Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by crukster

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.