The Quran is not holy.

[Joe the Revelator]

Nor is the bible or the Torah or any other religious text. I should feel free to do with them what I please.

[Drale]

1. A book is holy only to people who think its holy

You are walking down a road that I don't think you truely understand.

[Buzz Clik]

4. +1

[Joe the Revelator]

But I'm not going to be held hostage by their beliefs. Religious people of all stripes believe in a

Lie.

[Drale]

10. Nor should you but

they should not be held hostage by your beliefs either.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. I'm not saying they should, but if I want to shit on a bible, I'll do so without fear of

Retribution.

[cleanhippie]

48. ANd what is your point? One mans treasure is another mans garbage. Doesnt mean we treat

all garbage as treasure. Same goes for "holy books".


If I tell you that my sisters copy of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is holy to her and I, can you go buy a copy and burn it if you want to?

[Deep13]

80. No. It's essence is just paper and ink.

People assume it is holy. They act like it is holy. But it isn't. There is nothing remotely divine or supernatural about it, even if somehow it does describe an actual god.

[Buzz Clik]

2. The Quran is not holy to you. That isn't the problem.

[cleanhippie]

50. Correct. Its a problem for those that think it is holy. Those that do not share that belief

have no duty to respect it as a "holy book" at all.

[polmaven]

77. But why

do they feel the need to go out of their way to disrespect it?

[cleanhippie]

84. Because they can?

:shrug:

Personally, I think that a persons beliefs are a private matter, and try to save my disdain for religion for those that feel they need to be public about their beliefs.

But all that aside, in this country, one is free to express themselves in any way that they choose, and if that expression means that they want to burn some of their own property, that is their right to do it. Not saying its the RIGHT thing to do, but if we are going to stand for our rights, we have to STAND for our rights, even when it means supporting an idiot like Jones.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Well, OK

as long as you leave the Elder Edda alone.

[Warpy]

7. And the Popul Vuh

Parts of that one were funny and made me giggle. That's a great attribute.

[barbtries]

5. agreed.

books. they're books. i love books, but i don't deem them sacred.

[Vincardog]

6. And the Constitution is just an old piece of paper right?

[Joe the Revelator]

8. I won't kill you if you burn a copy of it, if that's what you mean.

[Vincardog]

15. Why don't you take a copy of the Koran to Mecca and demonstrate the depth of your belief?

[darkstar3]

27. That is a ridiculous statement.

You know that he would be killed for doing so. Now the next thing you have to do is prove how that makes the killers right that the book is holy, or how that makes the killers right that burning the Qu'ran is wrong.

[cleanhippie]

51. The absurdity of any argument you may have had was revealed in only two posts.

Both of them patently absurd.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Why don't you go to Afghanistan and preach your Christianity?

Show the depth of your belief and all.

What a stupid meme that is passing through DU. We have different laws here. Shouldn't that be a good thing? And how utterly progressive of you to wish for this guy's death.

[KaoriMitsubishi]

85. What more can you expect from xians

Xians love death. They adhere to a freakin death cult based on the human blood sacrifice of a virgin male for crying out loud. If religion can get anymore disgusting than that I have not witnessed the atrocity.

[Starboard Tack]

18. Maybe you won't, but some might

It isn't that all Afghans are going nuts over this, but some take it very seriously. A peaceful world is one where we respect each other. We don't insult their beliefs or their mothers and sisters. Or their soccer team.
When you light a fire, expect flames.

[Joe the Revelator]

20. Who would be right? Those killing over the burning of the constitution?

Because I would think those people to be idiotic murderers.

[atreides1]

25. Right or wrong

It's a matter of perspective...in your mind the mob was wrong to murder those UN workers, in the mob's mind they were defending something that THEY consider to be sacred, so they think they were right!

As for me, personnaly both Jones and the mob were wrong and idiotic in their actions.

[ZombieHorde]

33. How dare you?! Both Jones and the mob are sacred to me!

Don't you dare call them idiotic! Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

[cleanhippie]

53. You know, someone could behead another person for that and it would be THEIR fault

for saying such blasphemous words. Right?

[ZombieHorde]

61. Of course. nt

[cleanhippie]

63. Oh, but how loud the protest would be when the mob came to their door.....

The hypocrisy in this thread is stupefying.

