Why I don't have a problem with the Qur'an being thrown in a toilet

[Walt Starr]

I'm not a Muslim and the text is no more sacred to me than a copy of Gone With the Wind. It doesn't ruffle my feathers like Piss Christ didn't ruffle my feathers because I am not a Christian and a guy nailed to a cross is no more sacred to me than a fat dude sitting in the lotus position laughing.

:shrug:

What's most sacred to me is reporting the truth, and since this incident had been reported multiple times over more than two years, Newsweek being pushed to back down on reporting the truth is the REAL sacrilege if you ask me.

[sabra]

1. Are you willing to die for this?

The reality is that some find the Quran to be extremely holy and sacred. And they are willing to die for it. And the US has spat and desecrated these writings that they dedicate their lives to.

Whether you agree in their beliefs or not, thats a different story

[Walt Starr]

3. I don't give a shit about anybody desecrating anything

It doesn't matter to me. It's a book. Nothing more.

If somebody else wants to die over shit like this, that';s their problem, not mine.

I am willing to die to fight for the truth, though.

[sabra]

14. Do care if you offend a persons beliefs?

[forgethell]

23. I certainly don't.

My beliefs are offended all the time. Somehow, I manage not to kill anybody over it. But if they, and, yes I mean Muslims, among others, do not care if they offend me, I return the favor.

Hey, we offend, and we try to offend Republicans, conservatives, and Christians on DU all the time. At least some of us do. They do the same to us over on FR. I won't even mention the site-which-must-not-be-named. That's what free expression is all about. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't have to be protected.

[Walt Starr]

29. Nobody has the right to not be offended

:shrug:

Go figure.

[DireStrike]

72. I've never heard it put that way. I like it. EOM

[theboss]

59. Have you just arrived at DU?

Since when do we care whose religion is offended?

[TX-RAT]

5. some find the Quran to be extremely holy and sacred.

Some find the Bible the same way.
Just look at the way Christianity gets treated around here.

[forgethell]

26. Yeah, but find one

Christian who thinks the paper that the Bible is printed on is sacred. Find one who has rioted over Piss Christ. Peaceful protests, letters to the editor, withholding of funds don't count

[Walt Starr]

28. Well, there were death threats over Piss Christ

But that's about as far as the would be terrorists took that one.

All I'm saying is that the reaction is precisely what the torturers wanted. They win.

[forgethell]

43. Who do you mean

by "torturers"? Those that behead helpless captives or those that flush a few pieces of paper down the commode?

Do you suppose they wanted riots? I think it hardly likely. Why? What's the motive for riots? Does Newsweek bear any responsibility for failing to confirm this story? Knowing what kind of reaction was likely given all the previous warnings about the anger of the "Arab Street", should they perhaps have withheld this information in the interests of preserving human life? Or is the unconfirmed "scoop" more important?

[Walt Starr]

77. The torturers in Gitmo employed by Uncle Sam

And the story has been out there for more than two years. First news article about flushing the Koran was in the Washington Post on March 25, 2003.

[forgethell]

109. Yes, sir,

next time I get tortured I hope the worst thing that happens is that the Koran (or even the Bible) gets used as toilet paper in front of me.

[TX-RAT]

39. I don't care.

It's words printed on paper, nothing more. Just like the Bible.

[theboss]

60. Well...be careful....

You may have only proven that Fundamentalist Muslims are slighly crazier than Fundamentalist Christians.

[forgethell]

65. There is

more than a "slight" step between murder and not-murder. Fundamentalist Christians are simply not in the same league as fundamentalist Muslims at all. Neither in numbers nor depravity. when is the last time a fundie Christian flew a plane into a skyscraper? How many fundie suicide bombers have there been? Which Christian cult raises its children with a goal of them becoming "martyrs" instead of lawyers, doctors, or dentists?

[Walt Starr]

79. I CALL BULLSHIT, Fundie Christians are EVERY BIT as bull goose Loony

as the fundie Muslims.

Eric Rudolph.

Paul Hill.

David Koresh.

I rest my case.

[forgethell]

108. Bullshit, indeed.

None of them was supported by any government, or much of an organization. And, if you will recall, in the case of David Koresh, it was the feds that killed everybody. Good old Janet Reno, worst attorney general in US history. Not that DK didn't need to be taken out, but golly. It could have been done with a lot less loss of Human life.

