FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Burn a Quran day.





truespeed
I am surprised this hasn't been posted.........Thoughts?


Full Story
hunnyhiteshseth
Exactly! It looks like most controversial topic of these days.
Personally, I think the Pope is acting just plain stupid further emphasizing the fact that USA is anti-muslim. This is only going to get more terrorists in USA and possibly much more Bible burning in Muslim world.
liljp617
The most mindless form of censorship in existence, in my opinion. At the same time, I'm not sure if I could support any kind of (legal) line being drawn that would prevent actions of this sort.

But hey, it's the Islamic community center near Ground Zero that is a threat to this nation's liberties and principles Rolling Eyes

I just hope this is kept isolated and is being carried out by a small minority. Hopefully there won't be any physical/violent backlash to this nonsense. And of course this has bigger implications in that we still have troops on the front lines who will likely be effected negatively by this.


On a random note, it seems like this would be illegal anyway. I thought I read the local fire department denied the group permission for the fire?
hunnyhiteshseth
liljp617 wrote:


On a random note, it seems like this would be illegal anyway. I thought I read the local fire department denied the group permission for the fire?


But the fine for breaking open-fire law is just 250$. I guess thats a small price to pay for all the publicity the 'little pope' is getting!
truespeed
How did he manage to generate so much publicity in the first place,he lives in a small town in Florida,has a congregation of no more than 50,yet he manages to get world wide publicity for saying he is going to burn a few books of the Qur'an.

I think the media have a lot to answer for,they went into overdrive when they could of just ignored him, he could of just burned the books and nobody would of known about it. Now on Sept 11th the worlds media will be on his door step filming the whole episode to what we are led to believe,to the outrage of the Muslim world.


Are they really outraged? Who knows,but its just adding unnecessary fuel to an already burning fire.
Indi
truespeed wrote:
How did he manage to generate so much publicity in the first place,he lives in a small town in Florida,has a congregation of no more than 50,yet he manages to get world wide publicity for saying he is going to burn a few books of the Qur'an.

I think the media have a lot to answer for,they went into overdrive when they could of just ignored him, he could of just burned the books and nobody would of known about it.

True dat. This "church" is a small time operation run by a petty crook (yes, really).

truespeed wrote:
Now on Sept 11th the worlds media will be on his door step filming the whole episode to what we are led to believe,to the outrage of the Muslim world.


Are they really outraged? Who knows,but its just adding unnecessary fuel to an already burning fire.

Of course they are. The worldwide Muslim community is not known for their jeu d'esprit - a reputation of their own making. As you say, there is an "already burning fire". There is always a "burning fire", it's just rage looking for a target. If these Florida nuts want to make themselves the target, then let them.

Of course, that's not what going to happen. The same Muslims that whine that we can't differentiate them from the whackos that murder and burn and not going to make any effort to differentiate the Florida nuts from anyone else from a Western civilization. To whit: "A spokesman for the Taliban said it "strongly condemned plans by a Florida church to burn the Koran, it shows they are against Islam and that Western countries will pay for it"."

A spiral of violence can only be broken in one of two ways: either one of the parties gets completely destroyed, or one of the parties decides not to retaliate to the last time they were attacked. Now, think rationally, and consider: between Western civilization, and Muslim fundamentalism... which side is more likely to take the peaceful road and not retaliate to an insult: Western civilization, or "the religion of peace"?

i think the answer to that question is obvious, and it really shows just how stupid the media is being over the handling of this case. The more hype you give to those nobodies in Florida and their silly little bonfire, the more likely there are to be copycats, or at least others who want to throw rocks at the Muslim hive to gain a little publicity. They - Muslims - are not going to take the civilized road here. There is only one predictable result that will come from giving publicity to those Floridian shit-disturbers. It's not even real news: "Crazy religious group does something stupid to insult other religions, news at 11!" Hardly.

Unfortunately, one can never underestimate the media's stupidity. Long before the media caught a whiff of this story, these nuts were lighting up the Internet with their YouTube videos. i'll be honest, i've known about this "Burn a Koran Day" nonsense for weeks at least (i've even written about it), and because i didn't see any mention of it in the mainstream media, i assumed they were being intelligent about it, and choosing to ignore it. When will i ever learn? Nope, they were just waiting until the last minute so that they could whip up the maximum of frenzy, while allowing for the minimum time to think it through calmly.

Don't play the game people. Treat these Koran-burning nuts the same way you treat any other idiot child that acts up for attention: ignore them. And when you are eventually accosted by a Muslim apologist who tries to lump you in with that crowd - which is inevitable, i assure you - return the favour: lump them in with al Qaeda or the Taliban.
spinout
i saw that in our news yesterday... and I thought it was a great idea!

AND I also thought we could burn some bibles too - and all the other religious printings! Hepp!!!
spinout
OR better have a Burn a picture of God-day!

Or - is that hard? what would a picture be like??? The quran-follewers, how du the picture God???
Plaintiff
i saw it yesterday on the news, stupid idea, it only fuels hatred
spinout
abolutely not - it is a way to drain hate!
Bikerman
If you want a considered opinion piece then the issue is raised on the ARISE site (which I am involved in creating). I'll give a summary of my opinion, which is shared with, and explained by, Indi in more depth in the article above.

a. Yes they have a right to burn the quran and any supporter of free speech cannot allow that right to be restricted.
b. No it is not a genuine freedom of speech/expression issue - the group has a specific and explicit anti-Islam agenda - 'to expose the evils of Islam'. That means that although I support their right to do it, I certainly do not agree that they are right to do it. It is a bigoted action and has no rational justification other than as a publicity stunt.
menino
The pope and the vatican is against burning of the Quran.

It is only this pastor in the US who is doing it and going along with it.

I personally think it is wrong to judge another religion, because as it is, we are not perfect in our own, hence we keep practicing it.
The-Nisk
Christians are burning quarans, Muslims are burning bibles. There are less bibles and quarans in the world - doesn't sound that bad Razz jk
Bikerman
Yes but you can reduce the number of bibles easily with no fuss. Just take the bible from the hotel whenever you stay in one. Smile
Indi
i gotta do a quick roundup of replies here because - and this is happening everywhere i see this topic being discussed - too many people are missing the point.

spinout wrote:
i saw that in our news yesterday... and I thought it was a great idea!

AND I also thought we could burn some bibles too - and all the other religious printings! Hepp!!!
spinout wrote:
OR better have a Burn a picture of God-day!

Or - is that hard? what would a picture be like??? The quran-follewers, how du the picture God???

This is the kind of thinking that kills people.

MISCONCEPTION 1: IT'S ABOUT REVENGE

It never makes sense to do something solely for the sake of revenge. They insulted you by burning your religious books, so you insult them by burning their religious books and pictures of their deities, so they insult your back by doing something just a little more extreme, so you insult them back by doing something just a little more extreme, and before you know it, planes are smashing into buildings. If you aren't going to be the bigger person and not react to an insult by insulting them back, you can't expect the other side to, and you end up locked in a spiral of violence until one of you is destroyed.

When someone does something wrong, you do not retaliate solely for the sake of getting even. That is childish and dangerous. You react in a manner that either fixes the damage done by the other person, or that prevents the other person from doing more damage, or both. When someone murders, we don't throw them in jail just to spite them. We do it to prevent them from murdering again, and we keep them there until we are sure they won't.

In the case of the US military burning Bibles in Afghanistan, that is exactly what they are doing. They are using the dramatic message of burning the Bibles to make it clear to the soldiers violating the rules that such violations will not be tolerated, and will be punished. At the same time, the destruction of the Bibles prevents their use in further crimes. Sure the military could pay to ship them back to the US, but why should they? They didn't want them in Afghanistan in the first place; the Bibles were contraband snuck over illegally, and the US has already unknowingly absorbed the cost of shipping them (not to mention they have to deal with the cost of the public relations damage of them being used to proselytize). They are an unwanted burden slapped on the military by unscrupulous people, and destroying them is the most rational (and cheapest) way to deal with the problem... while at the same time dealing with the public relations issue by sending a clear and powerful message about how unacceptable the whole thing was.

In the case of the Qur'an burning, they aren't reacting either to fix the damage of 9/11 (as they claim to be), or to prevent it from happening again. They are literally just trying to take their childish vengeance on the religion, because Islam insults Christianity.

If you feel that Islam, or Christianity, or some other religion has committed a crime, then you have to first identify that crime, and make sure it's a real crime. The Florida Nazis... didn't do that: the crime they claim Islam did is not a real crime (even more bizarre, the "crime" they claim to punishing Islam for - claiming Christianity is a lie - is exactly what they themselves are doing for Islam). Then you have to select a reasonably proportioned response that either fixes the damage done, or prevents future damage. The Florida Christian al Qaeda... didn't do that: burning the books neither "fixes" the damage of 9/11, nor does it prevent future Islamic fundamentalist violence.

What exactly do you think burning a bunch of Bibles would fix? Or prevent? Or burning a picture of God: what would that accomplish?

Plaintiff wrote:
i saw it yesterday on the news, stupid idea, it only fuels hatred
spinout wrote:
abolutely not - it is a way to drain hate!

Of course it fuels hatred, and of course it doesn't drain it. You're talking about people who want to hate. Burning Qur'ans will fuel their hatred. Eating a hamburger will fuel their hatred. i could fart and it would incite more Islamist rage.

