Burn a Quran day

[FireGarden]

How is that in any way relevant to what I said:
"You cannot promote tolerance within a community by tolerating the curtailment of one person's freedom by another person's religious beliefs."

Try freedom of speech VS the right to of religious people to be equal members of society.

So you would protect a person's right to free speech and then condemn him for exercising it?

If he said something that needed to be condemned. Duh!

Attacking ideas is not the same as attacking those who hold those ideas.
If we had to avoid attacking ideas because doing so would upset those who believe in them, we might as well give up on free speech right now.

That's true. Attacking ideas is not the same as attacking those who hold the ideas. But that's not relevent unless you insist that your interpretation of Quran burning is the only possible one. Which you can't do, because you accept that 50% of people burning Qurans would be a bad thing on the grounds of how it would exclude Muslims from being equal in society. I've made the claim many times, you've accepted it by not countering it. So burning Qurans is an attack upon Muslims. You admit this for large amounts of Quran burning, then have a special pleading when only a few hundreds burn Quran. That's not enough to convince me you're right.

Of course this seems to somehow apply only to religious ideas. It seems that, for you, Nazism is fair game.

No I don't make a special case for religious ideas. You can criticise them all you want. But you have to do it in a way which doesn't prejudice the status of Muslims. Wanting to burn Qurans without being condemned is wanting society to be on your side at the expense of Muslims. Ain't going to happen, I have the right to condemn you and I fight for that right by exercising it in a manner which can't be interpreted as denying you your rights to express yourself.

But the koran does require that.
The koran is intolerant of an alternative view.
The koran encourages the killing of those who disagree.

No it does not. That is clear from the many ways in which Muslims interpret the Quran.

You might be interested in verse 3:7
There is some disagreement as to its meaning, but not regarding the part I want to quote.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Meaning_of_Sura_(3:7)

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah.

So the Quran admits that there are parts which are difficult to understand. Scholars disagree regarding whether the allegorical parts are understood by God alone or whether sufficiently knowledgable people can also understand them. But the point is that there are parts which are unclear and open to interpretation. Verse 3:7 seems to be an example since it is interpreted in two different ways.

FireGarden,

You have swapped the driver's seat for a comfortable lie down at the back of the bus.

You have a problem with people agreeing with each other, don't you? The fact of the matter is I say what is on my mind.

It is precisely religion that IS confusing this issue for you.

Good example.

Those cyclists do not require you to give up your car and ride a bicycle, and they do not threaten to kill you if you refuse to do so. The koran requires you to give up your belief and threatens to kill you if you do not do so.

No it does not. Which I know to be the case since my Muslim parents pray 5 times a day and have no intention of killing me.

If sufficiently motivated to do so, we might choose to burn a koran in protection of our free speech and against the intolerance promoted in that book, but we leave the harmless cyclist alone.

Harmless cyclist?!!!! They slow me down. I have a right to drive at the speed limit. I demand that right. If they can't keep up with traffic they should get off the roads. Not to mention all the accidents involving cyclists. Destroying bicycles will save lives.

I hope you see the switch here.
In the first case, it is the target (the koran) that is being intolerant. In the second case, it is the targeteer (the motorist) who is being intolerant.

Way to miss the point!
My right to drive at the speed limit is limited by the rights of other road users. More importantly... The manner of protest is so open to interpretation that any real friend of mine would tell me to knock it off.

 

[FireGarden]

I have a right to feel I belong to the JREF community so your posts disagreeing with me are offensive.

That's my opinion. I don't think you have an argument which can change it. Your interpretation of symbolic acts is in no way the most natural interpretation.

Please stop posting as your posts are offensive to me.

The thing is, my freedom of speech on this forum is limited. Flame wars are not allowed. I'm not allowed to insult you. I have to address the arguments you make, not you personally.

You've agreed to these rules by being a member.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

The Forum is a discussion forum and we want it to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavour to ensure that civility will be the norm, but this does not mean that Members will be insulated from all insults and certainly not from challenges; the nature of the Forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges. Having your views challenged is not considered unfriendly nor uncivil.


12. “Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

So that is the rule here. I can challenge you. That is not considered unfriendly. I cannot, however, attack you personally. That isn't the atmosphere this forum wants.

So, to address your argument, I will point out that it is a strawman. I have nowhere said that religious ideas, or any other idea, should not be challenged or criticised. To pretend that I have in order to make a point is to attack an argument you can defeat rather than the argument I have made. So a strawman.

 

[BillyJoe]

Try freedom of speech VS the right of religious people to be equal members of society.

I'm attacking ideas in a book (symbolically by burning it)
That's free speech.
If there are people who believe in the ideas expressed in that book then they are free to defend those ideas.
That's also free speech.

That's true. Attacking ideas is not the same as attacking those who hold the ideas. But that's not relevent unless you insist that your interpretation of Quran burning is the only possible one.

If I burn a koran I'm sure I'd know what my motivation was.
But I can't be held responsible for what interpretation others want to put on it.
For example, ddt completely misread the intent of my post on Rosa Parks. Should I now stop making posts in case someone misinterprets them and takes offence like ddt did?

No I don't make a special case for religious ideas. You can criticise them all you want. But you have to do it in a way which doesn't prejudice the status of Muslims.

I wonder how this works with political ideas then.
I can criticise the coalition's policies all I want as long as I do not prejudice the status of those who believe in these policies?
Yes, I'm sure you won't be making that demand any time soon.

The koran encourages the killing of those who disagree.

No it does not. That is clear from the many ways in which Muslims interpret the Quran.

The koran is quite clear about this: death to the unbeliever.
The fundamentalists are actually the only muslims who live by the koran.
Yes, there are the moderates who misinterpret the koran for their own purposes (and let us be thankful for that) but surely its hypocritical to look upon the koran as a sacred book when you don't even believe what is clearly written therein.

So the Quran admits that there are parts which are difficult to understand.

Like this one?
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them"

You have swapped the driver's seat for a comfortable lie down at the back of the bus. -> <-

You have a problem with people agreeing with each other, don't you? The fact of the matter is I say what is on my mind.

Actually I merely forgot to add a smily.
It is there now.

The koran requires you to give up your belief and threatens to kill you if you do not do so.

No it does not. Which I know to be the case since my Muslim parents pray 5 times a day and have no intention of killing me.

It crossed my mind at one point that there might be personal connection.
Fortunately your parents have not read the koran in too much detail (like this bit: "take them and kill them wherever ye find them"). Or maybe they have another interpretation: "I'm gonna kill that kid when I get hold of him"

 

[ddt]

...oops, sorry, I didn't realise you weren't joking.


Edit:
In any case, it looks like you're getting your revenge:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclists-face-increased-injury-risk-20100925-15ro3.html

Oh well. Maybe it wasn't clear. My depiction of cyclists was deliberately over the top - just as the typical depiction of Muslims is by the anti-Islam crowd. Every Muslim is a terrorist as much as every cyclist is a Critical Mass participant.

 

[BillyJoe]

...and yet we're talking about the koran.
We're not burning muslims, we're burning korans

 

[FireGarden]

I'm attacking ideas in a book (symbolically by burning it)
That's free speech.
If there are people who believe in the ideas expressed in that book then they are free to defend those ideas.
That's also free speech.

If I burn a koran I'm sure I'd know what my motivation was.
But I can't be held responsible for what interpretation others want to put on it.
For example, ddt completely misread the intent of my post on Rosa Parks. Should I now stop making posts in case someone misinterprets them and takes offence like ddt did?

There's a difference between using words and symbolic gestures. Words have a clearer meaning -- that doesn't completely prevent misunderstanding, but it's the best we have. You yourself admit that Quran burning would be bad if 50% of people did it. What if they all did it while claiming the same intention as you? I think it would still be bad. That only a few hundred do it does not make it any clearer that your interpretation is the only one or even the most natural. And, if you want to communicate rather than just talk, you should at least be concerned with how your words/actions are interpreted.

I wonder how this works with political ideas then.
I can criticise the coalition's policies all I want as long as I do not prejudice the status of those who believe in these policies?
Yes, I'm sure you won't be making that demand any time soon.

In which cases do you think I should demand people knock it off? Where one group plays the patriotism card you might well see me saying: "Stop being silly. You can be anti-war and still pro-whatever_country".

Where has politics gotten so bad that one group is trying to prejudice the status of another? Maybe you mean when Britain passed laws forbidding the transmission of Gerry Adams' voice. You could quote the guy -- even have him dubbed by an actor. It was entirely stupid and I said so.

Do you think burning party manifestos is going to catch on? Would you even be worried if political debate desended that far?

The koran is quite clear about this: death to the unbeliever.

Many Muslims disagree.

The fundamentalists are actually the only muslims who live by the koran.

No, they are not. I have met many counter-examples to your claim.

Yes, there are the moderates who misinterpret the koran for their own purposes (and let us be thankful for that) but surely its hypocritical to look upon the koran as a sacred book when you don't even believe what is clearly written therein.

You obviously don't find it easy to see how other people can interpret anything in ways different to you. But they do.

Like this one?
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them"

Did you bother to look that up in context? The very next verse begins with the word "except":

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/00412.htm

Except those who join
A group between whom
And you there is a treaty
(Of peace), or those who approach
You with hearts restraining
Them from fighting you
As well as fighting their own
People.