All of the ones you've named, together, don't account for a fraction of the lives that one incident on 9/11 cost.

Bullshit indeed.

[eallen]

13. Yeah. I am. It's the core freedom of democracy.

Arguably, the government, as represented by prison guards, should not be desecrating a religious book, and that should fall outside the conduct of prisons, as should torture.

The protestors in Afghanistan, though, aren't upset about who did this. They're upset that it was done at all. Well, American citizens generally have the right to piss on Korans, burn the flag, and spit on the Bible. That's freedom of speech. We should not apologize for that. Instead, we should ask when their governments are going to move into the modern world, and defend their citizens' freedom of speech and religion.

[hfojvt]

47. a major problem here

If an American citizen pisses on the Koran, he has offended the Muslim world and will probably have a price put on his head ala Salmon Rushdie. So now apparently, the American government has done it, and we will have a price put on our national head, ala 9/11. Way to protect us from terrorists you jacka$$holes.

The easy answer is that "they" are already targeting us. That is true, but does it protect us if we create more enemies? Recipe for instant enemy, take one religious book and add urine.

But I do not oppose that action because it is not prudent. As a person who has read and who deeply respects the Koran, I think the action was wrong. Furthermore, I think it is in violation of our first amendment - our government is not supposed to establish a religion or endorse a religion. I think that also should apply to attacking a religion (or its most venerated symbols). The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - if these actions go unpunished, then, once again, he is not being true to his oath. The American public should be demanding accountability as much as the Muslim world.

[eallen]

55. You're pointing out an important distinction, that the government did it..

And that also points the way to the political solution, to wit, the US government should declare official respect for all religions, equally, and that its official policy is not to employ denigration of religious icons for interrogation or other purposes.

But that won't keep individuals here from desecrating the Koran, and their right to do so is exactly what the first amendment defines. To the extent that that pisses off the Muslim world, there's not much response except to explain the principle.

[judy]

2. I agree with you, Walt

But I think we should keep in mind that (as General Myers himself admitted) that these riots have much less to do with the Koran, and much more to do with US presence and occupation, if ye ask me...

This Koran thing is pure BS. It's just to make Muslims look stupid. Besides, how many people in Afghanistan do you think read Newsweek? Do they do the Xword puzzles too?

[bpilgrim]

4. being Muslim has NOTHING to do with it...

http://images.globalfreepress.com

though i do agree about the media PINKING OUT is a serious crime as well since it ENABLES this EVIL behavior.

i'm a doubting thomas, btw ;->

peace

[phattyt]

6. I see what you're saying but...

this story has a lot more meaning behind it than I think you give it credit for. The idea that America may be responsible for desecrating something so holy to so many people, especially in the Middle East where our troops are and many terrorists garner support, is an incredibly dangerous one. If you aren't a Muslim or Christian then that is perfectly alright, but to put so little stock into the consequences of these events and ultimately be so insensitive just isn't right, in my opinion

[Walt Starr]

7. I agree that it is dangerous for representatives of the government

to do this.

Nah, that's wrong.

It's just plain stupid.

But really, I could give a shit about anybody "desecrating" inanimate objects like the Koran, the Bible, a Crucifix, a statue of Ghanesh, or the flag.

I honestly do not believe you can actually "desecrate" an inanimate object. It's a meaningless act.

[jobycom]

15. Nothing? Not, say, a loved one's tomb? The Declaration of Independence?

A pop remake of a rock classic? A wedding ring?

Context is important, too. I knew a couple once, where the woman was really mean. Because of a fairly minor argument, the wife destroyed a photograph of the husband's passed father. It was his favorite picture, one with great emotional value, for complicated reasons. Was that simply the destruction of a piece of paper? They divorced over the picture, but it wasn't really the picture. It was her cruelty, her deliberate attempt to cut at his heart at a time when he was weak, that ended the marriage.

If you can understand that, you can understand how a man, wrongfully imprisoned in violation of all US and international law, who has watched friends in this prison die, who has no idea if will ever have anything to hope for again, can get so upset that the one thing he still holds sacred is ripped from him and flushed into sewage--and sewage itself is more vile for Muslims than for Americans.

