Burn a Quran day

[ddt]

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.

...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.

Exactly. And running over a bicycle as a "symbolic act" would piss off every cyclist, the vast majority of normal ones who behave in traffic, as well as that eenie-weenie tiny minority of fanatics who want to ban cars or some such. Likewise, burning the Quran will piss off all Muslims, moderates and fanatics alike.

 

[westprog]

Exactly. And running over a bicycle as a "symbolic act" would piss off every cyclist, the vast majority of normal ones who behave in traffic, as well as that eenie-weenie tiny minority of fanatics who want to ban cars or some such. Likewise, burning the Quran will piss off all Muslims, moderates and fanatics alike.

And this has been explained, in detail, to Billy Joe, but he persists in insisting that it will do good in some way. Yes, the situation is serious, yes, there is a problem with getting moderates to condemn the extremists (though there's more of a problem in getting the media to talk to and about the moderates); but it's obvious to almost everyone that a gesture aimed at marginalising and insulting all Muslims will benefit the lunatic fringe and cause enormous damage. Almost everyone.

There's a kind of naive idealism which seems to believe that if only this were properly explained, everybody would think like me and the world would be a paradise.

 

[westprog]

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.




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.

No. So let's do something blatantly stupid.

If the aim is in fact to persuade one and a half billion people to abandon Islam, then burning a few Korans ain't gonna cut it, Jack. You need a campaign over many generations.

When the planes hit the towers, the response from the West as a whole was to assure Islam that the West did not regard Muslims as the enemy. They could be accepted as normal, equal members of society. This, apparently, was the wrong strategy. The right approach was to tell moderate Muslims that they are the enemy; that their beliefs are incompatible with living in a civilised society; that they are inconsistent and wrong if they try to condemn Al Q'Aeda and the Taliban, because the actions of the extremists are more in tune with 'real' Islam than the moderates. The clever thing about the book burning is that it encapsulates this message in a compact, simple form. The disadvantage is that it could be confused with mere racial bigotry - which would in fact be far less harmful.

As far as I can tell, the main reason Billy-Joe has given for burning the Koran is that it makes it easier to burn the Koran. After a few thousand burnings, and a few thousand riots and deaths, the next time a Koran is burned it won't be such a big deal. A minor side effect would be to create one and a half billion bitter enemies, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

 

[FireGarden]

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.)

I'm not sure what you intend by all this. The first quote is someone's translation of 4:34, so the same verse I linked to before:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/00406.htm
Except, strangely, you don't reference the point I made regarding beating/corporal punishment. I would think that would be more unacceptable to you.

The next seems to be from 5-6
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/5/6/

O you who believe! When you rise up to prayer wash your faces, and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads, and your feet down to the ankles. And if you are polluted, then purify yourselves (bathe). But if you are sick, or on a journey, or if you come from the toilet, or if you have touched women and cannot find water, then take from high ground (clean) sand or earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith.

So you seem to have skipped quite a bit.
Do you think the reference is to sex? Or just to touching women?

Anyway, I fail to see the point. Especially since you don't seem to want to debate.

I've already given you a verse that my parents don't have an explanation for. They seem to disagree with it. That means they don't live entirely by the Quran, but they do live by it a good deal more than you seem to think.


And are you sure you're not using a list?

"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

That doesn't seem to be part of the Quran. I found it on SAQ:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#24

But it is in the margin, not in the translation of the verse. And I'm not sure how SAQ gets that interpretation since SAQ gives this tranlsation: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery."



Which order are you reading the verses in, anyway?

 

[westprog]

I've already given you a verse that my parents don't have an explanation for. They seem to disagree with it. That means they don't live entirely by the Quran, but they do live by it a good deal more than you seem to think.

I've noticed many times on JREF that nothing upsets some non-believers like a non-fundamentalist. It grates on them when people seem able to just take the essence of the message.

 

[BillyJoe]

Anyway, I fail to see the point. Especially since you don't seem to want to debate.

My point is not to dissect the differences in meaning is various passages in the Quran to see who is correct. My point is....

I've already given you a verse that my parents don't have an explanation for. They seem to disagree with it. That means they don't live entirely by the Quran, but they do live by it a good deal more than you seem to think.

This is my point.
Moderate muslims do not live entirely by the Quran. But, if that is the case, why do they regard it as a sacred text? Do they? And if they don't regard it as a sacred text - the infallible word of god - why would they be particularly upset at Quran burning? Are they? And, if so, why?
Certainly it's not worth killing people over.

 

[BillyJoe]

I've noticed many times on JREF that nothing upsets some non-believers like a non-fundamentalist. It grates on them when people seem able to just take the essence of the message.

You know this is a silly argument. Right?

Who exactly are these non-believers that you've noticed many times on JREF?
What exactly is it that you've noticed upsets them about moderates?
And what exactly is the "essence of the message"?

 

[BillyJoe]

...as for your previous post:

(burning a straw man)

 

[FireGarden]

My point is not to dissect the differences in meaning is various passages in the Quran to see who is correct. My point is....

This is my point.
Moderate muslims do not live entirely by the Quran. But, if that is the case, why do they regard it as a sacred text? Do they?