[cleanhippie]

52. So by that rationale, if someone killed another person because they burned a copy of the

constitution, it would be the fault of the one who burned the constitution?

[Starboard Tack]

72. I don't assign blame and never used the word fault.

Insulting people and what they hold dear may have consequences. That's all. Respect goes a long way and usually gets reciprocated. Disrespect of others for their beliefs is uncivil and unwise.

[Starboard Tack]

73. OK on rereading your post

I gather that you think I support those that may take offense to burning things. I don't. Personally I think they need a reality check and I may share that thought with them. I wouldn't insult them. My reference to "there are those that might take offense" is made in recognition of the many right wing fundamentalist self proclaimed Kristians who revel in taking offense to anything that doesn't fit their lunatic agenda.

[elocs]

13. Nice one, you got 'em there. What is holy or precious is in the eye of the beholder.

Respect is both free to give and priceless. How much better the world would be if we could learn to respect what others value.

[tritsofme]

19. And not indiscriminately kill people because your favorite book got thrown in a fire..

When's the last time a protestor got killed for burning an American flag?

[Common Sense Party]

31. Do you respect what Republicans value?

Just curious how far your tolerance and respect flows.

[elocs]

43. I respect their right to believe what they want to believe, as they should me.

I know many Republicans who are not anything like those that we belittle here. Have I satisfied your curiosity? I really live to do that you know.

[Common Sense Party]

71. As you should.

Personally, I think the world exists to satisfy my curiosity. More people should have your attitude.

[snagglepuss]

40. If others value a mutilated clitoris shoud I respect that?

[elocs]

41. You clearly should understand what I mean so I'll pretend you are not stupid. n/t

[snagglepuss]

47. You wrote, "How much better the world would be if we could learn to respect

what others value." This soundbite is hollow when the fact that values often conflict isn't addressed. Do you respect FGM?

[trotsky]

49. Yeah, why can't you respect calls for lower taxes and smaller government?

I don't think DUers give Republican ideas enough respect. How dare we think our ideas are better!

[Goblinmonger]

82. Do you respect the beliefs of those Muslims

that felt they needed to kill someone because the Koran was burned?

[tekisui]

21. And one should have the right to burn a copy of the Constitution just the same.

[trotsky]

59. Any one particular copy of it most certainly is.

Should we outlaw the burning of the flag? That sure upsets a lot of people.

[DearAbby]

9. I don't like the idea of burning books

don't like it, don't open it up to read it. But I suppose you can say, this christian man reaped what he sowed, you sow hate, you get it back. Shame he never read either book.

[Lint Head]

11. The concepts and words are holy not the ink

or the modern paper mill produced paper. The original writings would be considered holy artifacts.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. I disagree. There is nothing sacred about words written by man.

Historical? Maybe.

[ncteechur]

26. But you don't get to decide whether something is or isn't sacred.

It isn't that they were written by man. They believe the words were divinely inspired.

[darkstar3]

32. Exactly. And that sword cuts both ways.

I don't get to decide what is sacred for you, and you don't get to decide what is sacred for me.

[Lint Head]

17. That is why the idiot in Florida is an ignorant bastard. He doesn't know the difference.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. So, what would motivate you to burn them in public?

I have my doubts that the idiot in Florida was doing so to make a statement about freedom of speech.

[Rowdyboy]

22. So if you exercise your right to burn a Quran and 20 or so people die because of your actions....

You are not to blame. After all you merely exercised your rights-its not your fault other people don't see the world like you do.

Maybe someday everyone in the world will be as smart and forward thinking as you are. Sadly it isn't the world we live in today-not everyone has yet to achieve enlightenment. Until then people will die because other fools think burning books is an appropriate way to express an opinion.

Life goes on....(except for some of us)

[madmax]

23. +1 bottom line is respect. Not only for what 'you'

believe but, what others believe. Exceptions would be when it harms someone or some group. We know the difference -some, not too much.

What the 'Reverend' did in Florida was totally unnecessary other than incite hate, prejudice or violence. He won.

[darkstar3]

30. Respect is a funny thing.

Read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x240069

Understand that I think what Jones did was stupid, and combined with the mock trial he held it was an incredible disply of bigotry. But we live in the land of the free. Freedom of religion and speech means that we have the right to blasphemy, no matter who it might offend.