If you can't grasp that, I guess... Well, i guess I just don't understand you.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. You are so correct

Everything we have seen done to detainees so far was deliberately chosen to evoke terror, hopelessness and humiliation. The nudity, forced homosexual acts, menstrual blood, dogs, all of these are deeply, deeply shame and fear-inducing in Muslim culture. We live in a sex saturated society, so nudity and forced masturbation etc. seem like no big deal but Muslims are extremely modest about their bodies and about sexuality. Just being naked in front of a female American GI is terribly damaging to their culture's concept of manhood.

We have nothing similar to compare it to in our culture so a lot of it is dismissed as no big deal, unfortunately.

The Quran is sacred to these prisoners beyond what we can imagine, but we ignore or gloss over it at our own peril.

[Maat]

90. And as a retired social worker, I can tell you that incidents like..

these can destroy someone's life forever.

I worked with people from some cultures that believed if a young girl had been sexually abused, she was just plain used up - could be no more than a whore from that point forward. If people find out that you have been through something like this, they can react in a couple of ways. They can either support you ... or see that you are branded for life (I mean the culture or society in which a victim functions when I refer to 'people').

[Walt Starr]

34. Nothing

I guess I don't take to objectified sacredness.

:shrug:

[AngryOldDem]

70. Excellent reply

I, too, can't understand why some have such a hard time with the simple concept of respect for different beliefs and belief systems.

When people are being imprisoned illegally, such desecration and disrespect strips from them the very last shred of human decency and dignity that they may have.

[DulceDecorum]

Triggering mass suicide.

Marc Falkoff, who is representing 13 Yemeni detainees at Guantánamo. According to Falkoff's declassified notes, a mass-suicide attempt—when 23 detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves in August 2003—was triggered by a guard's dropping a Qur'an and stomping on it.One of Falkoff's clients told him, "Another detainee tried to kill himself after the guard took his Qur'an and threw it in the toilet." A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/page/2/

These "meaningless acts" will be "celebrated" on May 27, 2005.

[forgethell]

44. I'm going to have to say,

anybody that would commit suicide over a reason like that truly needs to be removed from the gene pool.

[Raksha]

75. Of course, it's the very definition of idolatry

to believe that holiness inheres in any physical object. That is to say, in the object ITSELF. But it's not really the object that's being desecrated here. It's the people who revere this object and what it represents to them who are being denigrated and desecrated by proxy.

[jobycom]

8. Okay, so you're not upset. So what? Do you say that Muslims are

wrong for being upset? If so, that's awfully arogant, and if not, why post something which is just plain obvious--that a non-Muslim isn't going to be upset by a Qur'an being degraded.

For the record, it is not a "book" or a religious "symbol" (as a crucifix is). To a Muslim, it is the actual word of God, still preserved in the language in which he Recited (Qur'an means Recitation) the text to Muhammad. It is closer to, putting it in a Western context, Jesus, than to a symbol of Jesus. The "book" is not important. The words are. They aren't symbols or representations of God, they are directly from God. At times Muslim theologians have argued they are part of God. There is no real equivalent of it in the west.

[Walt Starr]

10. I really don't give a shit what a book "means" to somebody

It's a book, nothing more. The words still exist even if the book is burned or flushed or whatever. It's a meaningless act and is only given meaning by allowing it to have meaning.

Many christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and would react just as violently had the shoe been on the other foot in this.

The Christians in that example are the ones giving the act meaning, not the person who flushes the book.

So yes, it is wrong for Muslims to react the way they are. They actually empower those who flushed the book, which is what the book flushers wanted in the first place. They've played right into the torturer's hands, and that's really what torture is about in the first place.

[bpilgrim]

16. when an officer of the state persecutes someone for their religion

that offends MANY people and has horrid parallels in history so i am sure you can understand the OUTRAGE.

:hi:

peace

[Walt Starr]

20. Oh, ABSOLUTELY!

It doesn't get my dander up, but I can understand why it would get their dander up.

The point I'm making in this subthread is, that's what the guys who flushed the Koran wanted to do! They accomplished their aims.

Torture isn't about getting prisoners to talk. Torture is about terrorizing a population, which has been accomplished by the Koran flushing.

[TwentyFive]

9. Gives me a great idea! Tell Muslims to throw christian bibles into toilets

The best way for Muslims to fight back is to throw christian bibles into toilets. Eye for an eye. Get the fundies mad. In fact, we can all help them. Perhaps we can design some of those urinal flush disks with pictures of famous right wing religious nuts on them.

