Burn a Quran day

[westprog]

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. ...

Don't you see that the constant retreat into analogy isn't helping? This isn't about road deaths, or black rights, or some other issue that's a bit like it but not really. What you are not addressing is how the action you are proposing will actually effect real people.

If the purpose of burning Korans is simply to make it safe to burn Korans then it seems entirely pointless. But you haven't given any other reasons except in the vaguest way.

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

It would be a victory against the intransigence of religious fundamentalists and their intolerance of views different form their own. That is no small victory.

"I'm sure the innocent people killed in the interim would have gladly accepted their deaths for this end.

It seems no one actually died as a result of this threatened koran burning.
Unles you count these:

"Two protesters were killed by the Afghan army on Sunday as it broke up a crowd demonstrating over now-cancelled plans by the pastor of a small US church to hold a Koran burning, an official said."

"Indian police shot dead 13 people in Kashmir on Monday as stone-throwing rioters defied curfews and torched a Christian school in a surge of anger stoked by the desecration of the Koran."

But, if they did, whose fault do you think it would have been

1) The pastor
2) The media
3) General Patraeus

OR

The actual murderers

 

[BillyJoe]

If the purpose of burning Korans is simply to make it safe to burn Korans then it seems entirely pointless. But you haven't given any other reasons except in the vaguest way.

Try again.

 

[westprog]

Try again.

If the purpose of burning Korans is simply to make it safe to burn Korans then it seems entirely pointless. But you haven't given any other reasons except in the vaguest way.

 

[westprog]

It would be a victory against the intransigence of religious fundamentalists and their intolerance of views different form their own. That is no small victory.


It seems no one actually died as a result of this threatened koran burning.
Unles you count these:

"Two protesters were killed by the Afghan army on Sunday as it broke up a crowd demonstrating over now-cancelled plans by the pastor of a small US church to hold a Koran burning, an official said."

"Indian police shot dead 13 people in Kashmir on Monday as stone-throwing rioters defied curfews and torched a Christian school in a surge of anger stoked by the desecration of the Koran."

Way to go Billy-Joe. Those are clearly highly desirable consequences, and we could do with a bit more of that.

So, we've seen how burning Korans leads to death, intolerance, and unstable societies. So naturally burning a few more will make us all more tolerant, safer, and the Middle East will be greatly improved.

But, if they did, whose fault do you think it would have been

1) The pastor
2) The media
3) General Patraeus

OR

The actual murderers

Why not ask a few widows? "I'll miss my husband, but the right of some jerk in the USA to express his opinions is more important than the lives of some people a long way off".

 

[FireGarden]

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.

I don't think I've misunderstood anything this time. You've overlooked the other people in the debate. You are so obsessed with the extremists you can't hear the moderates.

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

I don't see why it's difficult to comment. It disproves your claim that Catholics have reached the point of not giving a damn. How it would be a good thing to box Catholics into a corner where they don't care what the rest of society does to the things which are important to them... that I don't understand. You seem to think that if enough people piss on them they won't see it as persecution and tell each other stories about lions -- they'll see it as a call to rationalism.

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.

Whatever name you give it... It is something that people do.

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!

See... Lot's of people do it. So it is something people do. Probably even you and I do it. We just aren't aware of when.

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.

I've started a thread where I give my response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187248

 

[FireGarden]

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

Along this line, I propose: slap a hot arse day. Currently we can't slap an arse we find sexy, or otherwise cop a feel. Sure, there'll be controversy to begin with. But this will die down. Just like it did with run over a bicycle day.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

You're right. People can be made to accept anything at all. You just have to stick to your guns.

Can I rely on your support come slap an arse day?

 

[danrush]

Its not like Muslims are the only people in the world to ever riot

As if Muslims are a people worth respect. Look at what they've done to the Palestinians.

 

[BillyJoe]

If the purpose of burning Korans is simply to make it safe to burn Korans then it seems entirely pointless. But you haven't given any other reasons except in the vaguest way.

When something doesn't work the first time perhaps you need to try something else.

So, we've seen how burning Korans leads to death, intolerance, and unstable societies. So naturally burning a few more will make us all more tolerant, safer, and the Middle East will be greatly improved.

