Burn a Quran Day?
 

A church in Gainesville, Fl, the "Dove World Outreach Center" is hosting a “International Burn a Quran Day.”

Accroding to this article

In which he makes such claims as "all Muslims are unhappy.

Hum, stereotype much?

Now this is a church that has in the past joined with Westboro Baptist Church in protesting homosexuality. So personally I see them as a fringe of the far right leaning churches in the US. But is it just me or are these group gaining power, their voices getting louder or am I just seeing more press reports of this type of activity?

Your thoughts?

What's particularly disgusting about this is that the burning of the Qur'an is meant as a memorial of 9/11 victims.

Yeeeah.... that's ...um... classy. And I'm sure no one can think of a better way to memorialize the deaths of Muslims than with burning their holy book.

Fringe right, indeed. According to Google News, this is getting a fair amount of coverage, but not a ton. Though that could change, of course.

As for whether they are gaining power/influence, I don't really see it. I still view the likes of Westboro as their own self-contained joke. I don't see anyone with the ability to reason taking them seriously. And I don't find that those with the inability to reason to have particularly that much power.

As for this group, it's even more disgusting than the Westboro gay bashing. If I'm not mistaken, to Muslims, the destruction of the Qu'ran is essentially a direct attack on the word of God, which is probably the intent. They want to attack Islam. So yeah, fringe right hatemongers: Islam is the devil, blah, blah blah, burn it.

And it's really fucking rich that this group is called the Dove World Outreach Center. Here I thought irony is dead. Maybe that's what's making me so disgusted by this. Fucking hypocritical and insincere.

Worst. Christians. Ever.

Jesus would not approve.

I wonder where this will lead. If a dutch cartoon can create a landslide of furor for portraying Muhammad what the heck will the fringe side of Islam be in response be for burning their holy book? I don't foresee nice things.

For some reason I read this as burn a Quorn a day. An idea that I might be able to get behind, because the foodstuff disgusts me.
http://www.greenme.vg/wp-content/upl...04/gruyere.jpg

But burning the Quran?! These imbiciles should be stopped. They're only going to make people more upset.

Oh, the Lovey Doveys will probably get what they want: their brother fringe right Muslims will respond in kind by lashing out at what Western Christians value, or they will play into fringe right Muslim tactics such as calling for blood and beheadings.

It's all very predictable, which makes it both tiresome and maddening.

I really don't know what the Lovey Doveys hope to accomplish other than to whack at the hornet's nest of hatred.

It's basically an exchange of hate for hate, and as we know these things go in vicious cycles. How can people be so blind? These people don't only hate "the other"; they also must hate themselves to do such things.

It's all very sad.

Jesus, I just cackled for like thirty seconds. That's funny. Veggie-person humor.

Wasn't there a thread at one time about a Christian group that was organizing prayer for terrorists? They weren't targeting Islam per se, they wanted to use the power of faith and prayer to sway terrorists to abandon their violence. THAT'S a statement of belief, that your faith is strong enough to facilitate change. I am not a religious person by any means, but if I were inclined to be a person of faith, I'd want to be a person who believed strongly enough that my faith was the Truth that I wouldn't have to resort to hate or intimidation as the means of proselytizing.

This will lead to anywhere only if it is picked by outside media, and given that we are here, it has been picked up by outside media, therefore, it will lead to somewhere. And in that intangible sense of 'somewhere', I foresee some very not nice things.

I don't have much of a comment on this because I very rarely allow myself to publicize or acknowledge such brazen, hurtful, and tremendous stupidity.

It was a Danish cartoon, not a Dutch one. :) However, newspapers across Europe did publish the drawings.

I think this is pretty disgusting. Christian love is not represented in burning the holy book of another religion. Christian love means having respect for other faiths, and treating others the way we would want to be treated. Would Christians want Muslims to burn the Holy Bible? I think not.

Don't they have the same god?

*tsk tsk*

no muslim group in their sane mind would burn the bible.

since islam is an abrahamic religion and confirms many of the events and parables that occured in the bible, it'd be blasphemous to burn the bible for any muslim.

heh...anybody got an effigy instead?

Burning any book in order to censor or intimidate or insult is just horrible.

Small-minded individuals, and populations of those same like-minded individuals, have this incessant need to compartmentalize genres and groups of others (read as: foreigners) to some basic, yet mistaken, tenet of what they represent in the eyes of outside observers.

Simplistically: this is defined as bigotry.
(Tutor's tip: A "bigot" (person with intolerant prejudices) can "beget" (cause) anger. - good to know, Word Tutor.)


As such, this is a story, however unheralded I'd wish it to be, but a story regardless, where we have this bigoted (contradictory) church burning Korans for reversal reasoning, in what I can fathom, as a ritualistic effigy for the Muslims that they may view as their current enemy, whereas previously, they might have burned other effigies in regards to their previous enemies (who knows?). So, they go about burning 'Qurans' and blabbing to the news stations that they'll be doing the same thing next week, (bring some freedom fries!) and then burning 'Qurans' some more, (perhaps buying them solely in order to burn them?) in order to stick it their enemies, the Muslims, who have oppressed them for so may years, I'm assuming, in their quaint town in Florida. Or maybe they don't like "terrorists"? Yet they associate them with Muslims, when the overwhelming majority of surviving militant Muslims (the cultural / land grouping, not the faith practioners) have in essence, renounced their religion by violating its basest tenets of moral objectivity. So, again, what is the point? To provoke dim-witted controversy.


