Terry Jones burning the Qur'an

[Mandalorian Knight]

This really makes me angry. What possible purpose could this action serve? Because this guy doesn't believe (and apparently hates) a different religion. Because of his actions at least 7 UN workers were killed because of this. There are other estimates of 30 deaths and around 150 wounded. And for what?

 

I'm transferring to a different college to try and get an Army ROTC scholarship. Within three years I plan to be a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army. I am furious that someone could make a boneheaded move like this stateside and put the men in my platoon in more danger than they already have to face.

 

I'm all for freedom of speech. But if someone exercises that right and puts people's lives in danger, is there a line? I don't know. Thoughts, anyone?

[mimartin]

While I agree with you, it is also extremely sad that people would get mad enough to kill over the burning of a book.

[Tommycat]

While I agree with you, it is also extremely sad that people would get mad enough to kill over the burning of a book.

 

Wholeheartedly agree. While I think the act itself is just disgusting, and wrong, the reciprocation from the other side is completely disproportionate. It's a bit like shooting a person because their dog whizzed on your mailbox.

[mimartin]

It's a bit like shooting a person because their dog whizzed on your mailbox.

You did live in Texas.

[Primogen]

What a load of BS. They didn't kill those people because some guy burned a Qur'an, they killed those people because they wanted to and they decided to point fingers. I don't think book burning is right, I find the practice loathsome - I wouldn't burn Twilight, much less a religious text - although considering how some of the fangirls -take- Twilight, they might be the same thing - but he's within his rights, and blaming him is absurd. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the psychopaths who did the killing.

[Sabretooth]

Primo's right - if they killed UN workers over some guy burning a Quran, they were pretty much waiting for the right excuse to come along and give them a reason to kill some Westerners. I definitely wouldn't pin the blame on the pastor, as much of a dick he is being.

[jonathan7]

At the time my facebook status read as this;

 

"Only morons burn books... Terry Jones you are a Pharisee. I don't know who's worse, you (Terry Jones) or the people that would end the lives of people (not even responsible) over the burning of a Holy book; neither it would seem to me is Gods Will!"

 

Personally I think he should be charged as an accessory to murder, not sure I see the difference between this, and say starving a big dog, winding it up and then releasing it on the general public. Not that I think he will, but I really don't see the difference between these two scenarios.

[Primogen]

Yeah, we should start putting restrictions on people's freedom of speech if it might offend a bunch of psychotics. When you start allowing that, even beside the injustice of a man being prosecuted for murder that he literally had nothing to do with, you set such an incredibly horrendous precedent that the Freedom of Speech would effectively cease to exist.

 

For the record, it's the people who committed the murders who are worse. This Terry Jones guy was well within his rights to burn the Qur'an, just like people are within their rights to burn the Bible, the American Flag, and their Bras.

[Tommycat]

Well, there have already been restrictions. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre for instance. Is this to that level? No. As much as I find his act deplorable, you cannot force him not to speak his mind or burn the Qur'an. It would be a violation of religious freedom and free speech/expression.

 

And people wonder why Islam is viewed as a violent religion? It's those idiots who kill because of a book. I mean Christians didn't go killing anyone over the cross in a jar of urine.

[Mandalorian Knight]

I will openly admit that Terry Jones is well within his rights to burn the Qur'an. However, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. It doesn't take much to send religious fanatics (of any religion, it just happened to be Islam in this case) even further off the deep end.

 

Historically, it seems to me that how a particular religion reacts to outside influence is influenced more by cultural than by actual tenets. The middle east has been at war with itself and outside invaders for thousands of years. When surrounded by constant war (i.e., medieval Europe) even Christianity became more violent. In my view, Christianity has become a lot more accepting and no longer associated with holy wars because the Christian leadership isn't in a war zone.

 

That does not excuse what happened. The very fact that they killed people over religious differences shows that are unbalanced. However, Terry Jones did nothing but provoke them. If you taunt a rabid dog, you should expect to get bitten. I fail to understand what he hoped to accomplish. My father is a Methodist pastor, and unless I have fundamentally misunderstood Christian teaching, you don't have to attack other religions to validate your own.

 

In conclusion, my problems with this whole situation are twofold:

1) Mr. Jones presents an inaccurate face for Christianity (not least because of that strange mustache... maybe a little humor will lighten the mood ). The burning of the Qur'an, will legal, strikes me an irrational act that serves only to turn world opinion against us.

2) Mr. Jones has antagonized fanatics who already had a desire to kill westerners. He has also given said fanatics a recruiting tool. This is despite repeating warnings by the U.S. government and U.S. military. He has put men and women in even more danger than they would already face for no apparent reason, all while staying safe from danger himself. I view that as a deplorable act of ignorance and cowardice on his part.

