Burn a Quran day

[FireGarden]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Annoying people is the essence of any protest.
If you don't annoy people, they don't pay attention. If they don't pay attention, they don't receive the message. If they don't receive the message, they cannot change the way they think.

This like saying "Trolling is the essence of every debate. If you don't troll, people don't pay attention. If they don't pay attention, they don't receive the message. If they don't receive the message, they cannot change the way they think."

No.
Trolling is the opposite of debate. Debate is about exchanging ideas. Testing them with argument and counterargument. That this can be annoying is a human fault.

When the intention is to annoy, people don't react well to the annoyance. People have to believe their is something reasonable going on in order to continue the debate.

The same with protests.

 

[FireGarden]

So, when choosing a gesture aimed at attacking the excesses of Islam, do you, say, support a march of Muslim women removing their veils - or do you choose something which will attract the support of racists and the very same religious fundamentalists that you are supposed to be opposing?

I linked to some Iranian protestors in post 418:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6352411&postcount=418

BillyJoe hasn't commented on them.

 

[leon_heller]

Two Tyneside men have been arrested for allegedly burning Korans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11396980

 

[westprog]

I linked to some Iranian protestors in post 418:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6352411&postcount=418

BillyJoe hasn't commented on them.

He hasn't responded to the request to point out anyone living under Islamic oppression who's asked for Korans to be burned.

 

[FireGarden]

Two Tyneside men have been arrested for allegedly burning Korans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11396980

I've mixed feelings on that. If they can convict on the basis of it being a hate crime, I'd be surprised. Not that I think it wasn't hateful. But Britain isn't one of the EU countries referenced below. So other hateful things seem to be speakable.

From your link, you can get to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419

which compares freedom of speech in EU/USA

As a nation, he says, America has made a very different calculation about the protection of the speaker versus the dignity of the audience than many countries in Europe. America prioritises the autonomy of the speaker.

Denying the Holocaust, for example, is illegal in 16 European countries. Germany has banned the production and dissemination of pro-Nazi material.

But in the US, the courts have protected the rights of Nazis to express their views.

In one well-known case, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to uphold the right of a neo-Nazi group to march through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, and display swastikas.

 

[westprog]

I've mixed feelings on that. If they can convict on the basis of it being a hate crime, I'd be surprised. Not that I think it wasn't hateful. But Britain isn't one of the EU countries referenced below. So other hateful things seem to be speakable.

I don't favour governments trying to suppress free speech, because they aren't trustworthy. The Irish government sent the police in to seize paintings of the Prime Minister. That's the danger of weakly defined concepts like "hate crime".

 

[BillyJoe]

I linked to some Iranian protestors in post 418:
BillyJoe hasn't commented on them.

I haven't had time to look and didn't make an effort because the context in which you asked it suggested to me that it would be irrelevent.

He hasn't responded to the request to point out anyone living under Islamic oppression who's asked for Korans to be burned.

Little echo bouncing off the back of the bus.
You might have missed this response: "except the pastor was trying to make a point about the attack on America".

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't favour governments trying to suppress free speech...

So how important is free speech to you?
Is it more important than someone's religion?
Or does religion lord it over all other considerations?

Would you burn a bible to make a point about free speech?
In protest against those exercising their right to free speech?
Or are you going to remain seated at the back of the bus?

 

[westprog]

I haven't had time to look and didn't make an effort because the context in which you asked it suggested to me that it would be irrelevent.



Little echo bouncing off the back of the bus.
You might have missed this response: "except the pastor was trying to make a point about the attack on America".

The answer is "no" then.

 

[westprog]

So how important is free speech to you?
Is it more important than someone's religion?
Or does religion lord it over all other considerations?

Would you burn a bible to make a point about free speech?
In protest against those exercising their right to free speech?
Or are you going to remain seated at the back of the bus?

It's very simple. I think that people who burn Korans are fools, bigots and troublemakers. I think that they have a right to burn Korans, and that they should not be prevented from doing so.

Why anyone would think that there's a contradiction there I don't know.

 

[FireGarden]

I haven't had time to look and didn't make an effort because the context in which you asked it suggested to me that it would be irrelevent.

I posted it because you seemed to be unaware of such people. You claimed they lived in such conditions that it was impossible for them to ask for help. Yet they ask for help. It seemed relevent. But maybe you're not actually interested in the situation. Maybe you prefer your misconceptions.