I just came across a story where some semi-well-known renounced her religion of "Christianity" on Twitter, for the very basic reasons that she is pro-this, pro-that, and pro-positivity, which leads to the inference that she is fed up with "Christianity" because she narrow-mindly views the group as against all the things which she likes politically, and feels hurt because she no longer wishes to associate with the very vocal minority (however underwhelming it actually is). This is yet another example of dim-witted controversy.

There's many different sects and practices of the branch of Protestant Christianity in North America, and the one that usually is asociated with these sort of controversial dealings, I notice, arise from the South. It amazes me how often I forget that Florida, and many of its counties and residents within, identify primarily with what we see as "the American South", or how others may deem it fit, "rednecks" (there's bigotism coming right back around).

This is just too simple a spiel to debate so profoundly: dumb people will do dumb things just to get undue attention for a cause that is wholly "bass-ackwards" (like posting on a message board where everyone hate you).

I hope that, even for the insanity that is US political/religious culture, this is far on the fringe. I really hope so.

I cannot think of many things that would be more repugnant than a Quran-burning. No matter how much one might find a book offensive (and I would doubt how many of these idiots had ever actually read a Quran, much less had any of it taught to them properly, by a qualified imam), only bigots and barbarians burn books. And that goes double for anyone's sacred texts.

Heinrich Heine said, Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. ("Anywhere they burn books, they will ultimately burn people, also.") And he was not wrong. Bookburners are only one step away from Crusaders, Nazis, Cossacks, Khmer Rouge, or makers of pogroms.

I would not see even a book utterly without redemption, like Mein Kampf, burned; so burning something (to the contrary) so full of wisdom and beautiful poetry as a Quran is infuriating to me.

These people are the scum of the earth. I hope their hatred comes back to bite them in the ass soon, and hard.

Great post, levite.

Seeing as I enjoy a good trainwreck as much as the next guy, I was looking at more stuff regarding the Dove World Outreach Center. Wow. Great stuff! They aren't only reaching out to Islam; they're also reaching out to babykillers and homosexuals. How ambitious.

Have a look at this for an idea of the man behind all of this:

In particular, I like the use of the Braveheart soundtrack in the video. It's a nice touch. Apparently he has a webvideo series entitled the Braveheart Show.

He's the author of the book Islam is of the Devil. That should tell you enough. Apparently, his aim is to encourage people to resist the Islamic invasion of America by taking to the streets and preaching and praying, rather than depending on useless politicians to do anything. He uses the U.K. as an example of how Islam is taking over.

If you can stomach it, there is another video regarding the book here: The Book | Islam Is Of the Devil. I couldn't embed it because it localized and not on YouTube.

There's even T-shirts and coffee mugs!

Oh, and here's more on the Qur'an burning, including a CNN interview:

I tend to think that the world would be better if the people that claim to be religious would READ THEIR FUCKING BOOKS..... forget the assorted commentaries, explanations, and whatnots that various groups have come to accept, Just have everyone read the holy book or books of their religion, and then TRY TO FOLLOW IT.... seriously, is this too fucking hard for people.... none of the religious texts I have read have really been that out there, and most of them are quite reasonable really..... with regard to the "Christians" in the above article, I find a decided lack of deliberate baiting of people of other faiths in the new testament....... but they should really read it for themselves.....

That's probably not a good idea. There are a lot of moral lessons in the Torah, Bible, and Qur'an that would be considered morally reprehensible by you or me. Not only that, but there are a ton of contradictions, making following their religious teachings impossible. What you're left with is nothing but selective readings, and that room for interpretation is what gets people into trouble. Two people can read the same passage and one can come away with "god hates fags" and another will come away with "this was written thousands of years ago during different societal circumstances".

It's better to just develop one's own morals based on the social contract, how to interact in order to personally succeed and to help keep the society you're a part of stable and functional.

I've come to the conclusion that there are Christians <--- sure they're a little wacky and strangley nervous about nudity but ultimately good people...

...Then there are these people, idiots wearing crosses who obsessivly misqoute bible verses to justify their irrational hatred everything they don't like such as being unamerican (how the fuck that gets all crossed up with christianity is beyond me), different, interesting, capable of independent thought or upsets thier odd view of morality which is largely garnered from misqouted bible verses...

...in other words, dickheads.

Censorship of any kind brings with it the foul stench of the bitch, and must be fought. To know your enemies, you must have knowledge of them. To destroy knowledge is to destroy a weapon. If Islam is their enemy, then they should give a Quran to every member of their congregation and have them read it cover to cover.

That said, the courage and conviction of this group to actually DO something in accordance with the teachings of Jehova while other sects of his long-haired peace-loving bitch of a bastard son fall to the creeping pink tide of Femmunism and pay only lip service to his Father should be commended. Too bad their small efforts will be crushed under a tide of bitchery and whining. . .

Amen

preacher, you're tryin' too hard.