[Walt Starr]

11. Actually, I believe they would consider it to be about the same thing

"Brothers of the book" and all that, dontcha know.

[Zorbuddha]

12. Your opinion is of no more value

than that of one with different beliefs.

It is disrespect of those beliefs that is the issue, and percieved duties in the face of disrespect.

There is nothing right, honorable, or decent about denigrating anyone's idea of the sacred. Regardless of opinion.

[UdoKier]

17. Walt this is one of your worst posts EVER.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't consider the mumbo-jumbo in the Koran any more or less precious than the mumbo-jumbo in the Bible or any other religious fantasy book.

BUT, that is not the issue. Flushing a book that somebody BELIEVES to be holy in FRONT of that person is CRUEL and ABUSIVE, no matter how you look at it.

Yes, Newsweak being cowed into retracting THE TRUTH is the real tragedy, but your headline is so needlessly offensive to sensitive folks.

There are ways of saying what you said without being inflammatory.

[Walt Starr]

22. I think you missed the point

It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that reporting the truth of the matter, which does offend and piss off those who believe the Koran is holy, has been flushed down the proverbal toilet.

[UdoKier]

31. I get your point.

Problem is a lot of other people have knee-jerk reactions to headlines like that.

What is the point of provoking them?

[Walt Starr]

35. All I did is what the media does

and observed.

Everybody fell for the misdirect and missed the real bit of the post.

[DulceDecorum]

18. Remember the outrage about Dubya's fake medals?

I seem to recall a few people here getting hot under the collar.

If someone makes a comment about so-and-so's mom, I might even laugh.
But say that same exact thing about MY MOTHER
and your eyes will be swollen shut. Especially if it is true.

The Koran is deeply valued and highly respected by Muslims.
The desecration of the Koran has upset them greatly.

"We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive," says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week's protests took place. "But insulting the Qur'an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/

The lack of empathy here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1399000/posts?page=22#22
is really quite sad to behold.

[Walt Starr]

24. And the torturers have won

"We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive," says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week's protests took place. "But insulting the Qur'an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate."


That's precisely what the torturers WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH!

Notice how well it worked?

[DulceDecorum]

30. Now let us see the PRIZE the torturers won.

Every nation that I can think of, including Israel, has Muslims.
And the Private Military Contractors
employed by the US just went and pissed them ALL off.

[Walt Starr]

36. So what happens now?

More attacks?

Perhaps a major terrorist attack in the "Homeland"?

Hmmmmmmmm, what would that accomplish?

1) Martial Law
2) Excuse for a draft
3) Continued Endless war
4) More no-bid contracts for Halliburton


Nah, I guess that's not what the thugs wanted.

[Toby109]

42. Perhaps you should have made

this the point in your initial post. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard the report. That we are deliberately pissing them off so we have something on which to blame the next terrorist attack.

[freedom_to_read]

19. a little context

If this act occurred it is not simply a little bit of cultural insensitivity. It is a premeditated attack on the beliefs of muslims.

You must understand the sacredness that the Quran holds in Islam. While comparisons between religions are always perilous, and particularly when outsiders (such as myself) try to make them, the closest parallel I could think of would not be the sacredness of the Bible to a Christian, but the sacredness of a Torah scroll to a believing Jew or a consecrated communion wafer to a devout Catholic.

The Quran is not simply the word of God as written down by human messengers; it is the word of God made manifest on Earth. It is in itself an object of religious veneration, as every bit as sacred as the words contained within it. Combine this sacredness with the deep-seated connection between cleanliness and holiness in muslim practice; to a muslim, flushing pages of a Quran down a toilet appears as terrible act of sacrilege.

It is not simply an intimidation tactic, but a willful demonstration of cultural superiority. It is saying, "We shit on you and your beliefs," or "Your religion is nothing but shit to us."

Again, I don't know if these things happened or not, and I really hope it is a rumor run amok... but if they did, then the U.S. deserves the outraged response of the Muslim world.

[Walt Starr]

25. And you fell for the misdirect just like the American public did!

Check it out! You answered the issue about flushing the book, which is a meaningless act to me, and ignored the real outrage which demands that the truth about flushing the book not be reported!

[bvar22]

27. If all 1 Billion Muslims were as smart as the OP,

then there would not be such a rukus.
Why don't you PM ALL the 1 Billion Muslims and inform them how ignorant they are?

[Walt Starr]

32. If they want to get all offended over a book being flushed

that's their problem, not mine.

I'll piss on a crucifix, burn a flag, bash a buddha, or whatever else I please.

This is America where I'm free to make an ass of myself and bash what others consider sacred.

[bvar22]

50. Fine, Walt.

That's just YOU. I also have no use for religious icons, and give up NO power to trinkets from the physical World (except fo gris gris bags from New Orleans).
Good for Me.
But there are 1 Billion people in the World who disagree with you and me.

I am not the smartest person in the WORLD. There are many Muslims among the 1 BILLION who are smarter than me who choose to believe differently. Who am I to judge them?
The Muslims see the Western World as religiously LAZY, hedonistic, materialistic, overwhelmed by sins of the Flesh, infidels.
Are they wrong?
Are they less entitled to their beliefs than you?


I usually agree with you, but not today.

[Walt Starr]

51. You don't have to agree with me

and I never said you did.

I explained why it didn't offend me and went on to describe what really did offend me.

[bvar22]

62. I do agree with you here:

What's most sacred to me is reporting the truth, and since this incident had been reported multiple times over more than two years, Newsweek being pushed to back down on reporting the truth is the REAL sacrilege if you ask me.


When you are hauled away to the re-education camps, I'll tell them not to bother flushing a bible down the toilet.

[mitchtv]

33. I have smoked that rice paper bible on more that one occasion

tho I only used the King James version. No zig zags; did I offend? Ask me if I care. If the Koran was on thinner paper , I'd smoke that too.

[ComerPerro]

37. Neither do I, but Imagine the outrage if US prisoners

were made to watch as the Bible was shredded and flushed as part of their torture.

That's the point, to me.

The neoCons here at home seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to dehumanize any and all of our prisoners and still expect that US POWs will be treated with dignity and respect.

[goodhue]

38. It is hate speech

akin to burning crosses and the like

[Walt Starr]

40. No, it's flushing a book

And it obtained precisely the reaction the torturers wanted to garner.

They ended up torturing about a billion people with a single act, and strictly through psychological methods.

[goodhue]

45. flushing a book can be hate speech

eom

[Walt Starr]

46. No, it can't

And you cannot regulate speech. Speech is free.

[goodhue]

52. burning a book such as the bible or the koran can certainly be hate speech

Under most broad definitions of hate speech of which I'm aware.

See, e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

The extent to which the speech can be regulated is a different question entirely. Here in the US such speech is often afforded constitutional protection.

For example, the US Supremem Court struck down a municipal ordinance making it a crime to place a symbol on public or private property that arouses anger in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. See the 1992 Supreme Court case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=377

Nonetheless, burning a cross, an effigy, a flag, or a book (bible, koran) on a front yard bonfire could very well be hate speech, depending on object and context.

[Walt Starr]

54. Now you are getting to intent

and by your definition of "hate speech", most art that's worht a damn would be "hate speech".

[goodhue]

56. Not my defintion. It came straight from wikipedia.

Flushing a book down a toilet can be hate speech.

[Walt Starr]

58. And wikipedia is made up by whomsoever posts it

Somebody decided "hate speech" needed to be defined, so they posted their definition at wikipedia.

[goodhue]

61. Flushing a book such as the bible or the koran can be hate speech

Under most common definitions of hate speech, made up or otherwise.

[Walt Starr]

63. If you want to believe that, you're welcome to it.

I don't even believe there is such a thing as "hate speech".

[goodhue]

66. "I don't even believe there is such a thing as "hate speech"."

Hate Speech Bibliography

http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/speech/spbiog.htm

There is a sizable literature on hate speech, pornography, and censorship. The following works may be of value to you when you are working out your own position on the issues:



American Civil Liberties Union. "Policy Statement: Free Speech and Bias on College Campuses." The statement was adopted in 1990.

Amdur, Robert. "Scanlon on Freedom of Expression." Philosophy & Public Policy, Volume 9, Number 3 (Spring, 1980). Scanlon's article is listed below.

Baird, Robert M. and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Ed. Pornography: Private Right or Public Menace? Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1991.

Bell, Derrick. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. Basic Books, Inc., 1987.

------------------. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. New York: Basic Books, 1992.

Berman, Paul. Editor. Debating P. C.: The Controversy over Political Correctness on College Campuses. New York: Dell Publishing, 1992.

Bollinger, Lee C. The Tolerant Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Boxill, Bernard. Blacks and Social Justice. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984.

D'Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

------------------------. The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

Emerson, Thomas I., Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment. New York: Random House.

Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: The Free Press, 1991.

Hentoff, Nat. Free Speech for Me --But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other. New York: HarperPerennial, 1993.

Hustoles, Thomas P. and Walter B. Connolly, Jr. Ed. Regulating Racial Harassment on Campus: A Legal Compendium. National Association of College and University Attorneys, 1990.

Heumann, Milton and Thomas Church. Ed. Hate Speech On Campus: Cases, Case Studies, and Commentary. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997.

Koppelman, Andrew. Antidiscrimination Law and Social Equality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Lederer, Laura. Ed. The Price We Pay: The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.

Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1955.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. Only Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. Source

Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, Kimberle Williams Crenshaw. Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Bolder: Westview Press, 1993. Source

May, Larry. The Morality of Groups: Collective Responsibility, Group-Based Harm, and Corporate Rights. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987.

McCuen, Gary E. Pornography and Sexual Violence. Hudson: Gary E. McCuen Publications, 1985.

McGowan, David and Ragesh Tangri. "A Libertarian Critique of University Restrictions of Offensive Speech." California Law Review. Volume 79, Number 3 (May, 1991).

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956. Source

Orr, Lisa. Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1990.

Scanlon, Thomas. "A Theory of Freedom of Expression." Philosophy & Public Policy, Volume I, Number 2 (Winter, 1972). The article listed above by Robert Amdur is a reply to Scanlon's article.

Schauer, Frederick. Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Smolla, Rodney A. Free Speech in an Open Society. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.

--------------------------- "Academic Freedom, Hate Speech, and the Idea of a University," in Freedom and Tenure in the Academy. Ed. William W. Van Alstyne. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.

Strossen, Nadine. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the fight for Women's Rights. New York: Anchor Books, 1996.

Taylor, Jared. Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 1992.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. The Realm of Rights. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Walker, Samuel. Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

------------------------ In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Wilson, William Julius. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

Wolff, Robert Paul, Barrington Moore, Jr., and Herbert Marcuse. A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Boston: Beacon Press, 1969.

[Walt Starr]

68. I don't buy it

:shrug:

You're free to, though.

[mongo]

96. Quite a list....

and somewhat of a jumble. When you have

MacKinnon, Catherine A. Only Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

and

Strossen, Nadine. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the fight for Women's Rights. New York: Anchor Books, 1996.

on the same list. The Strossen book is quite good IMO.

I would go on but I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of hate speech and porn.

and to Walt - If you want to stand on a street corner and eat pages of the qua-ran or the bible or whatever - I'm all for ya.

-BUT-

We are talking about treatment of enemy prisoners of war, who should be held under the Geneva conventions. In that respect, and in the eyes of the world, this event and the other atrocities that have happened to US prisoners is very, VERY wrong.

[theboss]

69. Calling someone "Chubby" can be "hate speech" too

You still can't regulate it.

[goodhue]

71. Hate speech is in fact regulated in other countries

Although fat folks are rarely a protected class unless disabled.

For example . . .
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[theboss]

74. And those other countries are wrong to do so, IMO

Under the Constitution, you cannot regulate it here.

[goodhue]

76. Sure, your opinion is entirely valid

I didn't intend to start a debate on the regulation of hate speech.
I'm not advocating for further regulation of hate speech in the US.

Nonetheless, flushing a bible or koran down the toilet is in fact desecrating an object that some religious groups hold sacred. Depending on the context, it could reasonably be considered hate speech--if it is done to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

In this case, it is just routine torture I presume.

[mongo]

97. Yes and under those same hate speech laws

A book by the late Andrea Dworkin was decried to be hate speech and banned from import for a time. Under the same law she helped get passed.

[eallen]

84. In the US, hate speech generally is protected speech.

Yeah, there was a recent court ruling upholding a cross burning statute in some state, on the grounds that cross-burning carries an inherent threat. But that is the exception to the general rule. Here in the US, the first amendment protects your freedom to hate, and to express that hate. It protects Fred Phelps. It protects Christian Identity.