MISCONCEPTION 2: IT'S ABOUT CREATING/LESSENING HATE

The hatred and anger among Muslims, especially in the Middle East, is neither rational nor reasonable. It is ridiculous, ignorant and way out of proportion with reality. The hatred of the Florida group is also not rational, and it's not reasonable, although it's more reasonable that the Muslim rage. But for both of them, we - rational, reasonable people (or civilization in general) - are not responsible for their hate. We didn't earn it, and we don't deserve it. There is no obligation on us to do anything to minimize it. And, quite frankly, there is nothing we could practically do to minimize it any way: yes, i am aware that they have made demands of what they want us to do to reduce their rage, but their demands are absurd, and it would be absolutely stupid of us to bow to them anyway (if we acquiesce to them because they're mad and shouting, they're going to keep being mad and shouting until they get everything they want).

No, we have no obligation to make the crazies hate us less, and anyway there is nothing reasonable we could do to accomplish it.

If reason requires us to take an action that will generate more hate, then by gosh, they will hate us more. And, of course, that has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future. We have to do what we have to do, regardless of their opinion of us.

The Florida Qur'an burning is NOT wrong because it will generate more hate. i have seen too many people saying that, and it is a completely wrong-headed notion that comes from an extremely stupid place. It is wrong, yes, but it is wrong for other reasons, and the fact that it will generate more hate is incidental. Try this as a thought experiment: suppose that the Florida group was doing something that wouldn't piss off Muslims, but they were doing it for the same reason. Suppose they were going to have an event where everyone gets to play Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! with cheat codes so that they could easily beat up on Mike Tyson because he is Muslim. This action probably won't piss off Muslims (much, of course it would piss them off a little, but then, everything will), but is it right? No, it's still wrong. Because the Muslim rage-response is not what makes the action wrong, the bigotry behind it is what makes it wrong.

This gets very important when you are talking about actions that will increase Muslim rage... but are just actions. If you say the Florida Qur'an burning is wrong because it will increase Muslim hate, then anyone can say that any criticism of Islam - or any reasonable action taken that might increase Muslim hate - is wrong for the same reasons. You want a practical example? The Danish cartoons. They increased Muslim hate, so if something that increases Muslim hate is wrong, they must have been wrong. No, no, no, no, no. THAT is exactly the kind of thinking that must be avoided. The cartoons were not the least bit wrong, regardless of how much Muslim hate they generated.

menino wrote:
The pope and the vatican is against burning of the Quran.

It is only this pastor in the US who is doing it and going along with it.

So what?

MISCONCEPTION 3: IT'S ONLY ONE GROUP, OR IT'S ONLY EXTREMISTS

A lot of noise is being made about the fact that many religious leaders from many religions have banded together to condemn the Florida group. Big effing deal. Whenever i read that the Pope is condemning this group's action, i can't help but recall that this is the same Pope who was both a Nazi, and who continues to shelter known child rapists. Pardon me if i show little interest in his ethical opinions.

It is never about WHO does an action, it is always about why the action was done. Hitler did a lot of good things, and those good things don't magically become bad just because the man also did a lot of terribly evil, genocidal, maniacal, fascist, war-mongering things besides. When he tried to help Germans who were struggling in the depression, it was probably because it hurt him to see Germans suffering, and for that reason, those actions were admirable. When he tried to give Germans things that belonged to Jewish Germans or people of other nationalities, because he believed they were better than those people and thus deserved whatever they could take from them, for that reason his actions were deplorable.

Yes, this Florida group are a bunch of extremist nuts. Yes they are alone in their action amidst almost universal condemnation. But so... effing... what? Those facts are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether they are a small group. It doesn't matter whether they are considered extremist. It doesn't matter whether virtually everyone else condemns what they do. All of that is irrelevant. All that matters is: are they acting justly. The answer is no. That's all you need to know.

menino wrote:
I personally think it is wrong to judge another religion, because as it is, we are not perfect in our own, hence we keep practicing it.

You think it is wrong to judge another religion, yet i assume that you think these people are wrong for judging Islam to be evil? That is textbook hypocrisy.

MISCONCEPTION 4: YOU SHOULDN'T JUDGE THE RELIGION, JUDGE THE ACTIONS OF THE BELIEVERS

One of the less common misconceptions is based on the reason this Florida group's actions are wrong is because they are religiously intolerant. That's true. But where the misconception comes in is when people say why they are religiously intolerant: because they are judging another religion. That's false.

What people often say is that this Florida group is wrong for judging Islam; they should be judging the particular Muslims who do evil things. Judging the religion is out of bounds.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with judging a religion. You have a brain, you have the right to make an opinion, so do so. What is wrong is judging a religion ignorantly - without knowing all the facts about a religion - or irrationally - making a judgement that is not based on sound reasoning. The Florida group is not particularly ignorant about Islam (so far as i've seen), but their judgement is completely irrational: "Islam is evil because it says our religion is wrong."

i say again: judge away. Just make sure that you know the salient facts before making a judgement, and make sure that your judgement is based on sound reasoning.

-------------------------------------

These are just a few of the misconceptions i've seen floating around regarding the Florida book-burning. Most people understand that what the Florida group is doing is wrong; the problems arise when people try to figure out why they're wrong. When you flub that - and believe me, many have, including even American Atheists, who flubbed it miserably - you open the door to having just actions condemned wrongly.

It's simple. The Florida group is wrong because they are doing their action for the wrong reasons: they have judged Islam evil because it calls their religion wrong. Furthermore, they action they are taking does nothing to minimize existing harm or decrease future harm, and is, in fact, not even remotely intended to do either of those things. Their action is not wrong because they're increasing hate, it's not wrong because the Pope and a bunch of other people say it's wrong, and it's not wrong just because they're casting judgement on Islam. It is wrong because it is based on bullshit reasons, and because it does nothing of any good to anyone.
spinout
about draining hate... Take all the years that have passed and the acumulated hate for God (if u are a believer) is all there is left in life - > then burning the pic of God .... Ahhh.... what a relief!!!!!

Still u have the problem what God looks like??? Laughing
hunnyhiteshseth
Bikerman wrote:
Yes but you can reduce the number of bibles easily with no fuss. Just take the bible from the hotel whenever you stay in one. Smile


Laughing By thr way, on serious front that won't work . here in India, church distribute bible like shit. I mean you can just see them going to schools giving bible, standing outside temples, mosques and giving bible, donating the money to poor ,you guessed it right, and then giving bible to those poor. I mean bible or atleast some part of it is so freely available here that doing that will just replace one bible by two in the hotel!
Bikerman
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Yes but you can reduce the number of bibles easily with no fuss. Just take the bible from the hotel whenever you stay in one. Smile


Laughing By thr way, on serious front that won't work . here in India, church distribute bible like shit. I mean you can just see them going to schools giving bible, standing outside temples, mosques and giving bible, donating the money to poor ,you guessed it right, and then giving bible to those poor. I mean bible or atleast some part of it is so freely available here that doing that will just replace one bible by two in the hotel!

I was serious and it does work. There is a society called the Gideons and it is there mission to put a bible in every hotel room. Check next time in the bedside table - I'll bet there is a bible.
I don't ask for a bible and I think it is presumptuous of them to provide one. Therefore I figure that the cost of replacement is the least they owe me for their unasked for interruption...I currently have 17 Gideon's bibles.
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
I currently have 17 Gideon's bibles.


Burn them on bonfire night,see if the media turn up.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I currently have 17 Gideon's bibles.


Burn them on bonfire night,see if the media turn up.

No, that's not what I'm about - I hate the idea of burning books..
truespeed
I was joking,my fault though, i should of put <sarcasm> tags either side of my comment.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I currently have 17 Gideon's bibles.


Burn them on bonfire night,see if the media turn up.

No, that's not what I'm about - I hate the idea of burning books..


I seriously considered collecting as many of these Gideon bibles as possible and then having a bible burning ceremony. I was going to pass out fliers around my city and around my campus (there are plenty of atheists there). Then I was going to write and call all of the local news stations and papers. I was going spread my ceremony like wildfire around face book. I was going to send letters to all churches asking for bible donations (what a slap in the face). I was going to go around Hollywood (I live in Southern California) and stop by all metal shows to pass out fliers (metalheads tend to be anti-religion). I was going to pass out fliers at the Slayer show next month when come by in October (and Slayer fans are even more anti-religion). I was going to do every possible thing that I could to get as many people involved. Plus, the more people that are involved means the more bibles that are burned (many people have one lying around that they could burn and I was going to put on the flier to bring all the bibles you can). Then when the media finally turned up to interview me (hopefully on camera), I was going to bad mouth religion like crazy while wearing a t-shirt that portrayed the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

I was going to go to all of the effort to do all of this because I think it would be a slap in the face to Christianity... But then the alcohol wore off and the more mature side of me kicked in and made me realize that it probably isn't too good of an idea... It's not a good idea - anyone agree?
Bikerman
Taking the bible is something I've always done. Indi pointed out the other day that the American Atheists are doing something similar but they are getting themselves tied in philosophical knots trying to justify it and distinguish it from burning the Quran. Fortunately Indi has helped them out with an article on ARISE which explains clearly what the ethical difference is Smile
Indi
TWO articles, and they still can't fricken get it right. ^_^;

Incidentally, the Gideons don't only leave Bibles in hotel rooms. That's only what they're mostly known for. But they also hand them out in schools - my old headmaster was a Gideon, so i got one, but i lost it somewhere along the line, because i already had a copy i preferred - and they hand them out to soldiers - could have got another one there, but i turned it down - and in hospitals.