3/10

Actually, there are brothers who keep telling me I don't try hard enough. . .but I've gotten a bit mellow in my old age, turned into a lazy bastard.

Amen

While I sympathize, I think that it's too easy to either blame lack of reading the books or call religion a failure in general.

Guys like these douchebags can read the Bible all day long and still never comprehend a word they read. Bible is complex, and infinitely nuanced, and, in general, no friend to people looking for simplistic attitudes and lowest-common-denominator platitudes. It is inevitable that people like this-- full of hatred, of fear, of ignorance-- will find the religious position and the textual reading that is the most oversimplified, the most archaic, the best for channeling and sublimating their own fears and ignorance, and the least helpful to an actual search for spiritual advancement and closeness to God.

Religion has power. And like any power, it can be abused. And like nearly all of the most powerful things, it is abused frequently, with horrible results, and usually at the expense of precisely those people its inventors were trying to protect and aid.

On the other hand, perhaps it is people like you who say that the Bible is "complex, infinitely nueanced, and in general, no friend to people looking for simplistic attitudes and lowest-common-denominator platitudes" that are reading too much into something that is meant to be simple and easily understood. Have you considered that your position on the bible being a great work of delicate, spiritual art might not be the intended purpose of the scriptures as originally written? They are history and instructions from Jehova, my friend. . .nothing more, at least when speaking of the Old Testament. They are simplicity defined.

The followers of Jehova's peace-loving bastard son are the ones who caused most of the problems by pretty much writing their own rules over the ones that already existed. . .but who are you going to listen to, my friend? The owner of the plantation, or his whiny overseer of a son? When you go to someone's house to borrow their lawn mower, do you ask the man of the house, or the teenager with the iPod? Who owns the lawn mower? Who owns the Earth. . .Jehova or Jesus? Will you let the rules of the son supercede those of the Father?

Amen

I'm tempted to say that this simply doesn't deserve much more than our passing scorn. There will always be folks with loony ideas - I doubt very much that engaging these folks (even in the mode of 'investigation' or 'exposé') does any good.

I stand corrected, my bad.

This is and has always been one of my major problems with organized religion. Too many people do not follow the teaching in their own faith or they twist their faith to justify terrible behavior.

extremists and fanatics are some of my least favorite people ...except the Philly Phanatic.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...1th20Sept1.jpg

even the national association of evangelicals wants these asshats to stop:

Press Release: NAE Urges Cancellation of Planned Qu?ran Burning

Imagine if they did this and no media showed up...imagine if no one watched the home-grown video on YouTube. Imagine if we all simply turned our back to them. Imagine.

With all due respect, that is a view of scriptural text that is deeply inconsistent with Jewish thought. Traditional Judaism has always conceived of the Tanakh as deeply, deeply complex, and intended by its authors for use in partnership with interpretive traditions and exegetical techniques. Even the Torah, which Orthodox Judaism does view as of Divine Authorship, is deemed highly complex by the tradition: shiv'im panim l'Torah "The Torah has seventy faces," they say in the Midrash; and in Pirke Avot, we are taught, hafokh v'hafokh bah ki d'kula bah "Examine and re-examine it [Torah], for everything is within it." Written Torah must be understood complexly, through Oral Torah, because it was not designed to be read and understood and followed on its own.

This, according to many traditional Jewish authors, is attributable to the complexity of Divine Authorship/prophetic authorship. God is subtle and complex and nuanced, and expects the same of people.

But in any case, Judaism is usually quite clear on the idea that the Bible is neither simple nor basic. The idea that God is simple and presents simple instructions is foreign to Judaism.

It is also worth noting that the name Jehovah is an error: it represents an attempt by Latin and German Biblicists to vocalize the Tetragrammaton (four letter name of God), which is the Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, heh (YHVH). Now, this name is actually a deliberate paradox: it is the Hebrew verb “to be,” expressed in all three tenses simultaneously, signifying God’s living eternality. A long, long time ago, this most sacred name of God was used aloud, though never lightly, and some think rarely. However, more than two thousand years ago, we lost or forgot the correct pronunciation. When vowels were first introduced to the written text of the Hebrew Bible, about 1300 years ago, the Masoretes (who were the scholars vowelling the text) vowelled the Tetragrammaton with the vowels for the word Adonai, meaning “My Lord,” which is an addressive of God typically used amongst Jews as a euphemism, spoken aloud when the written text uses the Tetragrammaton. The Masoretes did this to remind readers not to attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, which we are forbidden to do now that the true pronunciation is lost, but to rather say Adonai instead. But the Latin and German Biblicists, who were all Christians, and knew little of Jewish thought and practice, did not know that, and thus took the vowels to be the correct vocalization for the Tetragrammaton. So the Latins translated out the Tetragrammaton as Iahove or Iaouah, and the Germans thought it was to be said as Yahwah or Yahovah; and since in German, the sound “y” is made with a “j,” and the vowel sounds “a” and “e” are close, and often elided, they spelled it Jahweh or Jehovah. But of course any of those spellings and pronunciations are entirely erroneous, stemming purely from faults in translation.

You can ignore the troll, levite, he's gone.

But I must say you seem to put a lot effort in that reply.

Thanks for the troll banishing (saying that makes me want to call you "my lord...")!

