South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 18, 2019, 20:08:28 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Burning the Quran

 (Read 17085 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2010, 10:55:14 AM »

Reminds me of a Heinrich Heine quote: "Where they burn people, there they eventually burn people".

(Ok, ok, I'm not really sure what the correlation between [large scale?) book burnings and genocide is, but it's still a cool quote!)
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2010, 10:56:20 AM »

Also... if you're going to do something like this (personally I wouldn't), it seems like a good idea to burn a whole BUNCH of books: Koran, Bible, Vedas, etc.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2010, 11:12:42 AM »

Reminds me of a Heinrich Heine quote: "Where they burn people, there they eventually burn people".
Er… um… tautology aside and for suitably chosen values of “people,” well, yessss…   Wink  But see also here.

'Luthon64
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2010, 11:17:40 AM »

if islamic nations decide to burn bibles, you are sure to hear all xtian nations going absolutely apeshit.
if that pastor, and his ilk, is ready to accept their holy books being burnt, and not go all holy war on their asses, then go ahead, burn the quran.
but i can bet your boobtube that at the first sign of a bible being burnt, americans will demand retribution, and want the army to nuke the shit out of every islamic country.
and i say, once again.  this pastor from hicksville, is going to start a fire, that he will not have power to put out.  he is one asshole, making a very radical, very stupid move, on behalf of an entire nation.  and putting millions of people's lives on the line.  this kind of shit is exactly the kind of incentive the extremists are looking for.  its the best kind of propaganda fodder.
where before a few kids might fall for their shit, now even more people will be sympathetic to their cause, because the infidel is burning their 'bible'.
my bloodpressure rises that this pastor moron hasnt been arrested for hatespeech and discrimination, and terrorism.
while i couldnt give a horny rat's ass if islam gets eliminated, this douche is not attacking a faith, he's attacking a people.  a culture.  a way of life.  and yes, its a shit way of life, but he's just going to make these people's beliefs stronger.
this is not the way lessen the hold of allah on millions.
this asshole needs to spend some time in chink, and learn from the local big boy, by the name of ahmed jones, how to respect another's faith.
when people are happy in their faith, its not my job to go and convince them otherwise.  if they want to know, and care to hear, then i will be a well of information.
no amount of burning, prodding, blogging, moaning and protesting, will change a person's mind, if he has accepted religion as their crutch.  and the more you push the issue, the further you push them into their faith.  and the bible, and his pastor, will say :  'look, they are trying to steal you from god, this is a test of your faith!'  and get the poor bugger to pray harder, and give more money.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2010, 12:32:06 PM »

I have googled Muslims burning Bibles and got 1 720 000 results.   I fully agree that burning the Koran serves no purpose.   The salient point I wanted to emphasize is that the main concern in this matter is not the destruction of a couple of books that can easily be replaced, but the way in which the Muslim community will retaliate.   If you were to burn your own copies of Courage to Doubt or Moses was a Liar the authors might be a bit miffed, but they would not crash aeroplanes into your house - I hope.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2010, 12:40:09 PM »

I have googled Muslims burning Bibles and got 1 720 000 results.   I fully agree that burning the Koran serves no purpose.   The salient point I wanted to emphasize is that the main concern in this matter is not the destruction of a couple of books that can easily be replaced, but the way in which the Muslim community will retaliate.   If you were to burn your own copies of Courage to Doubt or Moses was a Liar the authors might be a bit miffed, but they would not crash aeroplanes into your house - I hope.
Steve now there's an idea! Why don't we surreptitiously (like that word) approach uncle Angus before he has his next Mighty Men saamtrek and point out that these books (yours and mine) are the work of the devil...each Mighty man is then required to buy a copy from a table GCG and friends (commissions will be payable!) will provide and then at the end of the conference we have a huge bonfire to burn these publically on camera! That's 200 000 copies!!! plus unbelievable publicity...now only an atheist could come up with such a twisted idea  Evil
Logged
kelltrill
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10



kelltrill
WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2010, 12:55:10 PM »