 

[FireGarden]

So how important is free speech to you?
Is it more important than someone's religion?
Or does religion lord it over all other considerations?

There's a part of you which thinks that our objections are defence of religion. Isn't there? If so, then you are wrong. At least in my case. And you would know this if you actually bothered to respond to the objections I've made. Humour me, please. Try to argue in favour of a certain percentage of people burning Qurans -- without being condemned -- being something which can escape making Muslims feel as if they have no value in society. 50%, 10%, whatever. You choose.

Do you think freedom of religion is a good thing? Maybe it's unfair of me to not assume you do. It's kind of what I accuse you of above. But I can't help having a bit of doubt.

 

[BillyJoe]

There's a part of you which thinks that our objections are defence of religion. Isn't there?

No. I understand that it is possible to support peoples' right to their religion without being religious yourself.

If so, then you are wrong. At least in my case. And you would know this if you actually bothered to respond to the objections I've made.

Maybe I didn't respond because I was not assuming that your objections were in defence of religion. Actually it didn't even enter my mind.

Humour me, please. Try to argue in favour of a certain percentage of people burning Qurans -- without being condemned -- being something which can escape making Muslims feel as if they have no value in society. 50%, 10%, whatever. You choose.

I've got no idea what percentage would make muslims feel as if they have no value in society. The idea behind koran burning is that it is specifically against the teachings in the koran, not generally against muslims. However, if there are muslims who hold their koran in such high regard that they believed everything contained within it including that nobody can hold an alternative view without paying for it with their life then, yes, the koran burning is directed against them as well.

Do you think freedom of religion is a good thing? Maybe it's unfair of me to not assume you do. It's kind of what I accuse you of above. But I can't help having a bit of doubt.

Like all freedoms there are limits.
In the context of this discussion, the limit would be a religion that suffers a different point of view under pain of death. It is this intolerance of one religion for all other religions or opinions that would be the target of my koran burning. There are muslims who suffer koran burning under pain of death. If koran burning were to become commonplace there would be too many targets and gradually the interest in koran burnings would cease, firstly by those muslims and then by the koran burners. And a little bit of the intolerance of other views as expressed in the koran will have been broken down. Perhaps this would not be important for you in America or me in Australia, but maybe of some important for those suffering under sharia law in certain other parts of the world.

 

[BillyJoe]

I think that people...have a right to burn Korans, and that they should not be prevented from doing so.

I understand that and I was not suggesting otherwise.

I think that people who burn Korans are fools, bigots and troublemakers.

Many, including blacks, thought that blacks who broke the segregation laws were fools and troublemakers.

Why anyone would think that there's a contradiction there I don't know.

That's not the contradiction.
The contradiction is that you see those who take action in the defence of equality for blacks as heroes, whereas you see those who take action to break down the intolerance of one religion for another religion (or no religion) as fools and troublemakers.
The contradiction is that you put religion in a separate box from everything else.

 

[FireGarden]

I've got no idea what percentage would make muslims feel as if they have no value in society.

The request was for you to argue in favour of some percentage which would escape making Muslims feel they have no value in society.

The idea behind koran burning is that it is specifically against the teachings in the koran, not generally against muslims.

How does that follow? Can you not see any alternative interpretation? I think you can, which is why you talk about Quran burning reaching a certain point, but are unable to name an acceptable point.

The idea that 50% of Americans might burn the Quran would make your stomach turn. You'd be ashamed to be Australian if 50% of Australians burnt Qurans. Because you know that it would be intolerant. You know that no-one could brush off that much Quran burning as somekind of wordless critique expressing love of tolerance.

The question is why you think a smaller amount of Quran burning can be interpreted differntly.

If koran burning were to become commonplace there would be too many targets and gradually the interest in koran burnings would cease, ...

There you go again. What do you mean by commonplace? I know you don't mean 50%. I know you think that is too high to be acceptable, because you've dodged the matter again and again rather than accept it -- even for the sake of argument.

Perhaps this would not be important for you in America or me in Australia, but maybe of some important for those suffering under sharia law in certain other parts of the world.