Eh...if I can't offer some polite information in the face of annoying ignorance, then I'm not much good to anyone, am I?

:D

These people aren't true Christians and they give real Christians a bad name.

you could use this sentence on pretty much any religion/race/nationality/community.

That's Freedom of Expession baby.

But I doubt that those who framed the constitution ever had anything like this in mind. I would hope that they would change their minds, but I doubt that will happen.

This is the reason why I think all religious extremism is an awful thing.

We should send these folks fourtyfivemillion & one copies of
Farenheit 451.
If one or two find themselves reading the book,
it might spark something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

I was thinking maybe The Gospel of Matthew, as it doesn't seem they've read it, but whatever.

I think as long as they burn it where they buy it, it's probably okay. It's not as if their natural resources aren't limited.

Obviously reading comprehension is an issue here. If they read and understood the book they claim to be their Holy book they'd know this is complete nonsense.

if it helps, i can send an english translation of the Quran :D

Yeah, I think they must've missed it.

Perhaps we can make them all see Godspell so they can hit the highlights at the least.

I might be looking at this wrong, I'm no biblical scholar (I know, I know... you're all shocked,) but these folks seem stuck in the Old Testament. I mean it seems rather old to call yourself a Christian and disregard most of what Jesus actual said.

Some might say they're stuck in radical misinterpretations of the Old Testament...

good to see good heads prevailing

Yeah. Just for the record, this was one occasion I was not toeing the line with the ADL.

If it's a free country, it's a free country. That means folks can build houses of worship wherever they like, even if it's near folks who don't like their religion.

Simple as that. Doesn't matter who these Muslims are, or what their politics are, or how they felt about 9/11. It's a free country.

Nice to see that the courts occasionally recall that fact.

to be honest, i couldnt care less who the group was. Even if they were satanists, i'd still have supported their right to their own community centre.

as long as the group meets with the council planning policies and is above board in all its actions, then everyone has a right to do as they please with their own centres.

Not being able to speak as eloquently as Levite, I'd just say this - what a bunch of morons. Burn the Quran if you must, it's not like it's going to go away just because you burn a few copies of it, only thing your doing is making money for whoever the publisher is of the edition you are burning. In fact just throw yourself in there with it and do us all a favor. As whoever said earlier, it's the media coverage of this that's really the problem, if people would just ignore groups like this, they would be far less effective....

You know, it all comes down to the fact that this is a radical fringe group responding to their own fears. They view Islam not as a legitimate religion, but as a tool of the devil. This is dangerous because who's to say they'll stop at burning books?

coincidentally, i just realised that this date coincides with the islamic festival Eid Al-Fitr marking the end of Ramadan.

should make for an interesting time considering it's the anniversary of September 11, Eid Al-Fitr, combined with a book burning spectacle.

I do hope that muslims can see past this little stunt. Sure, its the muslim holy book, but the Quran was revealed orally, and no amount of book burning can extinguish what is contained within it.

I don't see how the burning Quran is considered un-Christian when the Bibles prescribed punishment for idolatry is to stone the offender to death.

From what I understand of it, the Bible is not to be interpreted, nor is the Old Testament to be summarily dismissed. The Bible is the word of an omnipotent God; When an all-powerful and all-knowing God says something, he means that shit. All of it.

If anything, these knuckleheads that are burning Qurans are more Christian than most.

now that you mention it, how very christian of them.

theres been numerous book burnings by many christians over the years. sadly most book burnings are because one group wants to keep the other quiet.

Book burning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The entire Christian faith is built on appropriation, stifling descent, and conversion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to recall in my vague history studies a paranoid Islamic reaction to the Christianization of the world.


And this idea of Islam being an illegitimate religion? Why don't we ask the Jews about Christ. He didn't even fulfill the requirements as the messiah. Or am I wrong about that too?

No. He didn't.

But I also don't feel I should criticize the religions of others if they can make them work. I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that Christianity has a lot of bad history to make up for, and some of the Christian "leaders" around the US (especially) are amazing examples of total a-holes. But if we start condemning all Christianity for James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al., then why not Islam for their radicals, or Judaism for the ultra-Orthodox fringe lunatics?

And some of the Christians I've met actually manage to do a pretty impressive job of sorting through all the bullshit and actually living lives that Jesus (who, if he wasn't the Messiah, was still really a pretty damn good guy) would be proud of.

I was born and raised non-religious, and I don't believe in deities, but from what I know about core Christian teachings based on Jesus, and about the historical Jesus, I truly wish more people would live accordingly—the world would be a better place. The world would be a better place if more Christians were...more Christian.

I sometimes I wish I were Christian so I could defend my faith against these idiots. I do think Christianity has values worth defending.

Carefull, BG; you'll have the fanatical atheists burning you at the stake for finding anything admirable about religion, the only truly evil thing in the world in their eyes.

The fanatical atheists can kiss my ass. I'm hanging onto my capacity for reason despite what they think or say.