Basically, anywhere they think they can catch someone at the worst, for maximum impact.
c'tair
Bikerman wrote:
If you want a considered opinion piece then the issue is raised on the ARISE site (which I am involved in creating). I'll give a summary of my opinion, which is shared with, and explained by, Indi in more depth in the article above.

a. Yes they have a right to burn the quran and any supporter of free speech cannot allow that right to be restricted.
b. No it is not a genuine freedom of speech/expression issue - the group has a specific and explicit anti-Islam agenda - 'to expose the evils of Islam'. That means that although I support their right to do it, I certainly do not agree that they are right to do it. It is a bigoted action and has no rational justification other than as a publicity stunt.


You are my hero. I've been condemned by my friends for defending both the Mosque near Ground Zero as well as burning the Quran. They say I just do it for the kicks to oppose popular belief, but I point out to them that I DO NOT CONDONE their actions, but I SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT to do so, which are two completely things. Why can't people understand this difference?!
Bikerman
It is surprising how many people just swallow the 'respect for beliefs' line without thinking about it.
Clearly it would be stupid and dangerous to try and respect every belief - some of them are quite insane.
As soon as this is pointed out people, again without thinking it through, often rant about how respect is needed and people like me ...blah blah blah.

The simple fact is that once you straighten out the concepts then it all works and makes perfect sense. You respect (by which I mean allow, defer to, protect and value) the RIGHT of anyone to believe anything they wish - you DON'T tie your over-accomodating mind in a knot trying to respect the belief itself. There - probably sorted, no mental doublethink, no illogicallity or irrationality, all back on a nice even keel.
deanhills
I have always had very little understanding for someone who says they respect a person's right to say anything, but then when they don't agree with what that person says, to crack down everything the person says. Almost the equivalent of saying, I respect your right to voice your opinion, except when it is different to my own opinion. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase this to "everyone has the right to say anything period. And so do I". And leave respect out of it, as usually respect is earned, never deserved.
Bikerman
This is not so much illogical as misrepresentation. In what way have I or anyone else stopped you posting what you wish? If I make valid criticisms then you should be grateful for being straightened out, unless you want to be wrong of course. If I make invalid criticisms then they will be discovered and that does me, not you damage. So either way you can't lose.
I don't know why you think criticism equates to censorship - it doesn't.

I would be happy to leave the word respect out of it, since I am tired of having to explain that you cannot respect all views/opinions. Respect was never a good word here. The word should be somewhere between acceptance and insistence. I accept that everyone has the right to believe and say what they like (within limits already discussed). In fact it is more than accept because I demand that they have that right. If they chose not to take it up then that is their right too. If they use that right to fill airwaves/pages with nonsense then I may well find occasion to speak against it...that is in no way reducing their freedom of speech/expression - it is simply exercising my own.
ocalhoun
You can disparage the act all you want, but the element of "threaten all you want, but you can't control us" is somewhat moving at least.

It is good to have a counter-force working against those who would quickly cave in to the demands of bullies, blow-hards, and the easily offended.
jeffryjon
Burning Korans, bibles etc is counter-productive. The only way to dissolve outdated religious influence (if that's what you truly believe it is) is to create a more appealing philosophy for those who need someone/something else to follow. Burning religious books has several possible effects.

a) causing the distributors of those books to publish more

b) causing the believers in the writings of those books to dig their heels in and become more isolated from other sources of information

c) tit for tat book burnings (and it's only a matter of time before we have some atheist book burning contests - they are against God and all things good afterall Shame on you ). Yes this may be tongue in cheek from me but there are those who will actively promote that view, (since many books refer to the non-believers and what should happen to them)

d) dozens of other consequences when people feel rightly or wrongly that members of other communities are against them
Indi
jeffryjon wrote:
Burning Korans, bibles etc is counter-productive. The only way to dissolve outdated religious influence (if that's what you truly believe it is) is to create a more appealing philosophy for those who need someone/something else to follow.

It's not quite as simple as that, and this is one of the most counter-intuitive things about religion. Religion is popular not because it is appealing, but because it is unappealing.

Imagine two new religions were created at the same time. One says that you can do what you like, live how you want, and everything will turn out fine; you'll end up in a paradise afterlife with all your loved ones. The other says that you will end up in a paradise afterlife with all your loved ones... but only if you work hard and suffer in this life; you have to forgo pleasurable food and drink, wear boring and uncomfortable clothing, and conduct time-consuming and mind-numbing rituals.

"Common sense" would suggest that most people would go for the first religion. The truth is the opposite.

Why is this so? The answer is due to a number of complicated psychological and cognitive processes, but here's a short version: we can't believe that we can get something really good, without either considerable risk, or suffering to get it. The easy way just feels wrong. And even though the rituals and other crap that the people do in the second religion have no rational link to earning the right to paradise (how does wearing certain clothes earn you a place in paradise? come on), it doesn't matter... it FEELS like they're working and suffering so that they'll deserve a good reward.

In other words, the more a religion demands of its followers - the harder the religion makes them work for the promised goals - the more devout the followers are. And we all believe this, not just the people in the religion itself: who do you think is more devout, the Orthodox Jew with the black hat and the curls, or the plain old ordinary Jew who maybe goes to synagogue on special occasions and doesn't so much as wear a yarmulke? The latter may be a frothing extremist who believes in the teachings but not the rituals while the former is just in it for the social aspect, but that's not the way we see them by default.

The damnable thing about "selling" atheism is that it's so bloody easy. Too easy, unfortunately. It costs you nothing to be atheist except courage, which is peanuts, really. It just feels decadent and salacious, because it doesn't make any demands on anyone. You can't sell that to religious people, partly because it feels like "cheating", and partly because they've usually already invested so much in their religion that they're loathe to give it up no matter how ridiculous and obviously false it is starting to seem to them.

We could try repackaging atheism with ridiculous rituals and demands on those who adhere to it - like specific clothing or dietary restrictions - to make it feel like more of a challenge to believe it... but that kinda goes against the whole philosophy.

The interesting thing is that by this logic, it should be much easier to convert from atheism than to atheism, so there should be many, many more atheists becoming religious than there are religious people turning their backs on their beliefs. But that's not what's happening, and it never has been, historically. There have always been many, many more people giving up religion than irreligious people accepting it. The reason for that is the fact that once you find reason, it's all but impossible to turn your back on it. Faith, on the other hand, can be lost after you've had a bad day.

jeffryjon wrote:
a) causing the distributors of those books to publish more

So what? ^_^;

jeffryjon wrote:
b) causing the believers in the writings of those books to dig their heels in and become more isolated from other sources of information

Not necessarily. It's certainly true that some people will become more extremist after they see their holy books burnt, but not all. The ones that do, well they were a lost cause anyway. If they're that unreasonable, we can't reasonably hope to sway them with reason.

But the ones that don't freak out when their holy book is burnt... what about them? Well, those people are the ones whose heads aren't so far up their asses that they can't realize that no real harm is done by burning a copy of their holy book. Those people can be reached. And those people will be much more inclined to distance themselves from their religious beliefs when they see the first group freak out so histrionically over the burning.

In other words, what the burning would do is create a division between the reasonable ones and the real mental cases. And few things help drive people away from religion better than extremists.

So you see, it's not a black and white world; burning someone's religious text may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the consequences are all bad.

jeffryjon wrote:
c) tit for tat book burnings (and it's only a matter of time before we have some atheist book burning contests - they are against God and all things good afterall Shame on you ). Yes this may be tongue in cheek from me but there are those who will actively promote that view, (since many books refer to the non-believers and what should happen to them)

Atheists can - and have - burnt religious texts, but it was hardly a tit-for-tat action. It can't be tit-for-tat, because in order for atheists burning a holy book to be a tat, there must have been a tit. But how do you offend atheists? ^_^; Burn The God Delusion? What can you possibly do to atheists to offend their sensibilities? They just don't have any sacred cows. Hell, if some religious group wanted to burn The God Delusion, and they were going to buy the copies they were going to burn, i'd let them use my property to do it on. i get to watch a bonfire, and Dawkins gets more coin in his pocket - win-win.

No, any atheist affronts toward religion are probably not retaliative. When an atheist offends religion, it will most likely be because that religion is doing something measurably wrong: trampling on the rights of others, inciting violence or actually being violent, victimizing the helpless, etc..

jeffryjon wrote:
d) dozens of other consequences when people feel rightly or wrongly that members of other communities are against them

But these "consequences" are only a problem when people cross the boundaries of civilized behaviour. i'm not saying that book-burning is a good idea - whether you're burning holy texts or not - but we cannot allow our behaviour to be dictated by the potential actions of crazies and evil people. Rational, reasonable and civilized people will be upset at having things they hold dear symbolically burnt, but there will be no real "consequences".
jeffryjon
Indi wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Burning Korans, bibles etc is counter-productive. The only way to dissolve outdated religious influence (if that's what you truly believe it is) is to create a more appealing philosophy for those who need someone/something else to follow.

It's not quite as simple as that, and this is one of the most counter-intuitive things about religion. Religion is popular not because it is appealing, but because it is unappealing.