It was pretty funny - well not funny but you know what I mean - that those threatening to kill those who burn korans were actually the ones killed. And, of course, the threats of koran burning had nothing directly to do with it. It was almost coincidental. These people were out burning churches and were killed by police who were trying to restore order.

Why not ask a few widows? "I'll miss my husband, but the right of some jerk in the USA to express his opinions is more important than the lives of some people a long way off".

...or "I'll miss my husband but his right to be a jerk and kill someone and burn someone's church because someone else threatened to burn a koran is more important"

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't think I've misunderstood anything this time. You've overlooked the other people in the debate. You are so obsessed with the extremists you can't hear the moderates.

Of course you've misunderstood.
In fact, the moderates are the targets of koran burning.
Unless you think the fundamentalists are going to be shifted.
(Remember the psychopath)

I don't see why it's difficult to comment. It disproves your claim that Catholics have reached the point of not giving a damn.

As far as I could tell, there was one case of threatened host desecration and one of actual host desecration. Then everyone got cold feet. I've already ponted out that this will not work. All newspapers and magazines needed to publish the Danish cartoons, not just one or two, here and there.

How it would be a good thing to box Catholics into a corner where they don't care what the rest of society does to the things which are important to them... that I don't understand.

It's not so much that they don't care, but that they give up being precious about it. They become just a little more tolerant of the fact that others do not share their precious belief in the sacredness of their bible and are entitled to do with their copy of the bible whatever they damn well please.

I've started a thread where I give my response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187248

Thank you again for mischaracterising my point of view.

Along this line, I propose: slap a hot arse day. Currently we can't slap an arse we find sexy, or otherwise cop a feel. Sure, there'll be controversy to begin with. But this will die down. Just like it did with run over a bicycle day.

Another burning straw man.
Burning my own copy of the koran =/= slapping someone else's bottom

 

[FireGarden]

Of course you've misunderstood.
In fact, the moderates are the targets of koran burning.
Unless you think the fundamentalists are going to be shifted.
(Remember the psychopath)

So why are you using threats from fundamentalists as an excuse to not listen to moderates?

As far as I could tell, there was one case of threatened host desecration and one of actual host desecration. Then everyone got cold feet. I've already ponted out that this will not work. All newspapers and magazines needed to publish the Danish cartoons, not just one or two, here and there.

All newspapers need to print those cartoons? Really? Did you have trouble finding them on the net? Can't some newspapers decide not to offend people? Or do all of them have to side with you?

It's not so much that they don't care, but that they give up being precious about it. They become just a little more tolerant of the fact that others do not share their precious belief in the sacredness of their bible and are entitled to do with their copy of the bible whatever they damn well please.

That's cherry-picking.
And I don't know what you mean by 'being precious about it'. The hot-heads still make death threats regarding wafer-abuse, Jerry Springer the Opera, etc.

Did you see this response to Pastor Jones:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_7280.shtml

[Al-Furqaan Foundation] had planned to giveaway copies of the Qur'an in response to the pastor's previously announced plans to burn the holy book on Sept. 11.

[...] The organization has received a shipment of 60,000 Qu'rans that are ready for distribution in response to what they considered would have been “a colossal un-Christian and un-American act of bigotry.”

[...] The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also planned to distribute Holy Qu'rans to replace the burned copies.

And there's this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/muslims-proact-against-qu_b_705571.html
'co-written with Imam Zia Shaikh, the resident scholar of the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas'

Or are those reactions too 'precious', still?

Thank you again for mischaracterising my point of view.

Another burning straw man.
Burning my own copy of the koran =/= slapping someone else's bottom

You're welcome.
Of course apples aren't oranges, but they're both fruits.

Do you ever stop to ask which point of similarity was being highlighted by a comparison? I assume you are, at least, aware that a comparison is not intended to be an equivalence.

You want to change attitudes with Quran burning, I want to change attitudes with bum-slapping. We both stand little chance of success with those methods. But we can dream, BillyJoe. We can dream.

I know you'll tell me that your windmill is more worthy of tilting at, but to each his own.

 

[westprog]

When something doesn't work the first time perhaps you need to try something else.

Usually that "something else" involves a bit of thought as to how it might actually be better that what else you're doing.

It seems that instigating riots where "bad people" get killed is the "benefit".

 

[BillyJoe]

People riot and, in the process, burn down churches. Police, trying to restore order, kill 19 of them. In another part of the world a person purchases a book with the intention of burning it. Somehow it's all his fault.

 

[bikerdruid]

As if Muslims are a people worth respect. Look at what they've done to the Palestinians.

perhaps you are confused as well as bigoted.....the palestinians are muslims.

 

[westprog]

People riot and, in the process, burn down churches. Police, trying to restore order, kill 19 of them. In another part of the world a person purchases a book with the intention of burning it. Somehow it's all his fault.

Maybe he can enjoy the luxury of feeling a little bit of a martyr, while somebody else is actually suffering.

 

[phiwum]

People riot and, in the process, burn down churches. Police, trying to restore order, kill 19 of them. In another part of the world a person purchases a book with the intention of burning it. Somehow it's all his fault.

I can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be something missing from your synopsis.

Let me try my hand at it.

A person purchases a book in order to publicly burn it in a manner guaranteed to generate media attention. He does so knowing full well that this act will cause outrage. As a result of his stated intention, a riot occurs and churches are burned. Police kill nineteen people as a result.

It is difficult to say just how much blame lies with the book burner, but it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act (or at least announced that he would) knowing that violence was a likely result. He is surely not blameless.

(I take for granted that churches were burned. I hadn't heard that, but I wasn't following the news closely.)

 

[westprog]

I can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be something missing from your synopsis.

Let me try my hand at it.

A person purchases a book in order to publicly burn it in a manner guaranteed to generate media attention. He does so knowing full well that this act will cause outrage. As a result of his stated intention, a riot occurs and churches are burned. Police kill nineteen people as a result.

It is difficult to say just how much blame lies with the book burner, but it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act (or at least announced that he would) knowing that violence was a likely result. He is surely not blameless.

(I take for granted that churches were burned. I hadn't heard that, but I wasn't following the news closely.)

The thread has been following the following pattern.

- A burns a Koran and B goes out and kills someone.

- B was wicked, but it was wrong of A to burn the Koran

- So you're saying that it's entirely A's fault that someone was killed. Why are you excusing B killing someone?

- I'm not. I don't excuse B, but I think that A was wrong to burn the Koran.

- So you're saying that it's entirely A's fault...

and so on ad nauseam.

It's obviously possible for more than one person to be wrong. There's a nonsensical argument that seems to imply that blaming someone for provoking a riot is the same thing as excusing the riot.

If someone provokes a riot by doing something good, that's a different matter. For example, Rosa Parks caused a lot of trouble by her actions. But it was worth it because she had a clear intention, and was exerting a right that was being denied her. However, when someone does something purely in order to offend other people, then that's reprehensible. The fact that it leads to horrendous consequences is not an excuse for doing the thing in the first place.

 

[BillyJoe]

At this stage I'll just point out the false statements in the above two posts:

"He does so knowing full well that this act will cause outrage."

"it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act...knowing that violence was a likely result"

"So you're saying that it's entirely A's fault that someone was killed"

"Why are you excusing B killing someone?"

"There's a nonsensical argument that seems to imply that blaming someone for provoking a riot is the same thing as excusing the riot."

"when someone does something purely in order to offend other people"

When, against the evidence, a person imputes another person's intent and falsely attributes statements to another person that they don;t even believe to be true, you have to wonder why.

 

[phiwum]

At this stage I'll just point out the false statements in the above two posts:

"He does so knowing full well that this act will cause outrage."

"it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act...knowing that violence was a likely result"
[...]
When, against the evidence, a person imputes another person's intent and falsely attributes statements to another person that they don;t even believe to be true, you have to wonder why.

You're honestly suggesting that perhaps Pastor Jones did not know burning the Quran would cause outrage? This is, frankly, utterly unbelievable.

That he wouldn't know violence was a likely result is only slightly more believable -- and, of course, he surely knew that other believed so.

You say that these two statements are against evidence. Please, kind sir, show me where Terry Jones expressed any doubt that others may become outraged as a result of his proposed burning. Show me also where he suggested that he was unaware of potential violent reactions. If you can do so, then I'll retract the above statements, but also conclude that the man is dumber than a bucket of rocks.