This is going to wonders for the mass publication of Qur'ans in America. Think about it: Christians who are this fanatical won't own their own copies of the Qur'an, which means they'll have to buy Qur'ans for this weekend. Muslims are already participating in mass redistributions of the Qur'an to counteract this coming weekends pointless bonfire, and after the bookstores are all sold out of Qur'ans they're going to have to publish another horde of them to replace the deficit. The Christians are making the Muslims money by spending their own. This is actually quite comical.

@Steve: I just googled Muslims burning Bibles. Wow, some pretty frightening results there. This is how religious wars are started and perpetuated. No one can even trace who threw the first stone anymore but "we will do it because we've always done it. Oh, and because God/Allah wants us to."
The Qur'an is a violent religious text, but so is the Bible. Quite frankly I think every single copy of every Bible and every Qur'an should be burnt, but I'm not about to go picking a fight with a religious group in reality. It's offensive, pointless, and ultimately blindly idiotic. imho
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2010, 12:59:28 PM »

And now they're pouring petrol on the fire:

Quote
Obama Resolves to Stifle Free Speech About Islam
Opinion by FrontPage Magazine
(October 16, 2009) in Religion
On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.

Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2010, 13:57:48 PM »

OOoooooops, yes. It was meant to be "Where they burn books, there they eventually burn people". (This translation, while arguably less accurate, is cooler... A bit like Thucydides' "The powerful do what they will, the weak suffer what they must". The more accurate translation is apparently "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept". Oh, also Nietzsche's "He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you").
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3070



« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2010, 14:25:39 PM »

Quote
This is going to wonders for the mass publication of Qur'ans in America. Think about it: Christians who are this fanatical won't own their own copies of the Qur'an, which means they'll have to buy Qur'ans for this weekend. Muslims are already participating in mass redistributions of the Qur'an to counteract this coming weekends pointless bonfire, and after the bookstores are all sold out of Qur'ans they're going to have to publish another horde of them to replace the deficit. The Christians are making the Muslims money by spending their own. This is actually quite comical.

I am on the ignore list or something? That's EXACTLY what I meant.

Quote
Nietzsche's "He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you

Don't anthropomorphize abysses, they hate it when you do that. Cheesy

Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2010, 14:33:58 PM »

I fully agree that burning the Koran serves no purpose.
Well it does if your purpose is to piss off Muslims.  Cheesy But yeah, we are in agreement it seems.
Quote
The salient point I wanted to emphasize is that the main concern in this matter is not the destruction of a couple of books that can easily be replaced, but the way in which the Muslim community will retaliate.
Fair enough although perhaps some of them really are into the tolerance thing. It is certainly valid to have fears about violent responses with regards to this particular brand of theism.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2010, 14:47:04 PM »


Don't anthropomorphize abysses, they hate it when you do that. Cheesy
Quite.   You should respect their beliefs.    Wink
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2010, 14:51:19 PM »


Don't anthropomorphize abysses, they hate it when you do that. Cheesy
Quite.   You should respect their beliefs.    Wink

heh

Question: do abysses have the right to burn copies of the Koran?
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2010, 15:01:23 PM »

They're more disposed to burial.
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2010, 15:02:50 PM »

The interesting thing about this is that the pastor concerned, Terry Jones, said that this is what god wanted him and his congregation to do. So backing down now is going to be a bit tricky because it will bring into question whether Terry Jones really does chat with god regularly.
Also, it would show that god has a problem making decisions; he can't very well change his mind now if he's commanded a bunch of loony evangelists to burn copies of the koran. If they don't do it, they'll be disobeying god.

If they do back down (which I doubt), I'm very interested to see what the reason will be.

mdg
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.519 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 12, 2019, 04:16:57 AM
Privacy Policy