 

Also, as a final note, I realize that calling for another limit on freedom of speech is wrong. I typed that while I was mad, and now that I'm levelheaded, I agree that it was out of line.

[Liverandbacon]

What a load of BS. They didn't kill those people because some guy burned a Qur'an, they killed those people because they wanted to and they decided to point fingers. I don't think book burning is right, I find the practice loathsome - I wouldn't burn Twilight, much less a religious text - although considering how some of the fangirls -take- Twilight, they might be the same thing - but he's within his rights, and blaming him is absurd. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the psychopaths who did the killing.

 

Agreed. Even if one assumes burning books is not immoral, burning the Qur'an still can at best be called pointless spite. It doesn't really accomplish anything other than symbolic defiance in a war we're not, and shouldn't be, fighting (a war on Islam as a whole would honestly be a lot simpler to fight, but there's no reason for one), but it antagonizes Muslims who aren't enemies, and while unlikely to actively fight against us, they become even less inclined to help. I don't think it would have much of an impact on enemy recruitment, beyond pushing those who were going to join anyway to join a bit earlier, since they already make up far worse stories to make us sound evil.

 

The UN worker killings would happen anyway, they'd just be called reprisals for something else, since pretty much anything the West does is enough to be worthy of violent response in their eyes. Assuming I'm right about enemy recruitment not rising much due to this, US soldiers won't be in any more danger than before. They already want to torture and kill us all, so it doesn't make much difference if they're a bit angrier.

 

However, I doubt that many of our enemies are psychopaths. Killing oneself, or putting oneself at very high levels of risk (after a long planning period, not just impulsive violence), for a cause is something a psychopath is unlikely to do (psychopaths aren't really insane).

[Working Class Hero]

I mean Christians didn't go killing anyone over the cross in a jar of urine.

Parenthood clinics, on the other hand....

 

In my view, Christianity has become a lot more accepting and no longer associated with holy wars because the Christian leadership isn't in a war zone.

Lebanon much?

[Mandalorian Knight]

Lebanon much?

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you clarify?

[purifier]

Yeah that damn "Freedom of Speech" is the cause of all this and get's in the way everytime! What were our forefathers thinking when they put that in the Constitution, huh? Could they have not forseen someone like Terry Jones in our future, burning holy books, making us give a crap about what murdering (I kill you no matter what) extremist think, which causes us all to make mountains out of mole hills just for the sake of a useless argument!

 

 

 

I mean seriously! Why! Why did our forefathers do this "give everybody the right to say what they want" crap?

[Liverandbacon]

Parenthood clinics, on the other hand.....

 

I'm not really a fan of religion in general (though I respect people's right to believe whatever they want if it doesn't intrude on me), but it seems to me like you're equating the current state of Islam with the current state of Christianity. If that wasn't your intent (though if it wasn't I'm not quite sure what you were getting at with your post), the rest of this post is pretty much moot.

 

There is a pretty clear difference between people being killed over symbols of a religion and people being killed because they kill what the murderer sees as babies. So that's a difference in how much it takes to provoke the different flavors of fundamentalist to violence.

 

Then there's the quantity difference too. It is a demonstrable fact that in the last two decades there have been significantly more killings done in the name of Islam than Christianity.

 

While both religions have had relatively violent and peaceful periods in their history, in the present, Christianity is linked to an almost negligible amount compared to Islam.

 

Edit: There are, and always have been, limitations on free speech in the US. The limitations have fluctuated (generally in a more permissive direction), but are only there when there is very serious cause for them. The nebulous possible consequences of a Qur'an burning don't rate high enough for that.

[Primogen]

Besides, burning crap has been used for protests for decades. It'll never get banned - the Republicans won't do it because directly banning this would alienate a part of their base, and the Democrats won't do it because then they'd be tacitly rebuking everyone who's burned an American flag, a Bible, or a Draft Card - most of whom are in the Democrat camp.

[Mandalorian Knight]

Besides, burning crap has been used for protests for decades. It'll never get banned - the Republicans won't do it because directly banning this would alienate a part of their base, and the Democrats won't do it because then they'd be tacitly rebuking everyone who's burned an American flag, a Bible, or a Draft Card - most of whom are in the Democrat camp.

 

Agreed. And while I don't support the methods of protest you mentioned, they are antagonistic. However, they aren't directed towards a group that is historically violent (i.e., burning a draft card is clearly a demonstration against the government that issued them. Burning a Qur'an is going to increase the number of attacks from radical Muslims).

 

Anyone is within their rights to burn a Qur'an, but doing so is only going to make things worse. Any Islamic militant that already hates the west and is planning to attack can claim that we are trying to go to war against Islam. Acts such as these give them a recruiting tool, it makes it seem like it's true.

 

While it's plausible (even likely) that the attacks against the UN workers would have occured regardless of this incident, burning the Qur'an is only going to make things worse.