Imagine two new religions were created at the same time. One says that you can do what you like, live how you want, and everything will turn out fine; you'll end up in a paradise afterlife with all your loved ones. The other says that you will end up in a paradise afterlife with all your loved ones... but only if you work hard and suffer in this life; you have to forgo pleasurable food and drink, wear boring and uncomfortable clothing, and conduct time-consuming and mind-numbing rituals.

"Common sense" would suggest that most people would go for the first religion. The truth is the opposite.

Why is this so? The answer is due to a number of complicated psychological and cognitive processes, but here's a short version: we can't believe that we can get something really good, without either considerable risk, or suffering to get it. The easy way just feels wrong. And even though the rituals and other crap that the people do in the second religion have no rational link to earning the right to paradise (how does wearing certain clothes earn you a place in paradise? come on), it doesn't matter... it FEELS like they're working and suffering so that they'll deserve a good reward.

In other words, the more a religion demands of its followers - the harder the religion makes them work for the promised goals - the more devout the followers are. And we all believe this, not just the people in the religion itself: who do you think is more devout, the Orthodox Jew with the black hat and the curls, or the plain old ordinary Jew who maybe goes to synagogue on special occasions and doesn't so much as wear a yarmulke? The latter may be a frothing extremist who believes in the teachings but not the rituals while the former is just in it for the social aspect, but that's not the way we see them by default.

The damnable thing about "selling" atheism is that it's so bloody easy. Too easy, unfortunately. It costs you nothing to be atheist except courage, which is peanuts, really. It just feels decadent and salacious, because it doesn't make any demands on anyone. You can't sell that to religious people, partly because it feels like "cheating", and partly because they've usually already invested so much in their religion that they're loathe to give it up no matter how ridiculous and obviously false it is starting to seem to them.

We could try repackaging atheism with ridiculous rituals and demands on those who adhere to it - like specific clothing or dietary restrictions - to make it feel like more of a challenge to believe it... but that kinda goes against the whole philosophy.

The interesting thing is that by this logic, it should be much easier to convert from atheism than to atheism, so there should be many, many more atheists becoming religious than there are religious people turning their backs on their beliefs. But that's not what's happening, and it never has been, historically. There have always been many, many more people giving up religion than irreligious people accepting it. The reason for that is the fact that once you find reason, it's all but impossible to turn your back on it. Faith, on the other hand, can be lost after you've had a bad day.


Why would 'appealing' and lack of work to achieve a goal have to come hand in hand? True, there are a number of religiously and spiritually minded people who have decided to follow that course because they believe they will be treated much like a small child and spoon fed everything they need, though that's not necessarily true of all the above. Personally I mix with a wide group of people who claim to be spiritual and believe in God and simultaneously recognize (even build) great logic sets which eventually become accepted amongst a wider group. The emphasis begins with facing the truth of what you are, what you do and what you think and how that affects the life in which you live. We could say we help people to refocus until they can see that your habits (as an individual or group) create your habit-at. Many find this approach difficult in the beginning and spent many weeks, months and sometimes years getting to grips with the approach. The appeal however is truth - hard truth and taking responsibility for the situation in which you find yourself. We give no cop-outs in the sense of blaming, God, society, governments etc for whatever demise you may be experiencing. There's no promise of heaven in a far off place after a life of slavery, simply an observation that everything is truth as the nature of life is such, so whatever belief system you choose to accept will produce a 'truth' to match. (yes I can hear the groans already). Simply put, if you choose to believe that all dogs attack humans you're likely to react to dogs in such a way that encourages them to bite. Alternatively, if you choose to believe in sitting on your butt until God bails you out of your situation then you have to wait until God (or good) feels the inclination to help you and you could be in for a very long wait. Would this be so out of alignment with an atheist approach?

jeffryjon wrote:
a) causing the distributors of those books to publish more

Quote:
So what? ^_^;


Simply put - if someone were to start publishing a magazine and we ban it from distribution, burn copies etc - it stimulates interest to read the thing. If we treat something as if it's good for toilet paper and disregard it then others are encouraged to do the same. Truth is very few people in this world have interest in reading anything - especially if it's new and potentially contradicts their way of life. Most people choose to whine about today and spend tomorrow doing the same things as they did yesterday so that a week, a month, a year from now they can keep on whining. It's a tolerable passive rejection of anything outside of their comfort zone. However, if we see someone bullying another person or group, we feel disturbed and sooner or later the need to help the victim make a stance - many wars have proven that - burning books/oppressing another's right to be is counterproductive.

jeffryjon wrote:
b) causing the believers in the writings of those books to dig their heels in and become more isolated from other sources of information

Quote:
Not necessarily. It's certainly true that some people will become more extremist after they see their holy books burnt, but not all. The ones that do, well they were a lost cause anyway. If they're that unreasonable, we can't reasonably hope to sway them with reason.

But the ones that don't freak out when their holy book is burnt... what about them? Well, those people are the ones whose heads aren't so far up their asses that they can't realize that no real harm is done by burning a copy of their holy book. Those people can be reached. And those people will be much more inclined to distance themselves from their religious beliefs when they see the first group freak out so histrionically over the burning.

In other words, what the burning would do is create a division between the reasonable ones and the real mental cases. And few things help drive people away from religion better than extremists.

So you see, it's not a black and white world; burning someone's religious text may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the consequences are all bad.


Not so. Every religion/ social construct has its extremist and idiots and most part they are left to be just that. However when a group witnesses threats directed not only at the extremists and idiots there's a need to protect the group. An small-scale example of this would be street-gangs. As most young men when I was growing up, I was a member of a group of young lads who hung out together. Outsiders would have termed it a gang and occasionally would have confirmed their believe by witnessing us behaving in a fashion en-masse. An example of this would be one of the idiots who hung around with us gets himself into a fight with someone outside of the group - we know he's an idiot and equally know that he probably deserved a punching, but nonetheless he was a brother, cousin or whatever to other members of the group so we'd see him outnumbered by his new-found enemies and jump in to the rescue - street fighting would ensue with all that followed. Afterwards, we may discipline that guy ourselves, though in the moment there was a need to protect the group including all its members - tribal mentality some would say. See - religious and tribal behaviour doesn't work on one-off incidents. It says, today you burn our books - tomorrow our temples - next week you burn us all at the stake and as such we have to act now - and hit hard enough to make our point - there is a rationale in the behaviour that causes the logical to back the behaviour of the illogical when threats however irrelevant become apparent.

jeffryjon wrote:
c) tit for tat book burnings (and it's only a matter of time before we have some atheist book burning contests - they are against God and all things good afterall Shame on you ). Yes this may be tongue in cheek from me but there are those who will actively promote that view, (since many books refer to the non-believers and what should happen to them)

Quote:
Atheists can - and have - burnt religious texts, but it was hardly a tit-for-tat action. It can't be tit-for-tat, because in order for atheists burning a holy book to be a tat, there must have been a tit. But how do you offend atheists? ^_^; Burn The God Delusion? What can you possibly do to atheists to offend their sensibilities? They just don't have any sacred cows. Hell, if some religious group wanted to burn The God Delusion, and they were going to buy the copies they were going to burn, i'd let them use my property to do it on. i get to watch a bonfire, and Dawkins gets more coin in his pocket - win-win.

No, any atheist affronts toward religion are probably not retaliative. When an atheist offends religion, it will most likely be because that religion is doing something measurably wrong: trampling on the rights of others, inciting violence or actually being violent, victimizing the helpless, etc..


The point is that he with the biggest hammer invariably wins the day. Logic and reason dictates that regardless of common sense, it's the one with the greatest brute force who wins the day. Higher thinking can only evolve in a relatively peaceful society. It may be that brainwashing through movies and books allows us to believe that the good guys always win, though history has proven repeatedly that this is not always the case. A world without atheists would be a great loss because they have the function of making people stop and think whether the construct they're following is well-founded. Many times over the centuries, man has attempted to cleanse the planet of non-believers and at other times cleanse it of believers. It achieves only resistance - sometimes passive - sometimes aggressive. Generally it's failed to see the mechanics of the human psyche.

jeffryjon wrote:
d) dozens of other consequences when people feel rightly or wrongly that members of other communities are against them

Quote:
But these "consequences" are only a problem when people cross the boundaries of civilized behaviour. i'm not saying that book-burning is a good idea - whether you're burning holy texts or not - but we cannot allow our behaviour to be dictated by the potential actions of crazies and evil people. Rational, reasonable and civilized people will be upset at having things they hold dear symbolically burnt, but there will be no real "consequences".


Dear dear dear. So short sighted. Reason-able behaviour is whatever behaviour you find reason to enact. Metaphorically, it doesn't matter whether you're burning my books, shagging my sister, setting fire to my brother's motorcycle or burning my flag. You are attacking something of which I hold dear and can be absolutely sure that it will have consequences that any reasonable person would not wish to experience. When the brutal-brain is invoked the only reason required is - you've pxxxed me off enough for me to regard you as an enemy. That has an effect in the street, in the workplace, in the schools and in the homes - it reaches across borders of nations and effects other members of your community that you'll likely never meet. Just look at signs in areas of the world that say 'No Israelis here', (and they're not all muslims either). Of course there are many good Israelis who suffer because of the behaviour of a few and that's just a singular example. I have facial features that some non-Caucasians suspect are Israeli and have often been asked the question before being welcomed into someone's home, hotel or restaurant - when push comes to shove - you burn my books - you burn my sense of wellbeing in the world and on some level there's a feeling of disgust at the people who do such things - none of which can be good for assisting a harmonious world.
Indi
jeffryjon wrote:
Why would 'appealing' and lack of work to achieve a goal have to come hand in hand? True, there are a number of religiously and spiritually minded people who have decided to follow that course because they believe they will be treated much like a small child and spoon fed everything they need, though that's not necessarily true of all the above.

