AleaIactaEst

I speak in generalities, so I'll let you elaborate at your discretion.

After reading up about the 'International Burn A Qu'ran' , my immediate response was one of disgust. I find the idea of the willful destruction of books, and symbolically, ideas, one that is so perversely adverse to everything that seems important to myself that it angers me.

In saying that, I do not agree with the ideas contained within the Qu'ran, and, we are talking about a book which seems to propagate censorship, scientific repression (Apparently a recent feature, as it wasn't read that way historically) and is the inspiration for murder and mutilation in some cases.

So it got me thinking. Can books have a negative effect on society? Are they always worth their paper because ideas will always need to be critically examined? And if so, do you consider that others who aren't quite so into critical examination might be won over by some loony, illogical cult work?

The_Dunedan

Of course.

Double of course. If nothing else, one should always endeavor to know one's enemies in their own words.

They might be, and frequently are. However, their inability to exercise the faculties God gave them does not mean that the work or works which influenced them should be banned. The virtuous many should not suffer for the mistakes or idiocies of the vicious few.

AleaIactaEst

Cool, Thanks for replying.

Interesting. Certainly sounds pro-freedom. Obviously in opposition to any idea of a Nanny state (I fully concur.)

I suspect this thread is going to veer into the moral and ideological philosophy

The word that is most interesting is vicious.

My assumption is that the persons who write texts which have a negative effect must surely fit into two categories; Those who are incorrect, perhaps deluded, but nonetheless their ideas stem from a failure to reason logically (Not that this makes them lacking in virtue - or even lacking in intelligence, as some factors simply aren't foreseeable. For example, I think of Marx as a fiercely intelligent man with the best in mind, and he couldn't possibly have realized his ideas would go where they did.)

And conversely, those who write with intentions of control, or of meeting their own agendas. Is it not only this category who are vicious? It certainly seems that those who follow their ideas may be following them due to it meeting their own, similar agendas. But their must be those who are genuinely deluded, or have seen reason where there is none.

Perhaps I should expand by giving the specific example of the works of Marx. The Communist Manifesto is a text that aims to explore an alternate method of society, however, ultimately it resulted in alot of death, misery and... negativity. Now of course, this is partially due to latter interpretation and meddling by those who sought only to serve themselves, but ultimately it all rose out of an attempt to install a new set of ideas.

Would you perhaps argue that ultimately it all needed to be done? That it was essentially inevitable? Obviously quite a utilitarian view, but worth consideration. Is it a case of the deluded needing to have been proven wrong conclusively, and the propagation of the books, religious, political, theoretical, allows this to take place?

(I'd probably add that the religious is perhaps slightly less open to being proven anything, as for some of the major religions, their topic is an idea which obviously aims to transcend earthly ideas of evidence, and of course, it is impossible to prove that anything happens in the afterward.)

Baraka_Guru

Books aren't as dangerous as they used to be.

Back in the early days of the printing press and up to the 20th century, a book could be a potent force for change. Now, beginning in the late 20th century, we have such a glut of books and ideas that one single book has to compete with myriad other books (and ideas). This is not only because of the sheer volume of books being published, but also because of other media---namely, radio, television, other print media, and the game-changer we like to call the Internet.

What's interesting, though, is the context under which this thread has started to develop. I think that books/ideas have less an impact on society because of the very systems that have been set up on national and global scales. Take the concept of the "nanny state" that was mentioned. It's these very ideals and the coinciding legislation under each that people criticize (or support) which make the state more resistant to radical change.

That said, books, no matter how terrible, shouldn't be at the risk of falling beneath the blackness of censorship. However, it should be expected that anything published will most certainly run the risk of being ridiculed, ignored, or otherwise criticized. Every book that garners attention will undoubtedly face the often harsh climate generated by book critics around the world.

