Should burning a Koran or Bible or any other "holy" book

[cali]

Poll question: Should burning a Koran or Bible or any other "holy" book

be outlawed as hate speech or incitement to violence?

[slackmaster]

1. As long as the burning doesn't violate fire codes or air pollution laws, it's OK

No matter what book is burned.

[Obamanaut]

2. No. They are just books - multiple sheets of paper with words, a cover

of some sort, and binding to hold it all together.

Just books.

[Cal33]

19. But special books are sacred to a large number of people. Burning

them publicly is a mark of contempt and disrespect of the worst kind. Such
behavior is ignorant, gross and low-life -- especially coming from a pastor,
who ought to know better.

[cleanhippie]

33. Perhaps, but certainly not an activity to "ban".

[Obamanaut]

34. Lopping off heads, stoning women, condoning sex with young boys

by perverted old men, whipping teenage girls to the point where they die a week later - contempt and disrespect for humanity of the *really* worst kind.

And some of it due to burning of a book, or words in that book.

One can imagine a person being upset if the book burner took a book belonging to that person, but such was not the case. It was a book purchased, maybe even at Walmart. Just a book, printed on a press possibly made in China. Not hand scribed by any being one considers a deity. Just a printed book.

[Cal33]

63. What you've described is true, but which sect of Islam are you

talking about? Yes, Islam also has numerous sects, just as Christians do.
There are fanatic sects as well as more moderate ones, just as with Christians.

Also, a few centuries ago, the numbers of wars between Catholics and Protestants
were uncountable. They were fighting among each other all the time -- not to
mention of wars between Catholic and Catholic, Protestant and Protestant.

The Inquisition started around the year AD 1230, and officially ended in AD 1830.
600 years! How many millions have been tortured to death, burned at the stake
...etc... Protestants did the same thing with so-called "witches," as well as
others.

Not to forget. Christianity is 600 years older than Islam. Religions take time
to mature. 600 years ago Christians were right in the middle of the Crusades and
the Inquisition. These were nothing to be proud of.

[Obamanaut]

64. The sect that condones those acts listed in my response. During the

maturing process, isn't it possible to look at what other folks are doing, point to the despicable acts and say "Dude, that is just wrong!"

[Cal33]

69. Some years ago I had a neighbor who asked me if I'd be

interested in visiting her church. I was curious, and said "Yes."
It turned out to be a beautiful church that looked quite new. It
was only a few years old. I asked her how many members there were.
She said: "150." And how many members throughout the whole country?
She said, "This is the only one." This particular sect was started
only 10 years previously.

The founders' interpretation of the Bible was the only one the
congregation went by. No other interpretation was accepted.

Later I read that there are about 20,000 such Christian sects in the
USA alone today, each one claiming to have the one, only, true interpretation
of the Bible. And you know what will happen to those who believed
otherwise. Can you imagine putting 100 of these people together and
letting them debate? Each would be sending the other 99 into perdition!
Correct?

That's what would also happen if one said to them, "Dude, that's wrong!"
Fanatics are fanatics. It just wouldn't work. That's why we've had so
many religious wars.

[Obamanaut]

71. And what you said is why Terry Jones is not to blame for the murders/beheadings. Instead,

the blame should be placed at the feet of the murderers. They did it. Not Jones. Not me. Not you. The nutbags.

[Cal33]

74. I've written a reply in another Terry Jones thread that I thought he

could be a sadist who was trying to incite people into violence -- if not a religious war. He'd quite possibly enjoy bringing about all the hate, violence, misery and killings that might follow. Our government could possibly advise
him to stop inciting people into violence and war, and perhaps take further
action if necessary.

[Arugula Latte]

72. The first amendment is more important than moral outrage.

[Sky Masterson]

3. I voted yes

It serves no purpose but to incite anger.BTW I am an atheist and I think all holy books are bull shit.

[Taitertots]

6. What purpose does imposing religious laws on non-believers serve?

Not being angry is not a right. Being free to speak your mind (symbolic speech) and worship/not worship as you please is.