? Did you read what i wrote? Because i said exactly the opposite of what you seem to think i said.

jeffryjon wrote:
Simply put - if someone were to start publishing a magazine and we ban it from distribution, burn copies etc - it stimulates interest to read the thing.

So what? So what if burning Qur'ans or Bibles makes more people interested in reading it? Fewer books have created more atheists than those books.

Yeah, that's right, i want people to read the Bible, and the Qur'an. Most religious people haven't, and most atheistic people have. There's a reason for that.

jeffryjon wrote:
Not so. Every religion/ social construct has its extremist and idiots and most part they are left to be just that. However when a group witnesses threats directed not only at the extremists and idiots there's a need to protect the group. An small-scale example of this would be street-gangs. As most young men when I was growing up, I was a member of a group of young lads who hung out together. Outsiders would have termed it a gang and occasionally would have confirmed their believe by witnessing us behaving in a fashion en-masse. An example of this would be one of the idiots who hung around with us gets himself into a fight with someone outside of the group - we know he's an idiot and equally know that he probably deserved a punching, but nonetheless he was a brother, cousin or whatever to other members of the group so we'd see him outnumbered by his new-found enemies and jump in to the rescue - street fighting would ensue with all that followed. Afterwards, we may discipline that guy ourselves, though in the moment there was a need to protect the group including all its members - tribal mentality some would say. See - religious and tribal behaviour doesn't work on one-off incidents. It says, today you burn our books - tomorrow our temples - next week you burn us all at the stake and as such we have to act now - and hit hard enough to make our point - there is a rationale in the behaviour that causes the logical to back the behaviour of the illogical when threats however irrelevant become apparent.

What you're talking about is not what i'm talking about. You're talking about some kid shit-talking some group and the group bands together to beat on the kid to establish status. That's pretty stupid from the outside, but in the domain of tribal mechanics, it makes sense. If you want your tribe to protect you, you have to make sure it's strong, so whenever your group gets a reasonable challenge, you give a reasonable response. From that point of view, banding together to beat the outsider that challenged the group is rational. (Creating your subgroup rather than taking advantage of the bigger ubergroup is not rational, but that's another story. The important thing here is that it is not irrational for a group to put together a reasonable response to a reasonable challenge.)

What i'm taking about is an entirely different thing. i'm talking about making an entirely unreasonable response to a reasonable challenge... or... responding to an unreasonable challenge. To put it into the same kind of analogy, i'm talking about the kind of situation where some outsider shit-talks the group, so someone in the group says "let's kill him, burn his parent's house down, rape his sister and then - just for the hell of it - smash up the Taco Bell next door". Unless the entire group is made up of psychopaths, someone is going to step up and say, "no, man, are you nuts? the ****** is wrong with you?"

OR

Another way to frame the problem is like this: instead of some other punk picking a fight with the group, suppose that it started with a visit to McDonald's - someone in the group asks for a chicken sandwich, the cashier says sorry they're out, so that person suggests that the group pound the crap out of the cashier. Again, unless it's a group of completely psychos, someone is going to say, "what? for not having any chicken? how is that an insult to us? don't be crazy."

Are we on the same page now? i'm not talking about reasonable responses to reasonable slights - no matter how tribalistic the attitude might be. i'm talking about completely absurd responses to slights, or responses to completely absurd slights. There is no reasonable justification for RIOTING because a mass-produced copy of your religious text of choice was burnt. None. If you think this is a reasonable response, you are insane. Period. No one who belongs in civilization can possibly believe that it is reasonable to destroy property and harm people because someone did something rude to flip you off. That's why we jail people like that: they are little better than animals.

If you are in a group, and something happens that causes some members of the group to suggest a completely absurd overreaction, then as long as there are any normal people in that group, they will stand up and say "no, that's too far". (Or, just as likely, they will be too cowed by peer pressure to actually speak up... but they will definitely be turned off of the group.) Either the reasonable people are going to rein in the crazies, or the crazies are going to get their way but the reasonable people will no longer feel as close to the group as they were before - but either way, a wedge will now exist between the normals and the crazies.

jeffryjon wrote:
The point is that he with the biggest hammer invariably wins the day. Logic and reason dictates that regardless of common sense, it's the one with the greatest brute force who wins the day.

The person with the biggest hammer only wins if the battle is about brute force. That is not the case here. Atheists have no intention of breaking free of religious discrimination and intolerance with their fists, or by any form of brute force. What they're doing - which should seem obvious, i should think - is using what they have the advantage in: they are fighting a battle of wits. They mock, they poke holes in religious beliefs, etc. but at the same time, they go to great pains to shame religious people for the nasty, intolerant deeds of religion in the past. And they do that - once again - because they're smart. Every time they make a religious person feel bad about the pogroms of the past, they make future pogroms less likely... including future pogroms against atheists.

That's why, if an atheist does burn Bibles or Qur'ans, it's silly to think they would do it for "revenge" in some kind of tit-for-tat retribution. No, if they do it, they will probably do it for a good reason.

jeffryjon wrote:
When the brutal-brain is invoked the only reason required is - you've pxxxed me off enough for me to regard you as an enemy.

When the brutal brain does the thinking, you are no longer just my enemy. You have made yourself the enemy of all civilization.

This is not a zero sum game. There is not the people doing the burning on one side and the people whose books are being burnt on the other and no one else. Nine tenths of humanity doesn't give a rat's ass either way. Hindus don't give a crap about Christians or atheists burning Qur'ans. Nor do the followers of traditional Chinese religions or pretty much anyone else. When you switch to "brutal brain" thinking, you don't just hurt the people who are burning your books, you hurt everyone in civilization... including those people who would otherwise be on the fence. In other words, if a Christian or atheist burns Qur'ans, and Muslims go on a bloody and violent rampage of riots and other nonsense, they are just making themselves more enemies. One day they'll push too far, and all sympathy for them and their cause will have dried up.

Every time you react in an absurdly stupid and extreme way, you increase the chances that the rest of the world is just going to put their foot down and say "enough of you". Really, if i honestly wanted to completely annihilate Islam, i would encourage their riots and terrorist support and so on... eventually they will stir up enough ill will on their own that i wouldn't even have to do anything and they will be taken care of. But i don't want Islam annihilated; i just want their extremist factions reined in and tamed.
jeffryjon
Maybe this would be worth reading

A message from an Arab Catholic priest to Pastor Jones who wants to burn the Quran
Translated from Arabic.
http://www.thenewalphabet.com/details5692.html


A message from Father Elias Zahlawi (a Syrian Catholic priest) to Pastor Terry Jones (who is calling for the burning of the Quran).


Respected Pastor Terry Jones,

I have read your worldwide call for the burning of the Quran on this coming 11th of September. Your message stated that you are a pastor of one of the churches in Florida in the United States of America.

As an Arab Catholic priest from Damascus (Syria), I wondered what would be your objective, as an American pastor, for such a call?

I wondered, and I ask you: What are your responsibilities as a pastor?
Are you really a Christian pastor serving God in a church in America?
Or are you merely a layperson from America who is pretending to be in the service of Christ?

Did you give in to your nationalism (Americanism) rather than giving in to your Christianity?

What is your aim with that call?

(Do you wish) to further fuel hatred among people? Is that consistent with (the teachings of) Jesus, whom you represent in your eyes and the eyes of many others?
Tell me, is there in the character of Jesus, in his words or in his actions anything that would remotely justify even a hint of promoting disdain and hatred among people?

Have you forgotten that Jesus was completely for love, forgiveness and peace? Have you forgotten what he taught us when he told his disciples and the people after them to tell God the heavenly Father of all to “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who wrong us”? You overlooked or forgot that when Jesus was hanging on the cross and being subjected to insults and vile words, he raised his voice, saying, “O Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Who, then, do you represent or who are you trying to guide with this call of yours?

Isn’t it enough what has been happening since September 11, 2001: the killing, destruction, displacement and starvation of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, from Palestine – the land of Jesus – by your leaders in particular, headed by George Bush, who was claiming direct communication with God?

Wouldn’t you agree with me that with your call (to burn the Quran), you have demonstrated that you are really unfamiliar with Jesus and that you desperately need to re-discover him again to be a true Christian pastor who calls, like Jesus, for the comprehensive love and full respect for every human being and a commitment to the full and wonderful teachings that call upon all believers, without exception, to always stand beside the poor, the oppressed and the disadvantaged?

My brother Pastor Terry Jones. Can you tell me, honestly, if Jesus came today, whose side would he take?

Is it the side of the powerful and arrogant oppressors who dominate the world and endlessly plunder its resources, violate its laws and international treaties, and kill people in their countries and destroy houses on top of their owners and turn them into refugees across the earth? Or is it the side of those who are oppressed, the disadvantaged, hungry, and homeless?

