Burn a Quran day

[westprog]

Do you equally condemn the Mo-toons? Satanic Verses?

Do you condemn CFI as ignorant jerks for reprinting the toons?

Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally?

The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk.

The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way.

Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones.

 

[tsig]

Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally?

The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk.

The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way.

Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones.

Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action.

 

[westprog]

Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action.

You oppose speech with speech. It's a simple enough concept.

 

[Checkmite]

But if you decide to provoke some big biker, knowing that he's a psychopath, knowing that he is going to go off and kill some random person - and if you have no more good reason to provoke him than just for the hell of it - what does that make you?

You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite?

 

[westprog]

You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite?

Obviously not. To observe that there are violent Muslims who will kill people when a Koran is burned is not bigotry - it's in the realm of the bleedin' obvious.

I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent". Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't seem to want to distinguish between the two very different statements.

Incidentally, in many jurisdictions, it will be Muslims getting killed as a result of Jones stupidity and bigotry.

 

[BillyJoe]

This was my solution when I first read about this.
Now someone's done it:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/atheist-lawyer-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-1577w.html?from=age_ft

It's even more apt now seeing as both muslims and christians have decided it's not a good idea to burn each other's book because they both contain parts of the other and so it would be akin to burning your own book.

And this is nothing like what the Nazi's did, their purpose being to prevent people from reading certain ideas. The purpose here is quite different. After all, it would be impossible to burn all the korans or all the bibles. The idea is to challenge the right not to be offended. The right not to be offended sounds the death-nell of free speech.

 

[Checkmite]

I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent".

Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah.

If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence.

 

[westprog]

Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah.

There are two different issues being confused here.

Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do.

Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know. No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions.

If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence.

So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken.

 

[Robin]

I'm for virtual burning of the Koran. I'll order the Koran on Kindle and then ceremoniously delete it. In retaliation, Muslim extremists declare they'll delete the bible from their Kindle, so there.

Why would they do that?

The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is.

 

[Checkmite]

There are two different issues being confused here.

Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do.

"Stupid" and "OK" aren't mutually exclusive.

Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know.

Are we sure that was the purpose, and that there was no other? I can think of a couple of possible reasons for what Jones planned to do besides "he just wants to provoke them for provoking's sake".

No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions.

And here is where our opinions most definitely part. Yes, people who exercise their right to free expression should be willing to accept that there will be consequences. Reasonably speaking, these consequences will be in the form of counter-speech. It would be foolish, for instance, for this Jones fellow to get all hopping mad over some Muslims buying and then burning a Bible after he bought and then burnt a Koran; or for him to complain that a local business stopped sponsoring his activities, as a way of expressing that they do not support his speech. That's all good. But you can't tell J D Salinger, for example, to "accept the consequence" that because he wrote Catcher In The Rye, John Lennon is dead.

So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken.

By "violent threats should not be accomodated", are you saying Jones shouldn't cave to threats of killings by extremists?

 

[Towlie]

The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is.

Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum!

 

[Robin]

The third word is wrong

Where?

I never actually finished my maths degree - but I am guessing after the second word and before the fourth word.

 

[Robin]

Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum!

Rethinking this ... is your objection that Muslims only believe that the Gospel is the revelation of God and not the New Testament in whole?

Or are you saying that they don't accept the Gospel as a revelation from God either?

If the first, then I correct myself - Muslims believe the Gospel is a direct revelation from God, but I am not sure if they regard that rest of the NT as such.

However in desecrating the NT they would also be descrating the Gospel - so they would not do it.

 

[Towlie]

Some of us do, but I doubt that you ever will (learn).

Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it.

The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more.

 

[Robin]

Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it.

Not abusive - just responding in kind to you.

Nice double standard there Towlie!

The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more.

OK, you are right. Muslims could not possibly believe something that was inconsistent.

What was I thinking?

Let us get this completely clear.

Muslims do believe that the Gospel is a direct revelation from God.

It says so in the Quran.

 

[Robin]

Let me requote just in case the point is not clear:

3.002 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

3.003 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Quran 3.002-3.003
​

I don't see how there could be any doubt about this.

 

[tsig]

You oppose speech with speech. It's a simple enough concept.

That's what Koran burners are doing.

 

[Robin]

That's what Koran burners are doing.

But what are they opposing by doing this?

Do you think that extremist Islamists will be upset by American Christians burning Qurans?

Or do you think that maybe, they will be jumping with joy at such a lucky circumstance?

 

[Towlie]

Nice double standard there Towlie!

Yes, it is nice. Let me teach it to you:

Standard #1: Ridiculing a statement made by your opponent that you consider to be ridiculous is perfectly acceptable.

Standard #2: Personally attacking your opponent, such as questioning his ability to learn, is called an ad hominem^WP attack and is considered an argumentative fallacy. It is also forbidden on many Internet forums.

 

[tsig]

But what are they opposing by doing this?

Do you think that extremist Islamists will be upset by American Christians burning Qurans?

Or do you think that maybe, they will be jumping with joy at such a lucky circumstance?

Who cares what extremists do. You've already told us they don't represent Islam .