[Sky Masterson]

10. I hate that too.

Let me put it this way.
What if an anti peta group publicly clubbed a baby seal to death as a statement against the organization. That serves no purpose but to anger.
I'm not saying it's the same thing but to those who hold holy books sacred I'll bet it feels the same way. There should be rules about dickish behavior.
I'm not saying jail/prison. But make them pay an asshole fine or something.

[hack89]

40. So when advocating gay marriage

is deemed anti-Christian hate speech by some RW fundie, will you respect their wishes? Acknowledge their outrage?

Dickish behavior is in the eyes of the beholder - don't assume that your values will be used to define it.

[Sky Masterson]

42. How did you get that from what I posted

:eyes:

[Taitertots]

68. It is the only logical step from your position n/t

[hack89]

43. "rules for dickish behavior"

you want to punish him for being a dick. What makes you think that you get to define what a dick is? What if your speech and actions are defined as "dickish"? You OK with that?

[Sky Masterson]

46. If I'm being a dick

Yes

[hack89]

47. And what if that behavior is advocating for a progressive value

that some find offensive? A flamboyant gay rights parade for example. You seem to think that "dickish" has some universal definition accepted by everyone.

[Sky Masterson]

48. For this situation I will focus on the burning of the quran

I would call that dickish.

[hack89]

49. I don't nt

[Sky Masterson]

50. What do you want, a cookie?

:shrug:

[hack89]

51. Sure - chocolate chip if you have any. nt

[Taitertots]

66. Let me put it this way:

If a guy in Afghanistan watched a PETA commercial and started killing babies would you support blocking PETA commercials and fining them? It serves no purpose but to incite anger.

[timtom]

7. I'm a Christian and I voted "No"

I also hate legalism, and laws banning bookburning is a legalistic thing. The truth of the matter is (as I see it) that every human being is under an obligation to develop and exercise his or her critical thinking skills. Then, those people can decide for themselves what they shall read.

Not gonna happen...I know. Hasn't happened in 4000 or so years of civilized man. But it's what I believe. It's a core value.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

8. I agree with you. Let's go to that idiot's house and burn his precious bible in his face...

...then see what happens. But I have a feeling the guy was HOPING that this was going to incite violence, otherwise, why do it so publicly? It serves no point other than to piss off a bunch of extremists. Now when we start having terror attacks over here, we'll know who to blame.

[Sky Masterson]

11. It's just a shit thing to do.

Thank you.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

16. I know.

I was speaking ironically, sort of. It's like tit for tat and all that. But I just don't get these people.

[cleanhippie]

32. Burn HIS bible or YOUR bible?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

36. One I received free from someone?

It's the symbolism. Burning HIS would be destruction of private property.

[formernaderite]

73. we would BLAME the terrorists

at no point should their extreme behavior...and by that I mean murder, have any influence on our right to expression. I remember when the fundies were upset with piss madonna, or whatever it was called, and as much as they had the RIGHT to protest, the artist had the right to produce. Basically according to your principles...that artist could never have produced piss mohammed or piss allah.

[Zax2me]

38. I think most atheist books are bullshit but I voted no.

I would never burn one but I can understand others might, whether I agree with them or not.
Next time they might want to limit one of my freedoms.

[Codeine]

4. The very notion of "hate speech" is anathema to a free people.

Burn whatever you want as long as it belongs to you.

[liberal N proud]

5. If it is being done as an act of hatred, it should

[hack89]

41. And who gets define what an act of hatred is?

do you think that a RW fundie might see it differently then you? Acts of hate are in the eyes of the beholder - don't assume that your values will be used to define them.

[CJCRANE]

9. No, but the agenda behind it should be revealed.

It's obvious Terry Jones is a RW operative, the MSM just needs to dig a few microns beneath the surface (as some DUers have already).

It's a manufactured story just like the "Ground Zero Mosque" kerfuffle (if you remember the MSM never mentioned that the imam of the mosque/community center worked on behalf of the Pentagon during the Bush administration and has other direct and indirect links to the neocons).

[RZM]

37. Wrong

There was plenty of reporting on said imam. His connections to the US government are well known:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025164.php

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/20/ground-zero-imam-starts-us-paid-middle-east-tour/


Not sure where you are getting this 'RW operative' stuff on Jones. Seems like a nut to me. They come a dime a dozen and usually don't need to be paid to do what they do.

[CJCRANE]

53. That doesn't necessarily mean it entered the "public perception".

What was it that Shrub said about the NYT? Something about he doesn't care what they say because not enough people read it.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of Fox News viewers or TV news viewers in general knew about this connection.

[RZM]

54. Maybe not, but is that the media's fault? Or is it people's fault for not giving a shit?

The poster I replied to said that the MSM 'never mentioned' the connection. That's patently false.

I think it is true that many people have never heard of Imam Rauf and even more don't know about his connections with the US government. But in a country where millions can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House, I don't think it's surprising.

[Syrinx]

12. no

But book-burning in general should be discouraged.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Absolutely NOT!

How do you define what's "holy" or not? Who decides it, and where do you draw the line?

[flor-de-jasmim]

14. Book-burning is not necessarily an act of hate or an incitement to violence...

But it IS when you publicize it with the hopes of inciting hate, or at the very least, indignation. In this second case there is an INTENT.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Reminds me of the debate of whether you can legally burn the American flag.

Also reduced to a symbolic icon.

The debate is about what burning the icon represents.

[baldguy]

17. If it was just about the combustion of paper, cardboard, ink & felt it wouldn't be an issue.

And it's not about the reaction of rational individuals.

It's really about the intent to cause violence in a mob. 20 people have been killed in Afghanistan. "Rev." Jones is responsible for those murders just as if he dragged them out of their homes & offices and beat them to death himself. He just used a burning Koran & a mob to do it instead of a club.

Why is this so difficult to understand? It's generally accepted by rational people that our right to free speech isn't absolute. It comes with a great deal of responsibility, part of which is to try not to incite violence. And, yes, the "Rev." Jones has that responsibility too. His self-styled "Letters of Divinity" don't absolve him.

Are the people defending his actions because the violence he caused is happening 10,000 miles away? "Out of sight, out of mind"? If had come to your city and caused a mob to start killing people, would you have a different opinion?

Or is it that you think Muslims are just naturally a more "passionate" people, and therefore can't be expected to act rationally?

[CJCRANE]

20. Even worse, he is in reality *helping* the muslim fundamentalists to recruit more foot soldiers.

IMO that's his real agenda.

[cali]

23. no, he's not as responsible for those murders as if he had actually committed them

those in the mob had a choice. they CHOSE to slaughter people who had nothing to do with the act perpetrated by Jones. Why is THAT so difficult to understand. Or do you think that Muslims are just animals who react to provocation. Is that what you're suggesting. Sure looks like that.

[baldguy]

26. One of the characteristic attributes of a mob is that it is not capable of rational thought.

Remember Agent Kay in Men In Black?: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

And he wasn't talking about Muslims; he was talking about New Yorkers.

[nessa]

67. You really do have a low opinion of people. (nt)

.

[nessa]

65. Exactly. It is dehumanizing to not hold the people who committed the act, solely responsible ...

for their actions.

To say burning a book is the cause is to say that the people who did the act are not people at all.

[Dorian Gray]

21. Not in my country

I wouldn't do it. I think it's incendiary (bad pun) and rude. But I appreciate that we are free to do express our opinions.

Now if burning Korans were left outside of Muslim homes as a sign of intimidation, I'd have a different opinion.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Voting No, But.......

What possible signal can burning a "holy" book send other than to be the equivalent of hate speech or to incite others to violence?



IMO freedom of speech trumps these concerns, but even for me this is a gray area.

[cali]

25. oh, I can see lots of reasons other than hate: how about

burning it because you see it as a symbol of oppression?

[bigwillq]

24. No (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

27. I say burn them all.

[Mnemosyne]

28. No, but maybe their constant hate speech should be. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Freedom of speech trumps outrage every time

Those that are offended need to grow up and join the modern age. The alternative is more and increasing sacrileges until their heads explode.

[pipi_k]

30. We get mixed messages about burning

For example, on the proper way to dispose of the American flag...

From this site:

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/faq/disposal.shtml

"The flag should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."


Burning the flag is "dignified".

I also think that burning a body...cremation...is dignified. Or, more dignified at least, than letting it rot.


So I'm thinking, wait a minute...

wouldn't it be totally undignified, if, instead of burning a holy book, one defecated on it and threw it into a garbage pile?


I could honestly see people getting all in a lather about that, because it is undignified and insulting.

But burning? I dunno...

[cleanhippie]

31. No, never. As long as you own the copy you burn.

[Fuzz]

35. Might as well just outlaw idiots.

[seabeyond]

39. shouldnt be outlaw, and should incite violence? no. but DOES incite violence. nt

[Iggo]

44. I voted No.

Because...No.

[Blue_In_AK]

45. Maybe shouldn't be outlawed,

but people who show this kind of disrespect are not very honorable human beings, in my opinion. This ignorant "pastor" has blood on his hands just as surely as the Afghans who are protesting his act.

[Lyric]

52. No, and here's why.

Let's say that a mullah in Yemen decides to stand in his front yard and burn a copy of "The Book of Mormon". A week later, rampaging FLDS Mormons murder 15 random Arabic people in retaliation.

Is the mullah at fault? Or is it the religio-psychotic jerks who think they have the right to kill anyone even vaguely ASSOCIATED with someone who insults their "holy book"? What if a Latino person burned a copy of "Mein Kampf" and the Stormfront Aryan wackos who literally WORSHIP Hitler murdered a bunch of Latinos as retaliation? Are we honestly going to blame the Latino, even a LITTLE, for burning the book when that book represents an evil that affects his life every single day--the evil of racism?

Burning a book--no matter HOW "holy" it might seem to some--is never a justification for murder. We set a dangerous precedent by redirecting even the tiniest portion of the blame to the book-burners, because ANY book can be holy. "Holy" is a slippery word that defies limited definition. Book burning IS speech. It is the ultimate expression of rejection toward the ideas contained within that book--a rejection so intense that it can only be expressed through obliteration. It is no different than burning a flag, an effigy, or some other symbol.

I have never burned a book, because I believe in the free exchange of ideas--even ideas that I find repulsive. But I recognize that even "hate" is speech. Right now, we all share pretty common definitions of "hate speech"...but there is no guarantee that WE are always going to be in power. Someday, our children might be living under a government that defines anti-corporate speech as "hate speech".

Do we really want to be the generation that killed the First Amendment? Do we really want to leave that as a legacy to our children? Sure, speech can be dangerous. LIFE is dangerous. Being the wrong race, the wrong nationality, the wrong religion, or the wrong sexual orientation can be dangerous, depending on where you are. I would rather be murdered for standing up for what I believe in than to live my life quietly and uncontroversially, only to arrive safely at my death.

[L0oniX]

55. Stupid poll ...unrec'n

[apocalypsehow]

56. Care to elaborate on that?

:shrug:

[L0oniX]

61. Since when do we ban hate speech or burning books? WTF is this the middle ages?

[cali]

58. lol. stupid post- yours I mean. Massively stupid

jaw droppingly stupid.

:rofl:

[L0oniX]

60. Irony escapes you obviously.

[Modern_Matthew]

57. No. It should be mandatory. OK, maybe not...but that proposal is just as ridiculous. nt

[rollin74]

59. absolutely NOT

religious books should get no more protection than any other kind of book

[GoneOffShore]

62. Great sig line -

[LeftishBrit]

70. No. I think it's generally a stupid thing to do, but outlawing it is just pandering

to the religious right, of various religions.

I don't believe in any sort of anti-blasphemy laws.

Mind you, I feel exactly the same way about flag-burning, which I know that many Americans (rather fewer British, I think) would like to make illegal. Actions that damage a *symbol* of a faith or country may often be silly or insulting, but they still come under the right to freedom of speech.