Did you forget what Jesus himself would say on the Day of Judgment to each person in front of him: “All that you did to one of my brothers, you actually did to me”?

I wonder if you have overlooked or forgotten that Jesus did not point in that speech on the Day of Judgment to the religion of any of those mistreated persons. He only referred to everyone as belonging to the human race and to his standing with the deprived, the weak, and the oppressed in this world.

So how could you as an American Christian pastor stand with the oppressors from your country whose injustice has spread around the world?

Aren’t you afraid of when you appear before Jesus on Judgment Day and you are burdened with a heavy conscience, like your leaders who are blinded by the gods of power, money, control and greed?

My brother Pastor Terry. Do you think I am being unfair if I conclude that your hatred toward Islam is what drove you to such a reprehensible call for the burning of Islam's holy book, the Quran?

But let me ask you, as a Syrian Roman Catholic priest: What do you know about Islam? It appears to me from your call to burn the Quran that you are ignorant of Christ and Christianity, and that makes me believe that you are also ignorant of Islam and Muslims.

Believe me, it is not my intention to indict you and it is not my intention to engage with you in a religious debate about Christianity or Islam. However, after I prayed for a long time, let me suggest for both of us to make a joint effort on this coming September 11.

You might ask me what effort can we do jointly when you are in Florida and I'm in Damascus?

Here is my suggestion.

I invite you to visit Syria, where you will be my guest and the guest of many of my Muslim and Christian friends. Syria is a country populated mostly by Muslims and in which Christians are indigenous to the land and have lived side-by-side with Muslims for centuries and centuries.

Come and don’t worry about anything.

Come and you will find out about Islam and Muslims what will comfort you, please you, surprise you, and even lead you, from where you are today in Florida, to invite all people to live in respect, love and cooperation among all people.

This is what people need rather than the un-Christian call to fuel the sentiment of hatred and division.

Come to Syria and you will be amazed by the good nature of people and their faith, their relations, friendly cooperation and openness toward all strangers.

Come to Damascus to witness and live an experience that is not in your mind nor the mind or expectation of all the churches of the West or their bishops, pastors, and clergymen.

Come to see and hear two choruses, Christian and Muslim, singing together during Christian and Islamic holidays to praise Allah, the One God, who created us all, and to whom we all return.

My brother Pastor Terry.

I call you my brother and I am serious about calling you brother and about my invitation to you. I await a word (of reply) from you. Trust me that you will find a brother in Damascus, actually many brothers.

Please contact me and don’t delay. I am waiting for you in Damascus.

I ask God to make our anticipated meeting the beginning of a long and interesting path that we undertake together with other brothers in Damascus and around the world.

How desperate is the need of our world for bright roads.

Come, the road to Damascus is waiting for you.

Father Elias Zahlawi
jeffryjon
Indi wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Why would 'appealing' and lack of work to achieve a goal have to come hand in hand? True, there are a number of religiously and spiritually minded people who have decided to follow that course because they believe they will be treated much like a small child and spoon fed everything they need, though that's not necessarily true of all the above.

? Did you read what i wrote? Because i said exactly the opposite of what you seem to think i said.


If I hadn't read what you wrote, I wouldn't have been able to respond. Your presumption was that religion is unappealing. Hard work, deep thinking and planning are not unappealing to many people including people in a religion. Just look at any well-established religions and you see hard work, schools of learning, a necessity to plan etc. The people I work with work only for the satisfaction of seeing a result. We work without recompense beyond satisfaction and yes it's appealing to see what can be and is achieved.


jeffryjon wrote:
Simply put - if someone were to start publishing a magazine and we ban it from distribution, burn copies etc - it stimulates interest to read the thing.

Quote:
So what? So what if burning Qur'ans or Bibles makes more people interested in reading it? Fewer books have created more atheists than those books.

Yeah, that's right, i want people to read the Bible, and the Qur'an. Most religious people haven't, and most atheistic people have. There's a reason for that.


Major jump to conclusion here. Short of testing each individual's knowledge, I can't see how it's possible to prove most atheists or religious people have or haven't read various scriptures. I would agree however that an atheist may be more likely to have read a wider range of religious scriptures.

jeffryjon wrote:
Not so. Every religion/ social construct has its extremist and idiots and most part they are left to be just that. However when a group witnesses threats directed not only at the extremists and idiots there's a need to protect the group. An small-scale example of this would be street-gangs. As most young men when I was growing up, I was a member of a group of young lads who hung out together. Outsiders would have termed it a gang and occasionally would have confirmed their believe by witnessing us behaving in a fashion en-masse. An example of this would be one of the idiots who hung around with us gets himself into a fight with someone outside of the group - we know he's an idiot and equally know that he probably deserved a punching, but nonetheless he was a brother, cousin or whatever to other members of the group so we'd see him outnumbered by his new-found enemies and jump in to the rescue - street fighting would ensue with all that followed. Afterwards, we may discipline that guy ourselves, though in the moment there was a need to protect the group including all its members - tribal mentality some would say. See - religious and tribal behaviour doesn't work on one-off incidents. It says, today you burn our books - tomorrow our temples - next week you burn us all at the stake and as such we have to act now - and hit hard enough to make our point - there is a rationale in the behaviour that causes the logical to back the behaviour of the illogical when threats however irrelevant become apparent.

Quote:
What you're talking about is not what i'm talking about. You're talking about some kid shit-talking some group and the group bands together to beat on the kid to establish status. That's pretty stupid from the outside, but in the domain of tribal mechanics, it makes sense. If you want your tribe to protect you, you have to make sure it's strong, so whenever your group gets a reasonable challenge, you give a reasonable response. From that point of view, banding together to beat the outsider that challenged the group is rational. (Creating your subgroup rather than taking advantage of the bigger ubergroup is not rational, but that's another story. The important thing here is that it is not irrational for a group to put together a reasonable response to a reasonable challenge.)


Quote:
What i'm taking about is an entirely different thing. i'm talking about making an entirely unreasonable response to a reasonable challenge... or... responding to an unreasonable challenge.


Reasonable challenge? So here we're talking about burning Korans etc. The Koran is the flagship of the Islamic faith. Burn my flag, my signboard, my statement to life and you are by definition making an indirect attack on me. That's the way people feel. It's like attacking my national identity and a reasonable response to that would be resistance. Since you use a couple of restaurants as an example, maybe I should highlight repeated events I witnessed whilst at Uni many years ago. When drunks would come into the restaurants and start insulting the patrons, they would receive retaliation in the form of their food being doctored in some way. Most of them unaware that they'd received a response until they got home and found they didn't feel right. I would imagine that would further enhance their feelings of hate and anger towards such ethnic groups and they were usually unable to prove what had happened, though it happened nonetheless. Passive aggression is far worse in the way it's allowed to build in a victim group (regardless of whether the group is religious). I've known postmen persecuted by home-owners with vicious dogs who react by finding ways for the dog to mess up the mail; taxi-drivers who wait weeks until the oppressor is sufficiently drunk to drop them in the wrong part of town; shopkeepers whoo shut of shop 10 minutes early because they know their oppressors always come at the last minute on a Friday. In this sense, religion has little to do with the issue - it's much more about making people feel unwelcome.

Quote:
Are we on the same page now? i'm not talking about reasonable responses to reasonable slights - no matter how tribalistic the attitude might be. i'm talking about completely absurd responses to slights, or responses to completely absurd slights. There is no reasonable justification for RIOTING because a mass-produced copy of your religious text of choice was burnt. None. If you think this is a reasonable response, you are insane. Period. No one who belongs in civilization can possibly believe that it is reasonable to destroy property and harm people because someone did something rude to flip you off. That's why we jail people like that: they are little better than animals.


So by your judgement, I am insane. I'm not talking about what I would do, rather that these things happen repeatedly when people feel under threat or isolated. Insult your workforce and watch the effects on your profits and client base. Insult your neighbours and see the effect in your street. I wonder if the Koran burners would have the guts to do it inside a mosque on a Friday. Overt reactions are easy to spot, but the covert reactions of people who feel under threat can be far worse. Don't forget that the word sabotage (French) originated from the British workers throwing a wooden clog into the machines that appeared to threaten their way of life. This was a sneaky, yet effective way of getting back at the bullies who ran the factories before the unions rose up to get better working conditions. In one way or another, these practices still flourish today wherever oppression is believed to exist. Like it or not, we live in a multicultural world and burning the scriptures someone else holds as sacred will only serve to increased social problems. The Koran burning exercise is not supported by Christianity or the American constitution.

jeffryjon wrote:
The point is that he with the biggest hammer invariably wins the day. Logic and reason dictates that regardless of common sense, it's the one with the greatest brute force who wins the day.

Quote:
The person with the biggest hammer only wins if the battle is about brute force. That is not the case here. Atheists have no intention of breaking free of religious discrimination and intolerance with their fists, or by any form of brute force. What they're doing - which should seem obvious, i should think - is using what they have the advantage in: they are fighting a battle of wits. They mock, they poke holes in religious beliefs, etc. but at the same time, they go to great pains to shame religious people for the nasty, intolerant deeds of religion in the past. And they do that - once again - because they're smart. Every time they make a religious person feel bad about the pogroms of the past, they make future pogroms less likely... including future pogroms against atheists.


