Quran burning

[Anonymous]

I absolutely disagree with Terry Jones and his church and think it was stupid and bigoted to burn another religion's holy book. But it was legal by US law, and certainly comes nowhere near the response of rioting and killing people. My question is whether you think the response, because it is not a complete surprise, makes his act unforgivable, or provides evidence that his assessment of Islam has some validity Or maybe both?

As a secularist, I think any religion carries the seeds of fanaticism, which both Jones and the rioters exemplify -- albeit to different degrees. It is unfortunately true in many parts of the world that extremists on both sides feed each others' extremism.

Separate question: Do you prefer Koran, Quran, or Qur'an? I used the middle one in the subject line, but I notice it has a squiggly red misspelling line under it in this composition box, so I guess the style book in use here prefers the other two.

[Anonymous]

Muslim family here: we prefer Qur'an.

I do NOT forgive or justify the killings in Afghanistan at all. I just want to make that clear. But I do think there are different standards at work, here. You've got one pastor in a developed, wealthy, educated country doing one thing, and you've got people in an oppressed, sadistic, impoverished, war-torn country doing something else. ALL THEY HAVE IS RELIGION. We've got to give them something else (food, health care, education, safety from killing, torture, abuse, etc.). Or someone has to. Or they've got to be able to develop it on their own. But religion alone, in a vacuum, is a recipe for disaster. I don't care what religion it is.

[Anonymous]

the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

That's a stupid assessment. Does his being an idiot mean every Christian is an idiot?

Yes he *can* do what he likes, but everyone told him last year this would be what would happen and he did it anyway. Seems to me he's not just monumentally stupid, but evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

I completely agree. As a Christian, I'm horrified at his behavior and think he represents the polar opposite of Jesus' teachings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely disagree with Terry Jones and his church and think it was stupid and bigoted to burn another religion's holy book. But it was legal by US law, and certainly comes nowhere near the response of rioting and killing people. My question is whether you think the response, because it is not a complete surprise, makes his act unforgivable, or provides evidence that his assessment of Islam has some validity Or maybe both?

I think if we as a society start suggesting that free speech of certain types is a problem because it might incite violence -- such as Mr. Jones's decision to burn the Koran -- it provides a very strong incentive for other groups to become more violent because, after all, violence works.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely disagree with Terry Jones and his church and think it was stupid and bigoted to burn another religion's holy book. But it was legal by US law, and certainly comes nowhere near the response of rioting and killing people. My question is whether you think the response, because it is not a complete surprise, makes his act unforgivable, or provides evidence that his assessment of Islam has some validity Or maybe both?

I think if we as a society start suggesting that free speech of certain types is a problem because it might incite violence -- such as Mr. Jones's decision to burn the Koran -- it provides a very strong incentive for other groups to become more violent because, after all, violence works.

I am a free speech extremist and fully support burning any and every holy book. I wouldn't do it personally, but I would protect the right of others to do it. That being said, the US does recognize exceptions to free speech for "fighting words". One could reasonably argue that burning a Quran in today's environment is a form of "fighting words" and could be exempted from protection.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely disagree with Terry Jones and his church and think it was stupid and bigoted to burn another religion's holy book. But it was legal by US law, and certainly comes nowhere near the response of rioting and killing people. My question is whether you think the response, because it is not a complete surprise, makes his act unforgivable, or provides evidence that his assessment of Islam has some validity Or maybe both?

I think if we as a society start suggesting that free speech of certain types is a problem because it might incite violence -- such as Mr. Jones's decision to burn the Koran -- it provides a very strong incentive for other groups to become more violent because, after all, violence works.

I am a free speech extremist and fully support burning any and every holy book. I wouldn't do it personally, but I would protect the right of others to do it. That being said, the US does recognize exceptions to free speech for "fighting words". One could reasonably argue that burning a Quran in today's environment is a form of "fighting words" and could be exempted from protection.

Not if you actually know anything about that particular First Amendment doctrine, Mr. Steele. That is not a reasonable argument. As far as I know Mr. Jones was thousands of miles away from anyone who reacted to his actions with violence, and they responded some time later. "Fighting words" as a concept deals with words that by their nature prompt immediate violence -- such as the kind of exchanges of insults that lead to a bar fight.

And let's go back to flag-burning. Would you raise the same argument that that might constitute "fighting words"? If so, you are at least being consistent, if misguided. If not, I wonder why...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

That's at least a principled position, although I disagree with you. I think the moral accountability for violence falls solely on the head of the person who commits that violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

FWIW there is Senate sentiment to take action against the Qur'an burners: http://nation.foxnews.com/koran/2011/04/04/senators-want-punish-koran-burning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the reaction from the murderers pretty much validates the idiot's actions. unfortunately.

and it is free speech and he can do what he likes ...

A billion muslims let it go. There could have been riots everywhere, but there weren't. I think that proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

As for the pastor, he is within his legal rights, but he is morally accountable for inciting the violence. He could have chosen any number of other ways to level his criticism of Islam.

So if someone burns the U.S. flag, and I decide to go kill some people in retaliation, the flag-burner is morally accountable for inciting this violence? Or is your post just special pleading for Islam?

Not that poster, but morally accountable and legally accountable are two different things. So yes, IMO, a flag burner should also be considered morally accountable for his/her actions if he/she knew there was a good chance of inciting violence. Everyone, in all situations, should think about what repercussions their actions may have.

Legally, however, no.

FWIW there is Senate sentiment to take action against the Qur'an burners: http://nation.foxnews.com/koran/2011/04/04/senators-want-punish-koran-burning

If they do that, without including the Bible as well, it will say a lot about where they are coming from.

[Anonymous]

Why am I not surprised to see it's Lindsay Graham leading that charge. I hope the voters of South Carolina are paying attention and finally get rid of that idiot.