[madmax]

46. Yes, that pesky First Amendment.

Would hope people would use common sense but, who am I kidding.

Michael Douglas does a short(rant)speech in 'The American President' about the First Amendment.

[ZombieHorde]

35. I don't think he incited hate, I think he exposed hate. nt

[Rowdyboy]

57. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.....and so it goes

[ZombieHorde]

62. I agree. nt

[darkstar3]

29. Blasphemy is not to blame for religiously motivated murder.

If you don't understand that, then you need to think about the moral INequivalency of speech and actions.

[Rowdyboy]

36. So the Reverend Jones actions are not responsible for the deaths that followed his burning

of the Quran? I truly don't understand that. It looks like a straightforward case of cause and effect to me but perhaps something is escaping me.

Whether or not its blasphemy is irrelevant. The people are just as dead because an asshole exercised his rights. His actions caused unnecessary deaths and he knew in advance that was a very likely outcome. Not soldiers deaths but innocent civilian deaths.

Why don't you think about that for awhile.

[darkstar3]

38. Think about this:

It was the hundreds of years of religious indoctrination in the Muslim world that led to the belief that blasphemy should be immediately punished by death.

It was the Imams currently "in power" (as I look at it) who urged the murderers to action after their holy book was burned.

It was the choice of the people who actually committed murder to perform a heinous act in response to a demonstration of speech.

Let me see if I can bring this a little closer to home to show you how Jones is not responsible for those murders:

Let's assume a hypothetical (and abridged) situation that was actually an urban legend in my hometown. A 17 year old boy, riding in the back seat of a car full of his friends, uses a bat to knock a mailbox off of its post. 1 week later, after the homeowner repairs the mailbox, he's sitting on the front porch with a hunting rifle waiting for the teenage mailbox bashers, planning to teach them a lesson. As the car load of friends drives by, bat-man hanging out the window, homeowner opens fire.

Now it IS clear that what these children did was wrong. (It's also illegal, which makes this a bad analogy, but I don't have another one at the moment.) Legality and correctness of their actions aside, there is simply NO way to claim that these children are responsible for the homeowner's actions.

[Rowdyboy]

42. I'm not defending Muslim extremism or even religion...I don't care...

The UN employees are totally innocent victims trying to help a 3rd world country stabilize. The Afghan casualties are victims of levels of ignorance and extreme poverty that we in America have never experienced no matter how disadvantaged our background.

Had the "reverend" chosen to behave with maturity then all these people would still be alive. Perhaps now "Young Republicans" or young Christian fundamentalists will take up Quran burning as a fundraising technique-after all it gets lots of media attention and they get to stand tall for their beliefs.

I understand the gist of your analogy but all I can do is respond with one of my own. When the ACLU decided to defend the KKK in their efforts to march and preach hate in a Jewish community of Holocaust survivors in Skokie Illinois back in 1978 I gave up my membership. Apparently my support for absolute freedom of speech had declined since my college days. My tolerance for hate of any sort is very low these days.

[darkstar3]

44. I supported that ACLU decision, even though doing so made me feel mildly nauseated about my country.

Freedom of speech either has to be absolute with regard to wildly unpopular and offensive views, or it crumbles way too fast.

[Rowdyboy]

45. Likewise, I think there should be some legal remedy to prevent Westboro Baptist Church

from protesting at funerals and I'm sure you reluctantly support them. Saying freedom of speech must be absolute or it crumbles reminds me of the Republican complaints about Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Courts' legalizing homosexual behavior as a privacy right. Senator Rick Santorum immediately charged that it was a "slippery slope" to legalizing incest and bestiality.

I'm not trying to connect you to an asshole like Santorum in this-just trying to say that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I know the "crying fire in a crowded theater" concept is unpopular here on DU but there can be common sense limitations on free speech without destroying our most basic right.

Doesn't matter much really anyway-with the current 5-4 Supreme Court in a few years none us us will have any rights left.

[cleanhippie]

54. No, he is not. Only those that KILLED are responsible.

[Rowdyboy]

56. Then we'll just have to differ

[cleanhippie]

60. OK, but I blame you for me harming another person because your posts insulted me.

Are we still just gonna differ?

[ZombieHorde]

34. I go to gay right marches in my town, even though those marches may anger school bullies.

Should we not march?

[Rowdyboy]

37. I appreciate your support. However, if they start killing 20 or 30 gays after

each march I would indeed ask that you rethink your position, especially if it was in the small town in which I live. I'd rather be breathing without full equality, than dead with it. Perhaps I'm just a coward but I no longer value your right to absolute free speech as strongly as I do my life. Must be getting old.

Not saying you can't do it-you obviously can-just that I would not.

[darkstar3]

39. And to quote Counterstrike, "terrorists win."

[cleanhippie]

55. So are you really saying that "if someone gets killed because you dod something another doesnt like,

you shouldn't do that activity anymore?"

By that rationale, If I say your posts are offending me, and if you post again, I am going to kill the next person I see that uses the internet, then is is YOUR fault that I killed someone.


DO you see how stupid that sounds?

[Rowdyboy]

64. Please don't kill anyone over my post....just put me on "ignore"

I have no interest in continuing a discussion with anyone who begins the conversation by calling me/my ideas "stupid". Life is too short to waste on people with attitudes like yours.

[cleanhippie]

65. EXACTLY! Those that chose to kill over anothers actions should have just put Jones on "ignore"

and no one would be dead.



And my use of the word stupid to describe my analogy was apt and appropriate. You are the one that applied it to YOUR idea, not me.

[Rowdyboy]

66. Some people come to DU to talk, like everyone else I've engaged with in this thread

Others, like you, come to DU to pick a fight. I've managed to survive here for 10 years so trust me I know the difference.

Go find someone else to make a fool of yourself with. I'm bored with your overheated rhetoric.

[cleanhippie]

70. Oh, please. Spare me the righteous indignation.

In one post you manage to sling a personal insult, appeal to authority, baselessly speculate, and and appeal to ignorance.
But no one expects someone who can no longer support their claims or assertions to act rationally, even someone who manages to "survive here for 10 years." :rofl:

[trotsky]

58. Racists whites in the South in the 1960s...

were killing blacks and sympathetic whites in response to the struggle for civil rights.

Are you saying that people like MLK, Rosa Parks, and many, many others are to blame for those murders? That they should have given up their fight?

[Rowdyboy]

67. Do you honestly equate Martin Luther King with Terry Jones? Really?

What particular "freedom" is Pastor Jones fighting for? I experienced the civil rights movement firsthand as a teenager in Mississippi and frankly, I find the analogy absurd.

I'm not a free speech absolutist-at least not since I was young. I find hate speech offensive. Sorry if my views aren't to your liking but they are what they are.

[darkstar3]

68. What freedom? Blasphemy, and the right to offend.

The analogy may be absurd, but the question you asked is answered.

[Rowdyboy]

69. Then consider me a total bumpkin because I don't get your point....

I'm always willing to be educated and I'm open to admitting when I'm wrong but your post might as well be written in Chinese.

"What freedom? Blasphemy, and the right to offend. The analogy may be absurd, but the question you asked is answered"

I'm sorry, I've read my post several times and I still don't get your response. Maybe I should cut back on my weed intake.

[trotsky]

76. No, that's what you are doing.

You are blaming one person for the actions of another. You are telling people that no one should upset the worldview of someone else, lest they lash out violently. But that's exactly what people did in the 60s, and exactly what happened in response. So I'm just wondering if you were going to remain consistent or not. I got my answer - thanks!

[polmaven]

78. Bingo!

Terry Jones reasons for doing what he did were a combination of bigotry and a need for attention. That is so far away from Rev. King's love I can't even imagine coming anywhere NEAR equating the two.

[msongs]

24. so if I write a book and you burn a copy I have the right to murder your children. nt

[darkstar3]

28. How do you get that from the OP?

[Petrushka]

74. No way! If someone burns a copy, you have only the right to kill his neighbor's children. [n/t]

:hide:

[quaker bill]

75. Nothing is "sacred" or "holy"

but then why choose to offend without purpose. If you don't feel the book to be sacred, you might as well burn an old phonebook.

[darkstar3]

83. I don't like Jones, but if you think his actions are simply offense without purpose,

then you haven't been paying attention. He has a very specific purpose.

[Deep13]

79. Yup. It's just paper. nt