Not exactly. Some (most?) Protestant denominations work this way, but not the Catholics (Roman or Eastern), the various Orthodox sects, the Copts, or the Armenians. Most of the pre-Reformation sects of Christianity treat the Bible as a collection of numerous things: instructions, prophesies, history, military statistics and strategy, allegory, and social station-keeping tales like the stories of Ruth, Esther, and the Bros. Maccabees. Leaf through a Catholic or Coptic Bible sometime: most of the good ones are full of footnotes denoting when something is, for instance, allegorical (and should be treated as such) or instructive, and explaining why the difference is important in the given context. The idea of the total inerrancy of the Bible (and the follow-on doctrine known as Sola Scriptora) was a reaction to the power of the Papacy to make such definitions, and the power (or tendency) of individual clergy to use certain passages to make whatever point they felt like at the time. Biblical Inerrancy was not, and is not, taught in most pre-Reformation denominations. This is why the Catholic Churches, for instance, have had less trouble with theories like Heliocentrism or Evolution.

Since this thread's been bent, I feel free to confess a sin:

At hotels I remove Deuteronomy from the bibles. My dashboard Jesus is jumping up & down on one copy, rolled.

That's I bit ironic, IMO. Deuteronomy is where many of the most socially progressive laws are found, and much of the most forward Biblical theology in the Torah. I would've thought Leviticus a much likelier target for animus against the Hebrew Scriptures, since that has so many of the sexual prohibitions, anti-idolatry prohibitions, and cultic sacrificial rules that dislikers of the Bible usually find so problematic.

It's flippin' hard to do, and it's hard because I feel that I'm getting squeezed from both sides, and I expect many liberal Christians feel the same way. Can't get any respect from the conservatives who take the Bible literally, and I can't get any respect from atheists, either, for having beliefs tempered with reason. Also, a lot of people just presume that Christians must be the fundamentalist nutcases they see on the news--just like they presume all Muslims must be fundamentalists, etc.

Yet another example of why I have no imaginary friends.

or better yet, you'll have the fanatical christians burning you at the stake for being a heathen.

thank god (wheres the irony?) you live in 2010

Ugh...I know.

Do you want to know how many Christians live less like Jesus than I do?

No, I don't want to know either.

//Leviticus, levite, except for the unfortunate anti-homo (18:22), pro-slavery (25:44-46), divine threats (26), & priestly valuations (27) strikes me as extensive minutiae regarding activities many of us don't do anymore & good advice about how to treat each other otherwise. I particularly like 19:15, about judging thoughtfully.

Deuteronomy explains where it came from and what it is in 17:18. The wholesale slaughter & appropriation of others' possessions at the start & the rest of it extolling the virtues of one sub-type over EVERYBODY else offend me greatly - so dashboard Jesus jumps.//

But you see that that's part of the problem? Taking a story more seriously than another to such an extent causes us to do inexcusable things to each other. The Quran (or whatever) burners are like suicide bombers with less courage in their convictions, not really considering the nature of what they do.

I hope you don't think this comprises animus toward the Hebrew scriptures. I think in more general terms as a humanist.

Burning books is wrong, period.

I agree, but haven't you read any creepy shit you wish you hadn't? Maybe the burners think they can undo it.

book burning is the exact opposite of bridge building.

i dont think this is about un-reading something, but rather a provokation with the intention to incite.

I admire your tact & am content we agree. Would you join me in thinking these ideas are our most divisive?

You've obviously never been forced to read Nicholas Sparks.

The news has it the splitters are going ahead with it...

:lol:

I guess to me this gets to the heart of the freedom of speech/expression argument

People WILL die as a result of these acts of blasphemy. American serviceman serving in Afghanistan will die as a direct result of the backlash these actions will cause if they go ahead.

I guess you have to consider, does this church have the right to express their hostility in Islam in this way and cause directly the death of innocent people and American soliders?

Personally I dont believe so - these actions would be criminal in the UK (as Incitement) and I believe that is correct. In America I understand freedom of speech is an idea far more enshrined in the ideal of the nation... but in this case other people will pay the price of it.

Dove World Outreach Center should have a little field trip arranged for them. The news of whatever they do could be squelched, could it not? Can't a majority prevent a few?

Nope, can't say that I have.
I also agree that this is all about attracting attention to some wee small
wacky cause. Fairly successful at it, too.

Why? Because you don't like what's being said/done? Because others will suffer?

Guess what: others ALWAYS suffer. I think this "pastor" is an idiot, and a False Prophet, and I think you're correct that US and UK troopers will suffer for what he does. But the -reason- they will suffer is because neo-Islamic totalitarian radicals, who have yet to pull their heads out of the 14th Century (to say nothing of growing thicker skins), have the self-control of a bull elephant in Must. It offends me when I see Asshole Atheists burning the Bible: do I got out and kill Atheists, or burn down libraries, or advocate violence against them? No, I say "God those people are jerks!" and change the fucking channel. If one bunch of morons pisses off another bunch of morons because neither group can manage to act like ruttin' ADULTS for a change that's hardly a reason to curtail free speech.

The idiotic behavior of a bunch of overgrown children should not be taken as an excuse to limit the freedoms of actual adults.

This is the religious equivalent of burning a giant cross on a black family's front lawn.

...except more national- and/or global-like.

They want Muslims out of America.

At the very least, they're gearing up for "the greatest spiritual battle of our age."