Who's talking about atheists. I thought the Koran-burning was the idea of a Christian pastor. Some atheists are smart - granted, though not all by any means. The same is true within religions. My point is that passive aggression eventually builds to a point of intolerance and becomes a brute-force situation. Ultimately, an argument or aggressive attitude against others will culminate in brute force unless the more sensible among us step in and calm things down. Personally, I believe that the path of atheism is just as valid as any path to God provided it's thoroughly researched. I believe in God and simultaneously see that religions are often polluted by superstitious nonsense and as such could see no benefit in attacking or taunting any group religious or otherwise.

jeffryjon wrote:
When the brutal-brain is invoked the only reason required is - you've pxxxed me off enough for me to regard you as an enemy.

Quote:
When the brutal brain does the thinking, you are no longer just my enemy. You have made yourself the enemy of all civilization.


Again opinion. The brute force of one group is conquered by the brute force of another. Just look at what's happened in schools now the teachers are restrained from using any physical control over the children they teach. Granted, there were teachers who went over the top, though they were reasonably rare. The result is a whole generation of young adults for whom I fear if they're put to the test. It's not about habitually using brute force, but drawing a line in the sand and being prepared to defend it. Once in a while it's put to the test, though once the word gets out that you're prepared to stand up for yourself, the result is that less attacks happen and the world becomes more peaceful and civilized. I'm sure the pastor concerned in this thread would be much quieter if we dropped him in the middle of an Islamic country. As a result, he may learn that his hatred is predominantly unfounded.

Quote:
This is not a zero sum game. There is not the people doing the burning on one side and the people whose books are being burnt on the other and no one else. Nine tenths of humanity doesn't give a rat's ass either way. Hindus don't give a crap about Christians or atheists burning Qur'ans. Nor do the followers of traditional Chinese religions or pretty much anyone else. When you switch to "brutal brain" thinking, you don't just hurt the people who are burning your books, you hurt everyone in civilization... including those people who would otherwise be on the fence. In other words, if a Christian or atheist burns Qur'ans, and Muslims go on a bloody and violent rampage of riots and other nonsense, they are just making themselves more enemies. One day they'll push too far, and all sympathy for them and their cause will have dried up.


I live in India with my Indian Hindu born wife. Believe me - start burning copies of the Vedas and Upanishads and you will most definitely get a violent reaction.

Quote:
Every time you react in an absurdly stupid and extreme way, you increase the chances that the rest of the world is just going to put their foot down and say "enough of you". Really, if i honestly wanted to completely annihilate Islam, i would encourage their riots and terrorist support and so on... eventually they will stir up enough ill will on their own that i wouldn't even have to do anything and they will be taken care of. But i don't want Islam annihilated; i just want their extremist factions reined in and tamed.


So here's the point. Burning religious texts of which others hold sacred is absurdly stupid and extreme. Holding studies and discussions about these texts with groups inside and outside of the groups who believe in them is a far more effective way of dissolving whatever is wrong.
Afaceinthematrix
Jeff: There is a lot that I would love to say on this topic and on what you just said. However, this is mainly a debate between you and Indi so I will reserve the spot for first response to Indi, for the most part. I do not wish to interrupt and interject in a way that might make people think that either of you share my views.

However, there are two things that you said that I feel I must respond to. The first I must respond to because it is just absurd and the second I think is just silly.


jeffryjon wrote:
I live in India with my Indian Hindu born wife. Believe me - start burning copies of the Vedas and Upanishads and you will most definitely get a violent reaction.


This is just absurd! Absolutely absurd! I cannot even believe that you would mention this as an argument for your point. Somebody wants to nonviolently burn a book and so some terrible and crazy people respond by acting violent and then you blame the nonviolent person and act like it is their fault because they did a nonviolent act of protesting in order to protect their freedom of speech and other rights? Are you f***ing serious?

Quote:
So here's the point. Burning religious texts of which others hold sacred is absurdly stupid and extreme. Holding studies and discussions about these texts with groups inside and outside of the groups who believe in them is a far more effective way of dissolving whatever is wrong.


Burning books is absolutely not extreme. How in the bloody freaking hell can you call it extreme but then not even mention the word extreme when talking about the violent reaction that you'd get by just burning a book? That is extreme of you. You seem to have absolutely no belief that murder is extreme but a belief that burning books is not. Burning books is a sign of protest.
jeffryjon
[quote="Afaceinthematrix"]Jeff: There is a lot that I would love to say on this topic and on what you just said. However, this is mainly a debate between you and Indi so I will reserve the spot for first response to Indi, for the most part. I do not wish to interrupt and interject in a way that might make people think that either of you share my views.

However, there are two things that you said that I feel I must respond to. The first I must respond to because it is just absurd and the second I think is just silly.


jeffryjon wrote:
I live in India with my Indian Hindu born wife. Believe me - start burning copies of the Vedas and Upanishads and you will most definitely get a violent reaction.


Quote:
This is just absurd! Absolutely absurd! I cannot even believe that you would mention this as an argument for your point. Somebody wants to nonviolently burn a book and so some terrible and crazy people respond by acting violent and then you blame the nonviolent person and act like it is their fault because they did a nonviolent act of protesting in order to protect their freedom of speech and other rights? Are you f***ing serious?


I did not say the reaction is not extreme, just that the initial act is. In UK where I originate this could be bundled under acts to invoke racial/sectarian hatred etc. On a one to one level - if someone chose to taunt another citizen to the point where they reacted violently, the court would take this into account. It would not relieve the reactor from whatever they did though it could be taken into account when sentencing. The reference to Hindu scriptures was not to justify violent reaction, but simply because Indi rather naively thinks that Hindus don't resort to violence when their belief systems are attacked. Fact is they do and even selling beef products in Bangalore resulted in a Burger King being burnt out of business. My reference is in no way to justify such actions - simply to show the ridiculous and dangerous naivety of those who choose to spend their time provoking other ethnic and religious groups.

jeffryjon wrote:
So here's the point. Burning religious texts of which others hold sacred is absurdly stupid and extreme. Holding studies and discussions about these texts with groups inside and outside of the groups who believe in them is a far more effective way of dissolving whatever is wrong.


Quote:
Burning books is absolutely not extreme. How in the bloody freaking hell can you call it extreme but then not even mention the word extreme when talking about the violent reaction that you'd get by just burning a book? That is extreme of you. You seem to have absolutely no belief that murder is extreme but a belief that burning books is not. Burning books is a sign of protest.


Yes it is extreme and it's a sign of protest against a whole group of people and not just some extremists within a particular religious group. In effect it's racist/religiously prejudiced behaviour. To target extremists directly and in context is one thing, but to effectively tar everyone with the same brush is quite another.
Afaceinthematrix
jeffryjon wrote:
I did not say the reaction is not extreme, just that the initial act is. In UK where I originate this could be bundled under acts to invoke racial/sectarian hatred etc. On a one to one level - if someone chose to taunt another citizen to the point where they reacted violently, the court would take this into account.


This is not just mere taunting of another group. This isn't bullying someone until their self-esteem is so shot that they snap and pull a trigger. This is standing up to the bully. We, people who believe in freedom, aren't the bullies. We're standing up to the bullies and telling them to suck it.

Quote:
It would not relieve the reactor from whatever they did though it could be taken into account when sentencing. The reference to Hindu scriptures was not to justify violent reaction, but simply because Indi rather naively thinks that Hindus don't resort to violence when their belief systems are attacked. Fact is they do and even selling beef products in Bangalore resulted in a Burger King being burnt out of business. My reference is in no way to justify such actions - simply to show the ridiculous and dangerous naivety of those who choose to spend their time provoking other ethnic and religious groups.


It is absolutely - in no way, shape or form - ridiculous or naive. Fighting for the freedom of speech is a noble, not ridiculous, action. I won't lie and say that it isn't dangerous because people do die from it, but it is absolutely not ridiculous. It is extremely important and if people didn't do it, we'd still be bullied around by religious nutcases left and right. You see, religious people do not believe in freedom. Look at the following articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/tight-pants-ban-takes-eff_n_593796.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1292243/Iran-bans-mullets-western-hairstyles-issues-approved-list.html

The first article is an article about the largest Muslim country in the world - Indonesia. The second is about Iran. The first article shows Indonesia banning, on religious principles, tight pants and the second shows Iran banning certain hair styles - on religious principles. So if someone like me throws up a middle finger, grows his hair half way down his back, and burns the Koran (okay I haven't done that one yet) and says, "You can't tell me what to do and your religion is a piss stain" then it's ridiculous? Hell no! These Muslims are using their religion to restrict freedom (I'm lucky enough not to be in a Muslim country, but I will still help other people in their noble fight) and I'll be damned if I sit around and not do everything I can to undermine their goddamn religion and help people get freedom from it.

jeffryjon wrote:

Yes it is extreme and it's a sign of protest against a whole group of people and not just some extremists within a particular religious group. In effect it's racist/religiously prejudiced behaviour. To target extremists directly and in context is one thing, but to effectively tar everyone with the same brush is quite another.


1) It's in no way racist. Muslims aren't a race. It's a religion with certain ideals that I find to be immoral and so I need fight against those immoralities.
2) It is not prejudiced. I have not pre-judged anything. I have looked at Islam and found that the Koran is a piss-stain.
3) We are targeting extremist because extremist are the only people who will be seriously offended by this. Extremists are the only people who are restricting our rights. Extremists need to be stopped!