Clearly, they do regard it as sacred. It's very important in their lives and how they live their lives. How they manage this while not being able to defend every line is a bit of a mystery. I would think it should be an all or nothing affair. But that's not the way they see it.

 

[Belgian thought]

Clearly, they do regard it as sacred. It's very important in their lives and how they live their lives. How they manage this while not being able to defend every line is a bit of a mystery. I would think it should be an all or nothing affair. But that's not the way they see it.

Based on this mystery, the burning of it could/should induce a personal decision making milestone, one way or the other - from "What the hell, let them burn it." to "Go to hell infidel, and burn in it!".

It seems to me, that we are more worried about the latter reaction, neglecting the real possibility of the former occurring.

Based on my knowledge/relationships with Muslims, most would opt for the former – in fact I was in meetings with Muslims from Saudi Arabia recently, and the subject came up. The response from all was very much in the "What the hell, let them burn it".

It could be argued that the whole debacle and the resulting debates have in many ways been very condescending to those of the Muslim faith.

 

[westprog]

...as for your previous post:

[qimg]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/95598535_e4c4d53f1a_m.jpg[/qimg]

(burning a straw man)

If you actually said precisely what you were trying to achieve, and exactly how your methods were going to achieve it, rather than drifting into Rosa Parks analogies, then it might not be necessary to guess.

 

[westprog]

Based on this mystery, the burning of it could/should induce a personal decision making milestone, one way or the other - from "What the hell, let them burn it." to "Go to hell infidel, and burn in it!".

It seems to me, that we are more worried about the latter reaction, neglecting the real possibility of the former occurring.

Based on my knowledge/relationships with Muslims, most would opt for the former – in fact I was in meetings with Muslims from Saudi Arabia recently, and the subject came up. The response from all was very much in the "What the hell, let them burn it".

It could be argued that the whole debacle and the resulting debates have in many ways been very condescending to those of the Muslim faith.

I agree, most of 'em will not even notice. But there are 1.5 billion Muslims - so if even a very, very small percentage respond by lethal violence - which has happened in the past - then the consequences would be serious. Not for people living in the West, probably. Somebody living in Saudi Arabia might get it in the neck.

 

[FireGarden]

Based on this mystery, the burning of it could/should induce a personal decision making milestone, one way or the other - from "What the hell, let them burn it." to "Go to hell infidel, and burn in it!".

It seems to me, that we are more worried about the latter reaction, neglecting the real possibility of the former occurring.

Based on my knowledge/relationships with Muslims, most would opt for the former – in fact I was in meetings with Muslims from Saudi Arabia recently, and the subject came up. The response from all was very much in the "What the hell, let them burn it".

Who has said such a response is not likely?

It could be argued that the whole debacle and the resulting debates have in many ways been very condescending to those of the Muslim faith.

I saw this debate as outright insulting to those who wanted to burn a Quran. Heck, to begin with I thought Pastor Jones was a parody along the lines of Landover Baptist.

 

[BillyJoe]

I agree, most of 'em will not even notice. But there are 1.5 billion Muslims - so if even a very, very small percentage respond by lethal violence - which has happened in the past - then the consequences would be serious. Not for people living in the West, probably. Somebody living in Saudi Arabia might get it in the neck.

And you combat this how?
By meekly agreeing to do exactly what they demand?
By giving in to blackmail?

Read these very public assessments of the catholic pope during his recent visit to the UK and then consider that there was not a single death, not even a threat of violence, as a result:

A leering old villain in a frock...a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims, a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the victims to silence

In all my years as a campaigner, I have never felt such animus against any individual as I do this creature. His views are so disgusting, so repellent, and so hugely damaging that the only thing to do is to get rid of him.

But the catholics are used to it now and none of them even cares.
Tolerance has won.
What's good for the goose...

 

[BillyJoe]

Clearly, they do regard it as sacred. It's very important in their lives and how they live their lives. How they manage this while not being able to defend every line is a bit of a mystery. I would think it should be an all or nothing affair. But that's not the way they see it.

Yes, if they do not believe every line and verse, how can they possibly regard it as sacred, as the infallible word of god?
Have you confronted them with this fact?

Would they be okay if I tore out the verses they didn't agree with and burnt them (metaphorically or literally).

 

[FireGarden]

And you combat this how?
By meekly agreeing to do exactly what they demand?
By giving in to blackmail?

When two people ask you to do a thing, and one of those people is a bastard, you seem to have a problem agreeing with the one who isn't.

Read these very public assessments of the catholic pope during his recent visit to the UK and then consider that there was not a single death, not even a threat of violence, as a result:

But the catholics are used to it now and none of them even cares.
Tolerance has won.
What's good for the goose...

Back to offense fatigue. I don't believe it exists. Have you forgotten about the PZ Myers wafer-gate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controversy

A controversy arose in July 2008 over a Pharyngula blog entry written by Myers expressing amazement at news reports of death threats issued to University of Central Florida Student Senator Webster Cook. On June 29, 2008, Cook attended a Catholic Mass being held in the student union at UCF by a Catholic student group that receives funding from the student government. Cook received the Catholic Eucharist host but did not consume it immediately. He said later that he wanted to take it back to his seat to show a friend, but when stopped he put it in his mouth until back at his seat, then a church leader made forcible attempts to take the host from him.[27][28] Cook stored the host at his home, then returned it one week later after receiving e-mail threats and pleas.

Offense fatigue kicked in amongst Catholics after that, did it?
JREF thread on the event:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120117

My opinion on it won't surprise you. Post 48:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3914686&postcount=48

Yes, if they do not believe every line and verse, how can they possibly regard it as sacred, as the infallible word of god?
Have you confronted them with this fact?

I have discussed this with them. There is no good answer. It's just something people do.

Some Catholics might even agree with some of the criticisms of the Pope. He's supposed to be infallible, but not all Catholics agree with his stance on -- say -- condoms.

Pretending it's otherwise isn't going to help change it.

Would they be okay if I tore out the verses they didn't agree with and burnt them (metaphorically or literally).

As with the Bible burning video linked earlier (which only involved verbal attacks), haven't we both metaphorically burnt that verse already? Why the need to move away from clearly stating a position to symbolic gestures which aren't going to be automatically understood in the way you intend.

 

[BillyJoe]

When two people ask you to do a thing, and one of those people is a bastard, you seem to have a problem agreeing with the one who isn't.

You've misunderstood something.
That bastard is "asking" me not to burn the koran by threatening to kill me. I not going to do what that bastard is "asking" me to do. But perhaps I'll remain anonymous for the time being.

Back to offense fatigue. I don't believe it exists. Have you forgotten about the PZ Myers wafer-gate?

This is the first I've heard of the wafer incident so it's difficult to comment.

But I would just like to point out that a person's life is more important than the fate of a piece of bread. Some people have actually managed to convince themselves that it is the actual body of an entity that they have convinced themselves actually exists. Apparently that is more important than a person's life.

Again, if someone somewhere stabbed a wafer with a rusty nail every week or so, I'm sure the furore would soon die out. Perhaps the purpetrators could remain anonymous initially so there's no one to target. And perhaps a fake wafer could be used initially.

I have discussed this with them. There is no good answer. It's just something people do.

No, it's not just something people do. It's cognitive dissonance. It's irrational to believe a text is sacred - the infallible word of god - but not believe in every line and verse.
Perhaps it requires koran burning, or koran page burning, or cutting out certain lines and verses and burning them, to make that point. Quiet diplomacy, however, won't cut it on its own.

Some Catholics might even agree with some of the criticisms of the Pope. He's supposed to be infallible, but not all Catholics agree with his stance on -- say -- condoms.

Lots of catholics are upset he was elected pope and disagree with him on lots of things. Yet he was infallibly elected by the college of cardinals with god's guidance!

As with the Bible burning video linked earlier (which only involved verbal attacks), haven't we both metaphorically burnt that verse already?

Metaphorical burning doesn't quite make the point as strongly. On the other hand, somewhere someone's going to be upset enough by metaphorical burning to deliver death threats, and then you're going to have to keep doing it till they stop.
Maybe you could remain anonymous initially and download a bible from the internet so that it doesn't seem so real.

Why the need to move away from clearly stating a position to symbolic gestures which aren't going to be automatically understood in the way you intend.

I think if I read a particular verse and tore it out and burnt it, most would understand my meaning.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps it requires koran burning, or koran page burning, or cutting out certain lines and verses and burning them, to make that point. Quiet diplomacy, however, won't cut it on its own.

And again the claim that Koran burning will in some way achieve some desirable end - without the slightest indication as to how this will happen - or any explanation as to why the undesirable ends predicted by other people won't happen.

I gave an example of a burning scenario, and the undesirable consequences that would result. Firegarden, who's familiar with what Muslims might think, has explained what the likely consequences might be. All we've had are platitudes about Rosa Parks and how quiet diplomacy won't work. Not a word about how things will change, except that after a few hundred Korans are burned, and a few hundred innocent people killed, they'll get used to Korans being burned. How this is an improvement I'm not sure.

 

[phiwum]

I gave an example of a burning scenario, and the undesirable consequences that would result. Firegarden, who's familiar with what Muslims might think, has explained what the likely consequences might be. All we've had are platitudes about Rosa Parks and how quiet diplomacy won't work. Not a word about how things will change, except that after a few hundred Korans are burned, and a few hundred innocent people killed, they'll get used to Korans being burned. How this is an improvement I'm not sure.

Er, isn't it obvious? We will then be free to burn Korans, something we cannot do without controversy now.

What a grand improvement that will be. I'm sure the innocent people killed in the interim would have gladly accepted their deaths for this end.

 

[BillyJoe]

Seems you guys are trying to deny the obvious.

In my home state they run pretty graphic advertisments in an attempt to reduce the road toll. When you see them for the first time they are quite shocking but, over time, they gradually have much less shock value untill eventually no one pays any attention any more. Sometimes they can even appear comical from a certain angle.

Such is human nature.
In the recent past, a naked thigh would raise a head of steam.
Now, full frontal nudity barely raises an eyebrow.