Not unless they're having their bonfire on someone else's property. Are they doing this at a Mosque, or in someone's yard, or on their own property? Part of the threat implicit in cross-burning is "We know where you live. We can come and get you if we feel like it." Nobody really cares about Kluxxers burning crosses on their own land, because that element of direct threat is absent. You're comparing a direct, concrete threat to an act of free, if repugnant, speech. Apples and cinderblocks.

And? They're free to believe, want, and advocate for whatever they like. This is America. There are likewise small groups of extremist Muslims who want Americans out of America...along with everywhere else they can think of. There are extremist Zionist Jews who want all non-Jews out of all the lands they claim. Big surprise: stupid people want stupid, ofttimes unattainable, things. Sometimes even -smart- people want these things. And, this being America, so long as they do not directly harm another person, they are free to think, and desire, as they like.

And? So long as their battle remains spiritual as opposed to physical, they can "gear up" for, and fight, all the battles they want. Again; this is America.

Yup I've got to agree Dune, it may be repulsive but people have a right to express themselves as long as they aren't hurting anyone else or trampling on someone else's freedoms and such. Ugly shit like this might sometimes be the result of having freedom of speech but you have to take the good with the bad if you don't want people monkeying around with it.

The comparison isn't direct. The message is similar. The result is different. They are in a sense firing a volley in their "spiritual battle." Either way, it's sending a message that they don't approve of "their kind" in America.

And my point wasn't to challenge or question their freedom to believe, want, or advocate whatever they like. It was to point out their intolerance and ignorance, and to remind people that it has a history. That's America, but I live in Canada—within a deeply multicultural metropolis—where I guess I'm a little bit more appalled at such displays of freedom.

I'm not challenging their freedom; I'm challenging their ideas and their message.

The spiritual and the physical have a lot of crossover, hence the Qur'ans and the fire. They are inciting a reaction from the Muslim population and they know it. They're going to play off of every little documented reaction to their little campout and use that as evidence to prove their case that Islam "is of the devil," and this will only add more fuel to the fire.

But, wait, they can totally do that, because it's America. You don't need to keep reminding me that this is happening in America. I know where it's happening, and I could list off several other places where the exact same thing could happen. That's not the point.

fella by the name of Goethe came up with this quote many, many years ago and it is so fitting, in my mind, to this issue:

"there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action..."

I think you'd find that most Americans find it appalling too but at the end of the day what can you really do about it? We can try tell them how ignorant it is until we're blue in the face but the fact remains that it's legal, nobody can physically stop them and once somebody has it in their head to burn a Quran reason probably went out the window long ago anyway.

The best solution is to let them throw their little temper tantrum, not pay it any mind and move on...kind of like a three year old stamping his feet over not getting a cookie...the more publicity this stuff gets the more it validates their position. If the media and everyone left this alone it would be a bunch of idiots at a bonfire but all the hullabaloo surrounding it has turned it into something meaningful and given them the chance to make a massive statement.

Not sure if youre asking why it would be illegal in UK or why I agree - but I can answer both questions

In the UK this would probably be covered under incitement of racial hatrid (because blasphemy laws although still on the book are hardly ever used)... any action which is perceived as intended to incite violence can be outlawed.

I agree because I do not think that people should lose their lives so that somebody can have the freedom to burn a holy text and cause massive offensive to the followers of the second most popular religion in the world. I do not think that people have the right through speech or action to cause harm to fall on others and then hide behind the defence "I should be allowed to say whatever I want and burn whatever symbols I want"

I wonder what motivation these people have? In the aftermarth - when an American embassy in the world somewhere is blown up and 30 American citizens killed (for example) - will they be happy? Will they feel that these sacrificial offerings will help summon up a new crusade? I cannot think that they have any other intention but to encourage violence against America and its allies to create more division between the NATO allies and the Islamic world.

It would be nice if they could be ignored as morons that they are, if there was not this inherent hyper-sensitivity inherent in many Islamic states... but thats not the case. These people do what they do full well knowing and taking pleasure in the fact (I can only assume) that they will have blood on their hands.

Here's a thought: instead of banning childish temper-tantrums and idiotic publicity stunts that do not concretely harm anybody and can easily be ignored by adults, why not make it against the law to kill people who say things you don't like?

And here's ANOTHER thought: lots of people HAVE died, for that exact right. I think y'all over there call them "Tommies." You know, average British, French, American, Australian and New Zealander soldiers. Then there's the spies, the partizans, and all the folks who helped any way they could. -THEY- died for that right in a little spat we over here like to call World War Two.

So instead of acting like adults and ignoring these idiots, you advocate that freedom of speech be restricted so as not to risk offending another bunch of even -bigger- idiots? What next? Who will be the -next- group to realize that if you pitch a big enough bitch, make enough of a ruckus, destroy enough property and kill enough people...YOU'LL be the one whose sensitivities are respected? How does that work? Morons get offended, riot and kill people, burn shit down and blow shit up...yet THEY'RE the ones we're supposed to refrain from offending? THEY get the consideration? We're supposed to give up Freedom Of Speech, one of the cornerstones of the Anglo-American tradition of political free agency and liberty...in order not to offend a pack of stone-age radicals who regard mutilating teenage girls as some kind of "justice?"

