I have that I want others to die for. I am more than happy to back down to prevent a death or seven. Maybe I’m weak or maybe I just prefer people don’t die. :neutral: