FSM Presence at Q'ran Burning?

[daftbeaker]

Someone is quite welcome to buy their own copies of everything written by Darwin, Dawkins, Pratchett and Sharpe and burn it all. I can either throw a massive incoherent rage and shoot people or I can accept that they did what they wanted with their property.

That's not exactly a fair comparison. You don't believe (and keep in mind I mean a very strong belief) that those books are written by, or at least inspired by God, and that it's the most central message in the entire universe.

I was just taking the closest approximation. If someone burnt my stuff I would promptly set about them with my cane. Burning their own stuff may well be a waste of books but it's their decision and my getting annoyed about it is a choice, as is any subsequent action of mine.

One interpretation of Karzai's statement is "It really doesn't accomplish anything to burn the Qu'ran, except to piss off people with guns. It's also really insulting to many of us who won't necessarily do anything violent about it, so for both our sake, and the sake of world peace, could you not do that?"

I read it as "I'm a Muslim. Despite there being a massive war with huge deaths to remove my country from a theocracy, I'm hell-bent on installing my own version of a theocracy." Destroying a Qu'ran may be an insult to Muslims, it is no more an insult to a country than me blowing my nose.

I would agree with Yudhoyono, too. Perhaps not with those same words, or any implied violent/forceful actions, but I personally won't be satisfied until everyone realizes and agrees that this kind of behavior is stupid and unhelpful, and doesn't do it.

And it's stupid and unhelpful because? It's the same thing as Draw Muhammad day, which I think you were in favour of (can't check, the thread's been pruned). It's a gesture designed to piss off Muslims and remind them that not everyone believes what they believe, that their reactions are overblown and stupid.

And as far as Petreaus's comments, I'm not going to defend any actions of the U.S. in the middle east, but from their perspective, what they're doing as the military is necessary, and burning Qu'rans isn't. I mean, no one wants to go to war in general terms, we do it because the results we're looking for outweigh the cost, at least from the perspective of the people in charge. Burning the Qu'ran is a net loss. It doesn't accomplish anything in the middle east, it only is fuel for the fundamentalists, and will increase violent acts against U.S. soldiers, and possibly others.

I objected to the idea that burning private property in the US is going to put coalition troops in more danger than they were already in or that it's somehow worse than murdering people trying to get the wounded to safety.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I was just taking the closest approximation. If someone burnt my stuff I would promptly set about them with my cane. Burning their own stuff may well be a waste of books but it's their decision and my getting annoyed about it is a choice, as is any subsequent action of mine.

It's different than just personal property. It's a Holy Book, hell, it's the Holy Book. It's probably something you'll never quite "get." Which isn't a bad thing, I just wouldn't go around comparing the Qu'ran to books you may own written by Dawkins or Darwin.

I read it as "I'm a Muslim. Despite there being a massive war with huge deaths to remove my country from a theocracy, I'm hell-bent on installing my own version of a theocracy." Destroying a Qu'ran may be an insult to Muslims, it is no more an insult to a country than me blowing my nose.

Well, there's a difference of opinion then. It is obviously much more an insult to Muslism/Islam, and not really to a country, but at the same time, their countries are very Muslim, and they have a history of church and state being tied together. I would argue that it's an insult to any nation that has a majority of Muslims as citizens, or is run by many Muslims, and has ideologies that they belief stem from Islam. It's saying that their Religion is wrong, and should be exterminated, what have you. Well, their Religion is also their way of life and influences every aspect of that, to their national identity and their governments.

And it's stupid and unhelpful because? It's the same thing as Draw Muhammad day, which I think you were in favour of (can't check, the thread's been pruned). It's a gesture designed to piss off Muslims and remind them that not everyone believes what they believe, that their reactions are overblown and stupid.

A-ha, juicy! No, it is not the same at all. I was in no way in favor of pissing off anyone by drawing Muhammad. That may have been a latent cause, but that was not my intent. In fact, it was almost the opposite, many of the pictures of Muhammad showed him in a very positive light, or were sort of logical traps (like the three stick figures, which one is Muhammad?). It was to point out that the hatred at a drawing of Muhammad is overblown, and that not everyone believes what they belief, but it was never, from my point of view, to insult anyone.

I'm trying really hard to think of a non-incendiary (lol) reason for burning the Qu'rans, but I really can't think of it. ed up catharsis maybe? There's probably better ways of getting over 9/11.

I objected to the idea that burning private property in the US is going to put coalition troops in more danger than they were already in or that it's somehow worse than murdering people trying to get the wounded to safety.

I think there have already been reports of increased violence towards coalition soldiers in the wake of this whole thing. I'll have to look them up, but I think there is hard evidence that proves the burning of private property in the U.S. did ignite more violence against our soldiers.

As far as murdering people trying to get the wounded to safety or things like that, I'm not saying I agree, but that from his perspective, everything has a cost, but sometimes the cost is worth it, as unpleasant as it may be. They don't say War is Hell for no reason. Again, I can't think of any way in which the Qu'ran burnings would help us militarily or politically, though I can think of many ways it hurts us.

[PKMKII]

It's the same thing as Draw Muhammad day, which I think you were in favour of (can't check, the thread's been pruned). It's a gesture designed to piss off Muslims and remind them that not everyone believes what they believe, that their reactions are overblown and stupid.

No, I'm pretty sure that the gesture was designed to draw attention to the pastor's opinion that Islam is a creation of the devil and that the only path to true salvation is in a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity (plus, all that stuff I said about the symbolism of book burning). Also, Draw Muhammad day was about freedom of speech and separation of church and state. I don't think Mr. Jones cares about either, or was trying to promote either with the proposed book burning.

[daftbeaker]

I was just taking the closest approximation. If someone burnt my stuff I would promptly set about them with my cane. Burning their own stuff may well be a waste of books but it's their decision and my getting annoyed about it is a choice, as is any subsequent action of mine.

It's different than just personal property. It's a Holy Book, hell, it's the Holy Book. It's probably something you'll never quite "get." Which isn't a bad thing, I just wouldn't go around comparing the Qu'ran to books you may own written by Dawkins or Darwin.

Be that as it may, the response is the same. They choose to be offended by it.

And it's stupid and unhelpful because? It's the same thing as Draw Muhammad day, which I think you were in favour of (can't check, the thread's been pruned). It's a gesture designed to piss off Muslims and remind them that not everyone believes what they believe, that their reactions are overblown and stupid.

A-ha, juicy! No, it is not the same at all. I was in no way in favor of pissing off anyone by drawing Muhammad. That may have been a latent cause, but that was not my intent. In fact, it was almost the opposite, many of the pictures of Muhammad showed him in a very positive light, or were sort of logical traps (like the three stick figures, which one is Muhammad?). It was to point out that the hatred at a drawing of Muhammad is overblown, and that not everyone believes what they belief, but it was never, from my point of view, to insult anyone.

Exactly. It was done to show just how ludicrous it is to expect everyone to follow what a subset of people believe and how absurd that subset's reactions are. Same thing. While I consider both to be designed to piss people off and you don't, both have exactly the same effect.

I objected to the idea that burning private property in the US is going to put coalition troops in more danger than they were already in or that it's somehow worse than murdering people trying to get the wounded to safety.

I think there have already been reports of increased violence towards coalition soldiers in the wake of this whole thing. I'll have to look them up, but I think there is hard evidence that proves the burning of private property in the U.S. did ignite more violence against our soldiers.

Yep, and it will die down in a week. They will still be there, getting shot at and being blown up, for a long time or they will leave and Iraq will possibly descend into civil war. I fail to see how this is important in comparison. When we're talking hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and thousands of coalition troops killed, people getting their knickers in a bunch over some lunatic burning his own book fails to move me.

It's the same thing as Draw Muhammad day, which I think you were in favour of (can't check, the thread's been pruned). It's a gesture designed to piss off Muslims and remind them that not everyone believes what they believe, that their reactions are overblown and stupid.

No, I'm pretty sure that the gesture was designed to draw attention to the pastor's opinion that Islam is a creation of the devil and that the only path to true salvation is in a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity (plus, all that stuff I said about the symbolism of book burning). Also, Draw Muhammad day was about freedom of speech and separation of church and state. I don't think Mr. Jones cares about either, or was trying to promote either with the proposed book burning.

Fair enough, I'll rephrase it, the reasons I gave are why I'm in favour of him burning his books Lunatics can do the right thing for the wrong reasons sometimes.

[daftbeaker]

Alexander Stewart burnt pages from a Bible and a Qu'ran while using them to smoke with. Funnily enough, the Youtube video he posted has been deleted and the account he used has been closed. He's likely to be sacked as well, despite the fact he made no reference to his employer in the video. Even the related video I found had been marked offensive to under 18s. Religion poisons minds.

To paraphrase Stewart, it's just a f***ing book. Grow up.

Edit - I should point out here that the Muslim community in Australia has been sensible and while they decide to be 'hurt' by him having a smoke they have urged people not to break the law or get 'revenge'. Nice to see them living in the same time period as the rest of us.

Oh, and the South Africans have outlawed the destruction of religious books.

"Judge Kolbe ruled that freedom of expression is not unlimited if one exercises freedom of expression that is harmful to others.... We now hope American judges will see this decision and act accordingly by banning the burning of the Quran in America,”
Harmful to others my arse. Telling a blind person to cross the road into heavy traffic is harmful. Telling someone that their child is inside a burning building when it isn't is harmful. Burning your own property is not harmful to anyone else. Stop being a moron.