That's why there are no laws in the US that ban hate speech per se. Hate crime statutes instead are predicated on acts that would be a violation of law in any case, such as assault, rape, and murder, imposing higher penalties when they are motivated by hate for certain classes of people.

[goodhue]

94. Indeed, but one can reasonably have problems with protected speech

Just because most hate speech is protected does not mean that people of good conscience should not have a problem with it.

[eallen]

95. Agreed. 100%.

[mongo]

99. No, here in the US we only ban speech about sex

I.E. obscenity laws.

[The Minus World]

41. It was not the action, but the Intent to Degrade and Humiliate.

A silly analogy:

Were these detainees to believe in a rubber ducky with magical powers, and our trained torture squads caught wind of that, the first thing they'd do is flush rubber duckies down a toilet. To the soldier, the intent is not to defile the holy object, but to degrade and humiliate the person who lends deference to such an object. You can see that, regardless of whether you believe in the holiness of St. Rubber Ducky, the employment of religious tools to create profound humiliation is the primary issue.

These objects may represent nothing to you, but in a world of causality, you must take into consideration that others may place what you would percieve as being "undue significance" on such things.

While I agree with you that the Bible, the Qur'an, are nothing more than paper and binding, some perceive an immaterial soul or otherworldly force which exists within these objects. No matter how much of a lie we believe this to be, the truth remains that people are affected by the desecration of these objects - which is what made it newsworthy in the first place.

We may perceive a culture that values immaterial things like religion over traditional respect for empirical truth as being backwards, but such is the beginning of the same lapse into intellectual laziness - into white versus black - that got us into this war in the first place.

Being unmoved by the act of desecration is very different from harboring indignation at the fact the act itself was not reported correctly.

When you made the claim that you "don't have a problem with the Qur'an being thrown in the toilet", your point shifted and became "I DO care that Newsweek didn't report the truth at all costs."

You are right, insomuch as your priorities and principles are based in logic, untainted by theological thought; but the world we live in is one of compromise and concession between believers and non-believers of every stripe.

[Walt Starr]

48. Tha's the whole point of torture, and what is most ignored about torture

Torturing a prisoner has nothing to do with gaining information and has everything to do with terrorizing a populace.

The administration has successfully terrorized about a billion people with a single act.

[The Minus World]

57. Torture: 99% PR, 1% Sadism?

These acts, you must agree, certainly go on outside of the public spotlight. This is, likely, only a drop in the bucket - just as the pictures from Abu Gharib were only one page in a photo album of inhuman war crimes. Suffice it to say, this administration probably wants its more egregious missteps to remain behind closed doors - flushing the Holy Book is bad for our public image, any way you slice it.

Although, in terms of obtaining information, certain methods of torture have been scientifically proven to be far less productive than non-torture methods, our military still sees fit to employ the techniques of barbarism; whether out of sheer sadism, or a backwards belief that bamboo shoots bring out the best in people.

I do not see a great distinction between placing a Qur'an in a toilet and, say, burning a cross on a religious man's lawn. These are both acts of aggression, meant to debase and agitate, and they must be dealt with as such - regardless of the arbiter's value judgment of the objects being defiled.

[tx_dem41]

49. So, destroying and/or defiling something that someone holds sacred...

when you get nothing by doing so, doesn't bother you in the least....... Nice.

I'm an atheist, but I surely would not state what you just did.

[Walt Starr]

53. Nope, not one little bit

Lying about it. Denying it didn't happen when it's been reported for over two years. Blaming reactions to occupation of a country on it, and torturing people to terrorize a populace.

all of those things offend me.

[tx_dem41]

67. As they do me.

But destroying what THEY held sacred, obviously offended them even more. There's a lesson there, for more than this Administration, obviously.

[Walt Starr]

83. I've never denied that it offended them

I've, in fact, proclaimed the offense is precisely the aim of the torturers.

[Walt Starr]

89. Of course it offended them

That was the whole point of why it was done.

[NNN0LHI]

64. Why I don't have a problem with Walt Starr being thrown in a toilet

Because it is idiotic statements like his that get Americans killed.

Don

[Walt Starr]

85. Then you'll be glad to know

I was thrown in a toilet my Freshman year of High School.

:P

[Raksha]

73. Whether YOU personally revere the book or not...

...flushing it down the toilet is a slap in the face to those who do revere it. Which is precisely why they did it, of course.