Actually, I'm in Britain -- not so different.
But this takes us back to those who are actually in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran and are campaigning for greater freeedom. You know nothing about them -- you saw no relevance to referring to them -- except you know what is best for them. That's arrogant.

 

[FireGarden]

The contradiction is that you see those who take action in the defence of equality for blacks as heroes, whereas you see those who take action to break down the intolerance of one religion for another religion (or no religion) as fools and troublemakers.
The contradiction is that you put religion in a separate box from everything else.

That's not it.
The difference is that a black person wanting to sit in the front of the bus is, no matter who it offends, easy to interpret as an attack upon segregation and difficult to interpret as anything else. Burning a Quran is easy to interpret as hatred of Muslims. That is why you have so much trouble naming an acceptable level of Quran burning. You have no rational reason to say that 10% isn't hatred, even though 50% couldn't possibly be anything else. All you can do is say "trust me, this isn't hate".

 

[westprog]

I posted it because you seemed to be unaware of such people. You claimed they lived in such conditions that it was impossible for them to ask for help. Yet they ask for help. It seemed relevent. But maybe you're not actually interested in the situation. Maybe you prefer your misconceptions.

If he doesn't trust the people who live under oppression, fine. Why not ask people who used to live in repressive Islamic countries, and don't any more. Ask someone who used to live in Saudi Arabia if he thinks that the lives of the people there would be improved by Koran burning.

 

[westprog]

That's not it.
The difference is that a black person wanting to sit in the front of the bus is, no matter who it offends, easy to interpret as an attack upon segregation and difficult to interpret as anything else. Burning a Quran is easy to interpret as hatred of Muslims. That is why you have so much trouble naming an acceptable level of Quran burning. You have no rational reason to say that 10% isn't hatred, even though 50% couldn't possibly be anything else. All you can do is say "trust me, this isn't hate".

When carrying out a practical action, the important thing is that it do something useful. Whether or not it looks good is secondary. When carrying out a symbolic action, the important thing is that it represents something precisely and accurately, without any possible confusion.

Since the burning of a Koran is a purely symbolic action, it's important that it be self-explanatory. If it needs to be accompanied by a list of caveats - no, this isn't aimed at you personally, no, I don't hate Muslims, no, I don't just want brown-skinned people to go home, no, I actually totally disagree with the motives of those other Koran burners over there - then it's a dumb symbolic action.

But of course, it's free speech. And there is an absurd idea that any exercise of free speech has to be defended, in case we suddenly lose our rights to free speech. Not a sensible way to think.

 

[BillyJoe]

FireGarden,

I fail to see the point of your continued harping on the percentage of koran burning.
I'll try one last time to explain the irrelevance of your question:

A single threat to burn a koran caused a tremendous backlash including death threats and riots resulting in death. The publication of the Danish cartoons resulted in bombings of places of worship and death.

If koran burning reached such a level that muslims no longer bothered about it and burners stopped burning them, then that level of koran burning would actually be better than those single individual efforts.

What level would that be? Who knows? But I'd guess it would be more sensibly measured in maybe hundreds of people over perhaps a period of a year rather than as a percentage of the population at any point in time.

If every or most newspapers and magazines had published the Danish cartoons and continued to publish such cartoons periodically along with comical, critical, and satirical comments about the untenable position promoted by the koran, then the intense interest would soon subside and such commentary would continue to appear at a level similar to the level of appearance of, for example, comical, critical, and satirical commentary about the pope and catholicism for example.

A big win for tolerance in my opinion.

 

[bokonon]

Many, including blacks, thought that blacks who broke the segregation laws were fools and troublemakers.

True, but the difference I see is this:

They were trying to gain rights which were being denied to them, in many cases by law. The right to sit at the same lunch counter as everyone else. The right to sit in any available seat on a bus. The right to vote. The right to an equal education.

Burning a Quran, or a Bible, or a flag, or a copy of Animal Farm, may make a political or philosophical statement, but it is not an attempt to acquire rights which are being denied. No one argues that people don't have the right to dispose of their own property, as long as doing so doesn't pose a danger to others.

Refusing to change seats on a bus is exercising the right you're trying to gain. Sitting at a lunch counter is too. Registering to vote and showing up to vote, registering to attend a school and then attending, these are not just foolish provocations, but a demonstration of how equality is being denied.

Burning stuff is pyro hissy fit.