The verse before the one you quoted begins "Why should ye be Divided into two parties About the Hypocrites?" The verses are all talking about particular people: deserters from the battle of Uhud. I found some of Yusuf Ali's commentary at a Christian forum:
http://www.christianforums.com/t107575/

The deserters aren't automatically to be put to death. They are given an opportunity to make amends or given a pass if their hearts don't let them fight against their own people. I find that to be a more natural interpretation of the verse than yours, which requires ignoring part of the text.

It crossed my mind at one point that there might be personal connection.
Fortunately your parents have not read the koran in too much detail (like this bit: "take them and kill them wherever ye find them"). Or maybe they have another interpretation: "I'm gonna kill that kid when I get hold of him"

Or maybe they've read it with more attention than you've managed. In fact, they read it at least once a year, during Ramadan. You can watch a whole lot of Muslims doing the same during Ramadan if you can tune into Saudi TV. My father has memorised about half of the Quran.


ETA: I found a site which has what looks like all of Yusuf Ali's commentaries. Note that the site begins playing audio when you open it -- even on my computer where scripts are supposed to be off except for trusted sites.
http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/Index.htm

I've only checked the commentary to verses 88-90, found in this pdf:
http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/004 Nisa'.pdf

The commentaries to 4:88 seem the same as the text I have.

 

[FireGarden]

...and yet we're talking about the koran.
We're not burning muslims, we're burning korans

And we're talking about running over bicycles not cyclists.

 

[BillyJoe]

There's a difference between using words and symbolic gestures. Words have a clearer meaning -- that doesn't completely prevent misunderstanding, but it's the best we have.

How about this then:
I'll read a offensive passage from the koran, rip out the page on which it is written, and burn it; and then pass it onto the next koran page burner.
Will you let us burn the koran now?

You yourself admit that Quran burning would be bad if 50% of people did it.

I merely said that this would never happen. There are simply not that many people interested in burning korans - even without the death threats. You'd be lucky to round up a hundred in a year. Secondly, I said that a hundred or so a year would be more than sufficient to produce the desired effect.

You obviously don't find it easy to see how other people can interpret anything in ways different to you. But they do.

No doubt a lot of twisting and turning goes on to try to make the koran look at least a little respectable.

There's probably even an interpretation of the following excerpt that enables your parents to keep the company of their non-believing son:

"O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord ? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim ? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way."

My father has memorised about half of the Quran.

I would call that hell on earth.
At least you only get to go to hell when you die.

"Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons"

 

[westprog]

So you're only for free speech when you agree with it.

Since that's precisely the opposite of what I've been saying, I'm wondering if some kind of weird satire is going on here. I can't think how else you could come to such a conclusion.

 

[westprog]

If he said something that needed to be condemned. Duh!

Tsig seems to misunderstand the concept of free speech as well. Free speech does not imply that nothing anyone says can ever be criticised. Saying that somebody has said something stupid, or offensive, or dangerous, is not censorship.

 

[westprog]

I'm attacking ideas in a book (symbolically by burning it)
That's free speech.
If there are people who believe in the ideas expressed in that book then they are free to defend those ideas.
That's also free speech.

And saying that your (hypothetical) actions are foolish and dangerous is also free speech.

 

[westprog]

Will you let us burn the koran now?

Who's stopping you?

 

[BillyJoe]

Will you let us burn the koran now?

Who's stopping you?

Do you REALLY think that was a serious question?

What I am REALLY asking is: would you still condemn the free speech act of koran burning if it was done the way I suggested to avoid ambiguity about the message - seeing as that seems to be the main objection.

Or are you just against koran burning period.

 

[westprog]

Do you REALLY think that was a serious question?

What I am REALLY asking is: would you still condemn the free speech act of koran burning if it was done the way I suggested to avoid ambiguity about the message - seeing as that seems to be the main objection.

Or are you just against koran burning period.

Certainly I would. The association of Koran burning with racism and bigotry makes it an entirely inappropriate gesture to symbolise tolerance and free speech.

 

[BillyJoe]

And saying that your (hypothetical) actions are foolish and dangerous is also free speech.

And my saying you saying my free speech acts are foolish and dangerous is foolish and dangerous is also free speech.

(The reason I would say you saying my free speech acts are foolish and dangerous is foolish and dangerous is because my free speech acts aim to break down intolerance and your characterisation of that act as foolish and dangerous serves to prop up intolerance)

 

[BillyJoe]

Certainly I would. The association of Koran burning with racism and bigotry makes it an entirely inappropriate gesture to symbolise tolerance and free speech.

Okay but before it was because koran burning does not send a clear unambiguous message. Now that I've suggested a form of koran burning that does send a clear unambiguous message about what the koran burning is all about, you're claiming koran burning should still be condemned because it is associated with racism and bigotry. So, even if I make it clear that when I do it, it is not because of racism and bigotry, you're still not happy?

Perhaps a film about the second world war should be condemned for showing the Nazi flag because it is associated with racism and bigotry? The film makers intent is not important?