[Walt Starr]

87. Now you're getting it

It has no effect on me. And my personal psyche is such that they could flush any allegedly sacred icon and it still would not affect me.

And it had precisely the effect on the Middle East that the torturers desired.

[parasim]

78. I don't get it.

"The administration has successfully terrorized about a billion people with a single act." is what you said upthread, so the title of this thread basically is throwing fuel on the fire.

Whether or not you yourself have a problem with the act itself has nothing to do with what you are offending by and in fact, diverted everybody's attention from your point, IMHO.

Yes, Newsweek backing down on reporting the truth due to pressure from the administration is sacrilegeous, so I agree with you there. Why you presented your viewpoint in such a incendiary manner is beyond me.

[Walt Starr]

81. No, I explained why I, personally, have no problem with it.

just like I, personally, had no problem with Piss christ.

[Maat]

80. Sorry to disagree with you, Walt.

But this retired social worker says that if any agent did that to get someone to talk, in my humble opinion, it was TORTURE.

And sleep deprivation is definitely physical torture of the worst kind.

I have no holy book, but I think that anyone who would do something like that deserves their own kind of Hell.

I agree with you, though, that getting to the truth is really important here.

[Walt Starr]

82. First of all, I've never denied it was torture

I've claimed, in fact, that the reaction is precisely what the torturers wanted.

I just described why I, personally, have no problems with it.

I'm not a Muslim, of course it's not gonna bug me.

[Maat]

86. Understood.

They throw any book in the toilet they wanted to in front of me and I wouldn't care.

It is just that these agents (and I believe we employed Israeli or other expert agents or ex-agents in the planning of this) were just sadistic twisted bleeps.

I also have a Master's in Psych. There was no way there were going to get decent intelligence out of those practices. They just enjoy torture and intimidation. I'm so ticked off I am paying for this kind of bleep.

[Walt Starr]

88. The point of torture has nothing to do with gaining information

The only reason you torture prisoners is to terrorize a population.

[Maat]

91. That's the truth.

Now that I'm all depressed about what is being done in my name again ...


I often wonder about the NeoCons in this administration .. how can one be so power-mad? Do they have any empathy for others at all? Have they ever been poor or worked with the poor? Do they have no understanding at all?

[LittleClarkie]

92. What you do and do not have a problem with

doesn't matter to the Muslims who have rioted over this.

[entanglement]

93. Observation after reading the posts so far

People seem to be blurring the line between supporting free speech and agreeing with the ideas expressed by the speech. Flushing a Qu'ran down the toilet is certainly protected speech (deserving 1st Amendment protection), but that wouldn't mean I'd approve of it. For example book burning is a perfectly lawful activity, but is it something any of us support or would like to indulge in? Also, the act of flushing the Qu'ran was carried out as an act of religious intimidation in a prison setting, so it's might not even be correct to regard this matter as a simple free speech issue.

[Darranar]

98. So if it doesn't directly offend you, you don't care? n/t

[Walt Starr]

100. I never said I didn't care

I don't give a shit if you or any other American citizen sits on, burns, pisses on, flyushes, or in any other way "desecrates" the Koran.

Now, when government representatives are guarding prisoners which are suppsed to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, I care about torture. And it's pretty damned obvious from the reaction that the intent on this action was to elicit a negative response in the Muslim opulations of the nations we occupy.That's torture.

[Darranar]

101. "I don't give a shit" = "I don't care"...

Do you have the same attitude towards, say, racial slurs?

[Walt Starr]

102. Read what I said I don't give a shit about n/t

[Darranar]

103. I did...

I don't give a shit if you or any other American citizen sits on, burns, pisses on, flyushes, or in any other way "desecrates" the Koran.

I repeat my question: Do you have the same attitude towards racial slurs?

[Walt Starr]

104. Apples to pomegranites

Denegrating a person is different from doing as you please with an object.

[Darranar]

105. By burning a Qur'an one denegrates Muslims. n/t

[Walt Starr]

107. No, it doesn't

It burns an inanimate object. If somebody takes offense at it they do so independently of you and your actions.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. I have to admit, I'm much less concerned than I was about Abu Ghreib

But I think that it does send a bad message about the US to the arab world. Granted I think that we've already sent so many bad messages about our country to the arab world that it's like, who cares at this point?