[Tommycat]

Parenthood clinics, on the other hand....

 

Lets see, sooooo burning a book is the equivalent of murdering babies(according to those that believe abortion is murder)?

 

I just don't see the connection. One is murdering people with no connection to the book burner over a book. The other is murder to stop (perceived) murder of babies.

[Totenkopf]

Jones was needlessly antagonistic (he could've burned it w/o seeking all the publicity), but these people (the radicalized muslims) are pre-provoked and will latch onto any excuse to kill people and then are sophisticated/savvy enough to try and turn it around on their victims and opponents.

 

As to abortion clinic bombings and related killings, nowhere near the level of violence perpetrated by radical islamists. If that were truly the case, there'd be many fewer clinincs and providers than there currently are.

[Jae Onasi]

This really makes me angry. What possible purpose could this action serve? Because this guy doesn't believe (and apparently hates) a different religion. Because of his actions at least 7 UN workers were killed because of this. There are other estimates of 30 deaths and around 150 wounded. And for what?

Terry Jones is at most guilty of burning something without a permit. Was it insensitive? It sure was. Illegal? No, and it shouldn't be.

 

The murderers who killed UN workers are just that--murderers, and they didn't even pretend to go after Jones. They used the book burning as a sorry excuse for their reprehensible actions. If I went around shooting random Muslims in the US because some other person burned Bibles over in Iran, I'd be locked up and convicted of murder.

 

As for who has committed the 'worst sin' here? Well, Jones certainly is being an insensitive jerk, but he has not deprived people of their very lives.

 

They already want to torture and kill us all, so it doesn't make much difference if they're a bit angrier.

True.

 

However, I doubt that many of our enemies are psychopaths. Killing oneself, or putting oneself at very high levels of risk (after a long planning period, not just impulsive violence), for a cause is something a psychopath is unlikely to do (psychopaths aren't really insane).

I'll disagree on the medical side of this. Psychopathy, or what the DSM-IV has reclassified as falling under the category of antisocial personality disorder (sometimes the ICD-10's dissocial personality disorder, too), is a recognized mental pathology. Psychopaths can and do participate in high risk behaviors, partially because they aren't able, or refuse to accept, that there are consequences of that risky behavior. They may not act bat-crazy like an actively hallucinating schizophrenic, but that does make them any less insane.

 

Not that any radicals are going to be reading this, but if Allah/God is omnipotent and the creator of the entire _universe_, don't you think He can handle it when a little Quran or Bible gets burned?

[Working Class Hero]

Lets see, sooooo burning a book is the equivalent of murdering babies(according to those that believe abortion is murder)?

 

I just don't see the connection. One is murdering people with no connection to the book burner over a book. The other is murder to stop (perceived) murder of babies.

They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

 

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

 

And btw, I'm not saying that all Christians use that thought process. My only point is that blind and violent responses to doctrine insults are not held solely by Muslims.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you clarify?

In 2006, Hezbollah and Lebanese Christians tried to blow Israel the **** up.

 

Earlier this year, Hezbollah went and co-opted the Constitution, with the support of the Lebanese Christian base... so it's always refreshing to know, that despite their many difference, Muslims and Christians can always come together to kill Jews.

[Liverandbacon]

I'll disagree on the medical side of this. Psychopathy, or what the DSM-IV has reclassified as falling under the category of antisocial personality disorder (sometimes the ICD-10's dissocial personality disorder, too), is a recognized mental pathology. Psychopaths can and do participate in high risk behaviors, partially because they aren't able, or refuse to accept, that there are consequences of that risky behavior. They may not act bat-crazy like an actively hallucinating schizophrenic, but that does make them any less insane.

 

You're right in pointing out psychopaths' participation in high-risk behaviors. I phrased the post badly. Instead of high-risk, I should have said 'being a martyr'. While many high-risk behaviors might be more attractive to psychopaths than they would be to 'normal' people (due to impulsivity, lack of behavioral control, lack of empathy, etc.), something like strapping a bomb to oneself with guaranteed death would likely be less appealing to a psychopath than a 'normal person' (due to their narcissistic tendencies, and shallow emotion preventing fanatical belief in the cause). Since most terrorist actions are based on a certain amount of planning, which eliminates the element of impulsive violence, whether it's appealing or not probably depends on the flavor of psychopath (which qualities they're weighted towards within Factor 1 or 2, etc).

 

I'm not a huge fan of the DSM-IV equating psychopathy with ASPD, for a number of reasons. ASPD deals with a smaller amount of factors, and might as well just be called 'being a criminal', since the vast majority of felons meet its criteria. However, only around 20% of inmates meet the standards for psychopathy as set in the PCL-R , and there's been demonstrably strong correlation between PCL-R results and violent recidivism. Luckily, it looks like the people working on the DSM-V are planning on returning some emphasis to the traditional psychopathic factors.