This "Pastor" is a fucking moron. But the idea that his non-violent* free speech should be legally curtailed because some jackass somewhere -might- take offense or act wrongly as a result...I have no words for how disgusting that is, as an idea and as a fact.

Edited To Add: There exists a possibility, if not likelihood, that Neo-Islamic Totalitarian Radicals will view and celebrate Park51 as a celebratory monument, a "triumphal mosque" if you like, in the tradition of Haiga Sophia et al. This despite the fact that Imam Rauf is anti-extremist, and Park51 will be intended to act as a counter to Al Q. & Co, and has nothing whatsoever to do with extremist triumphalism. Should Park51 and Cordoba be legally prohibited from building their community centre because of how assholes in Bumfuck, Pakistan will see it? Under your argument, SF, they should. Extremists will take it the wrong way and might react violently, so it shouldn't happen, right?


*However offensive and idiotic

Do you guys remember back in the 80's when Ozzy Osbourne was sued because some kid committed suicide and his parents found an Ozzy record on turntable (suicide solution was the first cut I think)? The courts in that situation found that Ozzy had a right to express himself and the kid who committed suicide was responsible for his own actions. I think the same thing applies here only on a bigger scale. I don't think you can realistically hold somebody accountable for what somebody else may or may not do as a response to you expressing your own thoughts and opinions. In the end all you're doing is limiting what ideas can be passed around in public because the possibility exists that bad shit might go down. Where does that stop and when does limiting speech cross the line into plain old censorship?

At some point you just have to accept that idiots exist in the world and they are going to do idiotic things regardless of how much you might try to contain it.

there's no connection between being critical of these backwater asshats and any limitation of their right to free speech. even if the community where the asshats lived were to mobilize itself and stop them, there'd still be no connection: the right is a legal matter, so the asshats in question could not be prosecuted legally for being asshats and engaging in asshat actions. but there could be a legitimate conflict over community standards in that particular town or county and that conflict could result in the asshat church of jesus being prevented from exercising their formally protected right to be as stupid as they want to be.

and i expect that libertarians wouldn't be able to do anything but cheer that community on.

the old thing about yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater comes to mind, as well as the previously mentioned "incitement to riot..."

and i too wish the media would leave these clowns alone...

Correct. You'll note that we share an opinion of this alleged "Pastor." SF and I, however, are discussing the fact that in the UK what these asshats want to do -is- illegal, and why he thinks such laws should be applied in the US vs why I think such laws are idiotic, unfair, and immoral.

So long as that conflict remained nonviolent, sure. I for one certainly wouldn't be doing any business with these jerkoffs.

And here's where it gets sticky. How does one nonviolently yet physically prevent someone from doing something?

Fuckin' A Right I would. Shun these idiots! Boycott their businesses, shun social contact with them and their families, turn them into non-functional pariahs! Look -through- them when they approach on the street, ignore them utterly when they talk! Don't buy anything from or sell anything to them! -THAT- is community action of the best and most moral kind, and I applaud all those who engage in it against this alleged "church."

Well that's how I was always taught to fight this kind of stuff, good old fashioned shunning. Hopefully Bubba who owns the garage doesn't get a lick of business after participating in this, people could stop donating to the church, inviting them to civic functions and so forth. The problem though is a church congregation (in a lot of small towns anyway) sometimes makes up a good majority of the community...so yeah. But never the less they have a right to be stupid and everyone else has a right to ignore them...if only people would practice that.

This argument is used a lot in a lot of causes, and it is naturally emotive as most people relate it to people they know.

Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, and survived it. One of them was in the RAF/USAF 30 years as a navigator and then an ATC. One of my grandmothers worked in the anti aircraft gun stations in London in the blitz.

It is not my personal view that any of them fought and risked their lives to defend the right for people to desecrate holy texts.

I would argue that burning a bible is as offensive as burning a Qu'ran - and both acts should be illegal.

_

The issue is in part that Islam is sensitive, but also I think me must mention that NATO allied forces are currently stationed and in two Islamic nations where they have invaded and where they currently are the only thing preventing civil war.

The moral offense caused by this church of the dove cretins CANNOT just be measured in the offense and hurt they cause ordinary Muslims. It has to be measured in the context of American and allied nations having troops stationed in countries holding the peace between religious and secular forces.

_

I think only I will repeat what I said first of all. Freedom of speech/expression is something that Americans hold dear, dearer than Europeans do - I understand this. Because of the actions of the Chruch of the dove in Florida, American soliders will die, American families will lose their children, their husbands, their fathers (or their wives, their mothers)

I do not claim that the Taleban are innocent children who have no blame in the wars they wage. But these actions will make the Taleban stronger, they will help them kill more Americans and prolong a conflict that will kill many Afghan civilians. They will increase the risk of terrorist attacks against America and its Allies. They will increase the divide between the vast majority of ordinary working class Islamic people who do not take arms against the offence caused by these things, but who feel hurt and distanced from a country that allows them.

_

It is simply a fact to say that if these people are allowed to burn Qu'rans, and the media publicizes the fact all over the world... people will die who would not if it didnt happen. These people will have blood on their hands.

America, as a society, must assess the price of freedom of speech.

