[kenberg]

Let me attempt to phrase a question: Is there a road out of this?


I am no expert on anti-blasphemy laws but my guess is that it would have been dangerous to burn a Bible in many places in eighteenth century America. I don't think it would have been that good a move in London either. We now see things differently. But not everyone everywhere agrees. So basically we are in the following spot: Any fool with a matchbook can set off an international incident. He burns a Quran, his rights are protected, Muslims, egged on by their religious leaders, go nuts, people who were just leading their lives die. Please, I am not excusing anyone. I am asking: Will we just be putting up with this for the foreseeable future?

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2011-April-07, 15:48, said:

I am asking: Will we just be putting up with this for the foreseeable future?

Yeap...

If we're lucky, we'll still be able to burn a bible here in the US without getting our head blown off by a tea bagger...

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-06, 17:14, said:

Not at all. If my statements were not accurate, feel free to offer specific corrections.

what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or not

hrothgar, on 2011-April-06, 19:06, said:

Comment 1: You used the word "blame" which has a very different context than "legal"

true, but your analogy compared a legal act with an illegal one

Quote

Comment 2: I'd appreciate a comment from one of the lawyers present... Can I bring a civil suit against some one who hasn't broken a law?

i'm not a lawyer but i believe you can bring a civil suit against anyone for anything

Quote

Comment 3: My understanding is that negligence can be apportioned between multiple parties

then compare two negligent but legal acts, or two negligent but illegal acts

kenberg, on 2011-April-06, 18:42, said:

I think the pastor is scum. Scum often know all their legal rights, every last one of them, and can explain their moral mission to all who will listen. They are still scum. I give everyone full permission to rephrase "scum" in any moral terms they wish, but the guy is still scum.

agree

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-07, 15:58, said:

what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or not

true, but your analogy compared a legal act with an illegal one

...

then compare two negligent but legal acts, or two negligent but illegal acts

Why? No one is arguing about the legality of Jones' act...

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-06, 19:02, said:

Wasps don't think, they act on instinct. Humans think. Are you saying that the murderers in the incident at hand are not human? They are to be forgiven what they've done because they're sub-human?

IMO it takes a warped perspective to think this story is about the actions of the wasps. What I am saying is that burning the qu'ran was a stupid act in and of itself. Killing people over holy books is stupid, too. There was stupid enough to go around on all sides to fill all Florida beaches and have enough left over to fill the Orange Bowl.

The wasps were only acting like wasps. (In other words, there actions were totally predictable.)

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2011-April-06, 20:11, said:

The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers.

Oh No
I see I've agreed with Blackshoe, again

How weird - both you and Blackshoe seem to think the wasps represent Islamics, when they do not. I would venture it is you who has the racist view to attach an analogy between an insect and a human.

As I pointed out, the story is simply to show that acting stupid is acting stupid. Lukewarm said only one side was stupid. My story was a refutation of that. Burning someone else's holy book is a stupid thing to do, regardless. Killing people over the burning of the book is stupid. These are separate actions - both stupid.

I never said anything about apportioning a degree of morality to each act - that would be a different circumstance.

The reason the burning is stupid IMO is because it serves no purpose other than to outrage.

Killing people because some book is considered holy is too stupid to have to explain.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2011-April-06, 20:11, said:

The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers.

In what way, shape, or form is Winston's post racist?

Large groups of people, regardless of race or religion, are capable of amazing acts of cruelty when they get riled up.

I don't consider this behavior specific to muslims or necessarily to Afghanis...
It wasn't that long ago that you had lynching here in the US.

(Hell, even today 46% of Republicans in Mississippi apparently believe that inter racial marriage should be outlawed)

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-07, 17:00, said:

How weird - both you and Blackshoe seem to think the wasps represent Islamics, when they do not.

I apologise for misinterpreting Winstonm's analogy.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2011-April-07, 17:52, said:

I apologise for misinterpreting Winstonm's analogy.

No worries, mate. We all time-to-time misunderstand written intentions. The only thing I really take exception to is your implication that I am somehow attempting to exonerate murderous fundamental Islamics.

I am not and I do not.

Both sides - the Christian fundies and the Islamic fundies are nutcases.

I have nothing but contempt for any aggressive action based on the skewed thinking that one set of delusional beliefs is superior to another set of equally delusional beliefs.

Take away the idiotic belief system from each side, and this incident was a non-starter.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-07, 15:58, said:

what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or not

Really? How can true statements justify unjustifiable acts?

Are you saying that the matter must be described falsely to prevent some people from imagining a justification? No thanks.

[Winstonm]

I do not mean to pick specifically on Christianity but only use that as an example because I am better versed in that history.

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term dulusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities. Remove faith, and the Inquisition is stillborn. Remove faith, and the witches of Salem live.

There was no point in burning the qu'ran other than a statement of faith - that the qu'ran is wrong and thus the bible is right.

There is no point in killing U.N. workers because of an opinion about which ancient text is held on faith(more opinion) to be right.

Eliminate the beliefs. The history of Christianity is not exactly a shining light of tolerance; it is rather disingenuous for Christianity to now castigate Islam for going through a similar period of intolerance. (For those who would argue that Islam is based on intolerance, you will not get a counterargument from me. Instead, I would point out the intolerance of gentiles in Jewish scripture, and the old testament's intolerances along with Christian church history as evidence that all these religions have their intolerant faults, too. The issue that leads to intolerace in all, though, is belief. In that they are all equal.)

The good news is that over time these delusionary beliefs must alter stance or risk extinction. Christianity is tolerant today because society demanded tolerance, not that the words in the holy book changed. So, too, will Islam be forced to change over time.

Better for all if extinction occured. If not, then evolution will alter the dangers from all sides until religious danger is no longer a threat to the species.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-07, 20:38, said:

The history of Christianity is not exactly a shining light of tolerance; it is rather disingenuous for Christianity to now castigate Islam for going through a similar period of intolerance.

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

If someone claims that Islam is more often associated with violence and intolerance today than other religions are today, then one can argue whether this is related to intrinsic properties of Islam or not, or whether it is true or not. But surely the point that it hasn't always been like that is off-topic.

Surely a 21st century secular Christian is not responsible for the actions of 11th century Christians. Or for those of 21st century Christian extremists for that matter.

Is the point that since Christianity has managed to modernize itself, there is hope for Islam, too?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-07, 20:38, said:

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term delusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities.

Although I understands your point, or I think I do, I quite thoroughly disagree. I am not much on judging people at all unless I have to, but to the extent I do, I judge them entirely on their actions rather than on their beliefs.

Fundamentally (and we are speaking of Fundamentalism I guess) I reject the idea that some of us live on faith, others on pure reason. Have you ever tried actually reading Kant? Let me save you some time, don't. I do not believe in the existence of a God, but that's a long way from saying that I have carefully examined every one of my beliefs and am confident they will stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny. Now that would be delusional.

The question is not in what people believe but in whether they insist that others believe the same thing. The error comes when good action is judged to be insufficient, one must also have the correct beliefs. Religious people can (but not all do) get pushy about that. They are not the only ones.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-07, 20:38, said:

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term dulusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities. Remove faith, and the Inquisition is stillborn. Remove faith, and the witches of Salem live.

Megalomaniac psychopaths typically use "Patriotism" as well as "Religion" to stir up trouble. (For example, In Northern Ireland,. The "men of violence" (on both sides) were mostly irreligious petty-criminals who would normally have been satisfied with vandalising telephone-boxes and the like. Charismatic leaders welded those individuals into coherent mafia-like forces for evil, using patriotism and religion to rationalize murder and extortion, armed by terrorist fund-raisers abroad).

Oliver Cromwell, in his appeal to the General Assembly said:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken

We should all examine our prejudices and beliefs in the light of that good advice. Unfortunately, the lesson of history is that we don't learn from history and

George Santayana said:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

[awm]

There are a couple ways the history is relevant.

It's been suggested in this thread that it makes a difference whether the reaction to the Qu'ran burning was predictable, the idea being that if the pastor should've known that his actions would lead to innocent lives being lost then he shares some responsibility. Of course, he was warned by his own government so obviously he should know... but the long history of violent reaction to the burning of holy books (in both Muslim and Christian communities) should've been a tip off. In contrast, the Danish cartoonists arguably might've been surprised by the violent reaction they got.

It's also been suggested that the violence was due to crazies and the pastor shouldn't really be responsible for the actions of crazies. But again, the long history (in multiple religions) of violent reactions to such things implies that either they weren't so crazy after all... or there are a lot of religious crazies in the world. Of course, there is a coherent argument for the latter (which Winston seems to be making) but I doubt that a fundamentalist Christian pastor would want to argue in his own defense that "all religious people are crazy."

[mike777]

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on 2011-April-08, 04:59, said:

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

awm, on 2011-April-08, 11:03, said:

There are a couple ways the history is relevant.

not, i think helene is saying, as a defense for present acts... i got from her post that acts by whatever group, muslim or christian or nationalistic or any other, are on that particular group... no, history is not irrelevant, but neither does it have any relevant role to plan in this discussion (imo)

mike777, on 2011-April-08, 13:47, said:

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

and that pretty much says it all

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2011-April-08, 04:59, said:

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

If someone claims that Islam is more often associated with violence and intolerance today than other religions are today, then one can argue whether this is related to intrinsic properties of Islam or not, or whether it is true or not. But surely the point that it hasn't always been like that is off-topic.

Surely a 21st century secular Christian is not responsible for the actions of 11th century Christians. Or for those of 21st century Christian extremists for that matter.

Is the point that since Christianity has managed to modernize itself, there is hope for Islam, too?

The point is that the society which surrounds the religion and thus the role of the religion within that society is the determining factor.

Yes, Islam will become more moderate or will become extinct, just a Christianity has become more moderate in order to fill its role in society.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-April-08, 13:47, said:

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

Bullshit

This event was entirely foreseeable

Months back, when the Koran burnings were first being discussed, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state issued statements that this event should not take place because it would lead to riots and the deaths of large numbers of people. I don't much care that other people down the chain had to take actions before the UN workers ended up dead. What is important is that anyone with half a brain could tell that this action had a very significant chance that it would get people killed.

As I recall, the law does much distinguish between murder and and hiring a hit man
this feels no different

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2011-April-08, 05:13, said:

Although I understands your point, or I think I do, I quite thoroughly disagree. I am not much on judging people at all unless I have to, but to the extent I do, I judge them entirely on their actions rather than on their beliefs.

Fundamentally (and we are speaking of Fundamentalism I guess) I reject the idea that some of us live on faith, others on pure reason. Have you ever tried actually reading Kant? Let me save you some time, don't. I do not believe in the existence of a God, but that's a long way from saying that I have carefully examined every one of my beliefs and am confident they will stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny. Now that would be delusional.

The question is not in what people believe but in whether they insist that others believe the same thing. The error comes when good action is judged to be insufficient, one must also have the correct beliefs. Religious people can (but not all do) get pushy about that. They are not the only ones.

Ken,

Some delusional beliefs are more dangerous than others. The Jains, for example, also are theists but their beliefs are quite in keeping with furtherment of all living things.

Delusional belief mixed with certainty is often deadly. It is the certainty that creates the problem, but without the belief there would be nothing to be certain about.