Jump to content
OtakuBoards

Gainesville Qu'ran Burning Controversy


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='12 September 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1284352041' post='700467']
[color=indigo]You are making it sound like atrocities are the only reason to protest by burning books (again, not supporting book burning). A group could choose to burn bibles to protest the Catholic church's practice of protecting pedophiles or protesting the fatwa that forces women to wear a niqaab.
[/color]
[/quote]
[font="Comic Sans MS"]My point still stands in these cases. The Bible doesn't just represent Catholics who protect pedophiles. It represents all Catholics, as well as Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons and countless other denominations of Christianity who have absolutely nothing to do with what's being protested. It's like bombing an entire city to exterminate a small crime ring. If you want to protest the Catholic church's policies, picket them. It's more direct, tells them exactly what you think they're doing wrong and doesn't involve a disproportionate amount of unrelated people.

Same with the flag burning. it doesn't send a message to anyone other than that the burner is a distasteful rabble-rouser. If the government is doing something they don't agree with, it's a citizen's right and responsibility to bring it to someone's attention in a coherent, respectable manner. Heck, the system is full of ways to do that, from proposing bills to public protest. No need to disrespect everything about something you only disagree with a tiny little portion of.[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='The Professor' date='13 September 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1284352996' post='700468']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]My point still stands in these cases. The Bible doesn't just represent Catholics who protect pedophiles. It represents all Catholics, as well as Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons and countless other denominations of Christianity who have absolutely nothing to do with what's being protested. It's like bombing an entire city to exterminate a small crime ring. If you want to protest the Catholic church's policies, picket them. It's more direct, tells them exactly what you think they're doing wrong and doesn't involve a disproportionate amount of unrelated people.

Same with the flag burning. it doesn't send a message to anyone other than that the burner is a distasteful rabble-rouser. If the government is doing something they don't agree with, it's a citizen's right and responsibility to bring it to someone's attention in a coherent, respectable manner. Heck, the system is full of ways to do that, from proposing bills to public protest. No need to disrespect everything about something you only disagree with a tiny little portion of.[/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]I disagree with your point, and I don't believe that it stands in the cases described. You are stating that there are better ways to protest, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I find most non-violent forms of protest far more palatable than book burning. However, you state that by burning a bible or a flag you are disrespecting "everything" that it stands for. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. If you specifically and publicly state that you are burning a bible in protest of the Catholic church's protection of pedophiles, then that is exactly what you are doing, burning a bible in response to a specific issue. Are you going to offend some people that find your act distasteful, yep. But you would get the same response from a lot of people if you led a protest march and they shut down a road for you, people inconvenienced might find your act distasteful as well.

You state that flag burning and book burning doesn't send a message or clarify a point. Again, I couldn't disagree with you more. A powerful symbolic gesture can garner you media time and face time with politicians. You can write a thousand letters and propose a hundred bills and never hear from a politician or have a media outlet pay you any mind. Rabble rousing is probably the most effective way to garner change.[/color]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='The Professor' date='13 September 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1284349835' post='700466']
[font="Comic Sans MS"] Burning the Qu'ran is equivalent to insulting the entire religion in retaliation to a tiny little fringe group that the rest thinks is crazy. Does that seem right to you?
[/font]
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]I know I'm harping on the point, but as far as I know, [i]nobody[/i] here is suggesting that book burning is right. On the contrary, we all acknowledge that it is stupid and unnecessary. I thought that was so self-evident that we'd sort of moved beyond that point by now.

Because we know what the motivations are in this case, we do know that burning the Qu'ran is a very blunt instrument designed simply as an inflammatory action. But do not make the mistake of suggesting that the terrorists on 9/11 were "distorting" the Qu'ran. On the contrary, they were simply following it literally. It is a very good thing that [i]most[/i] people of faith do not follow their scriptural texts literally. This, again, comes back to the difference between fundamentalists and moderates. Moderates are only moderate because they explicitly do not take a literalist approach to every one of their religious doctrines. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, both take all doctrines literally and, in some cases, act on those literal interpretations.

Of course, the guy who is burning the Qu'ran isn't making that argument at all. I agree that he is simply behaving like a zealot - and his motivations are certainly not based on any real understanding of Islam (or any religion, for that matter).

In regard to flag burning, I agree with HC's point. Sometimes purely symbolic gestures are more effective than carefully-constructed arguments.