 

[westprog]

Okay but before it was because koran burning does not send a clear unambiguous message. Now that I've suggested a form of koran burning that does send a clear unambiguous message about what the koran burning is all about, you're claiming koran burning should still be condemned because it is associated with racism and bigotry. So, even if I make it clear that when I do it, it is not because of racism and bigotry, you're still not happy?

Perhaps a film about the second world war should be condemned for showing the Nazi flag because it is associated with racism and bigotry? The film makers intent is not important?

If the end result of the Koran burning is to draw the attention of Muslim moderates to the fact that they aren't sufficiently faithful to the Billy-Joe interpretation of their religion, then I don't think it's in any way a sensible idea to proceed.

If it were actually the case (and I don't believe it is) that the proper way to observe Islam is to be intolerant, bigoted and crazy, then I think it's a good idea to avoid drawing attention to the fact. I'd seek out the Muslim theologians putting forward the erroneous view that it's possible for faithful Muslims to be tolerant, moderate and ecumenical.

If the Taliban and Al Q'aeda are promoting a particular view of Islam, I see no benefit in supporting them. I would rather promote the views of their opponents.

 

[FireGarden]

How about this then:
I'll read a offensive passage from the koran, rip out the page on which it is written, and burn it; and then pass it onto the next koran page burner.
Will you let us burn the koran now?

I'd still think it was a stupid thing to do. I would be worried if 50% of people did what you describe above. It would create an oppressive atmosphere which doesn't help dialogue. Why not just quote those verses and comment on them? Open a dialogue, rather than acting like you are the arbitar of what means what.

And what are you going to do with the verses you approve of? Ignore them? Or are there none? It would be dishonest to only give one side of the issue.

You've already chosen a couple of verses where I don't agree with your interpretation. The first, you didn't bother to read on to the next verse or otherwise check the context. And the second, you didn't seem to read even what you quoted. Emphasis added:

There's probably even an interpretation of the following excerpt that enables your parents to keep the company of their non-believing son:

"O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord ? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim ? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way."

I've never driven anyone out because they believe in Allah.
It seems to amount to "have the sense to be once bitten, twice shy."

If you want a verse which is difficult to defend, then I suggest this verse:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/00406.htm

which, even if you defend corporal punishment, lowers the status of a wife to that of a child.

My parents are against corporal punishment in general and don't have a defense of that verse.

No doubt a lot of twisting and turning goes on to try to make the koran look at least a little respectable.

Less twisting than you seem to be capable of to make the Quran seem bad. I would assume you've given the two verses you seem most sure of. Or are you holding back for some reason? The first verse, I gave an explanation. You did not comment on any of the details. Does that mean you agree? Are you willing to admit to a mistake?

You yourself admit that Quran burning would be bad if 50% of people did it.

I merely said that this would never happen.

You did more by not countering the claims I made. I even said you would be ashamed to be Australian if 50% of Australians burnt Qurans. If you are finding that claim too uncomfortable to leave uncontested, then by all means say you would be okay with 50% of Australians burning the Quran. Until you do, I will assume I'm right in saying you are ashamed.

There are simply not that many people interested in burning korans - even without the death threats. You'd be lucky to round up a hundred in a year.

The likelihood isn't the point. The point is you either have to defend 50% of people burning Qurans, or you have to plead your case of a few hundred being significantly different -- in kind, not magnitude.

Secondly, I said that a hundred or so a year would be more than sufficient to produce the desired effect.

And you have no support for this claim. It is your opinion.

 

[BillyJoe]

westprog,

The Taliban's activities are far more in tune with the koran than those of the moderates which is demonstrated time and again by the fact that the moderates (though I'm sure you can find an exception that proves the general rule) are loathe to criticise their extremist bretheren. In any case, you will have to admit that the extremists' interpretation of the koran is at least a possible interpretation. And if you think that you will persuade them otherwise by calm reasoned diplomatic discussion, I invite you meet my psychopath.

If it were actually the case (and I don't believe it is) that the proper way to observe Islam is to be intolerant, bigoted and crazy, then I think it's a good idea to avoid drawing attention to the fact.

Yes, ignoring the issue is going to resolve this issue I'm sure.
Just like ignoring the wrongs in our society would have somehow magically produced equality for blacks, women, and gays. The attitudes of our society towards blacks, women, and gays were, and still are in some cases, every bit as intolerant as the attitude of the Taliban towards non-believers, women, and gays.
Diplomacy alone is never going to change this attitude.

 

[BillyJoe]

The koran on women:

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other"

"or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)"

"Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan"

"unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females"

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness...confine them to the houses until death take them"

"It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the women...unless they be guilty of flagrant lewdness"

"You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like

"Virgins await those who enter paradise"


(Note to FG: I do not have a list. I am finding these quotes as I go along.)