Church Plans on Burning Qur'an on September 11th

Barnard17 · 09-11-2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Consolator

I disagree with Zaqarbal's arguement that abstractions are not people.

Certainly, how do we define a person if not by the actions they take and opinions they profess?

~~bungalow~~ · 09-11-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide

Uhhh... just in case you were unsure of the hierarchy here... Religion > Law...uhhh yeah. And you basically typed about four lines of nothing, void of any substance.

actually, i asked you a question (where is your righteous indignation over bible burnings, and, as big3 alluded to, the countless other acts that are offensive towards christians acted out every day for no reason other than offending christians?). common sense allows me to fill in the blanks occasionally--there is no indignation, and certainly no one calling for bible-burnings to be illegal. but the threat of rioting and violence from the muslim community leaves you shaking in your boots and questioning this man's right to burn whatever the hell he wants so long as it isn't alive. which brings me to the other thing i did in my post--call you a ninny.

moving on. religion > law---what does this even mean? the idea of religion is greater than the idea of laws? religious law is greater than man's law? i know we live in the short-hand ADD internet generation, but you're going to have to muster up more than a greater-than symbol to make your point. i don't know how to respond to a statement as vague and nonsensical as "religion > law." i'm not even sure what law you're talking about or why 'law' got brought in to it. the first amendment is not a law, it is a declaration of your natural right, as one of god's children, to uninhibitedly express yourself in whatever way you may choose. a law is stop at traffic lights illuminated red. the first amendment is not a law but a recognition of and assurance that your natural rights as a human being will never be infringed upon by the government.

one does not, i should note, have a natural right to NOT BE offended. therefore my right to express myself (which IS a natural right) trumps whatever obligation you think i have to respect you or your belief system. and that applies to anyone. so it should be clear that this man's symbolic expression (and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves) is more important to protect than the feelings of muslims who are upset over this.

edit: i see zaqarbal is so clearly and thoroughly deconstructing the sentiments opposed to him, my posts aren't necessary.

Consolator · 09-11-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaqarbal

If the integrists bomb troops or civilians because of this quran-burning, THAT is the main problem. If you don't see this, you're like one of those sexists who make excuses for a rape when saying "she provoked him".

-----

Let's see the facts:

In a country of 310 million people, ONE person wants to burn a Quran.
If you burn a Quran, certain people will try to attack your WHOLE COUNTRY.

Now I ask you guys: Which one of them is the most morally important to you?

Why the f**k you focus all your attention and energy on the first one and forget the second? Do you have any moral judgement to do regarding the second fact? No? Does it cause any interest to you? No? Really? Nobody has said anything about the huge inmorality of that violence. No one. There only have been mentions to the "strategic inconvenience" of the burning, but no moral opinions about the integrist violence. And that's pretty disappointing, especially considering this third fact:

The latent threat exists and it will continue existing, whether Jones burns a Quran or not.

Another key point has to do with access to information and democracy (or lack of it). Since some years ago, there are several videos on YouTube showing a Quran burning. Why haven't been riots and demonstrations due to them? Because regarding access to information, there's a huge difference between developed and undeveloped countries. In Europe, America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. our information sources are very diverse: TV, radio, written press and, especially, Internet. On the contrary, in countries like Pakistan, Iran or Sudan, people receive information "in the old way" and, in addition, there's a strong use of it by the political power.

Thus, in those countries, in the practice it's the rulers who decide what, when and how the socially-influential information is finally received by population. So they make a selective political use of denunciations, protests and satires against Islam, by choosing a certain case, a certain moment and a certain way to present the information, in order to satisfy their political purposes of the moment.

Think about the last five or four years. Imagine a Pakistani, Iranian or Sudanese journalist strongly connected to the country's Establishment. Imagine that, in a certain moment, for some political reason, some Muslim rulers want to adopt a belligerent position against the West, and they wish to convey the impression of a strong popular anger, in order to put pressure on other/s country/ies. Imagine the journalist receiving a phone call from a high-ranking official: "Man, we need your help; search for some offensive Western stuff there and write about it". Imagine the journalist reviewing hundreds of Western publications, and finally choosing some Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad (although they were published 11 months before). Or, also, imagine the journalist surfing the web and watching YouTube videos, and finally choosing a few of them in which people burn a Quran.

It doesn't matter if Jones does his pyromaniac christo-freak show or not. If the Islamic rulers want to take advantage of this controversy, they will do it, either through Jones or through the existing abundant graphic and audiovisual material ralated to criticism of Islam. If not, this will be forgotten in a few weeks' time. The importance given to this is up to them.

Conclusion: don't torture yourself with self-hatred. Keep in mind what are the primeval causes of all this matter: Lack of liberty, democracy and freedom of the press, absence of media networks, and a poor and easily-manipulated population in the Muslim countries where the tumultuous protests happen.

Don't have a guilty conscience. Regarding how public opinion form its criterion about these events, compare our modern socities with those of the upset Islamic "hotspots". There, it is the result of an oligarchy's will. In ours, we the people are freely and continuously exchanging information and opinions in an international scope. From Japan to Australia, from Alaska to Chile, from Lisbon to Moscow... everybody can contribute. So we are those who are nearest to a true cosmopolitan and rational point of view.

You think there's only one person in the US who wants to burn the Qurans? You should meet my relatives then..

I agree with a lot of what you said. I still urge the pastor (or really anyone) to question their actions. What do you want to accomplish, and are the consequences outweighing the benefits? I especially liked your comment about how that the Muslim governments who do not give their citizens liberty/freedom,etc are the problem. I agree, but again, I ask, why would you want to give somebody more ammunition to use against you?

Edit: I would think the whole idea that violence is wrong would be apparent. I assume (though I suppose I shouldn't) that you all would agree with me. That is why I did not mention it. I think that we're going to simply have to agree to disagree when talking about the big picture of things. And just for the record, I am not for bible-burning, or any sort of Christian-equivalent.

Dr.Seussicide · 09-11-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

actually, i asked you a question (where is your righteous indignation over bible burnings, and, as big3 alluded to, the countless other acts that are offensive towards christians acted out every day for no reason other than offending christians?). common sense allows me to fill in the blanks occasionally--there is no indignation, and certainly no one calling for bible-burnings to be illegal. but the threat of rioting and violence from the muslim community leaves you shaking in your boots and questioning this man's right to burn whatever the hell he wants so long as it isn't alive. which brings me to the other thing i did in my post--call you a ninny.

moving on. religion > law---what does this even mean? the idea of religion is greater than the idea of laws? religious law is greater than man's law? i know we live in the short-hand ADD internet generation, but you're going to have to muster up more than a greater-than symbol to make your point. i don't know how to respond to a statement as vague and nonsensical as "religion > law." i'm not even sure what law you're talking about or why 'law' got brought in to it. the first amendment is not a law, it is a declaration of your natural right, as one of god's children, to uninhibitedly express yourself in whatever way you may choose. a law is stop at traffic lights illuminated red. the first amendment is not a law but a recognition of and assurance that your natural rights as a human being will never be infringed upon by the government.

one does not, i should note, have a natural right to NOT BE offended. therefore my right to express myself (which IS a natural right) trumps whatever obligation you think i have to respect you or your belief system. and that applies to anyone. so it should be clear that this man's symbolic expression (and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves) is more important to protect than the feelings of muslims who are upset over this.

edit: i see zaqarbal is so clearly and thoroughly deconstructing the sentiments opposed to him, my posts aren't necessary.

This is the only paragraph that warrants a response. What I mean when I say religion > law, is that man made law in fact descends from religious doctrines. And that's it basically. Pretty simple stuff.

~~bungalow~~ · 09-11-2010, 06:38 PM

thank you, for making no point whatsoever.

Dr.Seussicide · 09-11-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

thank you, for making no point whatsoever.

Likewise, now go watch an indie 60's movie and feel better about yourself.

Barnard17 · 09-11-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

the first amendment is not a law, it is a declaration of your natural right, as one of god's children, to uninhibitedly express yourself in whatever way you may choose. a law is stop at traffic lights illuminated red. the first amendment is not a law but a recognition of and assurance that your natural rights as a human being will never be infringed upon by the government.

One of god's children? Have you been reading the same copy of the constitution that I have? The first amendment makes no mention of God. In fact the founding documents make pointed little reference to any deity let alone a specific one.

More so, the claim of "natural rights" is heavily debatable. While the intention may have been to state what the founding fathers believed to be inherent to all human beings; it remains that any enforcement of the document must go through legal processes. Id est, regardless of the rhetoric you surround the bill of rights with they are still functionally nothing other than laws that the Government agrees to abide by, which is why there are still provisions for Government to amend these "natural rights".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

one does not, i should note, have a natural right to NOT BE offended. therefore my right to express myself (which IS a natural right) trumps whatever obligation you think i have to respect you or your belief system. and that applies to anyone. so it should be clear that this man's symbolic expression (and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves) is more important to protect than the feelings of muslims who are upset over this.

Non sequitur based on regress arguments. I do not accept your claim to the distinction of what is and is not a natural right. I do not accept your claim to a substantive existence of natural rights. I do not accept your claim that this is a matter of a right to not be offended. The act of burning the Koran is a flagrant incitement to encourage feelings of hatred and a mentality of action against Muslims. It is Islamophobic persecution under the reasoning and cognitive function with which the act is being carried out. Rev Jones is breaking the rights of Muslims to their own freedom of religion using a warped perception of the importance of his own freedom of expression.

What I never manage to understand about you, Bill, is how you're always so arrogantly ego- and ethnocentric towards the importance of your own opinions, and how condescendingly smug you are that anyone should disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

(and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves)

Do grow up.

~~bungalow~~ · 09-11-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide

Likewise, now go watch an indie 60's movie and feel better about yourself.

it would be cool for you to accuse me of not making a point if i actually didn't make a point. it's different to accuse me of not making a point if, while i was making it, you had your fingers in your ears and were yelling 'nananananananananananananananan.'

we can go over this once more for you: first amendment is a guarantee by the federal government to never infringe upon your unalienable right to express yourself. burning the koran is symbolic expression. because there is no natural right to not be offended, but there is a natural right to express yourself freely, this one man's expression warrants the protection of the government, while those offended by his actions do not.

that is called a point. you saying that man's law derives from religious doctrine is not. that's just you saying something, and i'm not even sure how it's explicitly related to this exchange.

Dr.Seussicide · 09-11-2010, 07:01 PM

Of course it's not illegal to burn the Qur'an but, it's also not illegal to tell your mother to go fuck herself, but you'd certainly try to refrain from such remarks. What it comes down to, I guess is abusing your right as an American citizen and using your right to foster the greater good. Your point provides no grey areas, however the world we live in doesn't consist of only two shades of contrasting colours.

Barnard17 · 09-11-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalow

it would be cool for you to accuse me of not making a point if i actually didn't make a point. it's different to accuse me of not making a point if, while i was making it, you had your fingers in your ears and were yelling 'nananananananananananananananan.'

we can go over this once more for you: first amendment is a guarantee by the federal government to never infringe upon your unalienable right to express yourself. burning the koran is symbolic expression. because there is no natural right to not be offended, but there is a natural right to express yourself freely, this one man's expression warrants the protection of the government, while those offended by his actions do not.

that is called a point. you saying that man's law derives from religious doctrine is not. that's just you saying something, and i'm not even sure how it's explicitly related to this exchange.

Non sequiturs and regress arguments. You fail to even be internally rigorous in your claims.

Again, natural rights do not definitively exist. Back them up or drop the subject as a baseless point.

If the first amendment is enshrining what is, by your definition, a natural right then they refer to not only rights from the Government but also rights from others.
Burning the Koran in the mode with which Rev. Jones intended does not just cause offence but propagates persecution. That is to say his right of expression is a statement against, infringement upon and incitement that others should infringe upon the freedom of religion for Muslims.
If you claim that such rights are natural and self evident (which I maintain is mere rhetoric but not necessarily inept as a description of the way in which such things should function) then the purpose of the first amendment should not be just to protect from the Government but also against other citizens who would infringe those rights. If you do not maintain this is the merit of the document then you must cede that you do not believe your own claim that the rights are natural, or you must cede that your application of such rights have ethnocentric motivations. If you do not maintain that this is the capability of the document then you must cede that it is a simple law through it's capacity of writing and not in reality an actual, distinguished through universal application, right.

09-11-2010, 07:01 PM	#99 (permalink)
Dr.Seussicide FakingSuicideForApplause Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: I live in a van down by the river Posts: 1,365	Of course it's not illegal to burn the Qur'an but, it's also not illegal to tell your mother to go fuck herself, but you'd certainly try to refrain from such remarks. What it comes down to, I guess is abusing your right as an American citizen and using your right to foster the greater good. Your point provides no grey areas, however the world we live in doesn't consist of only two shades of contrasting colours. __________________ I'll stay if I ever could, and pick up your pieces babe, because there's never a perfect day. Don't fret, baby, we're simply growing And my darling, I wouldn't mind to die like this. Last edited by Dr.Seussicide; 09-11-2010 at 07:49 PM.

09-11-2010, 06:38 PM	#95 (permalink)
~~bungalow~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hot-lanta Posts: 3,140	thank you, for making no point whatsoever.