I will personally never burn a flag, because that is not something I would choose to do. And I do think it is a terribly blunt instrument. But that's not really the point, is it? The question is more about whether or not people have the right to free speech. And on that point, I certainly support their right - free speech isn't qualified by the degree of taste or appropriateness of the speech, really.[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='James' date='12 September 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1284357328' post='700471'][font="palatino linotype"]
I will personally never burn a flag, because that is not something I would choose to do. [/font]
[/quote]
we all remember just how american you are James, banner or no banner.

people like symbols to rally either for or against. the flag or the Qu'ran, or even harry potter become more than what they are. when we burn a symbol it shows the resolve of those who burn it, and brings about a reaction from those who rally behind it. this is probably what the preacher wants, but it showed that his resolve marked him an extremist, and the reaction from Muslims was not that of a similar protest, but one of good faith. The planned response was local mosques would give away Qu'rans... which i thought was clever and in good taste.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='James' date='12 September 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1284357328' post='700471']
[font=palatino linotype]I know I'm harping on the point, but as far as I know, [i]nobody[/i] here is suggesting that book burning is right. On the contrary, we all acknowledge that it is stupid and unnecessary. I thought that was so self-evident that we'd sort of moved beyond that point by now.[/font]
[/quote]
[font="Comic Sans MS"]Yeah, I didn't even intend to imply that anyone was, really. I probably should have dropped that last sentence, but I watched [i]Firefly[/i] recently and I couldn't resist dropping a good quote in there. [spoiler]Even if Jubal Early was a total creep.[/spoiler]

As for the rest, at this point it's clearly just a matter of opinion and since I've said my piece and let my take be known, I'll just go ahead and bow out right here. Fun talk, guys. I should make a note to do it again sometime. :B[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Lady Shy' date='13 September 2010 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1284393956' post='700481']
I disagree how there are actually laws against burning flags. If the law truly has got to be there I think it should count for books as well. Symbolic or not, it just is not in any way freedom of speech. The only burning that should be happening in the freedom of speech alley should be "OH SNAP" remarks.
[/quote]
[url="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/p/flagburning.htm"]http://civilliberty....flagburning.htm[/url]
well... there are currently no laws against it. but at one point there were... this issue has been debated over for quite some time now.

personally i feel we need to be able to burn a flag if we want to.
it may not be speaking with my mouth, but if i burned a flag it would definitly be saying somthing.

We need our freedom of speech protected, because if we dont have that the people cant get what they want from the government.
sure, burning the flag is extreme, but if that gets taken away from our rights, whats to stop the government there? freedom of speach has always been about drawing a line that no one can cross. right now i think we have a lot of room, but if we keep letting the government redraw it every time someone gets offended, we are gonna have to start watching our step. Edited by CaNz
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='CaNz' date='14 September 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1284463247' post='700493']
right now i think we have a lot of room, but if we keep letting the government redraw it every time someone gets offended, we ar gonna have to start watching our step.
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]This is why I get very annoyed when people arbitrarily declare something "offensive" and then proceed to use that as a basis to block somebody's free speech.

I would certainly want to draw the line where physical violence is involved - but words? No. If you're offended, that's just too bad. If you can't determine what words to take on board and what words to reject, or if you break down and cry every time somebody burns the flag, then I think you simply need a good dose of maturity (and perhaps a slight boost to the I.Q.).

I can think of many instances in Australia where somebody else's free speech might have "offended" me. But the great part about a free nation is that a) I don't have to listen to something hurtful and b) even if I do listen to it, I can still choose to take it with a grain of salt. So long as you aren't infringing on my personal rights, then I really don't care what you choose to say (the exception, of course, being controlled environments like this one - where there are certainly specific limits that people agree to). As I mentioned earlier, this is especially true if people are genuinely responsible for what they say.[/font]

[quote name=CaNz]we all remember just how american you are James, banner or no banner.[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Haha, and surely there's nothing more American than advocating free speech - especially where religion is concerned. :P[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='James' date='14 September 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1284525502' post='700513']
[font="palatino linotype"]Haha, and surely there's nothing more American than advocating free speech - especially where religion is concerned. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img][/font]
[/quote]

free speech and tolerance seem to be at odds with eachother... both are good things, but you really cant have the full range of both without problems. unless the world all folowed one religion and had only one race of people, one gender and one age... (not to mention thousands of other things people can associate themselves with and be hated for it.) and if you want to know what that could be like read [i]The Giver[/i]. the utopian world it takes place in explains it well.

to stop offending people you must strip away individuality, and i dont think anyone really intends to do that. If the preacher wants to be an idiot and burn books to prove a point, i say let him do it... so long as no one gets hurt or tramatised his extremist actions will only take him as far as all of us let him go. this was fifty people who somehow effected us all. why did we let them do that?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...