Ideas should not be barred from reaching the public. But I suspect that it happens all the time where ideas are suppressed in one way or another. I think this happens more often in other ways than the censorship or banning of a book. That thought seems so old school now.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

Sure any work can have a negative effect on society but I think it lies more in ones perspective then anything else. We all have a different view of morals, values and how society should be run and when an idea conflicts with those views we see it as negative. In the end its all about a free exchange of ideas, anybody is free to be won over by any ideology that speaks to them and ultimately those ideas will be held up to public scrutiny and left to wither and die or flourish on their own merits.

I think there is so much to be gained from that free exchange of ideas that it more then makes up for the odd controversial or negative ones that might do more harm then good.

How many ideas that were controversial a generation ago are now held as commonly accepted ideas and beliefs?

__________________

AleaIactaEst

Yeah, it was with a sort of internal moral guidance that I originally was opposed to the entire idea of burning or censoring a book. I suppose I just wanted to discuss the reasoning behind why we know that. I reckon ultimately it is what Wes stated about the entire discourse and discussion that the positives arise, and that they outweigh the negatives.

I do think that books (and published papers, online or otherwise) are still fundamentally the building block of how we as society map and navigate ideas, although obviously not with the clarity of the Early Modern period, but rather now with a something of a trickle-down model whereby journalists and media personnel extract and/or are influenced by those ideas and presented to the public in a more layperson-friendly approach.

spindles

I've never read it, but I'd suspect that it is not the book itself but the fundamentalists themselves that read the contents in a manner that fits the message they want. This is no better than fundamentalist Christians wanting to burn (and thus censor) the Qu'ran themselves.

I guess we all have to remember that extremists of any (or no) religion have wacky ideas regardless of their background. Does the book(s) cause the extremism, or does the person cause it? I think it is the person, not the book. A 'normal' person isn't suddenly going to become a rabid extremist just from reading a book!

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Strange Famous

I believe that most Muslims have the view that you cannot really read the Qu'ran in English, and you have to read in its original language to understand it fully. I think that sounds a fair enough point to me.

The bible in places advocates slavery and slave taking, rape, indiscriminate murder of male prisoners of war, execution of homosexuals, prohibition of women speaking in church, prohibition of divorce, the execution of disobedient children....

I think anyone who follows the religion of Abraham must admit that the holy texts say many thinks that we do not accept today.

_

In general terms, I would say that of course books can be negative

Mein Kampf can be judged as a negative book. (as an example)

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

AleaIactaEst

I agree entirely. It always comes down to the fact that people always have the capacity to choose.

Yeah, in that example I'm coming across pretty hard on the one religion. I don't mean to pick it out explicitly.

What I do find odd, is that the Bible and Torah contain some instructions that, by modern standards, are disturbing and barbaric (Primarily the stoning of adulterers, rebellious children, sanction of slavery ect.) However, there don't seem to be any examples of any religious group which still employ these any longer. That may well be because of the Messianic fulfillment making some of the priestly OT laws redundant, but that doesn't stop some groups frequently citing the OT and declaring that it is still relevant and divine.

Whereas there are examples in the Islamic world obviously of people using every aspect of the Qu'ran, and even going so far as to enforce the contemporary law, which by modern standards, is also unfair and archaic. “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not.” (2:216) is an example of a verse which has been cited as a call to arms for Al Queda and the Taliban.

Essentially a large amount of religious belief seems to come more so from tradition and family than any study of texts, but I do find it disturbing that such an example like this exists, and in a context in which, if I were to become Muslim, it would be my duty and obligation to follow a scripture like this, regardless of what I may feel to be right or wrong.

Food for thought, of course. I in no way think that the answers to the problem of extremism lie in censorship, and I think that after discussing this I am in heavy opposition of the Qu'ran burning, and view it as totally counter-intuitive.

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. The preacher himself admits he's never read it, so what does that tell you? I suggest you read the thread in General Discussion about this particular case.
Books by themselves hurt nobody.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Jetée

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.

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?

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi