crukster

[QUOTE=Plum;1030394]I'm not neccessarily saying that it was right of them to take lives cos of it, but there definitely has to be some sort of a reaction against it.

Thou shalt not Kill, you can consider that a basic guideline; baseline - if no-one wanted to Kill, there'd be no reason to.

But if someone puts a knife at your throat, well Thou Shalt not Kill won't do you much good then - it's you or them. If someone comes into my house and threatens my family, rule of defense, I'll kill em. Burning the Qu'ran is a metaphorical knife to the throat of Muslims everywhere - arguably of Humans everywhere if you respect the right to freedom of Religion. There are ideas that are more important than one life, because they form the foundation of ALL lives. How long till they take to burning Muslims houses? Burning Muslims? Burning children? Because we're not up to their "standard" of living.

But I don't condone what they did, there was no LITERAL actual knife to anyone's throat, it was simply a challenge and furthermore a defilement of Islam. They shouldn't have killed them for burning it, but I understand why they did. There's a better way. They should have started a reading OF the Qu'ran directly adjacent to the burning, imo that would have been the best thing to do. That would have answered the challenge and undone the defilin. Killing them makes them as bad as the one's burning it. They should have led by example, not by counter.



I wouldn't begrudge them for trying, I don't live my life in fear of anyone man.

If you thought I was attacking, then you misunderstood me. Firstly, I was not attacking, if I wanted to attack what would be the point in using words and discussing, I would have just outright insulted you and said I think you're a ****ing idiot and atheism is bull****, and stop typing there. If I wanna write that I'd write that, but I didn't do that because thats not what I wanna say, I was trying to make a platform for discussion. Secondly, if the non-religious are actually non-religious, how is there even anything for me to disrespect, I dont understand. I apologise if I'm wrong man but you seem like a textbook "atheist". When it suits you it's a belief, but when the weight is on, it's nothing, just a loosely affiliated group of non-believers. It's a smoke screen.

But I wasn't talking about killing anyway, I was talking about defending.

I also think it says something, the way you interpreted that. The point I was making was that they have no right to burn it in the first place.

s_k

They "defended" the burning of the Koran by killing people.
When you say they have the right to defend, it sort of seems like you're saying it's reasonable people are being killed because someone (not even the one that got killed!) burned the Koran.
So... that's not what you meant?

Dude, you scare me again...

__________________
Click here to see my collection

crukster

No, not all I was saying this

My point is the people who were killing, were killing because they thought that was the best way to defend. In the end, that's all extremism is - flaw, stupidity, and an incomplete idea. If they'd had stronger leadership, they could have answered that burning in a freakin awesome way. Answer it with Islam. These people who were acting extremely, were answering it for Islam. It should be WITH, not for.

I'm saying I understand why they reacted so harshly, but I dont condone the killing, they should have used that energy in a different way.


I know that man, but they're not burning the paper it's printed on, they're burning the words and everything it stands for. Along with flag burning, it's one of the most disrespectful things you can do to any group of people imo.

Janszoon

Looks like you missed my point once again. For starters, the way you talked about it could definitely be viewed as an attack. Which is fine, you have a right to your opinions just like I have a right to mine. The point is that people don't have a right to defend their beliefs with physical violence.

I'm confused as to why you think that religious people have a monopoly on having beliefs. There are beliefs in this world that are non-religious in nature.

And I think I'm very consistent in how I view atheism actually. The problem here is that you're hanging on so tight to your misperceptions of it that you can't understand when someone explains it to you.

I'm glad you clarified that. You do understand, though, that when you come into a conversation about people killing over religious beliefs and announce that people have a right to defend their beliefs, that it sounds a lot like you're justifying the killing, right?

Well in a society that values free speech he actually does have a right to burn it. He's still an asshole for doing so though.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

crukster

Yeah but I wasn't disputing any of those beliefs, they didn't even come into the conversation. I wasn't debating a particular theory you might have on Quantum Mechanics, what we were debating was Religion and religious belief, if you don't have a Religion or any religious belief, then how is it possible for me to offend you when talking about Religion?


That's the most important lesson here.

Because this is what the motivation of the Qu'ran burners is based on. What they propose to do, is to destroy something they don't want to use.

They want to make sure no-one else uses it. The scale hardly matters when the intent is the same.

They want to do it in a little amount, it's just nothing, just burning a book eh?

When has burning a book ever been just burning a book?

The act is rooted in a deeper misunderstanding and hatred. In order to resolve it, you have to understand the implications.

"If you think it's alright to just burn what I pledged my undying soul to, if you deject that I have one, and you burn that too, then I'm going to burn yourself into ash."

THAT is what is going through the mind of your average extremist. And by extremist I mean the people who have abandoned everything but religion - people living in dire straits.

It might not be accurate. Maybe they've misunderstood. maybe those people burning their Holy Book in front of their eyes, well maybe they don't want to destroy the last saving grace of these people's existence. No. Maybe, out back where no-one can see, they've got the New Book. They figured out something really wrong with what they were doing now. So they burnt it in front of them, they watched it all go, and the scales were reset. And then they'd bring out the new books, they'd give us the new words of knowledge and understanding and righteousness, and then we'd understand why they had to burn the old ones.

Or maybe, hey, it is accurate. And some people just need to see other's soul's burn.

If he's free to say how great burning it is, I'd be free to stand in on his podium and tell him why's he wrong. To engage, to interact, to battle it out.

That is what some of these extremists want. The want to tell you why you're wrong, but because Western free speech = "protection of speaker", and his cut off from interaction, responsibility and arguments, it also means that those arguments brew up, and turn into hatred.

Anger leads to Hatred, Hatred leads to the Dark Side etc.

What I am proposing is that Free Speech should mean, free speech of all. It should mean answering for what you decide to say. It should mean being willing to back it up, and to allows others to have their say, and to discuss things intelligently. And then to take appropriate action.

If you deny the first stages, people jump right to the last, which will generally always be a flawed action, not the appropriate one; acts of desperation.



That's what I mean, I mean I understand the want. The why, is because they feel things have become so desperate that the want becomes the most important thing to them.

It's resentment brewing up.

I get what you're saying about the pride thing man, I'd agree a lot of people don't think about it but it's important still.

It's the same as the "want" thing. It's when the pride becomes more important than what you're proud of.

Pride in itself just means wanting something to do well, imo, thats how I use it. I am Proud of this thing = I respect this thing and my part in it, I think it works pretty well, I wanna see it keep working and working better

Or like allying, pledging yourself or somethin, like from what you said there I would say sounds like you're proud of the Earth

Janszoon

You seriously don't see a difference between attacking beliefs actually killing human beings? Talk about lacking a sense of proportion. Elsewhere on this forum you have attacked the beliefs of the non-religious, does that mean they have a right to kill you?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

GeddyBass2112

Surely the burning of the book doesn't matter- the physical words of the Qurán should be in their hearts, not on paper. Even if a book is destroyed, does that make its message also destroyed? No.

I seirously think that these fundie Christians are little more than the real-life equivalent of internet trolls- they wanted a reaction, they got one.

__________________
Cello fund: $300/$750.

s_k

__________________
Click here to see my collection

s_k

Oh oh, here we go...
Crukster, you had me convinced that not all muslims are extremists.
Pleeeeassse don't tell me you think it's right to kill humans for burning a book...
I'd say it'd be fine if they kicked his ass real good. But human life vs. some stuff that comes out of a friggin printer.
It's in the end just a book mate. There's loads of copies. It's nothing more than a book.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

TockTockTock

And to think... people warned him not to do it and predicted something similar to this might happen. Does this justify killing seven people over a silly book? Of course not, but he knew what he was getting into.