Furthermore, it pisses me off when people say this (and people say it all the time), "There's a different between real Muslims and extreme Muslims."

Okay, I understand that. So what are you, as a "real Muslim," doing to stop the extremists? If you identify yourself with a group that commits atrocities and you do nothing to try to stop those atrocities, then you too are guilty. You must either do what you can to stop the members of your own group (preferred) or at the very least leave the group.
jeffryjon
Quote:
This is not just mere taunting of another group. This isn't bullying someone until their self-esteem is so shot that they snap and pull a trigger. This is standing up to the bully. We, people who believe in freedom, aren't the bullies. We're standing up to the bullies and telling them to suck it.


It seems to me that certain people wear blinkers when it comes to the muslims. Let's prtray what your saying using a different group (ficticious). One day a marketing company release an advert saying Baskin Robbins beats the crap out of anyone else's ice cream. Everyone knows what it means though the choice of words is bad. However, some misdirected youth gangs decide to adopt the phrase and indeed go around other ice cream parlours beating the crap out of the customers. Now several things arise from your argument.

a) is it the responsibility of genuine Baskin Robbins customers to stop these guys - I would say no
b) do the youth-gangs have any real affiliation with Baskin Robbins - again no
c) If Baskin Robbins publicly claims that these guys have no connection to them and agrees to ban them if they can find out who they are - what more can they do?
d) If the gangs continue to use the name 'The Baskin Robbins Crew' then it's tough luck for Baskin Robbins because people may react by burning all things Baskin Robbin-ish and blame all the customers as if they are part of this gang by default.

So where is the freedom for the genuine Baskin Robbins customers?

Quote:
It is absolutely - in no way, shape or form - ridiculous or naive. Fighting for the freedom of speech is a noble, not ridiculous, action. I won't lie and say that it isn't dangerous because people do die from it, but it is absolutely not ridiculous. It is extremely important and if people didn't do it, we'd still be bullied around by religious nutcases left and right. You see, religious people do not believe in freedom. Look at the following articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/tight-pants-ban-takes-eff_n_593796.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1292243/Iran-bans-mullets-western-hairstyles-issues-approved-list.html

The first article is an article about the largest Muslim country in the world - Indonesia. The second is about Iran. The first article shows Indonesia banning, on religious principles, tight pants and the second shows Iran banning certain hair styles - on religious principles. So if someone like me throws up a middle finger, grows his hair half way down his back, and burns the Koran (okay I haven't done that one yet) and says, "You can't tell me what to do and your religion is a piss stain" then it's ridiculous? Hell no! These Muslims are using their religion to restrict freedom (I'm lucky enough not to be in a Muslim country, but I will still help other people in their noble fight) and I'll be damned if I sit around and not do everything I can to undermine their goddamn religion and help people get freedom from it.


So here we are - victims of the propaganda machine. It's on the TV and therefore has great credibility. That's the job of the propagators - you've just been played. I've seen videos of police beating people who were sat praying in the streets of various American cities - and no, not Muslim`s but predominantly Christians. I've seen smuggled videos from the nuclear plants in New Mexico claiming they'll agree to anything publicly and simultaneously bomb any f***er who'll get in their way. Anyone from any country that believes their own governments are playing by any other rules than their own is a fool. Unfortunately, the backlash comes on the people of that country and you're just repeating the cycle.

jeffryjon wrote:

Yes it is extreme and it's a sign of protest against a whole group of people and not just some extremists within a particular religious group. In effect it's racist/religiously prejudiced behaviour. To target extremists directly and in context is one thing, but to effectively tar everyone with the same brush is quite another.


Quote:
1) It's in no way racist. Muslims aren't a race. It's a religion with certain ideals that I find to be immoral and so I need fight against those immoralities.
2) It is not prejudiced. I have not pre-judged anything. I have looked at Islam and found that the Koran is a piss-stain.
3) We are targeting extremist because extremist are the only people who will be seriously offended by this. Extremists are the only people who are restricting our rights. Extremists need to be stopped!

Furthermore, it pisses me off when people say this (and people say it all the time), "There's a different between real Muslims and extreme Muslims."


So tell me. You meet an arab called Mohamed Mohamedan who says he's not a Muslim and looks like he's from the middle east. Would you bring him home for dinner with the folks? Next day you meet a blonde haired blue eyed beauty and the same question is applied - does she get the right sort of attention? Guess what - she's from the Caucasus and is as Muslim as they come. You claim you're not racist - well I guess if my wife wears a headscarf showing only her face, you wouldn't know it was because the road was dusty that day and not because she's a muslim (she isn't). Go and bomb the heck out of a few more countries throwing ballistic tantrums if you wish - though I'd suggest another approach - re-educate yourself so you're suitably equipped to re-educate others. Believe me - come to UK and start throwing bombs in our back yards - you'll see people as extreme as they come

Quote:
Okay, I understand that. So what are you, as a "real Muslim," doing to stop the extremists? If you identify yourself with a group that commits atrocities and you do nothing to try to stop those atrocities, then you too are guilty. You must either do what you can to stop the members of your own group (preferred) or at the very least leave the group.


Your quote speaks for itself. I'm withdrawing from this topic now as I believe I've been very clear and precise about my take on the matter. Feel free to criticize me all you wish - I won't burn the thread Very Happy
Afaceinthematrix
jeffryjon wrote:
It seems to me that certain people wear blinkers when it comes to the muslims. Let's prtray what your saying using a different group (ficticious). One day a marketing company release an advert saying Baskin Robbins beats the crap out of anyone else's ice cream. Everyone knows what it means though the choice of words is bad. However, some misdirected youth gangs decide to adopt the phrase and indeed go around other ice cream parlours beating the crap out of the customers. Now several things arise from your argument.

a) is it the responsibility of genuine Baskin Robbins customers to stop these guys - I would say no
b) do the youth-gangs have any real affiliation with Baskin Robbins - again no
c) If Baskin Robbins publicly claims that these guys have no connection to them and agrees to ban them if they can find out who they are - what more can they do?
d) If the gangs continue to use the name 'The Baskin Robbins Crew' then it's tough luck for Baskin Robbins because people may react by burning all things Baskin Robbin-ish and blame all the customers as if they are part of this gang by default.

So where is the freedom for the genuine Baskin Robbins customers?


Your analogy is grossly inaccurate. For starters, I am not wearing a blinker when it comes to Muslims. I have read your entire post and see what you said down below, so let me say this from the beginning:

There is no difference between an extremist Muslim and an extremist Christian in my book if they're doing the same misdeed. Someone beating the crap out of someone praying is just as bad as someone beating the crap out of doing any other peaceful action. The reason why I keep bringing up Islam is because it is on topic and this thread is titled Burn a Quaran Day!

Now I will get on to why your analogy is so inaccurate. It is inaccurate because Baskin Robbins is putting nothing in their advertisement that I find to be immoral or intolerable to life. They can say that their ice cream kicks ass - I don't care. The phrase goes that opinions are like ****** - everyone has one. The Koran, on the other hand, is different. The Koran is an entire foundation of a religion that I find to be incompatible with our world. It lies and deludes people into thinking that the world was magically created and puts them against science - something that makes my life better. But that still isn't even the main case here. You do not even understand the main problem here.

Your situation is nothing like our current situation. If this Baskin Robbins gang grew to billions of people and they were using this act to justify atrocities and restrict people's freedoms (especially the freedom of speech), then they need to be stopped! Will I try to stop them? Hell yeah! Since they're trying to restrict the freedom of speech I will do everything I can to use my freedom and show them that there's no way in hell that I will give it up. So the analogous thing to do would be to by Baskin Robbins ice cream and then throw it in the bon fire! Is that so wrong? Of course not. But it is, according to you. According to you, I should just submit to this terrorist group and gladly cave into their bullying and give up my freedom of speech...

Quote:
So here we are - victims of the propaganda machine. It's on the TV and therefore has great credibility. That's the job of the propagators - you've just been played. I've seen videos of police beating people who were sat praying in the streets of various American cities - and no, not Muslim`s but predominantly Christians. I've seen smuggled videos from the nuclear plants in New Mexico claiming they'll agree to anything publicly and simultaneously bomb any f***er who'll get in their way. Anyone from any country that believes their own governments are playing by any other rules than their own is a fool. Unfortunately, the backlash comes on the people of that country and you're just repeating the cycle.


Read the red font up above. You're just putting words in my mouth...

jeffryjon wrote:
Your quote speaks for itself. I'm withdrawing from this topic now as I believe I've been very clear and precise about my take on the matter. Feel free to criticize me all you wish - I won't burn the thread :D


My quote speaks for itself? How is telling people that they're morally wrong if they stand by and watch their group members commit atrocities and do nothing wrong? You're not withdrawing because you've been clear and precise about your take. You're withdrawing because your take is so ridiculous and I think you've finally realized that... Don't be a coward...
Related topics
Work out help
U.S. Burns Bibles in Afghanistan
Muslim women in India burn St. Valentines cards
The Religion of Peace
science vs. religion
Most Muslims do have not read the Koran completly.
Gabriel & the Qur’an: Archangel author or imposter?
Islam & Terrorism
why does the bible and the quran contain contradictions
Quran and creation
interesting facts from the Quran
islam is...
What Religion are You?
Is Christianity less tolerant than Islam?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.