Edit again - Saw this on Pharyngula and loved it:
Last night, my wife and I partially burned - and then ATE - a sacred religious object.

It was kinda disrespectful, I suppose.... it's just that we really like the taste of steak.

Oh noes! I can't eat beef any more as it's an insult to the Hindu religion!

Edit again - Anyone complaining that burning a religious book (Qu'ran, Bible, Torah etc.) is offensive, point me to the outrage when the US Army burned Bibles?

[PKMKII]

Edit again - Anyone complaining that burning a religious book (Qu'ran, Bible, Torah etc.) is offensive, point me to the outrage when the US Army burned Bibles?

Are you really trying to suggest that a fundie nutter burning a Koran because he thinks "Islam is of the devil" and wants it wiped from the face of the earth, is the same as the army burning bibles because nobody wanted them and they were taking up space and money, not to mention that giving them out would have wandered dangerously close to violating the Respect Clause?

[daftbeaker]

Edit again - Anyone complaining that burning a religious book (Qu'ran, Bible, Torah etc.) is offensive, point me to the outrage when the US Army burned Bibles?

Are you really trying to suggest that a fundie nutter burning a Koran because he thinks "Islam is of the devil" and wants it wiped from the face of the earth, is the same as the army burning bibles because nobody wanted them and they were taking up space and money, not to mention that giving them out would have wandered dangerously close to violating the Respect Clause?

Nope. I am suggesting that everyone getting their knickers in a twist because he's burning a 'holy book' seem to have very selective memories. Unless now it's not that he's burning Qu'rans but everyone's so offended and there's going to be American troops killed because the tosspot fanatics that will get upset will somehow know he's doing it for the wrong reasons? That they wouldn't be upset if someone was burning a Qu'ran for waste disposal?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Okay, so it's more than the simple act of burning a Holy Book, it's the intent behind it. The difference has already been explained, and should be pretty clear.

the gesture was designed to draw attention to the pastor's opinion that Islam is a creation of the devil and that the only path to true salvation is in a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity (plus, all that stuff I said about the symbolism of book burning).

a fundie nutter burning a Koran because he thinks "Islam is of the devil" and wants it wiped from the face of the earth,

That said, I don't agree with the military burning the books anyway. Would it be so bad if they handed them over to the Library of Congress to deal with or something? But no, I don't get up in arms about it as much because the military's reasons were out of necessity/legal webs, rather than hate.

[daftbeaker]

Okay, so it's more than the simple act of burning a Holy Book, it's the intent behind it. The difference has already been explained, and should be pretty clear.

It's different than just personal property. It's a Holy Book, hell, it's the Holy Book. It's probably something you'll never quite "get." Which isn't a bad thing, I just wouldn't go around comparing the Qu'ran to books you may own written by Dawkins or Darwin.

You didn't mention that bit before. Before it was enough that some people hold it to be sacred to be enough ground to not burn it.

Now you can burn it but only for the right reason? It's only burning it while thinking bad thoughts that counts as wrong now? If I happen to go out and buy a Qu'ran and burn it as an act of protest at the treatment of women as property under Sharia law, that's ok and fanatical lunatics won't overreact because of it? Seriously?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I'm not sure why you quoted me there... that was just an explanation of why this is contextually different from burning scientific books and atheist may or may not own (by that I mean: one does not have to own any of these books to be cosndiered a "good atheist," while basically every Muslim owns a Qu'ran, like how basically every Christian owns a Bible).

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else's reactions, especially fanatics, but yes, I take into account intent when I form my opinion of an action.

Also, who say anything about "can" or "can't?" You can do whatever you want to. If it involves burning books of any kind, I'll probably disapprove. If you're burning a Koran because of misogynistic Sharia, I might understand and won't necessarily protest or complain too much, though I might suggest more constructive ways of getting your point across. When a pastor is going to burn a whole pile of Qu'rans on September 11th because of hate, yeah, I'd protest that if I could get there.

What's so bad about being subjective with ones opinions/feelings?

[PKMKII]

I am suggesting that everyone getting their knickers in a twist because he's burning a 'holy book' seem to have very selective memories.

I'm pretty sure the only ones offended because they think a copy of the Koran itself has intrinsic holy value are the Muslims. Everyone else is just against book burning in general (association fallacies notwithstanding).

[daftbeaker]

Ok, I seem to have misunderstood your arguments. Between the comments from Roy about people being shot in Afghanistan and our discussion about Petraeus, I thought you were arguing that people shouldn't burn the Qu'ran full stop.

I'm still all in favour of it though