We have assessed it many times Strange and I think we're, for the most part, happy with what we have. How could we possibly express any new ideas if we stopped to weigh the potential consequences any controversial opinion. It would be nice if people would from time to time, self censorship can go a long way, but you don't always know what the consequences of hateful or controversial opinions may be or for that matter the potential benefits (I don't know what they would be here but whatever you can't agree with everybody all the time). Surely burning somebodies sacred religious text is, in my opinion, quite repulsive and I doubt the simple act of outlawing the practice would matter to very few but the question of where to stop remains. Should it be illegal to print a picture of Mohammad due to the potential fall out? Should good old fashioned criticism or satire be censored if a group reacts violently to it? Personally I don't believe we can measure the value of our rights and freedoms based on the reaction of nut jobs who lack a sense of proportion, it simply isn't feasible or right.

...on a lighter (ahem) note, the Gainesville fire department might try to stop it because the ink in books is considered hazardous to burn.

Wow, stopping them on a technicality over toxic fumes. Well played Gainsville FD, well played. :thumbsup:

Stepping outside of the real case and just into theoretical examples... do you believe there are no limits to the freedom of speech?

In 1944, should an American scientist have been free to announce to the world media how to make an atom bomb? Or should his freedom of speech be curtailed?

In 1943 should Japanese Americans have complete freedom to call on all ethnic Japanese living in America to sabotage American war efforts in any way they could?
_

I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world.

The ACLU would have conniptions, but I agree. :thumbsup:

It changed. I'm not a fan of what they are doing. If they wanted to attack Islam, there are other more effective ways to do it. ("You don't gotta burn the books, you just remove them." -Rage Against The Machine)

But, I am blaming the media for amplifying this event. It is all over the place now.

I am a fan of freedom of speech, but I would think this would fall under hate speech.

If the Muslims wanted to 'win' this, they would gather in a public location nearby and say that they were showing hatred towards their religion.
And the news media made sure to show off the guns that the pastor and 'followers' were carrying... (If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_cr..._United_States

*And I did read about this here last month, but I chose to ignore it. If the media had done the same and reported on a real news story, this wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

Nope and neither does the US but there is a big difference between leaking military secrets, threatening others with physical harm, slander or openly inciting a riot and expressing your dislike or hatred about something. Carting them off to jail because they have a stick up their collective asses about the Quran or Muslims is really no different then carting somebody off to jail because they've expressed hatred towards a political party, a corporation or a local church.

We aren't just going to ignore a long standing American right that we've fought very hard for just to set an example. At the very least freedom of speech deserves the right of due process before its trampled on for a political gesture and that certainly isn't going to happen in time. You really advocate hauling innocent civilians off to prison on trumped up charges just to make a point? I know the US has done some fucked up stuff in the past but that would be pushing it pretty far.

This is insane. I honestly cannot believe that we're sitting here, having a discussion about ways in which people's Constitutional rights might best be violated. Carting people off to jail on whatever charge seems convenient to prevent them from engaging in stupid, but Constitutionally-protected, free speech? Actually advocating "trumping up" charges if nothing useful surfaces on its' own? Does the danger of starting down that road not evince itself to y'all, or what?

Jesus Fuck this is nuts.

The U.S. is the land of the free, not the land of the "free from hatred." They're free to hate whomever they want, whether it's Muslims, atheists, blacks, women, children, gays, transsexuals, socialists, or Mexicans.

Of course, the U.S. isn't as free as it was in, say, the 19th century, but at least it's a more tolerable place to live than most (and to most people, it's more a more tolerable place to live than it was back then).

This whole situation is just a big, ugly anomaly. There is so much opposition to this both inside and outside of the U.S. It's just frustrating to think what a radical congregation of 50 can do to international politics and cultural relations.

And it's incredibly ironic. This act will only prove that they are false Christians who would disgrace the memories of those who died on 9/11.

Let's poke a few bears after a savage bear attack to see if maybe one might attack again. Because, you know, we want to protest against bears who would attack.

The "danger of starting down that road" evinces itself less clearly to me than the dangers of allowing these few to have their way. I don't see the slope as that slippery. Media circus & all, the threat of allowing this seems to me greater than the threat created by preventing it. Just maybe, in light of the fact that there are things none of us are allowed to freely say, this should be one of them.

Be sure to remember this when you're being arrested on a trumped-up charge in order to make an example of you for saying things someone in power doesn't like or finds offensive. Child-molestation or kiddie-porn posession was a favorite such charge of certain midwestern PDs in the 1990s. Think about that. Then think about the fact that one day, another George W. Bush -will- be back in power, and objecting to wars and torture -will- be considered treason, or terrorism, or support for terrorism, by that administration or at least some of those within it. According to your line of reasoning, all that administration (or those people) would need to do in order to justify trumping up a false charge of molestation, or kiddie porn, or whatever they thought would do the trick, is make exactly the argument you've made above: that allowing you to protest the war (or whatever the situation may be) is more dangerous to the Body Politic than falsifying a charge against you and hauling you off to prison to shut you up. And you, my friend, will have absolutely -no- room to bitch about anything that happens to you, your family, or your friends. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, you will purely and simply deserve EVERYTHING that happens to you.

People wonder why the Constitution gets trashed, left and right, on a constant basis? People wonder where the PATRIOT Act came from? This is where. This mentality right here.