 

As for insanity, I had switched from medical to legal thinking. Psychopaths can't plead insanity in court, therefore, in the eyes of the law, they aren't insane.

 

If this thread were anything but a religion thread, I'd feel bad for making such an off-topic post.

 

Edit: No longer off topic.

 

They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

 

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

 

To be honest, while I've never met someone who's blown up a clinic (I doubt anyone else here has either though), I have met, and talked at length, with people who are extremely anti-abortion. None of them have said anything about how 'the bible says it's wrong'. What they say to me is something along the lines of 'A fetus is a child, abortion doctors kill fetuses, therefore abortion doctors are killing children. This is obviously a bad thing.'

 

Considering they'd have nothing to gain by making up a pretend thought process, I'd be inclined to believe that you're making unwarranted, if not flat out wrong, assumptions to justify a point. The clinic bombers say they're blowing up people who kill babies. The people killing UN workers say they're killing some random westerners because some other westerner burned some books. Both are terrible things to do, but it's blindingly obvious that one group is more easily provoked (or at least is happy to use less as an excuse).

[Tommycat]

They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

 

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

No, Their god says killing is evil, and they feel that killing a killer is defending the future babies from that killing. You must not know many pro-lifers. None of the ones I know think like that. Hell I even knew one that tried to blow up a clinic(He's in jail now). Your assessment of their motives couldn't be further from the truth. I think you might be surprised how many of them are not even Christians(as if Christians have some lock on being anti-abortion). In fact one friend of mine that's anti-abortion is *gasp* an atheist. And she's possibly the most likely of my friends to actually do something...

 

Not only that, BUT when the anti-abortion nuts kill, they kill the abortion doctors. When these Muslim nuts kill, they kill some random individuals that have no connection to the book burner except maybe a few shared geographical ties.

[jonathan7]

Ok guys, quick couple of questions for you all...

 

How many of you have been to the Middle East? How many of you know Muslims? There is a claim in this thread that the rioters would have killed for another reason even if the Qur’ān hadn't been burned, but while partially true I think this is a gross simplification and that burning the Qur’ān will have turned Muslims previously against killing Westerners for it. Put it another way do you have any idea how provocative burning a Qur’ān is to the Muslim psyche?

 

Or to frame it as to how provocative this was to Muslims, it would be the similar to the Western mind set if a Muslim took a white baby and burned it alive... That's how shocking that is to a Muslim. (I'm not saying this is right, before I have rants about why that is wrong, we are agreed, but I'm trying to convey just how shocking an act this was).

 

“Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people" -- Heinrich Heine

 

Now, I'm affraid I find it logically incoherent that burning a book is "Freedom of Speech" - burning a book is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. This maybe a difference between how one defines "Freedom of Speech". It would seem to me Freedom of Speech is about being "constructive" that is to say an individual has the freedom to speak his mind, however an individual does not have the right to act out his mind. Burning a book is just a destructive act... Though out of interest for all those who have argued for the right to burn books, if an Individual argued that paedophilia is ok and should be allowed, what you say?

 

Burning a book is an action, freedom of speech is the ability to say whatever an individual thinks, so if an Individual wanted to slate any religion, its Holy book I would fully support that right. I will however NEVER ever support the burning of any book, even if I vehemently disagree with the contents of that book. I actually think that the burning of books goes completely against Freedom of Speech... But there we go.

[purifier]

^^I'm suprise nobody's responded to your post yet, J7. However, I do want to point out something that you're trying to make a comparison to.

 

 

Burining a "white baby" is not the same as burning a book, even if the book is holier-than-thou. A human baby is a living entity that is conscious, he/she is alive, moving, etc. A book is not alive, it's a inanimated object, a thing, material bound together used for a personal purpose.

 

And if Muslim extremists were to commit that act, burning a white baby, they'd know morally damn well what the difference is; know matter how much justification they try to reason it with. Deep down in every fiber of their being, they know what is really right and what is really wrong. To say otherwise, would mean that they are all ignorant and I don't believe that one damn bit! They are just as intelligent as the rest of us, they know the difference.

 

But of course this Terry Jones fellow is no better, his burning Qur’ān books is more than just a moral problem, it's also plain ignorance. It's like burning some country's flag, just to get back at them. But it's minor, compared to killing people over a book J7.

 

 

 

And here is another thing, if we were to kill anybody anytime they burned our American flag, then we would be no better than they are. But that's it, isn't it? You don't see us doing that, especially Muslim extremists when they burn our flag, we don't go after them for that specific reason. Why? Because were a little more civil in our thinking, than their mentality or way of thinking, even though the American flag is a sacred object to a lot of U.S. Citizens. For most of us it represents a lot things, freedom most of all, but when someone burns the U.S. flag (even in this country) we all don't go killing them because of it.

 

Big difference J7, big difference.