Yes, but interpretation is everything, and not everything that is deemed as 'negative' in any one society are in and by themselves equal to: 'dangerous'. People form the distinctions, and utilize them to an extent tipping on the scale of moral distinctions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?
I think the reason we're discussing this now is that the goofballs got publicized. If they'd been ignored, the world would be less on edge. In other words, by their viewing this book as dangerous, they've been enabled to make their view dangerous. I think it's creepy, but it wasn't the book.
|
I've been advocating ignoring the entire thing since the onset of this 'news', but like it is, controversy gets pub over importance / relevance, and with such a reversal, it is implied to be a "big story".
This 'church' has less than fifty members in its congregation, it has close-minded inviduals following a leader with no clear agenda but to monger hate and idiotic controversy, the 'church' in dispution no longer even merits the title anymore after it was found out to have several for-profit businesses running from within the confines of the building, and lastly, the 120 books or so that the group has gathered so far have, for the most part, all been paid for out of pocket. They didn't go so far as to raid the local Walmart and steal whatever Korans were on the shelves, nor did they go visit the local Muslim Mosque in secret and decide to nab whatever big books happened to be lying around. There is no problem here, save for the fact that this is still considered news, and is a starting point towards a meaningful / well-meaning discussion; I don't go about debating the pros and cons of (
inset random idiotic action here), so why should this be any different?